What makes an invalid baptism?

[TK421]

I don’t think many protestant churches specifically dunk/sprinkle a person three times “In the name of the Father (dunk), and of the Son (dunk), and of the Holy Spirit (dunk)”. They just immerse them once. Would this make an invalid baptism?

What if they don’t use the words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as used in John’s Gospel, but they are a Trinitarian denomination?

Knowledgeable answers only plz. No Speculative Susans. No Guessing Garys. No random internet lay crusaders quoting canon law that aren’t canon lawyers. I recently read in a religious education book (that I teach at the school) that you need to be poured with water three times (etc.) for a valid baptism and it has me mildly alarmed because I was just immersed once when I was 12. I presented my baptism certificate to the parish, did confession, confirmation, and then received communion and have been for the past 14 months. Just want to make sure there wasn’t some oversight this entire time.

 

[jguad1]

TK,
I think you are phrasing your question a little oddly; I would be asking “What makes a baptism valid?” or “What is required to make a baptism valid?”

Anyway, here’s a good start:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#Validity_considerations_by_some_churches

–J.G.
merely an RCIA team member

 

[Gorgias]

Knowledgeable answers only plz. No Speculative Susans. No Guessing Garys. No random internet lay crusaders quoting canon law that aren’t canon lawyers.

LOL! Then why, for the love of all that’s holy, are you asking your question on an open internet forum?!?!?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think many protestant churches specifically dunk/sprinkle a person three times “In the name of the Father (dunk), and of the Son (dunk), and of the Holy Spirit (dunk)”. They just immerse them once. Would this make an invalid baptism?

No.

What if they don’t use the words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as used in John’s Gospel, but they are a Trinitarian denomination?

Water and trinitarian formula are what are necessary, along with the intention to baptize.

I recently read in a religious education book (that I teach at the school) that you need to be poured with water three times (etc.) for a valid baptism

Please provide a citation for the book, and quote the text you’re reading. That might help us get a little traction to help answer your question…

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

LOL! Then why, for the love of all that’s holy, are you asking your question on an open internet forum?!?!?

I know! I was going to answer but then figured I’m not a canon lawyer so I don’t qualify.

 

[TK421]

LOL! Then why, for the love of all that’s holy, are you asking your question on an open internet forum?!?!?

I know there is a sizable community of religious nerds here that would know the answer.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I know there is a sizable community of religious nerds here that would know the answer.

Yes, but you’ve pretty much excluded them all with your caveats …

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t think many protestant churches specifically dunk/sprinkle a person three times “In the name of the Father (dunk), and of the Son (dunk), and of the Holy Spirit (dunk)”. They just immerse them once. Would this make an invalid baptism?

What if they don’t use the words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as used in John’s Gospel, but they are a Trinitarian denomination?

Knowledgeable answers only plz. No Speculative Susans. No Guessing Garys. No random internet lay crusaders quoting canon law that aren’t canon lawyers. I recently read in a religious education book (that I teach at the school) that you need to be poured with water three times (etc.) for a valid baptism and it has me mildly alarmed because I was just immersed once when I was 12. I presented my baptism certificate to the parish, did confession, confirmation, and then received communion and have been for the past 14 months. Just want to make sure there wasn’t some oversight this entire time.

Your criteria is indeed snarky. Perhaps that was a bad idea…

So, since your question is not exactly welcoming, I will answer in the shortest possible way so I don’t waste your time too much if you deem me unworthy to answer. I would also like to add that there is an ask an apologists line at CA that you should call if indeed your need for the “official answer” is indeed great.

Would this make an invalid baptism

No

What if they don’t use the words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as used in John’s Gospel, but they are a Trinitarian denomination?

Not valid.

Could you cite your sources saying that a baptism is invalid if it is not done three times. Millions of people would be not baptized in the Catholic Church if that is the case…

 

[G_S]

A catholic minister may not baptize by aspersion (sprinkling) except in an extreme situation – you’re in the middle of the Mojave desert with one ounce of water remaining with your friend who is a catechumen and there is serious reason to believe that you cannot be rescued. So, even though aspersion is not an approved form of baptism, a person thus baptized in a Trinitarian Protestant denomination would have received a valid baptism if the other conditions had been met.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think many protestant churches specifically dunk/sprinkle a person three times “In the name of the Father (dunk), and of the Son (dunk), and of the Holy Spirit (dunk)”. They just immerse them once. Would this make an invalid baptism?

What if they don’t use the words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as used in John’s Gospel, but they are a Trinitarian denomination?

Knowledgeable answers only plz. No Speculative Susans. No Guessing Garys. No random internet lay crusaders quoting canon law that aren’t canon lawyers. I recently read in a religious education book (that I teach at the school) that you need to be poured with water three times (etc.) for a valid baptism and it has me mildly alarmed because I was just immersed once when I was 12. I presented my baptism certificate to the parish, did confession, confirmation, and then received communion and have been for the past 14 months. Just want to make sure there wasn’t some oversight this entire time.

From two documents from the Vatican, first the Catechism:1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: *Baptism *properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.
And the dubium about LDS baptism:

• According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient.

I. **The Matter. **… Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.
…

II. **The Form. **We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). …

III. **The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. …

It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted.

A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515).

B) If a believer baptized … after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must [not] be re-baptized.
IV. The Disposition of the Recipient.

… have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.

