Which Baptism is Valid in the Eyes of the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EqualinHim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EqualinHim

Guest
Okay, so I had a wonky upbringing when it came to my faith, that eventually led to two baptisms. My parents were both non-practicing Catholics when they married. My mom did not attend mass/belong to a parish when I was born. She was terrified/extremely convicted by the fact that she had not had her children baptized. So she baptized us while she was giving us a bath one day. I know that Catholics believe that, in order for lay people to baptize, the recipient has to be in danger of death without a priest nearby.

Fast forward later on in life, when I was 11 and a half years old. I came to understand the gospel and have faith in Christ through attendance at a local Methodist church. I asked to be baptized. They used the adult form of immersion. I was baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. It’s also documented in the church records. I’m pretty sure that the second one is the valid one in this case, but, being that I am a protestant, I am unfamiliar with canon law. I’m pretty sure that this one is the valid one.

Is the second one valid? And where would this leave me in the eyes of the church? I am pretty happy with my Protestant church now but I am curious as to how this would affect me if I, say, decided to convert and go through RCIA.
 
EqualinHim said:
Okay, so I had a wonky upbringing when it came to my faith, that eventually led to two baptisms. My parents were both non-practicing Catholics when they married. My mom did not attend mass/belong to a parish when I was born. She was terrified/extremely convicted by the fact that she had not had her children baptized. So she baptized us while she was giving us a bath one day. I know that Catholics believe that, in order for lay people to baptize, the recipient has to be in danger of death without a priest nearby.
Click to expand...
There’s a distinction in Catholic theology between valid and licit, when it comes to the sacraments.

A valid sacrament is just one that is actually effective at performing the sacrament. So for baptism, all that’s needed is water, the trinitarian formula, and the intent on the part of the performer to “do what the Church does.”

A licit sacrament is one that takes place according to canon law. This regulates how the sacraments should be performed. Under canon law, a baptism isn’t supposed to take place unless in danger of death, or if performed by a priest.

So your first baptism was valid but illicit. Your second baptism was basically a free bath.

Make sense?
 
EqualinHim said:
Okay, so I had a wonky upbringing when it came to my faith, that eventually led to two baptisms. My parents were both non-practicing Catholics when they married. My mom did not attend mass/belong to a parish when I was born. She was terrified/extremely convicted by the fact that she had not had her children baptized. So she baptized us while she was giving us a bath one day. I know that Catholics believe that, in order for lay people to baptize, the recipient has to be in danger of death without a priest nearby.

Fast forward later on in life, when I was 11 and a half years old. I came to understand the gospel and have faith in Christ through attendance at a local Methodist church. I asked to be baptized. They used the adult form of immersion. I was baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. It’s also documented in the church records. I’m pretty sure that the second one is the valid one in this case, but, being that I am a protestant, I am unfamiliar with canon law. I’m pretty sure that this one is the valid one.

Is the second one valid? And where would this leave me in the eyes of the church? I am pretty happy with my Protestant church now but I am curious as to how this would affect me if I, say, decided to convert and go through RCIA.
Click to expand...
Greetings!

When it comes to the Sacraments, we have Ordinary and Extraordinary Ministers; people who administer them. For example, the Ordinary Ministers of Confirmation is a bishop. He normally does Confirmation, as you may or may not know. But, during Easter Vigil, he allows priests to do it since he can’t be at every parish that night. So, the Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation is a priest. For Baptism, normally a bishop/priest/deacon performs it, but actually, anyone can baptize another person. Two things are required for a valid baptism: water and the Trinitarian formula (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”). So if your mom recited the Trinitarian formula while pouring water over your head or immersed you (water has to somehow be flowing, whether over your head or being dunked in it), that was your baptism, and it is valid. The baptism you received at the Methodist church then, would not count as a second baptism or override the first since you were already baptized and you can only be baptized once. If, however, your mom did not recite the Trinitarian formula or did not pour water/immerse you, it would not be a valid baptism and the baptism you received at the Methodist church is your baptism.

Now! Concerning RCIA!

You will be asked to provide proof of your baptism. If I were you, I’d send something from both the Methodist church and your mom. Your mom just needs to say that she baptized you with water and recited the Trinitarian formula (if that’s what she did) and preferably include the date (or at least the year), the Methodist parish can just send a copy of your certificate. Let the DRE or priest figure it out from there as to which was valid, and so you’ll have all your bases covered in case they’re not sure about something with either baptism.

