Why does the Catholic Church accept non-Catholic baptisms?

[Cowboy_Pete]

Who is the King of kings and the Lord of lords? It is He Who instituted Baptism, and commanded that it be accomplished. The Church, being the mystical Body of Christ, simply carries out His commands. Revelation 17:14, 19:16

Of course.

As a Catholic, I find this very difficult to reconcile with the counsel of Peter, who was speaking to those who believed after Jesus accompished His atonement. If their sins were gone, there would be neither the need for baptism, nor the remission of any sins.

Acts 2:38
King James Version (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Their sins aren’t gone. Everyone of the age of accountability sins, falls short of what God wants for us. We simply believe that our sins are our own sins, and that no one is imputed a sinful condition just because of Adam’s transgression.

Jesus gave Peter the keys - what Peter then opened, no one shut. What he shut, no one opened. Reference this to Isaiah 22:22. He then gave Peter and the eleven power over sin, in the binding and loosing authority. This is the source of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession). Saint Paul wrote of this authority to forgive sin in the person of Christ in 2 Corinthians 2:10.

Baptisms are not authorized by the Catholic Church - they are recognized. God is the authority involved, but He uses humans to accomplish His will.

Ah. But the Eucharist, do you believe that must be done by someone in authority, i.e. by a Catholic Priest? Or could a Hindu dispense the Eucharist?

Edited to add – I see you answered that – thank you!

Do you see the communion ceremonies of various protestant sects valid as well?

No. Jesus Christ appointed twelve Apostles and sent them forth with unprecedented authority. They passed that authority on to succeeding generations, via the laying on of hands (Book of Acts). Only Catholic and Orthodox Churches have valid Holy Orders (the ordained Preisthood). The Apostolic power to consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ was lost in the reformers’ separation from the Church.

Great. I think I understand now. So you do have something analogous to our authority concept and the laying down of hands, except you apply it only to communion, not to baptism. Are there other sacraments where only the Catholic and Orthodox churches can carry out?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

No. Any human being can.
No. You can do it, with the proper intent, form and matter. Please don’t think that our faith is so rigid and legalistic. It has its rules, but there is so much more freedom than you know.

I hope that we are dispelling rumors here.

Very much so, thank you – but these rumors originate from my understanding of what some other folks have been telling me on this board, i.e. that my beliefs about the Father having a physical body, somehow disqualifies me from a valid baptism. It seemed odd to me that believing that two members of the godhead rather than one were corporeal, would somehow make me less able to perform a valid Christian baptism than someone who believed in multiple multi-armed blue gods. I’m relieved to see that better sense prevails.

 

[po18guy]

Their sins aren’t gone. Everyone of the age of accountability sins, falls short of what God wants for us. We simply believe that our sins are our own sins, and that no one is imputed a sinful condition just because of Adam’s transgression.

Well, we get our sinful nature from somewhere. Certainly, God did not create it! We did not * decide* to have a sinful nature, so from whence has it come? The answer is: from the original sin. Where else? The Catholic Church teaches that our very nature changed with the fall at Eden. The book of Genesis tells of the elemental changes in both man and woman due to their disobedience. This is the cost of their sin, which is passed via the blood to all of humanity - in fact to all of creation. Even the serpent paid for enticing the first rebellion. Original sin is passed on because our very nature was changed through disobedience, just as the very nature of the angels was changed (into demons) by their rebellion. As Saint Paul wrote: “through one man, sin and death entered the world” (Romans 5:12). He goes on to explain how this sin passed on to the rest of us. We, born into this world, are not innocent victims of our first parents’ sin - rather, we share a fallen nature with Adam and Eve, regardless of our personal disposition. After His atoning death, Christ preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18-20). Even though they may have died in a state of grace, there were two problems: the gates were closed, and their original sin. Original sin closed the gates of heaven and made that spirit prison necessary to hold them.

The essence of baptism is to remove the penalty of original sin - the natural division between us and God, as a result of that original falling away from Him. To me, it makes no sense to require a baptism if there is nothing to be spiritually accomplished through it. Certainly, we are cleansed of all sin up to that point, but what is it that made us sinful by nature in the first place? The original sin, which we possess as our inheritance. And, dealing with post-baptismal sin is the elephant in the living room of all non-Catholic/Orthodox faiths. Should they re-baptize after every sin? If not, then what? Some sects do not baptize, believing that Christ’s atonement made that unneccesary. This does not square with scripture, of course, as Christ well knew that His atonement opend the gates of heaven, but in no way absolved mankind from all future sin. That is why we have the first responsibility to repent, then believe in the Lord Jesus, then be baptized. Three acts of the human will, remeniscent of Luke 9:23, in which we must deny ourselves, take up our crosses, then follow Him.

