Author Topic: I am being conditionally baptized on Sunday (Read 5531 times)

Graham · « **on:** June 07, 2012, 03:39:16 PM »

As a former Anglican (and then briefly a NO Catholic), an SSPX priest determined a few months ago that I should officially abjure my old heretical beliefs. Which I’m only too eager to do. Then recently it was determined that I should also be conditionally baptised, because although the Anglicans use the trinitarian form, they can’t be certain that the rite was done properly.

It has crossed my mind a few times that perhaps my baptism wasn’t valid, and naturally it’s far better to be safe than sorry about it. But I can’t help feeling despondent and embarrassed about having to be conditionally baptised. Here I am having gone to confession and communion regularly for over a year, thinking I was a baptized Christian and a full Catholic. :sad: The good part is that now there will be absolutely no doubts and I'll be baptised by a traditional priest whom I respect in a beautiful old chapel.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Graham

As a former Anglican (and then briefly a NO Catholic), an SSPX priest determined a few months ago that I should officially abjure my old heretical beliefs. Which I’m only too eager to do. Then recently it was determined that I should also be conditionally baptised, because although the Anglicans use the trinitarian form, they can’t be certain that the rite was done properly.

It has crossed my mind a few times that perhaps my baptism wasn’t valid, and naturally it’s far better to be safe than sorry about it. But I can’t help feeling despondent and embarrassed about having to be conditionally baptised. Here I am having gone to confession and communion regularly for over a year, thinking I was a baptized Christian and a full Catholic. :sad: The good part is that now there will be absolutely no doubts and I'll be baptised by a traditional priest whom I respect in a beautiful old chapel.

Congratulations. There is nothing to be embarrassed about. There is a possibility that your Baptism was Valid - but the SSPX is being prudent to ensure that it is. We can only recieve Baptism once in our lifetimes - so either the original Baptism was good and you already have that Indelible mark on your soul and you are already a member of Christs Mystical Body or will be shortly. Rejoice and dont be embarrassed!

Pax

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:11:20 PM »

I was taught that as long as the trinitarian formula is used and the person has the intent to baptize, the baptism is valid. Even in emergencies a lay person can perform a baptism and the Church accepts it. It doesn't matter if the person was baptized as a Protestant. That is why the Church doesn't routinely re-baptize Protestants but accepts their baptisms as completely valid. The only time the Church performs a conditional baptism is when no record of baptism can be located or the person belonged to a questionable sect.

Caraffa · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:39:37 PM »

Graham, if you are going to be conditionally baptized, won't they have to conditionally confirm you as well?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:40:19 PM »

This is another reason why Baptism of Desire is a necessary doctrine.

If it is possible for a malignant priest to invalidate a Baptism by internally refusing to intend to Baptize, it would make God's Judgement capricious.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:45:35 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

This is another reason why Baptism of Desire is a necessary doctrine.

If it is possible for a malignant priest to invalidate a Baptism by internally refusing to intend to Baptize, it would make God's Judgement capricious.

So true, and I wonder what these souls who deny the teaching of baptism of desire would think of one of these enemy, freemasonic priest baptised them and witheld the intention, I can just picture it. Standing before God, and God says, your not even water baptised.

It is fearful to imagine. Yet this is what they believe.

Graham · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2012, 09:57:53 PM »

Quote from: Malleus 01

Quote from: Graham
As a former Anglican (and then briefly a NO Catholic), an SSPX priest determined a few months ago that I should officially abjure my old heretical beliefs. Which I’m only too eager to do. Then recently it was determined that I should also be conditionally baptised, because although the Anglicans use the trinitarian form, they can’t be certain that the rite was done properly.

It has crossed my mind a few times that perhaps my baptism wasn’t valid, and naturally it’s far better to be safe than sorry about it. But I can’t help feeling despondent and embarrassed about having to be conditionally baptised. Here I am having gone to confession and communion regularly for over a year, thinking I was a baptized Christian and a full Catholic. :sad: The good part is that now there will be absolutely no doubts and I'll be baptised by a traditional priest whom I respect in a beautiful old chapel.

Congratulations. There is nothing to be embarrassed about. There is a possibility that your Baptism was Valid - but the SSPX is being prudent to ensure that it is. We can only recieve Baptism once in our lifetimes - so either the original Baptism was good and you already have that Indelible mark on your soul and you are already a member of Christs Mystical Body or will be shortly. Rejoice and dont be embarrassed!

Pax

Your post is heartening - thank you.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2012, 10:05:45 PM »

Congrats, Graham. As others have said, nothing to be embarassed about, the SSPX is just ensuring that your Baptism is valid.

God Bless.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2012, 10:21:28 PM »

Dear Graham,

God Bless you, Graham.

Sunday will be a wonderful day for you.

Do not feel embarrassed. Any negative feelings are possibly just put into you by the devil.

Enjoy your special day.

I am happy for you.

God Bless you, Graham.

Sigismund · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2012, 10:27:43 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

This is another reason why Baptism of Desire is a necessary doctrine.

If it is possible for a malignant priest to invalidate a Baptism by internally refusing to intend to Baptize, it would make God's Judgement capricious.

I never thought of that. Good point.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2012, 10:39:10 PM »

If anyone is uncertain about the validity of their Baptism,

then it is vital and urgent that they are conditionally Baptized.

If it is possible that you, or someone you know, might not be validly Baptized, then arrange a conditional Baptism.

It could mean the difference between either an eternity of happiness in Heaven, or the loss of that eternity of happiness in Heaven.

You do not want to risk losing your happiness in Heaven.

If it is lost and you die in that state, it is lost forever.

That dread and chilling word - forever.

Get yourself and your loved ones Baptized. Save your soul and theirs.

TraditionalistThomas · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2012, 10:51:44 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

This is another reason why Baptism of Desire is a necessary doctrine.

If it is possible for a malignant priest to invalidate a Baptism by internally refusing to intend to Baptize, it would make God's Judgement capricious.

Not to mention:

A) No one would ever trust their infant baptism was valid, it would be too risky. You would want to see it and hear it done properly.

B) The scrupulous would probably get conditionally baptised 15 times throughout their lives.

Caraffa · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2012, 01:57:02 AM »

Here is the Holy Office response on the validity of Protestant-Methodist baptisms in Central Oceania from 1872:

*Note, densum should be derisum.

Translation:

In certain places some of them (heretics) baptize with the proper matter and form applied simultaneously, but expressly warn the baptized they should not think the Baptism to have any effect on the soul; for they say that it is merely the external sign of uniting to their sect. So they often turn and laughed at Catholics about their belief in the effects of baptism, which they even call superstition. It is asked:

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

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

Reply to the first question: In the negative, because in spite of the error in regard to the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded.

To the second question: The answer has been provided in the first.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2012, 08:46:22 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

This is another reason why Baptism of Desire is a necessary doctrine.

If it is possible for a malignant priest to invalidate a Baptism by internally refusing to intend to Baptize, it would make God's Judgement capricious.

Well said - Great point. There are so many ramifications when Catholic doctrine is willy nilly abandoned by groups of idealogues without forethought.

Pax

Graham · « **Reply #14 on:** July 17, 2012, 05:07:06 PM »

Here are a few photos from my conditional baptism.

First my abjuration where I formally renounced my past heresy and affirmed my ardent wish to be Catholic.

Now after the conditional baptism I am consecrating myself to the Virgin Mary.

This is me at what is perhaps my first communion:

Here I am with my pious and very affable and conditional godfather, Mssr. Mathieu.