Was my baptism invalid? CDF says "We Baptize" Invalid

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If this is the new standard, then it follows that a certificate of baptism from a Protestant church is no longer enough for RCIA candidates to provide, and was retroactively never enough–how can anyone vouch for what pronoun was used? This has truly scary implications for converts like me, no matter how long ago their confirmations. Hope the CDF has more to say about this subject.
 
Last edited:
I thought the 3 consecrator rule was universal? One of the ancient canons?
 
Spoke with my parish priest today. He was surprised by how mine was done and said we need to get together and that it’s something he needs to take care of.
 
twf said:
I thought the 3 consecrator rule was universal? One of the ancient canons?
Click to expand...
You’re right, it is. I thought I saw a video where 1 RC Bishop consecrated another, but I checked and was wrong.
 
I’ve only been to one episcopal consecration. There were definitely three bishops (well actually more than that - but three consecrators). What struck me was the sheer amount of chrism the Archbishop employed… he poured it on the bishop-elect’s head and essentially shampooed it in…I understand that’s also an ancient universal tradition…
 
Another situation where this comes up is mixed marriages. When I married my protestant wife, I applied for and obtained a dispensation from canonical form. When going through the paperwork with the priest, he mentioned that he also discreetly applied for a conditional dispensation for disparity of cult, because he couldn’t be certain whether her Pentecostal baptism was valid. So…assuming her Pentecostal baptism was valid, we are sacramentally married. Assuming it is invalid, we are validly but naturally married. My wife has no idea of the potential nuances here and best to leave it at that…but I find it interesting that the priest made a point of “checking that box”.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
Another situation where this comes up is mixed marriages. When I married my protestant wife, I applied for and obtained a dispensation from canonical form. When going through the paperwork with the priest, he mentioned that he also discreetly applied for a conditional dispensation for disparity of cult, because he couldn’t be certain whether her Pentecostal baptism was valid. So…assuming her Pentecostal baptism was valid, we are sacramentally married. Assuming it is invalid, we are validly but naturally married. My wife has no idea of the potential nuances here and best to leave it at that…but I find it interesting that the priest made a point of “checking that box”.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen that done when one of the couple is Moravian too.
 
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your post, and if I am I apologize. Are you saying that if it was determined that a priest had been invalidly baptized that the Church would not require him to be ordained again after receiving a proper baptism? They absolutely would. A valid baptism is a prerequisite for Holy Orders, and allowing a man who had not been validly ordained to continue in ministry would be a grave sin and an injustice to his flock.
 
The priest already corrected me on this, as shown by the long discussion above from yesterday.
I cannot delete the post as the editing window expired.
 
Last edited:
Ok. I wasn’t attacking you. I’d only read a few posts from the thread and yours stuck out. I wanted to be sure I understood.
 
Last edited:
Update of my own: My priest has refused to grant me a conditional baptism, and insists that unless I “have definitive proof that the baptism was invalid” (which is, of course, utterly impossible for me to obtain, all these years later and with the original event unrecorded and original minister deceased), I should not refrain from receiving other sacraments.

I am in tears right now. I do not feel comfortable receiving the other sacraments at the moment. I feel completely disregarded about my concerns over this issue, and abandoned that my priest would rather allow me to live with the distress of this than spend 5 minutes (or whatever) performing the conditional baptism to put my mind at ease.

If I had “definitive proof that the baptism was invalid”, wouldn’t that require a baptism in forma absoluta anyway? Not a conditional baptism? So if a case like mine isn’t what a conditional baptism is for, what is a conditional baptism for?

And that’s about all I can say at the moment, I guess. I literally don’t know what else to say.
 
Last edited:
I might still end up doing that.

I initially sought out a priest because from what priests and theologians had been saying online, if my baptism was invalid then so was my confirmation, and I’d like to live my life having received both sacraments. And I thought if a priest was willing to offer me the conditional baptism he might be willing to offer me the conditional confirmation at the same time, and that could put the whole topic to rest really quickly. (While I can ask a friend to conditionally baptize me, I can’t ask anyone but a priest to conditionally confirm me.)

And now I have the flip side which is that my priest is urging me not to seek any conditional baptism whatsoever but to choose faith in Baptism of Desire. Which makes it seem like if I seek conditional baptism, I’m (a) defying the authority of a priest to guide me; (b) potentially demonstrating a lack of faith in Baptism of Desire.

And I do believe in Baptism of Desire. I just also believe (is this not correct?) that when possible, Baptism by Water is the preferred sacramental means of grace all believers are supposed to seek. I thought Baptism of Desire was more something to count on if you expect to literally die before Baptism by Water is possible.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
MNathaniel:
I might still end up doing that.
Click to expand...
Would take about 6 seconds and you’d get a Wet head. How much thought is needed?
Click to expand...
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? I’m trying to be obedient to the local priest who is the representative of the Church to me. Or at least, I’m torn because of that.
 
Last edited:
Catholics are expected to follow the direction of their priest on spiritual matters, as a general rule. It ought not to be considered as mere advice when it comes to sacraments.

If someone truly has doubts, I would seek if there is a theological or canon law expert to consult with.
 
You might try contacting the St Joseph Foundation, which does Canon Law advocacy and assistance. We had a member on here a couple months ago run into an issue, sort of in the opposite direction, where he and his wife were being made to get a convalidation, quite needlessly. They talked to their Judicial Vicar, who oddly enough, possibly having been absent the day they taught Canon Law in Canon Law School, told them that they needed a convalidation. So SJF got involved and advocated for them. In short, they are very good and can be helpful.

I would also say that if you’re not getting anywhere with your own priest, you might go higher up the chain of command. The Judicial Vicar or even Vicar General might be able to help somehow. Mileage may vary, of course.

Feel free to PM me if I might be of any other assistance. If you were in my Diocese, this would have been taken care of yesterday.

-Fr ACEGC
 
That’s sad. I’m sorry for your situation. You will be in my prayers. My advice is to, as Father said, go higher up the chain of command and check out that organization he mentioned.
 
It’s a shame not stepping on toes is more important than the sacraments to some.
 
The more I see things happening the more convinced I am that Iota Unum is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top