The problem of post-baptismal sin leads us to yet another Sacrament…

 

[po18guy]

Great. I think I understand now. So you do have something analogous to our authority concept and the laying down of hands, except you apply it only to communion, not to baptism. Are there other sacraments where only the Catholic and Orthodox churches can carry out?

There are seven Sacraments in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Eucharist, Reconciliation/Confession, Marriage, Anointing of the sick; and Holy Orders (the priesthood). The priest is the normative administrator of Baptism, but it may be accomplished, given appropriate exigent circumstances, by anyone. Confirmation is the sealing in the Holy Spirit, by the laying on of hands, as described in the Book of Acts. It is accomplished normally by a Bishop, although a Priest can be authorized to do it. The Eucharist was instituted by Christ, Who gave the authority to confect it to the twelve. To be valid, it must be confected by someone who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Priesthood). Confession of sins (Matthew 18:18, John 20:23) must be done to someone who is an ambassador of Christ, and whose ministry is one of reconciliation. This, Paul wrote of in 2 Corinthians 2 and 5. Marriage is a Sacrament entered into by those being married - however the Priest/Deacon administers and witnesses it. The Anointing of the sick is written of in James 5, and is done through the authority of the Priests/Bishops of the Church.

 

[choliks]

Very much so, thank you – but these rumors originate from my understanding of what some other folks have been telling me on this board, i.e. that my beliefs about the Father having a physical body, somehow disqualifies me from a valid baptism. It seemed odd to me that believing that two members of the godhead rather than one were corporeal, would somehow make me less able to perform a valid Christian baptism than someone who believed in multiple multi-armed blue gods. I’m relieved to see that better sense prevails.

With all due respect, sir. I think what po18guy meant was that an LDS (anybody for that matter) can validly baptize a person in certain extreme circumstances, and with the proper intent of a Christian baptism, the Form (In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), and matter: water.

With regards to your own baptism, I think the way LDS understands the essence and nature of the Holy Trinity is one of the things that make it invalid in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Thank you choliks; I believe that I understand what po18guy explained to me; I was simply explaining what I’d been previously told before po18guy stepped in and provided a wonderfully clear explanation.

Point of fact: Each Catholic and Orthodox Priest (and Bishop) has authority that was given to them in hands-on ordination that traces back to one of the twelve Apostles or to Saint Paul. This line of succession was lost to the reformers in the 16th century rebellion.

We use the term “apostasy” to describe rebellion against church authority. Is that the term that you would use? Would you classify Luther as an apostate?

(If this is opening a can of worms, then I ask the moderator to please delete the last paragraph! I did not come here to be a snake in the grass, but we have on other threads discussed apostasy.)

 

[guanophore]

OK, since you were all so kind as to answer my original questions, let's talk about the LDS thing.  Just please don't anyone misunderstand and think that I'm somehow offended that the Catholic church doesn't accept LDS baptisms.  I'm not!  From an LDS perspective, authority

Do I understand correctly that while a non-Christian (e.g. an atheist, a Muslim, or a Hindu) can perform a Catholic baptism, but a Mormon can’t?

Of course a Mormon could, but in so doing, would have to use proper form, matter, and intention. That would mean that the Mormon was not baptizing according to Mormon customs, but was baptizing according to the Trinitiarian formula, and intended to do what the CC intends with baptism.

So if I’m ever in a situation where someone’s dying and asks for me to give them a Catholic baptism, I should say, sorry, I’m Mormon, and your clergy thinks my intentions are too off to give you a proper Catholic Baptism, but let me ask a Hare Krishna who can give you a valid Catholic baptism?

If indeed you cannot, in good conscience, give the person a proper Christian baptism, and a Hare Krishna is willing, then of course you should.

 

[guanophore]

To me, authorizing baptism seems more the act of a spiritual leader and a father in faith, rather than that of a king. What precisely did Jesus convey to Peter with the keys to bind in heaven?

Do you see the communion ceremonies of various protestant sects valid as well?

Baptisms are valid because of the Authority of Jesus. The Pope’s role notwithstanding. All baptisms are still valid even when there is no sitting Pope.

Yes, we see the ceremonies of protestant sects as valid. They are valid expressions of their protestant sectarianism.

 

[guanophore]

 We simply believe that our sins are our own sins, and that no one is imputed a sinful condition just because of Adam's transgression.

