U
Uncanny
Guest
It’s my understanding that for a baptism to be valid, not only must the form and matter be present, but the one being baptized (if of the age of reason) and the one’s doing the baptism must “intend to do what the Church intends.”
I was baptized as a Protestant. The church in which I was baptized, and I myself at the time, did not believe that baptism washed away Original Sin, nor was the “door” by which one entered Christianity. It was more a symbol, something we just did because Jesus said to, but not because there was any inherent power in the event itself. It was not really even treated as a sacrament, in that particular church. Therefore, we did not intend for baptism to be washing away Original Sin, nor to be the gateway through which one entered Christ’s Church.
Does this mean that our intention was sufficiently deficient that my baptism was invalid, and that I might at least want to get a “conditional” baptism? If not, what does it mean, then, to “intend what the Church intends?”
I was baptized as a Protestant. The church in which I was baptized, and I myself at the time, did not believe that baptism washed away Original Sin, nor was the “door” by which one entered Christianity. It was more a symbol, something we just did because Jesus said to, but not because there was any inherent power in the event itself. It was not really even treated as a sacrament, in that particular church. Therefore, we did not intend for baptism to be washing away Original Sin, nor to be the gateway through which one entered Christ’s Church.
Does this mean that our intention was sufficiently deficient that my baptism was invalid, and that I might at least want to get a “conditional” baptism? If not, what does it mean, then, to “intend what the Church intends?”