A rabbit trail.

[Michelina]

Carly, I was taught in school that some Presyterian Baptisms are valid and some are not. Non-belief in Baptism's regenerative character does not invalidate.

Michelle, what you wrote is true. But if there is a positive intent contrary to the nature of the sacrament, it isn't valid.

I will try to find something authoritative that explains defective intention better than I have. But not tonight.
I have deleted my posts and will try to find a better way to deal with this subject. I was not going to post in the first place because I realized it was a confusing area, but I did so anyway. I should have waited.

Sorry to all.

 

[Benedicta00]

I thought the OP described it as consciuosly nonSacramental. To me, that seems a contrary intention (one which positively excludes the sacrament). As most texts say, one cannot read the mind of the minister of the sacrament but it seemed to me that there was positive intent in the OP.

Carly, I was taught in school that some Presyterian Baptisms are valid and some are not. Non-belief in Baptism's regenerative character does not invalidate.

Michelle, what you wrote is true. But if there is a positive intent contrary to the nature of the sacrament, it isn't valid.

I will try to find something authoritative that explains defective intention better than I have. But not tonight.

Okay, so what you are saying basically is that if they do not baptize as a means of entering the body of Christ it is not valid because the intent is not there to “do what the Church does” and that is to incorporate us into the body of Christ?

If this is some what so, then doesn’t that make all baptisms who do not baptize with the intent to impart grace invalid? The reason why I am really confused is because I know for a fact, I have seen, the Church accept baptisms from Churches who defiantly did not baptize with the intent to regenerate or impart grace.

 

[Benedicta00]

Theresa,

Your understanding was more or less my understanding.

 

[Polycarp1]

Otherwise, virtually no Protestant baptism would be valid since most Protestants do not believe that baptism is regenerative.

True and false. Most Protestant denominations do not believe in baptismal regeneration. But the numerical majority of Protestants (taking the traditional dating-from-the-Reformation definition) do. Sacramental baptism is an article of faith among Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians, Methodists, and several spin-offs from Methodism -- I just found out on this board that it's true for the Church of the Nazarene. Numerically these groups constitute the majority of Protestants, though they're in a minority among the numbers of splinter groups into which Protestantism is divided. IIRC "High Church Presbyterians" profess belief in sacramentalism, though I think the official theology of the church does not provide for it.

 

[Photini]

If two non-Catholic Christians get married, the Church views it as sacramentally binding (ie: God has graced that marriage).

Is this also the case in marriages where there was not a church ceremony? (i.e. if they just went to the court house)

 

[Benedicta00]

True and false. Most Protestant denominations do not believe in baptismal regeneration. But the numerical majority of Protestants (taking the traditional dating-from-the-Reformation definition) do. Sacramental baptism is an article of faith among Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians, Methodists, and several spin-offs from Methodism -- I just found out on this board that it's true for the Church of the Nazarene. Numerically these groups constitute the majority of Protestants, though they're in a minority among the numbers of splinter groups into which Protestantism is divided. IIRC "High Church Presbyterians" profess belief in sacramentalism, though I think the official theology of the church does not provide for it.

Polycarp,

This is similar to another thought I had. In the early days of the reformation no one really took issue with baptism. It wasn't until later that we see more and more moving away from mainstream orthodox Catholicism AND Protestantism in the some non denomination realms, so I figure, traditionally Protestants do/did believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins and it is only with the onset of more splits we see the sacramental nature rejected in certain sects which would invalidate it, I imagine.

Also I know that you can only be considered a heretic, martial not formal unless you are a baptized Christian, Mormons and JW's would not be under definition but a false religion who has a Christian influence. So with that said, what would all the "Christian" denominations who do not baptize at all be considered? Under the Church's definition they wouldn't even be Christian really.

Does this make sense? I think what the Church is having to do is a lot of “rough justice” trying to sort through if they are validity baptized or not because of how far some, splitter groups have gotten away from orthodox Christianity. Also I think baptism of desire is applied a lot more now to include Christians who do follow Christ as lord and savior due to the out right rejection of baptism we are seeing so much of.

 

[Benedicta00]

Is this also the case in marriages where there was not a church ceremony? (i.e. if they just went to the court house)

I believe if they were not baptized, yes that is a valid but non sacramental union.

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

I offer no interuptation but here's what cannon law has to say

Can. 869 §1 If there is doubt as to whether a person was baptized or whether a baptism was conferred validly, and after serious enquiry this doubt persists, the person is to be baptized conditionally.


§2 Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptized conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptized or of that of the baptizing minister.


§3 If in the cases mentioned in §1 and 2 a doubt remains about the conferring of the baptism or its validity, baptism is not to be conferred until the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if that person is an adult. Moreover, the reasons for doubting the validity of the earlier baptism should be given to the person or, where an infant is concerned, to the parents.

 

[BAChristian]

I just found out on this board that it's true for the Church of the Nazarene.

And you would be correct my friend -- I was baptized in the Church of the Nazarene. It is taught to be symbolic. And if you were to die before you were baptized, you would still go to heaven, assuming you "gave your heart to the Lord"...

It's kind of the same way with the Church, in terms of if you didn't get baptized, yet sincerely wanted to be baptized, you're saved by intent.

The "giving your heart to the Lord", thus being saved, would be the same as "your intention to be baptized, hence saved", at that moment.

Does that make sense?

 

[Benedicta00]

And you would be correct my friend -- I was baptized in the Church of the Nazarene. It is taught to be symbolic. And if you were to die before you were baptized, you would still go to heaven, assuming you "gave your heart to the Lord"...

It's kind of the same way with the Church, in terms of if you didn't get baptized, yet sincerely wanted to be baptized, you're saved by intent.

The "giving your heart to the Lord", thus being saved, would be the same as "your intention to be baptized, hence saved", at that moment.

Does that make sense?

Not really. If they believe in regenerational baptism then how can they think it’s a symbol?

 

[Gabriel]

Thank you all for your answers!

 

[kimber1]

i was always in the understanding that as long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it was considered valid in teh Church's eyes. at least that's what my priest told me when i told him i was baptized in the Bretheren church.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Atheist using gutter-water. LOL

 

[Bastoune]

Ah, yes, so it isn't!! It makes me want to carry it around in a little vial around my neck-- you know like a Bizarro "suicide pill" !

In the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
Shannon

I'm assuming you mean a vial of holy water, not a vial of spit!!!

 

[Bastoune]

Given that the Church believes that even a non-believer who administers a baptism, as long as it is validly done in the Trinitarian way, and also sacraments are not dependent on the one who administers them to be valid anyway (example: a priest who has committed murder and/or molested children still administers a valid Eucharist) this explains why the Church accepts non-Catholic, Trinitarian baptisms as valid.