Valid Baptism

[kateri05]

<QUOTE>intention of doing what the Catholic Church does<QUOTE>

but isnt the intention to wash away original sin? so if you don't intend that to be the purpose, wouldn't it not count?
i'm just trying to clarify for my own sake, i've also never heard, "oh baptist, gotta rebaptize"

Edited January 14, 2005 by kateri05

[thessalonian]

This from Aquinas:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406808.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406808.htm[/url]

Note reply to Objectoin three.

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."

Reply to Objection 2. The Church's intention in Baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to Is. 27:9: "This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): "From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed."

Reply to Objection 3. Even he who has not right faith on other points, can have right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not hindered from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough, for the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted, and as the Church bestows it.

[Brother Adam]

-_- Why is it that no answer is satisfying so far?

[Theoketos]

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.

Edited January 14, 2005 by Theoketos

[thessalonian]

Brother Adam,

I understand why you are having difficulty with this. I did for a long time as well. Here is why the theological language is not quite satisfying I believe. It is because it does not and can not give you a minimum belief for baptisms to be valid within Christian Churches.

Let's say the Church said that what Baptists believe about baptism makes it a legitimate baptism. That would be a denial of what the Church teaches on baptism. Now lets approach it from another direction. Let's say a Catholic is baptized who does not have a full theological understanding of baptism. Say he does not know that it is for the forgiveness of sins. The baptism is still a valid one, though it does not impart the sanctifying grace. Now if he knows it is for the forgiveness of sins but rejects that forgiveness is the baptism valid? It still imprints the character of baptism upon the soul. I should have included this paragraph in my above post as well.

"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. "

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406808.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406808.htm[/url]

In reality it appears that all baptisms as long as form and intent (not full theological intent) are there it is valid. One may not specifically know what the Church intends or Christ intends but as long as there intent is to do what the Church says the baptism is valid. It is important for the one being baptized to know the truths of the sacrement. Yet if they do not out of ignorance it is still valid.

From reading Aquinas it sounds as if in reality all Christian baptism are valid. Church practice confirms this and I trust that Church practice is a good indicator. They have never required heretics to be rebaptized and have stood firmly on that line. Even for those who obstinately reject what the Church teaches regarding the sacrament or for those who are attached to their sins and do not ask forgiveness for them before baptism. It seems the sacraement on these types implants the character but does not confer the grace. Thus the one who is baptized is not sanctified. "not unto salvation" as Aquinas says. The one who is baptized in such a state must then go to confession to recieve the sanctifying grace.

It seems also that in standing firmly on no rebaptisms of Protestants that they are affirming something about baptism. It is always baptism and does not depend on us for it to be baptism. This is just like consecrations of the Eucharist by a sinful priest or a priest who does not have right theology about the Eucharist. It does require our submission to recieve the grace however. We have to let God in. He will not force himself upon us. What a tradedy it would be if the consecrations of the Eucharist depended on the priest being explicitly correct on his theology. No, it is the same, the priest must only intend to do what Christ intended. Beyond that the sacrament depends on God.

I think a part of the difficulty with this theology is it's alot like the theology with regard to NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH and invincible ignorance. One cannot say that anyone who is not formally in the bosom of the Church is in the right relationship with God, though in ignorance they may not be damned.

Just my thoughts. Beyond them I simply submit to the Church.
Hope they help.

[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.