The (psychotic, apparently) priest holds him at gunpoint and baptizes him anyway. Is he justified? Why or why not?

If the priest threatens someone's life in this scenario, the baptism is invalid even if the threat isn't needed. :good-shot:  This priest is in mortal sin.  So, I guess they're both going to hell. :devil2:

Teresa

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

He believes the Church, he hates his sins, is fully repentent, but at the baptismal font, he gets cold feet; he feels himself to be too addicted to grave sin and he can't bear to be baptized, because he would rather go to hell as a pagan than as an unfaithful Christian.

The (psychotic, apparently) priest holds him at gunpoint and baptizes him anyway.  Is he justified?  Why or why not?

It would be valid sacrament, but not a fruitful one.  It would probably need to be repeated, at least conditionally.

If ones baptism is deemed valid it is a sacrilege to baptize the person again, even conditionally.

Yes, let's start a baptism thread about baptism problems of today.  Catholic Martyr, leave BoD out of this one please!

I don't know why no one except me ever asks this question, but then no one cares much about NFP either:

What about a baptism administered by a Freemason or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ with a seared conscience or formal heretic, or any combination thereof?  What if this infiltrator of the Church uses the right matter and form but intends to take the baptizand down to hell, or at least does not intend to do what the Church does but is thinking that the whole sacrament is a joke?

I was told at CMRI, who I totally mistrust now due to numerous contradictions in their policies and behaviors ( I think the priesthood is dormant, if not dead ) that in such a case God would directly supply the baptism.  Someone made a similar argument on Bellarmine forums and was shot down by John Lane, who said this concept of God "supplying" for an invalid sacrament is not true theology, and indeed, I haven't seen it elsewhere but from CMRI and this one poster.  ( Don't mistake this concept of a "supplied" baptism for baptism of desire, which occurs at the point of death; pipe down CM ).

We all know that a baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is valid.  A Protestant does not see himself as a heretic anyway so when he baptizes he believes he is washing the sins of the baptizand away.  

There is an absolutely remarkable lack of information coming from the Church, though, about an OCCULT HERETIC, an infiltrator, who hates God while professing to be clergy.  Throughout most of the history of the Church such a notion was inconceivable, that someone would go to the trouble of infiltrating the Church, following its rules for the most part, but at the same time steadily undermining it.  

If such an infiltrator is driven by, consumed by hatred of God, as I believe many in the last two-and-a-half or so centuries have been, would the baptism then be valid?  Surely the intention is not there?  Or does the right matter and form lead to the right intention, in the same way that when you say "pink elephant" it is almost impossible not to think of a pink elephant?

Yes, let's start a baptism thread about baptism problems of today.  Catholic Martyr, leave BoD out of this one please!

BoD is the point I was leading into Mike.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Anyone who believes that the person in the above scenario IS justified is clearly and obviously wrong, also according to this decree.  However, if BoD adherents want to say that this decree means that the translation to the state of justification can take place with only one or the other (which is not what the decree says), then they would have to argue that the person described above is truly justified.

I don't know why no one except me ever asks this question, but then no one cares much about NFP either:

What about a baptism administered by a Freemason or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ with a seared conscience or formal heretic, or any combination thereof?  What if this infiltrator of the Church uses the right matter and form but intends to take the baptizand down to hell, or at least does not intend to do what the Church does but is thinking that the whole sacrament is a joke?

This has already been discussed, remember?

St. Thomas speaks of habitual intentions, and Pope Leo XIII says the Church presumes the valid sacrament when the person does what the Church does.

In other words, if a person is baptized by a minister who performed the sacrament correctly, then the minister did what the Church does, and if he did this, he had to intend to at least long enough to actually do it, even if he did so begrudgingly.

God cares about the heart, not the action.

He cares about the action, insomuch as it reflects the heart.

Having the intention to do what the Church does is manifested when one does what the Church does.

The Church baptizes by the minister of the sacrament pouring water on the head of the person being baptized whilst  the minister recites the form of baptism.

If a person baptizes this way he manifests his intention to do what the Church does.

He believes the Church, he hates his sins, is fully repentent, but at the baptismal font, he gets cold feet; he feels himself to be too addicted to grave sin and he can't bear to be baptized, because he would rather go to hell as a pagan than as an unfaithful Christian.

The (psychotic, apparently) priest holds him at gunpoint and baptizes him anyway.  Is he justified?  Why or why not?

will think on this, but in meantime, it better be water ALONE....BoD is the devil, BoB is evillllll........... :devil2:

John Lane, who I've never trusted -- that's right, I don't trust anyone,

then-yawn-why are you even here, interacting with the rest of us??? What a crummy way to live and breathe......