Hi I wanted to ask about this anonymously.  I was listening to a talk given by a well known traditionalist bishop discussing baptism, who may give it, matter, form, danger of death etc.  Mostly very standard stuff.  But what caught my attention was the discussion about when conditional baptism should be given to people converting from protestantism.  

The reason I ask is I am a convert, first to the Novus Ordo then to tradition.  The NO priest asked me a few questions about my baptism as a protestant child and was satisfied that I was validly baptized.  When I came to tradition I asked the priest and he asked me a few more questions about my baptism and looked at my baptism certificate but was satisfied that I was validly baptized but was concerned about the NO confirmation I received so I was conditionally reconfirmed.  Okay good stuff.  What gave me some concerns about this particular talk was that this Bishop went into quite a bit more detail especially regarding the intention of the particular protestant sect that did the baptism, what do they believe about baptism, the intention of the person being baptized or the parents.  He went on to say, if a convert comes to them seeking to become Catholic they do a very thorough investigation about their baptism and if they are left with any doubts they do a conditional baptism.  The process he briefly described was quite a bit more detailed than anything I received during my conversion and have to admit it does leave me wondering...

The second thing he mentioned was for protestant converts need to say the Profession of Faith or abjuration of heresy and also go to confession and receive an absolution from excommunication (presumably because they professed heresy as adults).  I never did this.  All the NO priest asked was iirc "Do you believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches?" and I answered yes I do, and that was it.  When I came to tradition I asked about this but I was never told that I needed to do something along these lines or receive absolution for excommunication.

Before anyone asks, YES if I have legitimate doubts about any of this, I will absolute seek a second opinion from another fully traditional priest!  

Why I wanted to ask this here before I go bothering busy traditional priests, was to determine if I have cause to be genuinely concerned or is this just being scrupulous on my part?

My thanks in advance for any answers.

OP,

It is good that you want to resolve this.

Because it very much depends on who baptized you (i.e., what protestant group) more information would be needed for a priest to investigate this.

The intent is to do what the Church does.  This is the typical phrase the moral theologians use when referring to the intent.  Now, the catch is that while it is true that a sacrament which occurred with valid matter and form (so water making contact with the skin while the words "I baptize you/the in the name of the Father, [and the] Son and [the] Holy Ghost/Spirit") would have a presumption of proper intent, this is only true when the minister is Catholic.  A Catholic minister is presumed to intend to do what the Church does-- a non-Catholic minister is not.  This is why the Church investigates convert baptisms, because the intention cannot be presumed, at least, not as a blanket statement of all protestant faiths.  In the case of more conservative protestants (e.g. Augsburg Lutherans) it is at least more probable but still not presumed.  Do you know if the minister who administered baptism to you is still living?  The best thing to do (and you can even do this yourself) would be to contact him.  What the minister actually believes about baptism isn't actually the issue, as the Church teaches that even heretics can baptize validly.  It's what he is intending to do by pouring the water and saying those words.  Does he intend to perform a rite instituted by Christ at Christ's command?  Even if his understanding of the effects of the right is erroneous, he can still intend to perform a sacred rite as Christ did.

As far as absolution from any reserved sins, traditional priests don't have the faculties to absolve them in the first place, but the necessary jurisdiction is supplied to them so you don't have to worry about that.

If you're comfortable, you can send me a PM.

The second thing he mentioned was for protestant converts need to say the Profession of Faith or abjuration of heresy and also go to confession and receive an absolution from excommunication (presumably because they professed heresy as adults).  I never did this.  All the NO priest asked was iirc "Do you believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches?" and I answered yes I do, and that was it.  When I came to tradition I asked about this but I was never told that I needed to do something along these lines or receive absolution for excommunication.

Someone I know just converted from Baptist- I was curious about the absolution the priest granted after his abjuration of error- is this why? I wondered about absolution before 1st confession, but he didn't receive that till after the abjuration of errors and conditional baptism.

As long as the water was poured on you (or you were dunked) while the correct words were said, your baptism was valid. This is all that is necessary to constitute a valid baptism from heretics or those otherwise outside the Church who could in no way have the proper intentions. So if the water was poured while the words were spoken, you have no worries.

 

As long as the water was poured on you (or you were dunked) while the correct words were said, your baptism was valid. This is all that is necessary to constitute a valid baptism from heretics or those otherwise outside the Church who could in no way have the proper intentions. So if the water was poured while the words were spoken, you have no worries.

Intention is still necessary.  Sacramental validity always requires intention.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Stubborn

As long as the water was poured on you (or you were dunked) while the correct words were said, your baptism was valid. This is all that is necessary to constitute a valid baptism from heretics or those otherwise outside the Church who could in no way have the proper intentions. So if the water was poured while the words were spoken, you have no worries.

Intention is still necessary.  Sacramental validity always requires intention.

Heretics cannot ever be expected to have the proper intention because they are, after all, heretics - but if you think they can have the proper intention, then explain how.

Quote

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

The Church doth pour water and speak the words - when it comes to heretics, that is all that is required - whoever says otherwise is anathema.

The Church defends the sacrament by first always presuming it valid - even if administered by a heretic unless proven otherwise.


Stubborn

 :confused1:

 


You just quoted your answer.

You do realize what you quoted you then immediately contradicted?

From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really "intends to perform what the Church performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the United States, see the First Council of Baltimore.) If it be uncertain whether the convert's baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: "If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name", etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

In modern times, this is where BOD could apply.  Instances where someone converted to the faith and had an SSPX priest accept their non-Catholic baptism at face value, when it was in fact invalid.  Person lives their entire life as a practicing Catholic, but not actually baptized.  I'm sure it's already happened, and I'm sure it will continue to happen.

OP here, this is why I am checking into this.  If there is any reasonable doubt, I want to make sure I am baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church !!

Quote from: Guest

In modern times, this is where BOD could apply.  Instances where someone converted to the faith and had an SSPX priest accept their non-Catholic baptism at face value, when it was in fact invalid.  Person lives their entire life as a practicing Catholic, but not actually baptized.  I'm sure it's already happened, and I'm sure it will continue to happen.

OP here, this is why I am checking into this.  If there is any reasonable doubt, I want to make sure I am baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church !!

Certainly check into it and if you remain certainly doubtful, seek conditional baptism! They are probably out there, but I've never heard of any trad priest who would refuse anyone conditional baptism after some investigation on their part, especially these days.