Valid Baptism

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jan 13 2005, 10:52 PM'] Dude, their baptism is valid, because it was a show of their faith, which both symbolically and actually brought you into the community in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. They still intend the same thing that the Church does, even if they misunderstand it...as far as I understand it. [/quote]
Actually in truth according to Aquinas, all baptisms by Christians are valid regardless of theology or sinfulness. They are not always licit and should not be performed on someone who obstinately chooses to reject Church teaching or willfully remain in grace sin. But they are valid. They impart the character but not the sanctifying grace. One recieves the grace when one goes to confession and repents in this case.

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (63, 6; 66, 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from Rm. 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.

Objection 4. Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the II-II, 10, 3]. But those who remain in sin should not be baptized: therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.



Reply to Objection 4. Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred on a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither should it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though not unto salvation.


By the way I am taking Aquinas words as authoritative because there is an Encylclical by Leo XII saying how all of his teachings are authentic Church doctrine.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

By the way I am taking Aquinas words as authoritative because there is an Encylclical that I read recently by Leo XII saying how all of his teachings are authentic Church doctrine.
This in the 1800, long after Aquinas was gone.


"Leo met the intellectual attack on Christianity by advancing Thomism, with its insistence that there can be no conflict between science and faith; to this end he wrote Aeterni Patris (1879), declaring the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas official and requiring its study; he also founded the institute of Thomistic philosophy at the Univ. of Louvain."


Blessings

[Sojourner]

Thanks for your points, Thessalonian. That's valuable information. I've been thinking about this too, because of questions about the validity of my own baptism raised by someone. So, I asked a nun I know who teaches RCIA about it, and gave her the details of my baptism (as an infant in the Reformed Presbyterian Church).

Here's what she said:

[quote]Be at peace.  Your baptism was valid.
Even if a Protestant Church didn't believe in infant baptism, at some
point they would baptize an individual and fulfill the Gospel mandate or
Jesus' instruction on the sacrament.  Obviously, a Protestant does not
baptize based on the Catholic Church's teachings!  They are not Catholic
and do not possess the fullness of our faith.

Remember, the teachings of the Catholic Church are rooted in Scripture
and Tradition.  Infant baptism was a practice even in the primitive
Church. However, Protestant denominations believe only in the authority
of the Scriptures.  They lack an understanding and appreciation for the
Church's teaching authority that comes to us through Tradition.  This
does not mean that their baptisms are invalid.

Can baptism in a Protestant denomination be invalid?  Yes.  Can baptism
in a Catholic Church be invalid.  Yes.  When?  It is invalid if it is
not done properly with the pouring of the water simultaneously with the
words based on the Trinitarian formula.

Years ago, a heretical Catholic priest attempted to baptize children in
the NAME OF THE CREATOR, SANCTIFIER AND REDEEMER.  He poured the water
three times, as usual.  However, the baptisms were not valid.  Why?
Because the children were not baptized IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON
AND HOLY SPIRIT.[/quote]

I'm happy with that.

[Neal4Christ]

[quote][b]Because they don't have the intention of "doing what the Church does," which is to wash away original sin.[/b][/quote]

We watch a DVD in RCIA and it is Fr. Corapi teaching from the Catechism. When he was at baptism, he said that for intent the one performing the baptism must intend as the Church does, which the intent is to baptize. He said it does not matter about beliefs of the one being baptized or the baptizer. So it seems that he (and my priest and others) say that intent is the intent to baptize, not a theological intent.

[Apotheoun]

Baptism requires the correct matter and form, along with a proper intention on the part of the minister. Because it meets these requirements baptism conferred in most Protestant Churches is valid and is recognized as such by the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Todd

[Neal4Christ]

I am sorry, Todd, but the big question in my mind is intention. It seems to be a very vague notion, not defined. See my above post, please. Is it a theological intent or simply the intent to baptize.

Thanks!

[Neal4Christ]

bump

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Neal4Christ' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:27 PM'] I am sorry, Todd, but the big question in my mind is intention. It seems to be a very vague notion, not defined. See my above post, please. Is it a theological intent or simply the intent to baptize.

Thanks! [/quote]
The proper intention is merely to do what the Church [i]does[/i] with the sacrament, not what the Church [i]intends[/i]. Thus, it is a "weak" intention, and even somewhat vague, and that is why the vast majority of Protestant baptisms are valid. The minister only has to have an intention to do what the Church [i]does[/i], and so he doesn't have to believe in God, Christ, the efficacy of the sacraments, baptismal regeneration, etc., he must simply have a general intention (actual or virtual) to do what the Church [i]does[/i], and no more.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Neal4Christ' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:22 PM'] We watch a DVD in RCIA and it is Fr. Corapi teaching from the Catechism. When he was at baptism, he said that for intent the one performing the baptism must intend as the Church does, which the intent is to baptize. He said it does not matter about beliefs of the one being baptized or the baptizer. So it seems that he (and my priest and others) say that intent is the intent to baptize, not a theological intent. [/quote]
Fr. Corapi is correct.

[Neal4Christ]

Thank-you very much.

[Brother Adam]

[cathqat]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Jan 13 2005, 08:30 PM'] [quote]intention of doing what the Catholic Church does[/quote]

but isnt the intention to wash away original sin? [/quote]
The Church knows that baptism imparts the grace of divine life. But a pagan baptizing someone wouldn't have to know that. He would just have to intend to do what the Church [i]does[/i], he doesn't have to understand or believe what the Church does.

Here's an example:

Let's say that Bob the catechumen is stranded on a deserted island with Philip the pagan. Bob is about to die due to a shark bite. He begs Philip to baptize him, because he'd like to be baptized before he dies. Philip doesn't really believe any of that Christianity stuff, but he wants to give Bob his dying wish. Following Bob's instructions, he does what the Church couldn't do for Bob. Intention is met here. If Bob and Philip were rescued from the island before Bob died, and there was some question later, he would be conditionally baptized.

There would be even less doubt about the Philip's intention if he was a Baptist minister, because a Baptist minister would definitely intend to do what Jesus instructed and what Christians have always done, even if he doesn't understand the effects of it the same way we do. Still, if there was any question later on, conditional baptism would be possible.

Here's an example of invalid intention:

Bob the Christian and Philip the pagan are actors in a play. In one of the play's scenes Bob, who is playing a bishop, baptizes Philip, who is playing a catechumen. This is not a valid baptism because, in this scenario, there is no actual intention to baptize or do what the Church does. Bob and Philip are only pretending or play-acting and no more.

[Neal4Christ]

Thank-you for giving those scenarios. They are very helpful.

[cathqat]

There are still some nuances, though.

The Council of Trent taught that even heretics could confer valid Baptism, provided that they baptized "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and intended to baptize the individual into the Christian faith. The current Code of Canon Law stipulates that an individual baptized in any Christian community should not be "re- baptized" upon entering the Catholic Church.

However, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith determined that the faith of Mormons is sufficiently different from Christian doctrine so that the baptism conferred by that sect has a different significance. The Congregation notes that the Mormons believe that "God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." (i.e. What they mean by "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is not even remotely Christian.) The Vatican concluded, therefore, that "this is not the Baptism that Christ instituted."

So Philip the pagan probably does have to intend to give Bob a [i]Christian[/i] baptism (as opposed to, say, a Mormon baptism), but that doesn't necessarily mean he has to believe or understand what Christians believe.

[Neal4Christ]

Thanks...it still is helpful to me. I was baptized in the Church of the Brethern and my wife in a Southern Baptist church. These are the main baptisms I was concerned with.