Why don't we baptize Evangelical converts?

[SecretaryMonday]

I began a similar thread a few weeks ago. In case it might add to the discussion, I’ll post the link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721505

 

[mercytruth]

Ultimately, it seems that the discussion should revolve around the teaching of St Paul when he said, Keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you were called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all."

A false faith produces a false baptism.

A false faith can not produce a true baptism. If this was true, the Roman Catholic church would not have ruled LDS baptisms as being invalid.

For the one baptism to be true, the one faith of the one Lord must be true.

It seems to me, something in addition to baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is required in order to determine if the **one true **faith gave birth to the **one true **baptism. The Apostle’s Creed seems like a good baseline.

God’s peace

micah

.

 

[TrueLight]

Many Protestant adult baptisms do not include prayers of exorcism, therefore their baptisms are not as the Catholic Church intends. It is possible within this scenario, that a ‘pretender’ under demonic influence could enter the Catholic church. Even as Jesus Christ has taught us about the devil sowing tares among the wheat.

Wow. This is nothing more than pitting converts against Catholics who were born into the faith.

You think cradle Catholics can’t be possessed by demons? Think again.

A false faith can not produce a true baptism. If this was true, the Roman Catholic church would not have ruled LDS baptisms as being invalid.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church does accept a lot of Evangelical baptisms. Someone please tell me if this is a new teaching or clarification that occurred in the last decades.

 

[RyanBlack]

LDS baptism are not considered valid because the LDS, even though they use the trinitarian formula, essentially reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[RyanBlack]

Wow. This is nothing more than pitting converts against Catholics who were born into the faith.

You think cradle Catholics can’t be possessed by demons? Think again.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church does accept a lot of Evangelical baptisms. Someone please tell me if this is a new teaching or clarification that occurred in the last decades.

The Catholic Church has a long history of accepting baptism performed by schismatics, and even heretics, so long as those baptisms use the trinitarian formula (an exception being the LDS, who are essentially non-Trinitarian, even though they invoke the formula), are done with water, and done with proper intent (which is generally interpreted quite broadly). The acceptance of the validity of (most) Protestant baptisms is nothing new.

 

[mercytruth]

Wow. This is nothing more than pitting converts against Catholics who were born into the faith.

You think cradle Catholics can’t be possessed by demons? Think again.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church does accept a lot of Evangelical baptisms. Someone please tell me if this is a new teaching or clarification that occurred in the last decades.

It is a new teaching as of 2001. Up till then, the Vatican assumed that Mormon baptisms were valid because they used the correct matter and form.

Yes, of course Catholics who are born into the faith can be oppressed and possessed by unclean spirits. I was speaking of adult converts. Catholic parents who lead unsanctified lives, will more than likely raise children who will be oppressed, or possessd by unclean spirits.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[mercytruth]

In addition to the summary of the gospel as explained in the Apostle’s Creed, the most ancient teaching that might be included would be the teaching of the Didache followed by baptism. (The way of life, and the way of death as written in this very early church document.)

Quoting from this document as it concludes the teaching of the ‘two ways’, it says,
(I have underlined ‘having first said all these things’, that is the two ways).

**And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. **

newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

The Didache can also be found in Book VII of the Constitutions of the Apostles in a somewhat different version.

newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm

Finally, there is a third document called the two ways as the way of light and the way of darkness in the Epistle of Barnabas, Chapters XVIII-XXI.

newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm

It is my conviction that if the Apostle’s Creed and the Didache were the preliminary teaching of a catechumen, such a catechumen would have undergone a true baptism closest to the one true apostolic faith.

God’s peace

micah

 

[TrueLight]

It is my conviction that if the Apostle’s Creed and the Didache were the preliminary teaching of a catechumen, such a catechumen would have undergone a true baptism closest to the one true apostolic faith.

God’s peace

micah

An evangelical cannot expected to say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church…the communion of Saints”.

It is a new teaching as of 2001. Up till then, the Vatican assumed that Mormon baptisms were valid because they used the correct matter and form

I was referring to Protestant Baptism in general. I’m wondering why you and Constantine are questioning the way the Church has felt about baptisms, where as far as I know, this is a very longstanding policy. Or is it?

Interesting about Mormon baptisms though. Which leads me to a question.

Isn’t the pronouncement of whether a baptism is valid or not considered “faith and morals”? Why would whether a Mormon baptism is valid or not change from one year to the next?

 

[mercytruth]

An evangelical cannot expected to say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church…the communion of Saints”.

I was referring to Protestant Baptism in general. I’m wondering why you and Constantine are questioning the way the Church has felt about baptisms, where as far as I know, this is a very longstanding policy. Or is it?

