Valid Baptism

[Veridicus]

I have read in other threads that in order for the Eucharitic Liturgy of the Mass to be a valid sacrament, the validly-ordained priest offering it must intend "to do what the Church does" and use the proper physical elements (unleavened bread, wine, words, rubrics on gesticulations, etc.) In terms of some protestant ecclesial communities, their view of baptism is only that of an obedient act to God because it is commanded in the New Testament. However, they do not actual believe that water or the act of baptism in any way confers any salvific grace whatsoever...but that it instead believe that said grace only occurs as a result of a personal decision. Hence "multiple baptisms."

Does the logic follow that since they "do no intend to do what the Church does" with regard to the purpose, intent, and effect of baptism, that their baptisms could be invalid even though they posses the correct physical elements and words?...

Edited February 3, 2009 by Veridicus

[Thy Geekdom Come]

It is for canon lawyers to make determinations such as this and I won't pretend to be one (the closest thing here is Fr. Cappie, who quotes canon law regularly). In fact, as you know, the Church has whole tribunals and curiae for these sorts of questions.

That having been said, as near as I can tell, that a Baptism is valid so long as all the other obligations are fulfilled and the intention is to do as the Church does means that if the intent is to do as they did in the early Church or New Testament times (as surely a Baptist would intend) without any further qualification, the Baptism would still be valid. If, however, they [i]specifically intended in their hearts[/i], "I want to do as the early Church did and baptize as a sign only and not as a regenerative sacrament as those Catholics propose," then I am quite certain that would be invalid. The fact of the matter is that these things can differ so much from one case to another that it would be improper to give a single, generalized answer.

That having been said, multiple Baptisms have been allowed in the past in extreme cases (one saint, whose name fails me, though I believe he was an Asian martyr, baptized an entire room full of people by aspersion when the doors were being pounded down by anti-Christian forces...and in such a case, those people, even if they were not touched by the water, would still receive Baptism of Blood at death). However, I do not see a provision for this in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Nonetheless, I'm quite positive the Church would not push the point in extreme cases.

We have provisions for conditional Baptism in such cases.

God bless,

Micah