A reader writes:
I am currently serving in Iraq, and do not have anyone I feel confident enough about to ask my question.
I was baptised in 2004 by a Methodist minister. I grew up, however, in a church which believed strongly that the Holy Spirit WAS NOT a person. I shared this opinion as I grew up. Thankfully I was never baptised in this heterodox sect.
In 2004, when I requested baptism from the Methodist minister, I do not know if I then believed the Holy Spirit was a person or not. I am certain that I did not believe strongly that He is not a person by that time. Around the time of my baptism I accepted the truth that the Holy Spirit is a person–but it may have been a week or two after my baptism. I was baptised by immersion, with the formula "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
My question: My baptism had the proper form, and the proper matter. Is it possible that the intention was not proper, if at the time I did not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit?
When I was confirmed in March this issue never remotely occured to me. Needless to say the priest never asked me.
I believe my question is very silly, but for whatever reason these doubts have assailed me from out of nowhere. The catechism says that an imperfect faith is what is required for baptism, so I’m sure I’m fine.PLEASE, if you have the time, answer my question, so I know if I need a conditional baptism.
I have a lot of sympathy for the situation you find yourself in. I was in it myself! When I was first learning about the Christian faith, I was a non-Trinitarian (not because of any organization teaching me to deny the Trinity, just because I was still too green and independent-minded). I came to accept the doctrine, but in later years I was not sure if I had done so before or after my baptism, and it caused me no end of worry. I’m pretty sure that I was a Trinitarian at the time of my baptism, but just to make sure, I insisted on a conditional baptism at the time I was received into the Catholic Church.
Your own baptism is also likely valid. As you note, the Catechism states:
CCC 1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. the faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. the catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God’s Church?" the response is: "Faith!"
You very likely either believed in the Trinity or had the openness to Christian faith needed for sacramental validity, but to clear away any possibility otherwise, and for your own peace of mind, I would seek a conditional baptism.
I would go to the nearest Catholic chaplain, explain the situation, and ask for a conditional baptism, explaining that one is necessary for your peace of mind. If the chaplain refuses to perform one then, since you are in a situation in which your life may be in jeopardy, I would have one your military buddies (preferably a Catholic so as not to cause confusion for non-Catholics) perform one for you. (You cannot baptize yourself; it has to be done by someone else.)
Have him use the words "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Ideally, you would want to have a conditional confirmation as well, but this may not be possible. Fortunately, confirmation is not necessary to salvation in the way that baptism is.
You will not need to repeat your confessions. If the first baptism was valid then all subsequent confessions will be valid as well. If your first baptism was not valid then the new one will be and will wipe out any sins committed prior to it, making it unnecessary to repeat prior confessions.
I’d like to add a note for those who might otherwise worry about whether they might be in the same situation: This situation doesn’t arise because you didn’t understand the Trinity or had a shaky acceptance of it at the time of your baptism. It arises only because you had a history of prior, conscious rejection of the Trinity and are not sure if you were rejecting it at the time of your baptism. Not understanding the Trinity or having a shaky acceptance of it does not invalidate baptism.
Outright rejection of it may, however, and according to the Holy See this is why Mormon baptisms are invalid even though they use the Trinitarian formula. They supply the words of the Trinitarian formula with a fundamentally different meaning.
Whether your former religion’s understanding of the Trinity was so defective as to invalidate baptism is something I can’t answer, because the Holy See has not spelled out the subject in enough detail.
I therefore recommend that you pursue conditional baptism even though the odds are that your Methodist baptism was probably valid.
I hope this helps, and God bless you for your service to our country. I encourage all the blog readers to keep you and all of our men and women overseas in prayer.
20
Jimmy,
A friend told me that Mormon baptisms are sometimes regarded as valid. It had something to do with marriage. Or do I remember wrong?
What do Mormons believe the Holy Spirit is?
A friend told me that Mormon baptisms are sometimes regarded as valid. It had something to do with marriage. Or do I remember wrong?
It used to be the practice of Catholic marriage tribunals to presume that Mormons were validly baptized. Why? Because Mormons use water and baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. By all appearances, it was the same rite used by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.
This practice changed, however, in 2001 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Response to a “dubium”
on the validity of baptism conferred by “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, called “Mormons”.
See: “Are Mormons Christians?”, where Father Luis Ladaria is quoted noting that the CDF decision was “a change from the past practice” of accepting the validity of the Mormon rite.
The change was presumably made on the grounds that Mormons have a very different understanding of Who the Father, Son, and Spirit are than orthodox trinitarian Christians. The words may be the same, but the meaning is radically different.
What do Mormons believe the Holy Spirit is?
One of the divine Persons. But to Mormons (of the Utah-based LDS variety), that means he’s not only a distinct Person from the Father and Son, but also a distinct Being. Utah LDS Mormons are not monotheists in the traditional sense.
See: “Do Mormons Worship Jesus Christ?”
Please keep in mind that the Utah-based LDS Mormons are not the only “Mormons.” There are now somewhere between 200 and 1000 religious communities which claim to follow the “prophet” Joseph Smith (Utah LDS do not publicize this fact, but other “Mormon” groups do). And not all “Mormons” share the bizarre theology of the Utah LDS. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), now known as the Community of Christ, is much closer to traditional, orthodox trinitarianism. It’s probably more accurate to think of the RLDS as radical Protestants plus the Book of Mormon than anything similar to the Utah Mormons.
For more info on the RLDS and other “restorationist” groups who follow Joseph Smith, c.f. Divergent Paths of the Restoration and Latter Day Saint Beliefs: A Comparison Between the RLDS Church and the LDS Church by Steven L. Shields.
I add to the link posted above that some Mormons also believe in a Heavenly Mother, but that she should not be prayed to.
I read a feminist’s account of her expulsion from the Mormon church, and one charge was that she had taught women to pray to the Heavenly Mother, and both sides clearly agreed that she existed. . . .
I would expect that the LDS idea of the Heavenly Mother is as far removed from our Blessed Virgin as their idea of the Trinity is different from ours.
Oh, yeah. She’s God’s wife exactly as human women are wives.
And as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted, “God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.” (Nothing to do with the Virgin Birth, because Jesus, in His Divine nature, pre-existed that. According to them, he didn’t predate this birth.)
I have a student whose is interested in the Sacrament of Eucharist. Unfortunately, she has no document to prove she was previously baptized; her baptismal card is lost. Her mother holds that she (the student) was baptised as an infant, but cannot trace/find her card since the child was not baptized in a regular parish, and there are no documents to prove this. What should I do? Is conditional baptism allowed in this case, or what?
Ugo
Nigeria.
I recently go a theological controversial book called “A Moral-Theological Conclusion On The New Modernist Rite of Baptism”, it’s very scholarly. But, it basically proves that the New Rite of Baptism promulgated by Vatican II and Paul VI is invalid.
I am shocked! That means all 7 sacraments would be invalid in the Novus Ordo. Do you agree with that? I guess all people baptized since 1963 need a conditional baptism. What about the new priests ordained? Is the SSPX valid? I am guessing they don’t rebaptize?
Saint Cyprian, did he rebaptize for the wrong reasons? Did not Pope St. Stephen censure him?
I know the Orthodox quote him often, and they use complete immersion, – that’s valid – no doubt about it!
Anyhow, these questions I ask myself, and I am happy some scholar actually wrote on the controversy:
http://www.lulu.com/content/3824207
Ego/Catechumen,
This is effectively a duplicate post in another combox, a practice that borders on spamming. I have responded to your first post in the original location.
Please keep the discussion to one combox and use a consistent handle within that combox, as per blog rules. Thank you.