FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: baptism question
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I attended a baptism today at a friend's church (methodist).  I am moderately concerned about the validity of the baptism.  The words used (I may be getting it a little wrong) were, "I baptize you in the name of the Father (first pour of water), by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior (second pour), in the fullness of the Holy Spirit (third pour).  The pastor's sermon was then very heavy in the emphasis of baptism being done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and belief in the trinity being the primary article of faith in the Catholic, Episcopal and Methodist churches.  From the rest of the content of her sermon, it seemed her intent was very much to do what the Church does by baptizing, but the wording itself was questionable.  Is this enough to make the baptism invalid?
And not that I have any reason to doubt any one else's response, but MagisterMusicae, if you read this, I would very much appreciate your take on it.
It doesn't sound to me like she (?) fulfilled Our Lord's command to baptise '(I)n the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost', (My emphasis). It sounds like she was talking about three different 'gods'.
(01-27-2019, 05:09 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't sound to me like she (?) fulfilled Our Lord's command to baptise '(I)n the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost', (My emphasis). It sounds like she was talking about three different 'gods'.

That's why I'm unsure.  She definitely did not say that during the baptism itself, but during her sermon, she iterated that Jesus's command was to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  She explained, as best she could, the oneness of the trinity and that we are not worshiping three separate gods.  I believe she sincerely believed she was following Jesus' command.  I just am unsure if intent alone is sufficient if the wording isn't absolutely accurate.

Edit: Whether she believed she was fulfilling Jesus' command alone is irrelevant. Based on her sermon, I believe her sermon demonstrated she accurately understood Jesus' command, and the necessity of baptizing in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. I think she believed she was fulfilling that command.
Good point. I hope MM sees this and gives his opinion. I assume from the 'she' that it was a Methodist or Episcopalian baptism? If either, she was violating the rules of her Church. I was baptised as a teenager in the Methodist Church and I served countless baptisms in the Episcopal Church, and both Churches' liturgies use Our Lords words verbatim.
It was not a valid formula.

Our Lord gives its clearly : "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

"I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" or the Eastern version "The servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are okay.

While one could say that the Trinity is so expressed in the formula, and the intention was to baptize in the name of the Trinity, the formula does not express that.

Firstly, it's not the Scriptural formula. Funny a Prot would not use what is give us in Scripture!

Secondly, it does not adequately express that Baptism is given in the name of the Divine Second Person. Yes, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but that formula does no so identify him. An Arian could use that forumla, for instance and understand Jesus Christ to be a Creature and not the Second Person of the Trinity.

Thirdly, "the fullness of the Holy Spirit" is a meaningless term in this context. It sounds interesting and seems to mean nothing here. It does not express that Baptism is given in the name of the Holy Spirit, either.

So, my take is it was not a valid Baptism despite the intentions and desires of the minister.

If you want to express concern here, I'd go to the minister herself and ask why she didn't use the formula Jesus gave and explain that for Catholics, the formula she used would not be considered a valid Baptism. You appreciate her zeal in expressing the importance of the Trinity, but you want to make sure that the Baptism is valid for the sake of the person baptized, and suggest she redo it privately to correct the mistake.
Thank you, MM. That was my thought, but I wasn't absolutely sure.
(01-27-2019, 05:40 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Good point. I hope MM sees this and gives his opinion. I assume from the 'she' that it was a Methodist or Episcopalian baptism? If either, she was violating the rules of her Church. I was baptised as a teenager in the Methodist Church and I served countless baptisms in the Episcopal Church, and both Churches' liturgies use Our Lords words verbatim.

Yeah, it was at a UMC church.  Female pastor.  The parents like this church because they had been going to a very progressive, mega-church-like Catholic parish prior to moving to this area.  An inclusive, social justice oriented parish is very important to them.

MM, crap.  My gut told me you were going to tell me that.

So, now my question is, how do I broach this to the parents?  The father was raised in a Baptist missionary family, became mostly agnostic during his early adulthood, and as far as I know, is still basically agnostic, though we never talk about it, so I'm really not sure.  The mother was raised Catholic.  I am godfather to their two eldest children, the oldest three were baptized Catholic and this is baby #4.  The mother has been thinking over the past few years that she does not believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.  Allowance of same-sex marriage is also very important to her and, not as important, prefers that women should be allowed to be ordained.  Beyond that, AFAIK she still believes everything the Catholic Church teaches.  My godchildren are 7 and 5, so I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to be speaking to them directly about the importance of their Catholic baptism and my obligations as their godfather (the younger wouldn't really understand and, while extremely intelligent, I'm not sure how much the elder would understand either).  Also, I'm obviously concerned about the validity of the baptism of the youngest (so I guess EENS is also something they don't believe in, or going UMC would never have been considered).  I know they wouldn't be offended by me bringing it up, but I also don't think they would agree with me, and so probably will do nothing.  Is it more appropriate to wait until their daughter is an adult and bring it up with her directly?
(01-27-2019, 06:16 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-27-2019, 05:40 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Good point. I hope MM sees this and gives his opinion. I assume from the 'she' that it was a Methodist or Episcopalian baptism? If either, she was violating the rules of her Church. I was baptised as a teenager in the Methodist Church and I served countless baptisms in the Episcopal Church, and both Churches' liturgies use Our Lords words verbatim.

Yeah, it was at a UMC church.  Female pastor.  The parents like this church because they had been going to a very progressive, mega-church-like Catholic parish prior to moving to this area.  An inclusive, social justice oriented parish is very important to them.

MM, crap.  My gut told me you were going to tell me that.

So, now my question is, how do I broach this to the parents?  The father was raised in a Baptist missionary family, became mostly agnostic during his early adulthood, and as far as I know, is still basically agnostic, though we never talk about it, so I'm really not sure.  The mother was raised Catholic.  I am godfather to their two eldest children, the oldest three were baptized Catholic and this is baby #4.  The mother has been thinking over the past few years that she does not believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.  Allowance of same-sex marriage is also very important to her and, not as important, prefers that women should be allowed to be ordained.  Beyond that, AFAIK she still believes everything the Catholic Church teaches.  My godchildren are 7 and 5, so I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to be speaking to them directly about the importance of their Catholic baptism and my obligations as their godfather (the younger wouldn't really understand and, while extremely intelligent, I'm not sure how much the elder would understand either).  Also, I'm obviously concerned about the validity of the baptism of the youngest (so I guess EENS is also something they don't believe in, or going UMC would never have been considered).  I know they wouldn't be offended by me bringing it up, but I also don't think they would agree with me, and so probably will do nothing.  Is it more appropriate to wait until their daughter is an adult and bring it up with her directly?

Let’s take step one here and take out that rubbish you have written in your signature.

Then, I’d actually write the parents in the most charitable way possible, explaining to them that having the Sacrament redone in the proper way would be prudent, and explain gently the reason why. An email or a formally written text I think would be sufficient.  Explain to them that you love them and their child, and that you would lay down your life for them.  BUT, you can’t lay down your SOUL for them, because that’s God’s, and doesn’t belong to them.  Then explain to them that in the spirit of obedience and charity that you have to recommend they consider having the child re-baptized.
(01-27-2019, 06:43 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Let’s take step one here and take out that rubbish you have written in your signature.

I still believe everything in my signature line.
Pages: 1 2