Author Topic: Protestant Baptism (Read 2559 times)

InfiniteFaith · « **on:** March 06, 2013, 02:35:07 AM »

Does the SSPX consider protestant Baptism to be valid?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2013, 06:47:11 AM »

From what I have heard explained, they like to expect that it is, however,
they have a set of questions that they ask to fill in the blanks.

Some of the problems associated with Protestant baptism are:

The minister had no intention of doing what the Church teaches, but only giving
the recipient a kind of initiation or membership in the particular congregation
that he represents, like paying dues for a club and getting on the roll call.

The words used may not have been proper words but something more
"interesting" like I baptize you in the persons of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Sanctifier.

The water may not have been placed on the skin of the forehead but only on
the hair. It may not have been an amount sufficient to run across the skin.

Perhaps the recipient was old enough to know, and did not want to be
baptized.

In such cases, a conditional re-baptism could be arranged, to remove any doubt.

jen51 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2013, 06:51:04 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

From what I have heard explained, they like to expect that it is, however,
they have a set of questions that they ask to fill in the blanks.

Some of the problems associated with Protestant baptism are:

The minister had no intention of doing what the Church teaches, but only giving
the recipient a kind of initiation or membership in the particular congregation
that he represents, like paying dues for a club and getting on the roll call.

The words used may not have been proper words but something more
"interesting" like I baptize you in the persons of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Sanctifier.

The water may not have been placed on the skin of the forehead but only on
the hair. It may not have been an amount sufficient to run across the skin.

Perhaps the recipient was old enough to know, and did not want to be
baptized.

In such cases, a conditional re-baptism could be arranged, to remove any doubt.

This is basically what my priest told me when I converted. I opted for the conditional baptism without hesitation.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2013, 08:14:29 AM »

I agree with the above post, the baptism is valid if done properly. Interestingly to my is when a Protestant baptism is properly fulfilled the baptism is a Catholic baptism, because there is only one baptism, one sacrament of baptism, not a variety of the sacrament.

For example if a baby is baptised properly within a man made religion, and dies, the child dies a Catholic, no matter what the parents say.

songbird · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2013, 10:24:33 AM »

If I was going from one sect to a true religion, I would want that baptism and Catholic baptism is to remove original sin and the true baptism includes exorcism and such. Other sects may not include or see it this way. For many it is their "intentions" to bring in a new member, initiation.

Nishant · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2013, 12:00:04 PM »

As Neil said, if form, matter and intention are present, all else apart, the sacrament is valid. If any is missing, the sacrament is not. Finally, if there are grounds for positive doubt as to whether there was the requisite intention, a conditional baptism is in order.

kaylaVeronica · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2013, 12:12:39 PM »

I was received into the Church through the diocese in the traditional rite, so I don’t know about the SSPX but I was not given a conditional baptism because I contacted the Lutheran church that I was baptized at and they sent me a letter confirming that I was baptized with water “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” so it was ruled a valid Baptism. The intention of the minister does not change the validity of the Sacrament if it is administered properly.

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2013, 12:26:00 PM »

I agree with Veronica.

The Holy Office has even gone further in the past. A response to a similar question in 1872 on baptism by heretics.

Quote

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?

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?

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.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #8 on:** March 06, 2013, 01:18:14 PM »

Perfect. We are moving right along. So basically there is doubt to whether or not a Protestant and Novus Ordo Baptism is valid because it may not be being performed properly and does not include the exorcism portion.

Now, with that being said, given that a Protestant/Novus Ordo Baptism is done in the name of the Trinity...does they receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit even though the exorcism is not performed. Also, what is the earliest record that you (SSPX) have stating that the exorcism must be done in order for the Baptism to be valid?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2013, 02:10:42 PM »

Exorcism is not necessary, but it is wonderful surely and extra plus to have during a Catholic baptism.

I don't think SSPX says exorcism is necessary. When my husband converted from Protestism to Catholic, he was re-baptised because during his Protestant baptism he was only sprinkled with water and did not have the water poured.

I heard of a novus ordo baptism in which, the child was baptised in the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2013, 05:43:17 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Exorcism is not necessary, but it is wonderful surely and extra plus to have during a Catholic baptism.

I don't think SSPX says exorcism is necessary. When my husband converted from Protestism to Catholic, he was re-baptised because during his Protestant baptism he was only sprinkled with water and did not have the water poured.

I heard of a novus ordo baptism in which, the child was baptised in the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

So the reason why a Novus Ordo/Protestant Baptism is in question is because the person may not have been fully submersed or had water poured on them?

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2013, 06:38:05 PM »

There was a time when it could be assumed that mainstream Protestant baptisms were valid. I am not sure we can anymore though.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2013, 07:53:08 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

There was a time when it could be assumed that mainstream Protestant baptisms were valid. I am not sure we can anymore though.

What changed? Just how some protestants only baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? I would agree that those types of Baptisms are invalid or at least might be. It seems that if the Baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it would be valid. Regardless of whether it is done by a SSPXer, Novus Ordo, or even protestant.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2013, 09:29:23 PM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: MyrnaM
Exorcism is not necessary, but it is wonderful surely and extra plus to have during a Catholic baptism.

I don't think SSPX says exorcism is necessary. When my husband converted from Protestism to Catholic, he was re-baptised because during his Protestant baptism he was only sprinkled with water and did not have the water poured.

I heard of a novus ordo baptism in which, the child was baptised in the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

So the reason why a Novus Ordo/Protestant Baptism is in question is because the person may not have been fully submersed or had water poured on them?

Not only does the water have to be poured over the person, it must be poured or flowing over WHILE saying the words, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it would be invalid if it was poured, and after the water stopped flowing the words would be said, or if the words were said and then the water poured. It must be poured WHILE THE PROPER WORDS ARE SAID. That is the way I learned my catechism some 60 years ago.

This is my question: True story: A few years ago, I know of a young man, who was brain dead from a head injury, he was being kept alive, according to his family he was never baptised. I asked if someone would go and baptise him and I was informed that his head was all bandaged and no one could get the water to flow over his head. They tried but since I wasn't there I don't know exactly what they did.

Sigismund · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2013, 09:41:11 PM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: Sigismund
There was a time when it could be assumed that mainstream Protestant baptisms were valid. I am not sure we can anymore though.

What changed? Just how some protestants only baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? I would agree that those types of Baptisms are invalid or at least might be. It seems that if the Baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it would be valid. Regardless of whether it is done by a SSPXer, Novus Ordo, or even protestant.

It would be. However, an increasing number of liberal Protestants do not use the correct form. They use things like, "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier" or worse "In the name of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit".

This is unlikely among Lutherans or Anglicans.

Most Protestant baptisms use the correct formula. I am just not sure that we can confidently assume this any more.