Hope it helps!
 
And, there is also “conditional” Baptism. If there is any doubt, the candidate can be baptized conditionally by the priest saying such words as “If you are not baptized I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

I don’t know if I used the exact words in what the priest says, but, however they are spoken it covers any doubts that may be had.

Peace!

Dorothy
 
The list of the Church is in my opinion not always true, Pentecostals didnt have theology and many pentecostals dont believe baptism is necessary for salvation but its just a sign.
 
OP, I doubt that it makes a huge difference now whether the first baptism was valid. If not, the Methodist baptism almost certainly was, as Methodists use the correct form and matter. The Catholic Church would not baptize you again. You would be received by Confirmation and First Communion. From the Catholic point of view, Protestants only have two valid sacraments, baptism and holy matrimony. I only comment on your thread because I have family who converted from the United Methodist Church.
 
Gabrield11 said:
The list of the Church is in my opinion not always true, Pentecostals didnt have theology and many pentecostals dont believe baptism is necessary for salvation but its just a sign.
Click to expand...
Except this is not a requirement for a valid baptism. Even an atheist can baptize provided he intends to perform a Christian baptism and follows a valid form (water and the trinity).
 
DarkLight said:
Except this is not a requirement for a valid baptism. Even an atheist can baptize provided he intends to perform a Christian baptism and follows a valid form (water and the trinity).
Click to expand...
And a mormon doesnt?
 
-]/-]
PaulfromIowa said:
Mormon baptisms are not considered valid because the Mormon theology is so radically different. Mormonism is polytheistic. See:

catholic.com/qa/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism
“Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?”

osv.com/TheChurch/Practices/Article/TabId/665/ArtMID/13706/ArticleID/7715/Why-Church-does-not-accept-Mormon-baptism.aspx
“Why Church does not accept Mormon baptism”
Click to expand...
So someone doesnt have to believe to baptize someone?
 
A non-Christian can validly baptize if he has the intention to do what the Church teaches, to baptize in the Trinitarian form.
 
Gabrield11 said:
-]/-]

So someone doesnt have to believe to baptize someone?
Click to expand...
Right, but they do have to intend to perform a Christian baptism. Mormons don’t intend to perform a Christian baptism in the sense that we understand Christian, because of their radically different doctrine of the Trinity. I suppose if a Mormon performed a baptism with the intend to baptize in the name of the Trinity as the Catholic Church understand it, it would be a valid baptism (although how that would be verified I don’t know).

But the church has said for ages that even a heretic or a pagan is capable of baptism.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#xiii
 
DarkLight said:
Right, but they do have to intend to perform a Christian baptism. Mormons don’t intend to perform a Christian baptism in the sense that we understand Christian, because of their radically different doctrine of the Trinity. I suppose if a Mormon performed a baptism with the intend to baptize in the name of the Trinity as the Catholic Church understand it, it would be a valid baptism (although how that would be verified I don’t know).

But the church has said for ages that even a heretic or a pagan is capable of baptism.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#xiii
Click to expand...
Thank you that mean a lot to me my family isnt catholic so I am happy that their baptism is valid.
 
Dorothy said:
If it is an emergency, a necessity in danger of death.
Click to expand...
Of course, again, the baptism is valid even if it’s not an emergency. It may not be licit, but it is valid and the person cannot be rebaptized simply because the first baptism should not have been performed.
 
DarkLight said:
Of course, again, the baptism is valid even if it’s not an emergency. It may not be licit, but it is valid and the person cannot be rebaptized simply because the first baptism should not have been performed.
Click to expand...
Wow…there is a lot to know.
 
Increasingly, though, baptisms in liberal Protestant denominations might be invalid because of the use of the formula Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier to deny the Fatherhood of God, the Sonship of Christ, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
Increasingly, though, baptisms in liberal Protestant denominations might be invalid because of the use of the formula Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier to deny the Fatherhood of God, the Sonship of Christ, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son.
Click to expand...
I was old enough to remember the baptism I received in the Methodist church. It was done in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
 
That was before the mainline Protestants went completely off the rails.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
Increasingly, though, baptisms in liberal Protestant denominations might be invalid because of the use of the formula Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier to deny the Fatherhood of God, the Sonship of Christ, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son.
Click to expand...
Not so. It is still Trinitarian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top