Interesting about Mormon baptisms though. Which leads me to a question.

Isn’t the pronouncement of whether a baptism is valid or not considered “faith and morals”? Why would whether a Mormon baptism is valid or not change from one year to the next?

I think most Protestants understand ‘catholic’ to mean universal, and the word, ‘saints’ are found quite often in the NT.

In 2001 the Vatican no longer presumed the baptisms of Mormons to be valid due to the doctrinal teachings of the Mormon church. Since 1830 Mormon baptisms used the proper matter and form, which was all that was necessary throughout the centuries of the Roman Catholic church.

This basically was the teaching of the Roman Catholic church since Bishop Stephen of Rome disagreed with Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and the African Synod of bishops over the issue of a proper baptism.

Bishop Stephen said that baptisms performed by heretics were valid baptisms as long as they used the proper matter and the proper form. Bishop Cyprian and the African Bishops maintained that a false profession of faith does not produce a true baptism.

One can read of Bishop Cyprian’s viewpoint in epistle 72.

newadvent.org/fathers/050672.htm

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Andre1000]

After reading all this post, I think if evangelical baptism is invalid because they believe it is not necessary for salvation, then many Catholic baptism here in Germany would be invalid too.

 

[englishredrose]

there are lots who misunderstand what Baptism/Christening actually is

Once been baptised/Christened then there is no need to be done so again though different denominations will basically tell the person they do need to be done again as they see it as entry to the Church rather than Entry in the Lords’ Family? (Whichever denomination a person may have entered into the Lords’ Family from, if they change denominations it shouldn’t matter because they have already Entered into the Lords’ Family. But the Church of different denominations don’t always recognise this. Some do and some don’t.

 

[TrueLight]

I think most Protestants understand ‘catholic’ to mean universal, and the word, ‘saints’ are found quite often in the NT.

You must not know evangelicals very well.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

According to their beliefs, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. According to what constitutes a valid Sacrament, there must be the correct intent. And the intention of the Church when she baptizes is to bring salvation to the person.

Their intent is apparently close enough - i.e. they intend to confer true, Trinitarian, Christian baptism on the believer. I don’t know why their ignorance of baptism’s effects doesn’t invalidate their baptism, but the Church is pretty clear that it doesn’t.

Why is there levels of this? You either are baptized or you’re not. There is no such thing as “more baptized” or “partially baptized”. If it is invalid, then it is the same as Mormon baptism.

You’re absolutely right that there are no levels, and the baptism conferred by most Evangelical Protestant denominations is valid. Period end.

If we look back into Church history we see that “because the Church said so” isn’t used as an argument in combating heresy or answering crucial theological questions.

Okay, but here’s a reductio ad absurdum argument for you:

(1) Let us posit that the baptism of Evangelical Protestants is invalid - i.e. does not confer the grace of the Sacrament.

(2) The bishops of the Catholic Church unanimously recognize that the baptism of (most?) evangelical Protestants is valid.

(3) Then you and I, in positing that the baptism of Evangelical Protestants is invalid, are correct where basically all our bishops are in serious, tragic, grave theological error.

(4) That is absurd, and is the thinking that spawns heresies.

(5) Therefore our bishops are not in unanimous error, and the baptism of Evangelical Protestants is valid.

Remember, Constantine, what Tradition teaches us: the bishop holds on earth the place of God (St. Ignatius), and the succession of bishops in the Church, and fidelity to their teachings, is the standard of true orthodoxy (St. Irenaeus).

So if our bishops say that evangelical Protestant baptism is true baptism, then it is.

I disagree. Should we blindly follow our bishops because they are our bishops? What if they become heretics? Many bishops have become heretics, even Popes. In this case, “the Church says so” leads us down the wrong path.

True, but not all of them, at once, can be heretics. Can you name even one canonical Catholic bishop who officially teaches that evangelical Protestants do not have true baptism, and so must receive baptism upon joining the Catholic Church?

 

[CatholicLite]

Here’s my understanding. The Catholic Church will not require a baptism for an evangelical Christian if 2 things are in place: 1) There is some evidence that the evangelical Christian’s first baptism actually took place, and 2) their denomination has a Catholic understanding of the Blessed Trinity. Recall that the Nicean Creed states that we believe in ONE baptism, so there ought not be a rush to re-baptize if the 2 steps mentioned above are in place. If there is no evidence of an original baptism, such as a baptismal certificate, the convert may be baptized conditional on the first one not actually having taken place. One should bear in mind that a person is not baptized a Catholic or a Methodist etc., the person is baptized as a Christian which is why the Roman Catholic Church generally recognizes baptisms performed my most other Protestant denominations. Exceptions include Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses ( among a very few others) because their concept of the Trinity does not conform to the long standing teaching of the Roman Church. particularly the nature of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You must not know evangelicals very well.

