Conditional Baptism of Heretics

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i was told it originated in the twentieth century why did the practice of conditional baptisim of heretics entering the catholic church stop?

sam

[Laudate_Dominum]

It didn't stop, it still happens. It happens less than it used to because the Church has been better about recognizing the validity of many non-Catholic baptisms, as the Council of Trent declared:
"If any one says that the baptism, which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the church doth, is not true baptism: let him be anathema."
And who told you that conditional Baptism started in the 20th century?

[Laudate_Dominum]

The reason I ask is because I can recall reading about it in old books, St. Alphonsus de Liquori for sure, possible Fathers of the Church during St. Cyprian's time but not positive about that, I'd have to check, and other places..

[Laudate_Dominum]

I just found conditional Baptism in the catechism of the Council of Trent and in a decree of Pope Alexander IV. It definitely did not start in the 20th century.

God bless.

Here is the Catechism of the Council of Trent quote:

[quote]Nor let anyone suppose that it is repeated by the Church when she baptises anyone whose previous Baptism was doubtful, making use of this formula: If thou art baptised, I baptise thee not again but if thou art not yet baptised, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In such cases Baptism is not to be considered as impiously repeated, but as holily, yet conditionally, administered.[/quote]
It goes on, but I'd suggest looking it up.. I'm getting too tired to type.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Actually this a good example of an excellent reform in the Church as a result of Vatican II.

I've looked into it, and during the time of Trent as well as afterward, up to the 20th century there were widespread abuses of conditional Baptism.
This is a serious abuse according to the Tridentine Catechism:
[quote]In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the Sacrament, abuses are of almost daily occurrence, and which therefore demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism. Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously baptised, but proceed immediately to baptise the child. Nay more, although they be well aware that the Sacrament was administered at home, they do not hesitate to repeat its administration in the Church conditionally, making use of the solemn ceremonies of the Church.

This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring what theologians call an irregularity. According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.[/quote]
Earlier in history, Pope Alexander was moved to promulgate teaching on this matter because of Orthodox converts who were being conditionally Baptized. This is an abuse because they already have a valid Baptism.
Since Vatican II the use of conditional Baptism has been finally brought into conformity with what it should be.
This is what I have gathered from my quick research on the matter.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is from joint Catholic-Orthodox document I found on the USCCB website:

[quote]The practice of "conditional baptism," a pastoral option officially intended for cases of genuine doubt about the validity of a person's earlier baptism, was also widely - and erroneously - used in the reception of "dissident" Eastern Christians up to the era of Vatican II itself, and afterwards was practiced occasionally in parts of Eastern Europe. Vatican II, however, was explicit in recognizing both the validity and the efficacy of Orthodox sacraments (Unitatis Redintegratio 15; cf. Ecumenical Directory [1993] 99a).[/quote]

And this:

[quote]This position [of the Eastern Churches] is reflected in Basil of Caesarea's First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374), addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, which–claiming to follow the practice of "the ancients" [aka, Apostolic Tradition] --distinguishes among three types of groups "outside" the Church: heretics, "who differ with regard to faith in God;" schismatics, who are separated from the body of the Church "for some ecclesiastical reasons and differ from other [Christians] on questions that can be resolved;" and "parasynagogues," or dissidents who have formed rival communities simply in opposition to legitimate authority (Ep. 188.1). Only in the case of heretics in the strict sense—those with a different understanding of God, among whom Basil includes Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites--is baptism required for entry into communion with the Church. Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still "of the Church," and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism. This policy is also reflected in Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which distinguishes between "Severians" (i.e., non-Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, who are to be received by confession of faith; schismatics, who are to be received by chrismation [confirmation]; and heretics, who alone require baptism. Thus, in spite of the solemn rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils against their christological positions, "Severians" and Nestorians are clearly reckoned as still "of the Church," and seem to be understood in Basil's category of "parasynagogues;" their baptisms are thus understood--to use scholastic language--as valid, if perhaps illicit.[/quote]
By the way, I love the distinction made between heretics, schismatics and dissidents.

[Brother Adam]

Good job. I was all set to start quoting Trent and VII

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 22 2005, 05:51 AM']Good job. I was all set to start quoting Trent and VII
[right][snapback]693936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
: It's good to see you on Adam! We could use you around here.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 22 2005, 03:50 AM']This is from joint Catholic-Orthodox document I found on the USCCB website:
And this:
By the way, I love the distinction made between heretics, schismatics and dissidents.
[right][snapback]693915[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Can you save this in the apoliogetics board somewhere? This can be very useful. :

[thessalonian]

LD has done a good job. I have heard conditional baptisms before. Aquinas as I recall gives the theological reasons as to why Baptisms that are done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are valid even though they might see baptism a bit differently than we do. It is because they intend to do what Christ and the Church do.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

wow thanks LD. but if one is validly baptized it is ok to be conditonally baptized if you are not sure of the matter form or intention?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 08:18 AM']wow thanks LD. but if one is validly baptized it is ok to be conditonally baptized if you are not sure of the matter form or intention?
[right][snapback]694017[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Matter, form and intention all factor in to the possibility of an invalid baptism. If there is a doubt, a conditional baptism ought to be performed. Improper matter, such as beer, would make it invalid. Improper form, such as baptizing in the name of Hughey Dewey and Louie, would make it invalid. And invalid intention, such as approaching it with say, a mormon understanding of Baptism and God, would make it invalid.

But, as quoted earlier:
[quote]According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.[/quote]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i see....

[Brother Adam]

One 'theme' as it is that I notice more and more in the SSPX and related groups is that they tend to be non-pastoral and exclusive in nature. Jesus Christ himself taught us that it is not always about the exact letter of the law, but instead about the intent of the law. The Jewish leaders attacked Him for his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, but Jesus taught them a valuble lesson in where priorities need to lie. The Catholic Church is missionary in nature and seeks, as does God, the salvation of souls. While I am as flabergasted at the abuses that take place in the Catholic Church, and often wonder why they aren't immediately and brutely wiped out. I remember though that ultimately the Church cares for souls, and while it can never bend truth, if tolerating hand holding during the Our Father until proper and timely instruction can be brought about, they will do so, if it means keeping those members in the Body of Christ.

To the specific issue of conditional baptisms - I think it is important to remember that Protestants today are not automatically guilty of the sins of the Reformers. In fact VII tells us just the opposite, that they cannot be held accountable for those sins. We must then remember that the fullness of truth [b]subsists[/b], rather than exists, in the Catholic Church, and remanents of the truth certianly exist in Protestant and non-Catholic groups and organizations (such as the SSPX). Then it stands that if their baptisms are valid and accepted by the Church there is no reason to conditionally baptize.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

hmmmmmm i can't say i agree with that