s/o Baptism

[Singingmom]

A few disclaimers. I believe baptism is a sacrament required as a step of faith demonstrating to the world what God has already done in your heart. I do not believe it saves you, but it is a required step of obedience in the Christian walk.

 

That said, ;) Matthew 28 says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I am always slightly confused when believers are adamant that only pastors or ordained ministers have the authority to baptize. Is only the first part of this verse applicable to believers and the second for ordained ministers?

 

We have spoken with our oldest dd who has made a profession of faith and told her that when she chooses to take that step of obedience she will have a choice. She can be baptized at our church by one of the pastors or her dad and I can do it. Many at our church would think it scandalous despite the fact that dh and I are seminary graduates and he is both licensed and ordained.

 

However, we do believe it is a public event and even if her dad and I do our children's baptism it will be with other family and friends around to celebrate. While I certainly think the bathtub is acceptable, I don't think it would be my preference just for the difficult of immersion and the lack of public statement. However, that is personal preference and would not diminish the acceptability of the act at all. There are plenty of places where a bucket of water suffices because more water than that is not available...

 

I also think I would take into account the reasoning for doing it at home/not in church. If it was an issue of embarrassment or lack of desire to step out and be in front of the church, it would be a deal breaker. The whole "if you deny me before others I will deny you before my Father" thing. (paraphrase mine) :tongue_smilie:

 

I have a dear minister friend that has his youth baptize those they lead to Christ to demonstrate the discipleship process. It is a beautiful thing.

 

I do think the public aspect while not required (what to do if there is only one other believer in your area?) is a positive aspect and I desire that. I believe baptist is a public profession of your faith. But public can be believers gathered in celebration anywhere. For me I would desire that to be more than my immediate family, but it certainly is only a personal not a biblical thing.

 

Congrats on your dd's decision! :001_smile:

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

Sorry for the hijack!

 

Tradition holds that the Ethiopian was a very important official (In fact I believe he was in service for the Queen). In those days, there is no way he would have been traveling without a caravan/retinue for protection.

 

Orthodox tradition believes that Phillip the Protodeacon, eventually settled in Ethiopia and you have the beginning of the Ethiopian or Coptic Orthodox Church.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Church

Thank you for answering my question sister. :) I really don't know what you mean by "tradition holds". What exactly does that mean? My brain automatically wants to say "myth", but I think that is not right. In explanation you could compare it to, say what gets put into a history book, or what is written in the Bible. Are the sources similar? Edited August 15, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

I refused to study with any churches on this subject. I came to the conclusion that I should get baptized one day when Romans chapter 6 kept playing through my head. I called the pastor and he said that he would baptize me when I was ready, as I had already told him my testimony (I was already saved and baptized in Spirit see Acts 10).

 

I studied the subject for a month and came to the conclusion that baptism is similar to circumcision, as in

 

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.

 

Baptism has nothing to do with belonging to a church and I refuse to be added to church membership. I just want to belong to HIM. :001_wub: Pastor agreed and I was baptized. :)

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

And for some, there is a lot of emphasis on the idea of the priesthood of all believers as being the only real priesthood. In which case, it would seem logical that any believer could baptize.

Yes, that would be me. "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Ephesians 2:18 Though I was never part of a church, so Radical Reformer? I don't know about that.

 

That said, ;) Matthew 28 says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I am always slightly confused when believers are adamant that only pastors or ordained ministers have the authority to baptize. Is only the first part of this verse applicable to believers and the second for ordained ministers?

That is a good point. Who was Jesus speaking to... maybe the first part of the verse is not applicable to all believers?

[Evergreen State Sue]

When one of our dd's expressed the desire to be saved/baptized we prayed with her and her daddy baptized her in the bathtub at home that evening. We had just our family and a close friend in attendance and it was awesome.

 

My question is, does one really need to be in an actual church environment for baptism to be done? Does baptism need to be done by an ordained pastor/priest? If one believes this, is there Scripture to support this? I think of Philip and the Ethopian and while Philip was a disciple there was no body of believers present in a church building; Philip heard the Ethopian's declaration and the baptism happened immediately.

 

Just curious as to what others believe.

 

The initial baptism is by the Holy Spirit the moment a person puts their faith in Jesus Christ. That person is then saved by grace. The actual act of baptizing does not save a person. Baptism is a public declaration of one's faith in the Lord. That public declaration can be in front of just family or an entire congregation.

[I.Dup.]

is this thread raising anyone else's BP or is it just me?

[Violet Crown]

Forgive my wandering into "straining at gnats" territory, but I'm pretty confident the bathtub baptism would be neither invalid nor illicit under Catholic teaching.