Such a thought is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Ah. But the Eucharist, do you believe that must be done by someone in authority, i.e. by a Catholic Priest? Or could a Hindu dispense the Eucharist?

The Eucharist must be cathected by a validly ordained priest.

Great. I think I understand now. So you do have something analogous to our authority concept and the laying down of hands, except you apply it only to communion, not to baptism.

It applies to all the sacraments. It is just that some sacraments require a validly ordained priest, and others do not.

 Are there other sacraments where only the Catholic and Orthodox churches can carry out?

Holy Orders, confirmation, and reconciliation.

 

[guanophore]

We use the term “apostasy” to describe rebellion against church authority. Is that the term that you would use? Would you classify Luther as an apostate?

No, Catholics use this term like the Apostles did, to describe someone who has fallen away from the faith, or willfully rejected it. A person who is rebellion against God’s appointed authority over them is lacking a state of grace, but not necessarily apostate.

Luther was a heretic, and did not abandon the faith, but re-formed it to suit his own nogrosities.

(If this is opening a can of worms, then I ask the moderator to please delete the last paragraph!  I did not come here to be a snake in the grass, but we have on other threads discussed apostasy.)

Persons who are baptized by those who have embraced heresies or are apostate may not be valid.

 

[guanophore]

Very much so, thank you – but these rumors originate from my understanding of what some other folks have been telling me on this board, i.e. that my beliefs about the Father having a physical body, somehow disqualifies me from a valid baptism.

Not sure what you mean by this. A baptism can be valid, even if a person later embraces a heresy such as this one.

The fact that you now believe the Father has a physical body would mean that your faith is not Catholic faith, since you have departed from what the Apostles believed and taught.

If you are not validly baptized, you would have to renounce this heresy before you could be validly baptized Catholic.

It seemed odd to me that believing that two members of the godhead rather than one were corporeal, would somehow make me less able to perform a valid Christian baptism than someone who believed in multiple multi-armed blue gods. :)  I'm relieved to see that better sense prevails.

It does not. It just means you would have to set aside your personal beliefs to perform a valid baptism, just as a Hari Krishna, or anyone else who did not espouse the Catholic faith.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Also from the CCC:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

There** is but One Body of Jesus Christ, and by our baptism, we are made His**. One faith, one baptism.

[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 4:4-6[/BIBLEDRB]

I thought the Body of Christ was the Catholic Church. Therefore, Protestants are not part of it (formally), but (some) are in an imperfect communion with it through an implicit membership. But maybe this is what you’re saying. It’s hard to tell.

IDK if this is off topic; sorry if it is.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

guanophore, thank you for your clear, precise, and satisfying explanation of Catholic doctrinal answers to my questions. That’s not to say that I’m not interested if anyone has more to elaborate – but you and several others on this thread have given me everything that I was trying to understand. I know who to ask if I have further questions. Please let me know if I can return the favor.

 

[Telstar]

Very much so, thank you – but these rumors originate from my understanding of what some other folks have been telling me on this board, i.e. that my beliefs about the Father having a physical body, somehow disqualifies me from a valid baptism. It seemed odd to me that believing that two members of the godhead rather than one were corporeal, would somehow make me less able to perform a valid Christian baptism than someone who believed in multiple multi-armed blue gods. I’m relieved to see that better sense prevails.

The possibility of “anyone” being able to perform a valid Baptism (other than in a church ceremony) refers only to extreme cases, such as when someone that’s in imminent danger of death requests that someone Baptize them before they die. Both the person that is dieing and the person performing the Baptism must conform to the formula and intent of Catholic Baptism for it to be valid. In other words, it must be acknowledged by both parties as being for the intent of their full acceptance of the true Catholic (or valid Christian) Baptismal formula, with the intent to wash away the stain of Original Sin and all other sin, and to welcome them into the true Body of Christ. It must be done by water (BTW… if no ‘water’ is available, even spit would work ), in the name of the Holy Trinity (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit).

Baptizing anyone by the same Mormon formula, intention, or beliefs as held by all Mormons, would still not be valid in the Catholic Church, since Mormons do not believe in the same Trinity as defined by the Catholic Church, nor do they believe in Original Sin. Unless it was performed with the *intention *of it being the same as a Catholic Baptism, it would still not have the same spiritual effect. It would only be valid if done by the Catholic/Christian formula and intent.

No matter how you and other LDS try to claim that your belief of the Trinity is the same, it’s really not even close. That is why the Church does not recognize Mormon baptism, along with their rejection of Original Sin, etc… The Catholic Church assesses the validity of Baptism by the basic beliefs of the churches and people that perform it. Just because someone claims that they are “baptizing” people, does not necessarily make it a valid baptism. Just as a rose being called by any other name is still a rose, by the same token, calling any other flower a rose, doesn’t make it so.

