Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ServantOfTheAlmighty on October 12, 2011, 05:09:45 PM
-
A priest ordained in the New Rite of Ordination used the New Rite of Baptism on me when I want an infant.
I'm not sure if I'm baptised validly.
Within the next few months, I'm going to go to an Ignation Retreat with the SSPX. Should I get conditional baptised before then?
-
I have the same question. I would like it done as well. I was baptized in the 1980's and I have always had doubts.
-
You need a priest to guide you, not the internet. Got talk to your priest about such issues.
-
According to the Church, as long as the correct words (I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) and matter (water) were used, you were baptized. The only exception that I know of would be being baptized by a Mormon since they don't have a true trinitarian theology.
Even if you were baptized in a Protestant church the Catholic Church has never required that you get re-baptized.
-
Baltimore Catechism 3
Q. 633. Who can administer Baptism?
A. A priest is the ordinary minister of baptism; but in case of necessity anyone who has the use of reason may baptize.
I think this includes schismatics and heretics believe it or not.
-
It does but the intent to baptize with trinitarian beliefs still has to be there. Mormon baptisms have always been rejected by even NO Catholics because they don't believe in the Trinity.
-
The NO has all sorts of contradictions.
If a pagan who doesn't believe in anything can validly baptize someone in an emergency, as I believe they can, why wouldn't a Mormon be able to?
But I think a traditional priest may conditionally baptize someone who has an at-home baptism of this sort. Just to make sure. But my understanding is that, for the baptism to be valid, you just have to have matter, form and the intention to do what the Church does.
-
OK< but here's a sticky point: WHO, of the heretical and schismatic sects, really INTENDS to do what the Church does in Baptism, which is not only to remove the stain of original sin and, in the case of people above the age of reason, any actual sins, but is ALSO to make the person a MEMBER OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Sure, the Lutherans think that Baptism makes a person a member of 'the church', whatever that means in their vague ecclesiology, but who of these people actually intends to make a person CATHOLIC by their baptism?
I think this is another case in which the language of Canon Law assumes that the person DOING the baptizing IS a Catholic, just not a priest. Even my wife, who was raised NO to the core, was taught by her parish priests and sisters that it was CATHOLIC laypeople who could baptize in an emergency; they never said anything about non-Catholics, because I am sure they didn't assume that a non-Catholic was possessed of the right intent.
I would assume that Lutherans at LEAST believe in BAPTISM of infants and that baptism is a sacrament, rather than a 'dedication' and an 'ordinance', but I am still not convinced that the wording of the rule concedes proper intent in a non-Catholic's effort to baptize.
St. John, baptizer of the repentant, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
When we say baptize with "water" what does "water" mean? Holy water specifically or just any type of H20?
Like I said I was baptized NO, but I really want to get re-baptized because I don't trust those people.
Im thinking about just having my younger brother baptize me tonight over bathtub with tap water. Is that acceptable?
-
When we say baptize with "water" what does "water" mean? Holy water specifically or just any type of H20?
Like I said I was baptized NO, but I really want to get re-baptized because I don't trust those people.
Im thinking about just having my younger brother baptize me tonight over bathtub with tap water. Is that acceptable?
Any water, not necessarily blessed holy water.
You need a priest. Really.
-
CANON IV If anyone says that baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema.
-
When we say baptize with "water" what does "water" mean? Holy water specifically or just any type of H20?
Like I said I was baptized NO, but I really want to get re-baptized because I don't trust those people.
Im thinking about just having my younger brother baptize me tonight over bathtub with tap water. Is that acceptable?
Unless you are dying you will be sinning gravely.
-
Edit- Doh! I just exercised. My brain is working slowly! lol
-
Im thinking about just having my younger brother baptize me tonight over bathtub with tap water. Is that acceptable?
Did you say you want to start your own website to proselytize?
-
CANON IX.-If anyone says that in three sacrements, namely, baptism, confirmation, and holy orders, a character is not imprinted on the soul- that is, a kind of indelible spiritual sign whereby these sacraments cannot be repeated: let him be anathema.
Note, in a conditional baptism, holy orders or confirmation they explitly state that if the person already has the sacrament that they are doing nothing, and only if the person is not in possesion of same then they ARE putting the mark on them.
Talk to your Priest, if you have a valid reason for doubting your baptism they will conditionally baptise you. Any Priest can do so. Holy Orders and Confirmation need a Bishop.
-
I learned that when performing a baptism that you are not to say 'amen' at the end. So you would say, " I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (period)
-
OK< but here's a sticky point: WHO, of the heretical and schismatic sects, really INTENDS to do what the Church does in Baptism...
Anyone who uses the form intends to do what the form expresses. He proves his intent simply by using the form. All other talk is uninformed nonsense, usually proffered by overzealous people who know less than zero about sacramental theology.
I think this is another case in which the language of Canon Law assumes that the person DOING the baptizing IS a Catholic, just not a priest.
No one cares what your interpretation is, especially because it is completely wrong. Have you studied or been instructed in canon law? Can you even conjugate one Latin verb? Even an atheist can validly baptize someone. That is what the Church teaches...end of story.
s2s is correct when he advises the OP to ask his priest about this matter.