I qualified as one in the past and what he says is true. The apostles creed is kept by them, at least those I knew, and they printed it with a small c for catholic as it means universal.

Which actually is the meaning for Catholics as well when we pray it in the Creed.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I qualified as one in the past and what he says is true. The apostles creed is kept by them, at least those I knew, and they printed it with a small c for catholic as it means universal.

Which actually is the meaning for Catholics as well when we pray it in the Creed.

Traditional Evangelicals will profess the Creed. These are mostly from the mainstream Protestant churches. (Evangelical Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) However, there are large number of Evangelicals who have dispensed with professing any Creedal statements. I know many like this around here. We have had RCIA candidates from these churches who have never heard of the Creeds. These bodies will not profess the Apostle’s Creed, or the Nicene Creed. They seem to want to separate themselves from more traditional and historical forms of Christianity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Traditional Evangelicals will profess the Creed. These are mostly from the mainstream Protestant churches. (Evangelical Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) However, there are large number of Evangelicals who have dispensed with professing any Creedal statements. I know many like this around here. We have had RCIA candidates from these churches who have never heard of the Creeds. These bodies will not profess the Apostle’s Creed, or the Nicene Creed. They seem to want to separate themselves from more traditional and historical forms of Christianity.

So some evangelicals do profess the creeds and do use the word “catholic” so there can be no blanket statement, as was made, that evangelicals do not use this term.

Anyways it stands that the word catholic in the creeds mean universal and not a specific Church (as in Catholic Church). At least that would be the traditional understanding of it as from the Councils where the creeds were created.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I qualified as one in the past and what he says is true. The apostles creed is kept by them, at least those I knew, and they printed it with a small c for catholic as it means universal.

Which actually is the meaning for Catholics as well when we pray it in the Creed.

Yes, the Evangelical churches I’ve grown up in and attend certainly do profess the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

 

[CB_Catholic]

So some evangelicals do profess the creeds and do use the word “catholic” so there can be no blanket statement, as was made, that evangelicals do not use this term.

Anyways it stands that the word catholic in the creeds mean universal and not a specific Church (as in Catholic Church). At least that would be the traditional understanding of it as from the Councils where the creeds were created.

You are correct, there can be no blanket statement.

When I grew up I was taught that the word “catholic” meant the Catholic Church, and I remember it being capitalized. I remember going to my Protestant grandparent’s church and reading the Apostles’s Creed in one of the pew books and noting specifically that the word was not capitalized, and there was a footnote stating that the word catholic did not mean the Catholic Church. That was 40-50 years ago.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that I was taught in error, or else the teaching had changed–I really don’t know which. But the good Sisters impressed upon us that the word “Catholic” meant the Catholic Church, and many still believe that.

 

[mercytruth]

Traditional Evangelicals will profess the Creed. These are mostly from the mainstream Protestant churches. (Evangelical Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) However, there are large number of Evangelicals who have dispensed with professing any Creedal statements. I know many like this around here. We have had RCIA candidates from these churches who have never heard of the Creeds. These bodies will not profess the Apostle’s Creed, or the Nicene Creed. They seem to want to separate themselves from more traditional and historical forms of Christianity.

Carolyn,

What makes a difference for myself with regard to the issue of **one Lord, one faith, one baptism **is to be able to define the one faith in a manner in which we can acknowledge the one baptism of those who are entering the Catholic Church as former Protestants.

Rather than asking the ‘modern day’ Evangelicals whether they confess the Apostle’s Creed, maybe one could ask them statement by statement whether this was their faith as practicing Evangelicals who were baptized as adults. (Infant baptisms seem to fall into another category.)

In other words, those Evangelicals who had been baptized with water and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins.

One could ask such Evangelicals whether they had believed the following:

God the Father Almighty is the Creator of heaven and earth.

Jesus Christ is His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary.

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.

That he descended into sheol, and on the third day rose from the dead.

That he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father, from whence he shall come again to judge.

Do they believe In the Holy Spirit, that the church is universal and not national, in the gathering together as the body of Christ for worship and instruction, in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body’ and eternal life.

It would seem to me if such candidates for entering the Catholic church could answer these questions in the affirmative, then they had a valid baptism, and would not need to be baptized again. Or if they could answer most of these questions in the affirmative, maybe they would be candidates for a conditional baptism. As it stands now, correct matter and form do not measure up to the more complete standards that Bishop Cyprian and the African synod of bishops were so adamant about, and the standards that the Vatican ruled in 2001 with regard to Mormon baptisms.

God’s peace be with you

micah