Was the baptism valid?

[rosthesinner]

Good morning everybody.

I was having a discussion with a Catholic convert friend of mine and he mentioned that when he was received into the Church, he didn’t remember if his baptism was done in the Trintarian form. The only thing he had was a certificate which said he was. He also says that the pastor did not believe that baptism remits sin.

With that in mind, would that make his baptism invalid since the pastor did not have the intention of baptizing the same way the church does, to remit sins by baptism? This is something that has been concerning us, especially since he’s already been confirmed etc. (Though, it was in a very liberal parish that wasn’t sound in theology).

Thank you.

 

[SpearOfMichael]

In which denomination was the person Baptized? The Church recognizes all Trinitarian Baptisms. It would have had to have been a fringe sect that is known for non-Trinitarian Baptisms for the individual to need additional Baptism.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

The language in your first paragraph may be a bit confusing… to say someone “converted” and was “received” calls to mind that the individual was likely baptized in a non-Catholic Church first, then later became Catholic.

At any rate, the “liberal-ness” of a parish has no bearing on this if proper matter and form are observed. Your friend’s memory of the event also has no bearing on it. For the most part, the same is true of the pastor’s opinions, with some exceptions few and far between where intent is an explicit part of the form.

Since your friend has been Confirmed, the Church presumes the Baptism was valid and would have already investigated any doubt. Subsequent sacraments do not occur without proof of a valid baptism. The Church also teaches that we enjoy the benefit of the doubt; a sacrament is presumed valid until demonstrated to be invalid. Your friend shouldn’t worry. He’s baptized and confirmed until such a time that something presents itself to call that into question - and he shouldn’t go looking for those questions. (I’m referring instead to finding out that something drastic, like the pastor wasn’t a real, truly ordained priest permitted to confirm is later revealed. You know, the kind of thing that almost never happens.)

 

[SpearOfMichael]

Hell, I mean, it’s clear according to the Church that Baptism can be given by ANY Baptized person so long as necessity dictates it like when someone is at their hour of death or when there is an extreme chance of Mortality such as a soldier going into battle and there being no priest around to give a proper baptism.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Right, which is why even in my crazy extreme example of an imposter priest, it wouldn’t be the baptism called into question but the confirmation - that’s the sacrament of those two that requires ordination and proper faculties. Even the imposter’s baptism would likely be valid.

 

[Angannas]

The baptiser doesn’t even have to be baptized themselves, provided they used water or a liquid they reasonably believed to be water, a trinitarian formula and intended to baptize, even if they had a different understanding of the effects of baptism.