Should a Catholic attend a "re-baptism"?

[donttazemebro]

recently received an invitation to the baptism of a friend.

She currently attends a Bible church, but she was baptized Catholic as an infant

and was then raised and confirmed in the United Methodist church.

Since I know that she was already validly baptized,

I understand that this new "baptism" would be redundant and would have no real meaning sacramentally.

Would it be wrong for me to accept the invitation in light of this knowledge?

 

[Memento Mori]

I think this one's up to you and what you think is most prudent, and maybe ask your priest if you get a chance to catch his ear. I don't think I would personally. The congregation is usually there to give witness, and since we know there is only one baptism, we can't give real witness to a "re-baptism."

 

[catholicbybirth]

recently received an invitation to the baptism of a friend.

She currently attends a Bible church, but she was baptized Catholic as an infant

and was then raised and confirmed in the United Methodist church.

Since I know that she was already validly baptized,

I understand that this new "baptism" would be redundant and would have no real meaning sacramentally.

Would it be wrong for me to accept the invitation in light of this knowledge?

What religion are you?

 

[Fantine]

If you feel uncomfortable attending, you could always send a card and a small gift--stationery with a Bible quote, a Christian music CD.

Or you could attend the reception afterwards and give your good wishes in person.

Or you could tell her, "You're already validly baptized; I'm not coming," and lose your friend as well as any opportunity to be a positive influence on her life.

 

[catholicbybirth]

If you feel uncomfortable attending, you could always send a card and a small gift--stationery with a Bible quote, a Christian music CD.

Or you could attend the reception afterwards and give your good wishes in person.

Or you could tell her, "You're already validly baptized; I'm not coming," and lose your friend as well as any opportunity to be a positive influence on her life.

As if someone would stay mad at someone who explained why they wouldn't be there. They weren't very good friends, anyway.

How can anyone be a positive influence on another when they are living a lie? If someone goes to a baptism, knowing it is all for naught and that there will be no washing of sins from the recipient's soul, then they are living a lie. Especially if they congratulate the recipient.

Janice

 

[AMDG]

As Catholics we believe in one Baptism--there is no such thing as a re-Baptism. Why on earth would someone want you to insult your own Catholic Faith? And why on earth would a Catholic want to?

 

[judechild]

Since the Bible church probably doesn't think that the baptism is anything sacramental, it's probably alright for you to go, unless you are prominent in some way in the Church (e.g. a lay leader, a FOCUS missionary, professed religious).

On the other hand, you can express your disapproval of the ceremony altogether, and thereby ask to be excused - you just need to be more diplomatic than Fantine likes to pretend anyone who would make a point of it would act. "I'm sorry, but we have different ideas of what Baptism is; and based on what I think Baptism is, I'm just not completely comfortable with your decision. I hope this won't put a wedge between us, but it might be better if I was excused" could be one thing you could say (but you'd need to be ready to concisely lay out what you think Baptism is, otherwise you'll look aristocratic and haughty if you're asked about it).

 

[Rhamiel]

I would not go
I would not say why unless I was ask
if she asks you just say that you do not feel comfortable doing that because of your beliefs

 

[AMDG]

Since the Bible church probably doesn't think that the baptism is anything sacramental, it's probably alright for you to go,

Snipped to portion addressed

Who cares what the other church believes in. It's about what you believe in. Truth is not subjective. It is not a matter of a truth for one person, and another truth for still another person, and yet another truth for yet another person. There is only one truth.

IMO when we try to "bend over backwards" to be "inclusive" and "politically correct", we end up causing scandal and division. As Shakespeare is quoted, "To thine own self be true and it will follow as the day the dawn that one cannot be false to any man."

 

[judechild]

You don't need to tell me that true is not subjective, AMDG; I'm pretty radically objectivist (but you did write "It's about what you believe in" which is, of course, a subjective statement). What I'm saying is that the objective fact of the matter is that the Bible church is likely not performing a valid baptism (since everyone seems to forget the injunction that the person baptizing must intend to do what the Church believes baptism does, so that even a Baptism performed in the Trinitarian form might not be valid); that means that objectively you're not attending a re-baptism anyway. If you're going as a sign of friendship and such then that's not wrong unless your presence lends to the idea that the Church approves of it (hence me saying that a prominent person should not go). There is a method to my madness.

 

[AMDG]

You don't need to tell me that true is not subjective, AMDG; I'm pretty radically objectivist (but you did write "It's about what you believe in" which is, of course, a subjective statement). What I'm saying is that the objective fact of the matter is that the Bible church is likely not performing a valid baptism (since everyone seems to forget the injunction that the person baptizing must intend to do what the Church believes baptism does, so that even a Baptism performed in the Trinitarian form might not be valid); that means that objectively you're not attending a re-baptism anyway. If you're going as a sign of friendship and such then that's not wrong unless your presence lends to the idea that the Church approves of it (hence me saying that a prominent person should not go). There is a method to my madness.