 

[Telstar]

I thought the Body of Christ was the Catholic Church. Therefore, Protestants are not part of it (formally), but (some) are in an imperfect communion with it through an implicit membership. But maybe this is what you’re saying. It’s hard to tell.

IDK if this is off topic; sorry if it is.

As I understand it, a valid Baptism that’s recognized as such by the Catholic Church, welcomes the Baptized into the Church that Jesus Christ founded. In other words, all validly Baptized Christians actually become members of the Catholic Church (the Body of Christ), even if they’re not Catholic. They are recognized by the Church as being our ‘separated brethren’. It may not give them the fullness of Grace that only comes from the Catholic Church and its Sacraments, but it does open the door and make it possible for them to be saved. It’s much more difficult for them to be able to live a good Christian life and be saved, but, it’s not impossible, either.

 

[PJM]

This thread is being started at the request of Cowboy Pete, who has some questions as to why the Catholic Church accepts baptisms from non-Catholic, Christian churches.

***First “to start a new thread”

1. Pick the catagory most approiate to your question
2. Skrol down to the VERY bottom on the qurestions 4 that catagory
3. Click on “new post”
4. Entrer your question and that’s it. Just SUMMIT it as usual.***

OPQ reply:

Baptism from any Christian Church is permitted both by the RCC and [therefore by God] so long as it is 1. With Water 2. In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This is acceptable because Jesus Himself says so on Mt.28:19-20.

Because it it God that attached Grace that in turn forgives ones sins AS WELL as ALL of the latent effects of sin committed uo to the POINT of the baptism; but does not remit any sins committed after Baptism.

Baptism leaves an “indellible” sign [mark] on the soul, marking this person for Christ and therefore cannot be repeated. Because the sign, the intent and the Rite are “all the same” [result wise], it may only be received the One Time.

HOWEVER in the Catholic Church; through the sacrament of “Final Annointing” [The “last Rites”] can is properly administered and if one is properly disposed spiritually effect the same COMPLETE remmitence of ALL SIN and even [like Baptism] ALL of the latent effects for sin; this perfecting the soul and making it suitable to God for heaven.

Hope this helps you out?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I thought I couldn’t post new threads because I was still a trial member.

Thank you, Pat!!

 

[PJM]

I thought I couldn’t post new threads because I was still a trial member.

Thank you, Pat!!

YOUR WELOCOME!

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Swiss_Guy]

As I understand it, a valid Baptism that’s recognized as such by the Catholic Church, welcomes the Baptized into the Church that Jesus Christ founded. In other words, **all validly Baptized Christians actually become members of the Catholic Church (the Body of Christ), even if they’re not Catholic. They are recognized by the Church as being our ‘separated brethren’. It may not give them the fullness of Grace that only comes from the Catholic Church **and its Sacraments, but it does open the door and make it possible for them to be saved. It’s much more difficult for them to be able to live a good Christian life and be saved, but, it’s not impossible, either.

I think we are saying the same thing. You are saying that non-Catholics become Catholic in Baptism, even though they aren’t Catholic. That’s a contradiction. So in Baptism, we are all apart of the Catholic Church, whether in full communion or in an imperfect communion. But, those who are brought up outside of the Church (a.k.a Protestants) and follow Christ, but don’t know His Church, have an implicit membership - but aren’t formally part of the Church/Body of Christ. If they did have a formal membership, they wouldn’t be called ‘separated brethren’.

Complicated stuff.

 

[po18guy]

But, those who are brought up outside of the Church (a.k.a Protestants) and follow Christ, but don’t know His Church, have an implicit membership - but aren’t formally part of the Church/Body of Christ. If they did have a formal membership, they wouldn’t be called ‘separated brethren’. Complicated stuff.

It is a post-reformation notion that considers baptisms to be different in any way. A valid baptism is a valid baptism, since its power derives from the authority of God. Receiving such a valid Sacrament makes a person a participant in the new and everlasting covenant, and part of the one Church which Christ founded. All who are validly baptized are either in perfect communion with Christ’s Church, or are in imperfect (separated) communion. All are members of the mystical Body of Christ.

Christ did not authorize anyone to leave His ecclesia (Church, assembly, mystical Body) and form a pseudo-association with Him. To do this is to fail to deny oneself, which is the first step which we are to take before we follow him (Luke 9:23). This is easy to see as a Catholic - not so easy if not.