-
@Lordphan:
Again, those 'heretics' are the Anglicans or Lutherans who believe in the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, are they not? We're certainly not talking about the nice folks down at "Mt. Zion Church of the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church of the Church of the Spirit of the Church", are we??
I understand the Canon law's wording now, thank you; I was confusing what I read in Canon law with what I read in a Catechism some years ago.
Really, though... aside from those mentioned above, can anyone safely say who intends to DO what the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES? Is that 'intent' just an intent to remit sins, or does it necessarily extend to MEMBERSHIP in the CATHOLIC CHURCH?
Not arguing, just trying to understand from people who are smarter than I am.
St. Francis of Assisi, lover of humility, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
While Gladius should not have worded his post the way he did, he is correct, the External is used to determine the intent. "What If's" are negative doubt, and are not to be used.
-
OK< but here's a sticky point: WHO, of the heretical and schismatic sects, really INTENDS to do what the Church does in Baptism, which is not only to remove the stain of original sin and, in the case of people above the age of reason, any actual sins, but is ALSO to make the person a MEMBER OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Sure, the Lutherans think that Baptism makes a person a member of 'the church', whatever that means in their vague ecclesiology, but who of these people actually intends to make a person CATHOLIC by their baptism?
As long as one has the intention to do what the Church does, even if one is mistaken about what the Church does, the sacrament is valid. The Church has always taught that heretics and schismatics baptize validly (assuming that their heresy does not touch upon the Trinity itself as is the case with Mormons -- but then Mormons aren't really heretics since they aren't Christians).
Here is Card. Billot on the topic (scroll down):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/INTENTIO.TXT
The intention of doing what the Church does, whatever that may be in the opinion of him who administers the sacrament, is said to be required. Thus St. Thomas: "Although he who does not believe that baptism is a sacrament, or does not believe that it has any spiritual power, does not intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless he intends to do what the Church does, even if he counts that as nothing; and because the Church intends to do something, therefore, as a consequence of this, he intends implicitly to do something, though not explicitly."[1] But it is not necessary that the minister think as the Church does, or that he not err concerning her teaching; for it is enough if his intention is towards something which is identically that which the Church intends, or, something which amounts to the same thing, for example, if he intends to do that which Christ instituted, or which is commanded in the Gospel, or which Christians are accustomed to do according to the prescription of their religion. (Thus it is apparent how even a Jєω or a pagan can have an intention sufficient for baptizing. Consider for example a catechumen placed in a moment of necessity, who asks a pagan saying, "Do for me, I entreat you, this mercy, that you pour water on me, pronouncing the words, 'I baptize you,' etc., with the intention of doing what I myself intend to receive according to the prescription of the law of Christians.)
Hope this helps.
-
Really, though... aside from those mentioned above, can anyone safely say who intends to DO what the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES? Is that 'intent' just an intent to remit sins, or does it necessarily extend to MEMBERSHIP in the CATHOLIC CHURCH?
The intention is to do what the Church does. The intention is not (necessarily) to explicitly intend all that which the Church intends.
People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament (the point applies equally to minister and subject). The "implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted" means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it -- unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when every one was talking about Anglican orders numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is (this was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I 254-257 protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical, and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.
Ref: Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Greek Fathers, pp. 94-95, footnote 2 (related to a discussion of how St. Gregory nαzιanzen was made a priest by force).
So unless one is deliberately excluding doing what the Church does (as is the case with the Mormons with their defective theology of the Trinity), one does have the proper intention and baptizes validly.
-
Ask those who were there with you when you were baptized (i.e., parents and godparents) and ask them what, precisely, the priest said and did when he baptized you.
If he used the words, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)" and poured water over your forhead, then you are really and truly baptized and you need have no fear of an invalid baptism.
The only exception may be if you know the priest who actually baptized you and you have heard him preach against the Trinity.
If he used any other words (for example, "Ta-Da!", or "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier", or even "By this ceremony I welcome you as a member of the Church", etc.) then be baptized by a valid traditional priest.
-
Ask those who were there with you when you were baptized (i.e., parents and godparents) and ask them what, precisely, the priest said and did when he baptized you.
If he used the words, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)" and poured water over your forhead, then you are really and truly baptized and you need have no fear of an invalid baptism.
They don't/won't remember.
-
Ask those who were there with you when you were baptized (i.e., parents and godparents) and ask them what, precisely, the priest said and did when he baptized you.
If he used the words, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)" and poured water over your forhead, then you are really and truly baptized and you need have no fear of an invalid baptism.
They don't/won't remember.
Not necessarily. I was not a traditional Catholic when any of my children were baptized. In fact, I only had a vague understanding that there were some "crazy" people out there that set up their own churches out there and we needed to stay as far away from them as possible--boy was I uninformed.
But I had heard some horror stories about priests who did some crazy things when baptizing babies and listened very carefully to the priest as he said the form of the sacrament. I can tell you that I absolutely DO remember what the priest said.
Might they "refuse" to remember? I think a lot depends upon how it is asked. Perhaps if it asked in an accusing manner, they may not. If it is brought up in a conversation about sacraments and asked to describe the infant baptism, they would probably describe it accurately.
-
If someone doesn't remember, that would tell me that nothing weird happened. In any case, you should talk to a priest as this isn't going to get sorted out on-line. Talk to a priest and follow his judgment.