That's true. I said "you". I should have said "what the Catholic Church, Jesus' Church, teaches. I guess I should have simply referred the whole problem to one's "friendly, neighborhood priest.)

I would not give my "blessings" so easily though, simply because I don't have the authority. Besides I've often found myself in one of those nasty problems where "friendship says one thing but it's really against some teaching of the Church", and I've found that the priest told me to "err" on the side of Church teaching so as not to cause scandal. Real friends will "understand" and those who don't aren't "real friends" in the first place, but only seek to separate me from my Faith. Also was told once that I shouldn't forget, that by nicely (and not haughtily) explaining that can't go (and maybe why) perhaps God will use that to save a soul. Never know.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Just to clear things us, this person is non-denom and also posted this in the non-denom section. He's asking if a Catholic needs to be baptized again, you know, for being baptized Catholic.

 

[AMDG]

Just to clear things us, this person is non-denom and also posted this in the non-denom section. He's asking if a Catholic needs to be baptized again, you know, for being baptized Catholic.

There is only one Baptism. Even in RCIA, Catholics respect and count the Protestant Baptisms of the converts as valid Baptisms. (Now that I know in the Catholic Church. Not only are there at least ten converts every year in my parish, my husband is a convert and so is one of my granddaughters.) It's not reciprocal for the Protestant churches though.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I know.

 

[judechild]

Also was told once that I shouldn't forget, that by nicely (and not haughtily) explaining that can't go (and maybe why) perhaps God will use that to save a soul. Never know.

Yes, and that's why I went on in my first post to give an example of how one might politely object. Still, we do disagree somewhat on the depth of scandal, I suppose. If you'll cause scandal then no, you shouldn't go (that's why people such as FOCUS missionaries shouldn't go). I don't think an individual Catholic under normal conditions constitutes scandal, though. Of course, I'm quite open to being corrected.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Never attend something which you don't believe in.

 

[AMDG]

Still, we do disagree somewhat on the depth of scandal, I suppose. If you'll cause scandal then no, you shouldn't go (that's why people such as FOCUS missionaries shouldn't go). I don't think an individual Catholic under normal conditions constitutes scandal, though. Of course, I'm quite open to being corrected.

I think we all sort of underestimate our own importance. That was "brought home" to me many years ago. Adult Catholic daughter was in a situation where she was to "show friendliness and solidarity" by going to a Protestant ceremony (can't remember what--it was so long ago), anyway the priest said "no" even though she was not a leader in the Catholic Church. As you can guess, she was an adult and "no priest can tell me what to do" and so she attended, giving her "blessings" to the Protestant ceremony. Years later, my friends mother confessed to me that when her daughter saw mine going to that event, it caused her daughter a crisis of Faith. My daughter's actions were a scandal to her daughter.

But I guess that it's not just underestimating our importance. Sometimes it's pride. Another friend's daughter decided to go to a Protestant Bible Study (not out of solidarity, but out of "I'll show them how strong a Catholic I am".) She "showed" them all right. Lost her faith. Married a minister. Then tried to get her parents to lose their Faith. When parents refused, she decided that she wouldn't even speak with them so the parents lost their grandchildren by her as well. My friend was so embarrassed by it all (her daughter was in CCD, CYO, Vacation Bible School--in leadership) that she and her husband changed parishes, and the last time I saw her was four years ago!

 

[Erose]

recently received an invitation to the baptism of a friend.

She currently attends a Bible church, but she was baptized Catholic as an infant

and was then raised and confirmed in the United Methodist church.

Since I know that she was already validly baptized,

I understand that this new "baptism" would be redundant and would have no real meaning sacramentally.

Would it be wrong for me to accept the invitation in light of this knowledge?

I think it would. Why, because to are helping live a lie, because she is rejecting what she has already received and has been taught a lie by her new church. Advocating a lie is never a good thing IMHO.

 

[Defensor Christi]

recently received an invitation to the baptism of a friend.

She currently attends a Bible church, but she was baptized Catholic as an infant

and was then raised and confirmed in the United Methodist church.

Since I know that she was already validly baptized,

I understand that this new "baptism" would be redundant and would have no real meaning sacramentally.

Would it be wrong for me to accept the invitation in light of this knowledge?

I would not attend...same as if a Catholic were being married outside the Church without dispensation...by going, you are saying you accept and agree with what is happening...

 

[Fran75]

I have many protestant friends and relative including my husband I would be honored to be invited to attend their baptism but if they had previously been baptized in the Catholic church would probably decline. I hope it never comes up.