Valid Baptism

[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.