P
psi
Guest
They both baptize “in the name of the F, S, and HS”; they are both non-Trinitarian in doctrine. 
- Status
P
psi
Guest
Yes that’s what I mean. And googling, it seems you may be right though for some reason the Vatican CDF has ruled definitively only on the Mormon baptism
R
Rolltide
Guest
The baptisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses are most definitely not valid, because they do not use the proper form.
R
Rolltide
Guest
From the FAQ right here on Catholic Answers:
"For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, baptize “in the name of Jesus.” As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian. "
"For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, baptize “in the name of Jesus.” As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian. "
K
Kristin234
Guest
My cousin just recently got baptized in our non denominational church in water and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and my Catholic uncle still said it was invalid.
D
DElias
Guest
I’m pretty sure it would be considered valid. Mine is.My cousin just recently got baptized in our non denominational church in water and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and my Catholic uncle still said it was invalid.
T
T_More
Guest
As others have pointed out, and speaking as a former JW, the baptisms of JW most definitely are not valid. The following are the questions asked to baptismal canidates of JW’s before they are led to the pool of water…
2006
***The Watchtower, April 1, 2006, p.22 ***
TheTwoBaptismalQuestions
On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?
Nothing at all containing the simple formula that Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19. Interestingly, the baptismal formula given to the International Bible Students (what JW’s used to be called) used this formula…
1904
*** New Creation, 1904, p.455 ***
The Form of Words
No particular form of words for this service is set before us in the Scriptures, and all can readily see that the words are of secondary importance—that the baptism might be equally valid if no words at all were used; because, as previously stated, the real contract is between the baptized one and the Lord, and the act of water baptism is the open confession of it. It is not, therefore, a question of what the administrator may believe or disbelieve, say or omit to say, but of what is the thought and intention of the heart of the one thus symbolically baptized. Nevertheless, basing our judgment upon the words of the Lord, in Matt. 28:19, and the words of the Apostle in Rom. 6:3, we recommend as a simple form of sound words for the occasion these:
“Brother John [or other Christian name], in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, by this authority, I baptize thee into Christ.”
So this would qualify as valid, but that was then and this is now. The short answer is, as a former JW, no, I was never validly baptized and neither have any JW’s for that matter. Their baptism is about indentifying themselves as JW’s to others and “the world”, and that’s were it ends.
2006
***The Watchtower, April 1, 2006, p.22 ***
TheTwoBaptismalQuestions
On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?
Nothing at all containing the simple formula that Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19. Interestingly, the baptismal formula given to the International Bible Students (what JW’s used to be called) used this formula…
1904
*** New Creation, 1904, p.455 ***
The Form of Words
No particular form of words for this service is set before us in the Scriptures, and all can readily see that the words are of secondary importance—that the baptism might be equally valid if no words at all were used; because, as previously stated, the real contract is between the baptized one and the Lord, and the act of water baptism is the open confession of it. It is not, therefore, a question of what the administrator may believe or disbelieve, say or omit to say, but of what is the thought and intention of the heart of the one thus symbolically baptized. Nevertheless, basing our judgment upon the words of the Lord, in Matt. 28:19, and the words of the Apostle in Rom. 6:3, we recommend as a simple form of sound words for the occasion these:
“Brother John [or other Christian name], in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, by this authority, I baptize thee into Christ.”
So this would qualify as valid, but that was then and this is now. The short answer is, as a former JW, no, I was never validly baptized and neither have any JW’s for that matter. Their baptism is about indentifying themselves as JW’s to others and “the world”, and that’s were it ends.
- Status