​

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

Also see: catholic.com/tracts/baptism-immersion-only

 

[InThePew]

A catholic minister may not baptize by aspersion (sprinkling) except in an extreme situation – you’re in the middle of the Mojave desert with one ounce of water remaining with your friend who is a catechumen and there is serious reason to believe that you cannot be rescued. So, even though aspersion is not an approved form of baptism, a person thus baptized in a Trinitarian Protestant denomination would have received a valid baptism if the other conditions had been met.

Aspersion used to be included as a method of baptism but now no longer. That however doesn’t make it invalid simply illicit. So even if it was done outside of an emergency situation the baptism would still be valid. If I recall correctly, for validity the water must do more than just touch the person being baptised, it must actually run down them (so an eye dropper can be used on an infant in an incubator for example). I believe it was for this reason that sprinkling was removed.

Aside from that, all that’s needed fro validity is that the person administering the baptism (which, incidentally, does not need to be a priest) uses the proper trinitarian formula (so Father, Son and Holy Spirit is fine, but"Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" isn’t) and also intends to perform a baptism! (i.e. says “I baptise you…”)

 

[Potter]

I was baptized by a female priest in the Episcopal tradition. From a Catholic perspective, if I ever decided to swim the Tiber, as it were, would my baptism hold water?

 

[Vico]

I was baptized by a female priest in the Episcopal tradition. From a Catholic perspective, if I ever decided to swim the Tiber, as it were, would my baptism hold water?

Episcopal baptism is valid to the Catholic Church according to the Archdiocese of Baltimore – PDF:

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.archbalt.org%2Fevangelization%2Fworship%2Frcia%2Fupload%2FValidity-of-Baptisms-and-Confirmation.pdf&ei=voFqVZvGEcTNsAX50oDwBw&usg=AFQjCNGcedVN9d4D5iNaIrmppmiZrSz7og&bvm=bv.94455598,d.b2w&cad=rja

 

[Gorgias]

I was baptized by a female priest in the Episcopal tradition. From a Catholic perspective, if I ever decided to swim the Tiber, as it were, would my baptism hold water?

Yes.

Remember, too, that in cases of emergency, anyone may baptize. It’s not uncommon to hear of babies in neo-natal wards of hospitals being baptized by (female) nurses. It’s not the gender of the person baptizing that makes the sacrament valid…

 

[exnihilo]

I was baptized by a female priest in the Episcopal tradition. From a Catholic perspective, if I ever decided to swim the Tiber, as it were, would my baptism hold water?

The sex of the baptizer has no bearing on the validity of your baptism. Anyone can baptize. Episcopal baptisms are recognized as valid but that is assuming it was done following a standard and accepted practice. In some denominations the way baptism is performed can vary widely. Some of those practices would be doubtful.

 

[dans0622]

I don’t think many protestant churches specifically dunk/sprinkle a person three times “In the name of the Father (dunk), and of the Son (dunk), and of the Holy Spirit (dunk)”. They just immerse them once. Would this make an invalid baptism?

What if they don’t use the words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as used in John’s Gospel, but they are a Trinitarian denomination? …

Hello,

Regarding single or triple applications of water: it’s not invalid if only “dunked” once. See here for an explanation that still applies:

newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article8

The words used have to include a proper reference to the Persons of the Trinity.

Dan

 

[Potter]

Yes.

Remember, too, that in cases of emergency, anyone may baptize. It’s not uncommon to hear of babies in neo-natal wards of hospitals being baptized by (female) nurses. It’s not the gender of the person baptizing that makes the sacrament valid…

The sex of the baptizer has no bearing on the validity of your baptism. Anyone can baptize. Episcopal baptisms are recognized as valid but that is assuming it was done following a standard and accepted practice. In some denominations the way baptism is performed can vary widely. Some of those practices would be doubtful.

I feared that because of her sex, her consequent lack of ordination from a Catholic perspective might render it invalid. I’m glad to hear that’s not the case, though I was confused as to why. I thought all sacraments had to be administered by someone ordained, but another CAF thread indicates that baptism and marriage can be lay functions.

I was baptized “by the Book”…of Common Prayer, that is.

 

[Kelfa28]

If you’re concerned…you can do what my husband did.

My husband wasn’t sure if his infant baptism was valid or not. He explained it to the priest when we were starting RCIA and he determined that his baptism wasn’t valid. So my husband was received into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil…with another baptism.

He was really concerned that maybe his infant baptism was actually valid and since he had no way of knowing (his parents didn’t remember the specifics and he had no documentation of the baptism) he decided to just make a thorough confession.

He sat down with our Priest and explained the situation and confessed every major sin he could think of…he made a list so he wouldn’t forget anything.

I had done the same thing when I went through RCIA for confirmation. I had made exactly one confession before RCIA…when I was 8 and prepping for first communion. So I had to make up for 20 years of never visiting the confessional.

 

[Gorgias]

If you’re concerned…you can do what my husband did.

My husband wasn’t sure if his infant baptism was valid or not. He explained it to the priest when we were starting RCIA and he determined that his baptism wasn’t valid. So my husband was received into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil…with another baptism.

Note that this wouldn’t have been “another baptism”, but rather, most likely, a “conditional baptism”. The words of the sacrament are along the lines of “if you are not baptized, then I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. The implication is that, if he were really already baptized, then this ‘conditional baptism’ is not a baptism at all.

The Church tends not to like to do conditional baptisms for precisely the reason you’ve demonstrated: it tends to be perceived as a “second baptism”, when in reality, there’s no such thing as a second baptism ever: there’s always only one baptism per person.