Not a single person in the history of mankind  that was predestined by God to be baptized, ever was not validly baptized.

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘ they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

God does not need to bring anyone back from the dead to baptize them, he has all the time in the world to do it anytime He wishes for everyone. Yet, there are 1000's of examples of people brought back from the dead, just to be baptized. Why would God show us that, except to teach us "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"? Here's one example, of a person that everyone including herself, thought was baptized.

From : Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, by Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.:

"The affair of the slave Augustina, who served in the house of Captain Vincente de Villalobos, was one of the strangest in the life of Claver...When Augustina was in her last agony Villalobos went in search of Claver. When the latter arrived the body was already being prepared for the shroud and he found it cold to the touch. His expression suddenly changed and he amazed everyone by crying aloud, "Augustina, Augustina." He sprinkled her with holy water, he knelt by her, and prayed for an hour. Suddenly the supposedly dead woman began to move...All fell on their knees. Augustina stared at Claver, and as if awakening from a deep sleep said, "Jesus, Jesus, how tired I am!" Claver told her to pray with all her heart and repent her sins, but those standing by, moved by curiosity, begged him to ask her where she came from. He did so, and she said these words: "I am come from journeying along a long road. It was a beautiful road, and after I had gone a long way down it I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said, 'Stop, you cannot go further.' I asked him what I should do, and he replied, 'Go back the way you have come, to the house you have left.' This I have done, but I cannot tell how." On hearing this Claver told them all to leave the room and leave him alone with her because he wished to hear her confession. He prepared her and told her that complete confession of her sins was of immense importance if she wanted to enter that paradise of which she had had a glimpse. She obeyed him, and as he heard her confession it became clear to Claver that she was not baptized. He straightway ordered water to be brought, and a candle and a crucifix. Her owners answered that they had had Augustina in their house for twenty years and that she behaved in all things like themselves. She had gone to confession, to Mass, and performed all her Christian duties, and therefore she did not need Baptism, nor could she receive it. But Claver was certain that they were wrong and insisted, baptizing her in the presence of all, to the great delight of her soul and his, for a few minutes after she had received the sacraments she died in the presence of the whole family."  

22 Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.

+JMJ+

Quote from: StCeceliasGirl

Knock on any parish door, even Protestant, and there you go: Baptised.

I saw this posted in another thread and wanted to ask about it, but didn't want to derail (my own) thread.

What if someone needs to be baptized? We know that three things must pertain:

Proper FORM (I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; Amen.)

Proper matter (true and natural water, preferably LIVING [that is, river, stream, lake, ocean, etc], but ANY water will do so long as it is not mixed with anything)

and here's the big question: PROPER INTENT.

PROPER INTENT means that the person performing the baptism INTENDS TO DO WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INTENDS TO DO WHEN SHE BAPTIZES SOMEONE. That is, they must have the INTENT that the baptism IS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, REMOVES ORIGINAL SIN AND INCORPORATES THE RECIPIENT INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Who besides Catholics and MAYBE the Eastern schismatics, would have that intent? Anglicans?

I've never really understood how some people could simply assume that a Protestant could validly baptize someone when I've NEVER met a Protestant who had a salvific/sacramental view of baptism.

St. John the Baptizer, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Look it up instead of guessing or listening to some response from a stranger on the Internet.

I keep having to explain this.

The man that baptized me was ANTI-CATHOLIC to the CORE. He would NEVER have intended that baptism remitted sin or made one a member of the Body of Christ.

I'm totally serious and I KNOW what his intent was. I was able to hear him preach his rabidly fundamentalist doctrines for nearly 20 years.

He would NEVER, EVER have imagined that his intent was that of Holy Church. He insisted that baptism was a sign, a public profession, but was in NO WAY AT ALL NECESSARY to justification or salvation. AT ALL.

Is my issue any clearer now?

PROPER INTENT means that the person performing the baptism INTENDS TO DO WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INTENDS TO DO WHEN SHE BAPTIZES SOMEONE. That is, they must have the INTENT that the baptism IS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, REMOVES ORIGINAL SIN AND INCORPORATES THE RECIPIENT INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

No, this is not correct. It suffices that the minister intend to do what the Church does. That is why even a woman, or for that matter, a Jєω or a pagan can baptize validly in case of necessity. This is the teaching of all theologians and is confirmed by many official decrees and acts of the Holy See. A response to a case almost identical, from the Holy Office in 1872,

1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics [Methodists] is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptised that baptism had no effect on the soul?

2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?

To these the Sacred Congregation replied:

Reply to the first question: in the negative, because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. The second question: provided for in the answer to the first.

FWIW, if you can find a NO priest ordained the old way, even he can administer the sacrament the old way and you will be fine.

While I disagree with your conviction because in this case it is certainly misplaced, I certainly agree with your concern, but when it comes to the sacrament of baptism, it is not about the minister, it's about you needing the sacrament.  

Quote from: Stubborn

Other than that, the Church has always and everywhere presumed validity of prot baptisms unless proven otherwise - you sound positive that yours was invalid, so to remedy this, you need to be conditionally baptized - so do it.

This is not correct.

Protestant baptisms are not presumed valid, even when we know a sect officially uses the Catholic rite. We start with doubt and investigate. If positive evidence does not remove the doubt, the convert is conditionally baptized.

If one is certain of invalidity, then one is simply baptized, without any condition.

That's not so. Pretty much all Christian baptisms are presumed valid unless proven otherwise - this is why all "christian" marriages are presumed valid *and* sacramental marriages.

It has always been that way.

When there is doubtful validity, then a conditional baptism is administered - if there is proof positive that the baptism was invalid, then the person must be baptized - not actually re-baptized since the first one never happened.    

To put my quote in context, I said that a theoretical un-Baptised person who is now seeking Baptism can't fall back on BOD (never get Baptised), as the un-Baptised person could ask any Baptised person, or knock on some Prot parish doors, and ask for Baptism. The point being, who could have an excuse to NOT be Baptised if they so desire it? BOD shouldn't even be an issue in this day; at least not until it becomes illegal to be a Catholic.

I'd humbly suggest that your Baptism is a matter for the priest who Confirmed/received you. (If indeed you're in a parish, which I assume you are.) It's pretty hard to screw up a Baptism. Splash, the words are said, done. Look at the OCE indeed, but also note that even heretics could Baptise people if the right form and matter were used (and how could the intent be mistaken? They're not trying to give you a bath.)

But mostly, if you've already been received into the Church, and especially if you recall some water and the words being used (unlike most of us who take it on faith), I'm not sure it's good to question whoever received you into the Church. Priests really do research the cases for converts, and if there's question they do a conditional Baptism privately. You want to be careful to not appear to be calling the Church into question; we're given to put our trust in someone, after all, and not need to witness our own Baptisms, or question the soul of whoever Baptised you.

Still, if it concerns you greatly, tell your priest so he can put you at ease.