FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is my Baptism valid?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I was reading this page on conditional Baptism and it got me thinking about whether mine was valid. 

I was baptized in a non-denominational Evangelical ecclesial community when I was 15. The pastor, a man, baptized me by immersion on the front stage of the building. I think that he said "MYNAME, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and then dunked me by single immersion after the words were pronounced. But the problem is my memory isn't very clear; I'm not certain if that's the way it went. What I mean is I can't remember if it was by triple immersion or single immersion.


Another problem is the misperception of what Baptism is. In the church I was baptized in, Baptism is viewed as totally unnecessary for salvation, and that it's nothing more than a symbol of faith. I believed that at the time I was baptized, so did the man baptizing me, and so did the congregation. Here's a quote from the Baptism page of the church:

Quote:In today’s culture we put stickers of our alma mater on the bumper of our cars, we wear shirts embroidered with the name of our employer, and more to identify us with a larger grouping of people. That’s essentially what baptism meant for people in Jesus’ day. Even though it’s a holdover from a different culture, the church throughout history has considered water baptism as one of two ordinances of the church — the other being communion.

Baptism today is publicly identifying with the person and teaching of Jesus Christ and a welcoming into the local expression of the body of Christ (the church). Jesus himself even signed up to be baptized (Mark 1:9), which is all the more reason to obey and follow his lead.


Key words are that Baptism is mainly a "public identification" of choosing Christ.

So the question comes down to this:


Is my baptism valid based upon the following observations:
- I was baptized by a non-Catholic sect
- The minister and recipient of Baptism had a faulty, heretical understanding of Baptism, possibly impairing the ability "to do what the Church does."
- The Baptismal formula was administered before a single immersion, possibly affecting validity.

Should I talk to my priests about it? I was received, confirmed, and received FHC a few months ago, so I've been receiving the Sacraments while not baptized if that's the case. 
It doesn't matter who baptized you or how many times you were immersed.

In most protestant churches with valid matter and form of baptism it is assumed that the baptism is valid as the mere intention "to baptize" suffices. 

As pope Leo XIII put it...
"The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed." [Apostolicae Curae 33]

It doesn't matter if there was a slight hesitation between immersion and speaking the words as long as the time isn't long enough to completely separate the two. For example if he were to immerse you, take you out of the water and wait five minutes then say the words it would most likely be invalid but if there's only a slight hesitation then its still valid.

You have no reason to worry about the validity of your baptism, this sounds a bit like a particularly nefarious form of scrupulosity. 
I have baptized many people over the years. The only requirements I am aware of are that there be a 'flowing' of water (immersion counts) over the head or forehead (not sprinkling) and the words, "I Baptize you, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" and that the words are said soon as or very soon before or after the 'flowing' of the water. Which is in agreement with what Dominicus posted.
(08-11-2017, 10:16 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't matter who baptized you or how many times you were immersed.

In most protestant churches with valid matter and form of baptism it is assumed that the baptism is valid as the mere intention "to baptize" suffices. 

As pope Leo XIII put it...
"The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed." [Apostolicae Curae 33]

It doesn't matter if there was a slight hesitation between immersion and speaking the words as long as the time isn't long enough to completely separate the two. For example if he were to immerse you, take you out of the water and wait five minutes then say the words it would most likely be invalid but if there's only a slight hesitation then its still valid.

You have no reason to worry about the validity of your baptism, this sounds a bit like a particularly nefarious form of scrupulosity. 

Well, as the site I was talking about said: "Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated."

If American converts were baptized conditionally up until the Second Vatican Council, why should it be any different in my case?
It sounds like your baptism is valid.
I guess my baptism is probably valid; I was just concerned whether the intention sufficed.
Because based on your description the problem is not in the matter, minister, or form so if there is a problem it must be in the intent. As the quote by Pope Leo xiii I posted stated the administering of baptism by a heretic must be assumed to be valid if the proper form and matter are used.

Last time I checked Pope Leo xiii who lived long before Vii has more authority than this website.

There is no reasonable doubt as to the validity of your baptism and so to attempt to rebaptize you would be a grave sacrilege.
Once Baptized is enough. But to Baptize, conditionally ("If you have not been Baptized before, I Baptize...") at the time of death of anyone when you are witnessing their death, is an act of mercy. Being a witness to many a death, put me in that point of opportunity, which I frequently took advantage of. I can only pray that I saved at least one soul from the jaws of hell.

Don't do as a certain disgruntled Anglican priest did, in front of 18 of his followers and perform a 'Baptism' on himself as a first act of establishing the Baptists. Interesting how their very first act as a 'church' was an act of blasphemy!
(08-11-2017, 11:56 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: [ -> ]I guess my baptism is probably valid; I was just concerned whether the intention sufficed.

Even a Jewish rabbi can validly baptize someone if he uses the correct matter and says the words with the intention of doing what the Church does when it baptizes someone.
(08-12-2017, 12:01 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Because based on your description the problem is not in the matter, minister, or form so if there is a problem it must be in the intent. As the quote by Pope Leo xiii I posted stated the administering of baptism by a heretic must be assumed to be valid if the proper form and matter are used.

Last time I checked Pope Leo xiii who lived long before Vii has more authority than this website.

There is no reasonable doubt as to the validity of your baptism and so to attempt to rebaptize you would be a grave sacrilege.

The website is quoting from the Provincial Councils of Baltimore, which were around the time period of Pope Leo XIII.
Pages: 1 2