 

To be valid, it must be using water, using the Trinitarian formula, with the same person administering the water and saying the words. It sounds like it was valid.

 

Licitness only applies to Catholics; it means "legal," which is to say, according to the canons (laws) of the Church. I gathered from the anecdote that these weren't Catholics, so they had no obligation to administer a sacrament according to Catholic canons. Thus not an illicit baptism, either.

 

On a final point, I think Catholics may be the only Christian group that teaches that a nonbeliever/ unbaptized person can validly administer Christian baptism. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong; I may well be.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Sharon in Austin

[I.Dup.]

nm

Edited August 15, 2012 by blessedwinter

[Dustybug]

I glanced through the responses so this may be a repeating. Since baptism is meant to be a step of obedience and a symbolic public profession of faith, I would say that it should be done in front of the church. It is also a sort of "formal" welcoming into the church body. Since baptism is not a means of salvation, I don't think that a bathtub baptism is necessarily wrong but I do think it misses the point. I am baptist and we only baptize once, after a profession of salvation is made. Even if it happened at a different church. Generally our pastor or assistant pastor does the baptisms but we have had non-ordained men in leadership perform the baptisms as well.

 

 

:iagree:

[Little Nyssa]

Oh my... you would need to figure out what kind of church you want to belong to, and then have your baptism conform to its/your theology. I could tell you what EO thinks about baptism, but would that help you, not being EO? Best wishes in figuring it all out, and congratulations on your enthusiastic faith!

[FO4UR]

When one of our dd's expressed the desire to be saved/baptized we prayed with her and her daddy baptized her in the bathtub at home that evening. We had just our family and a close friend in attendance and it was awesome.

 

My question is, does one really need to be in an actual church environment for baptism to be done? Does baptism need to be done by an ordained pastor/priest? If one believes this, is there Scripture to support this? I think of Philip and the Ethopian and while Philip was a disciple there was no body of believers present in a church building; Philip heard the Ethopian's declaration and the baptism happened immediately.

 

Just curious as to what others believe.

 

 

 

I haven't read the entire thread...so forgive if I repeat.

 

 

There may come a day when she wants to have a more public baptism, but I think being baptized by her dad is not only perfectly fine, but perfectly fitting.

 

 

fwiw - I am of a fairly casual denomination, and I believe it matters more what she thinks about it and believes than the location and audience. That said, she might have an issue if she wants to join certain churches down the road, but I'd let her cross those bridges when she gets there.

[BakersDozen]

is this thread raising anyone else's BP or is it just me?

 

My BP is fine but I'm sorry (truly) that this thread is upsetting you! I've wondered about this for a while and wanted Hive input, that's all. :)

[milovany]

That is a good point. Who was Jesus speaking to... maybe the first part of the verse is not applicable to all believers?

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding! Although I don't know the official Orthodox stance on this, this is the same question I asked when I saw the comment you are replying to. I looked in the Bible and Jesus is clearly speaking to the leaders (bishops) of the post-Pentecost church -- the 11 Apostles he had just spent three years training. He was not speaking to all His followers, but to the leaders. Jesus final comment ("Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age") isn't a general statement made to all believers. He's speaking to the leadership of the church He'd just died/resurrected to establish. Food for thought.

[FairyMom]

When one of our dd's expressed the desire to be saved/baptized we prayed with her and her daddy baptized her in the bathtub at home that evening. We had just our family and a close friend in attendance and it was awesome.

 

My question is, does one really need to be in an actual church environment for baptism to be done? Does baptism need to be done by an ordained pastor/priest? If one believes this, is there Scripture to support this? I think of Philip and the Ethopian and while Philip was a disciple there was no body of believers present in a church building; Philip heard the Ethopian's declaration and the baptism happened immediately.

 

Just curious as to what others believe.

 

No, it doesn't need to be in a church if you belief in the preisthood of believers. Your husband is just as "qualified" as an ordanined minister. John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the river; I would consider that the source.

[Lovedtodeath]

Reading your link PJ. :)

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding! Although I don't know the official Orthodox stance on this, this is the same question I asked when I saw the comment you are replying to. I looked in the Bible and Jesus is clearly speaking to the leaders (bishops) of the post-Pentecost church -- the 11 Apostles he had just spent three years training. He was not speaking to all His followers, but to the leaders. Jesus final comment ("Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age") isn't a general statement made to all believers. He's speaking to the leadership of the church He'd just died/resurrected to establish. Food for thought.

Yes that is food for thought. Thank you.

No, it doesn't need to be in a church if you belief in the preisthood of believers. Your husband is just as "qualified" as an ordanined minister. John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the river; I would consider that the source.

I was thinking about this thread a lot last night and I also went back to thinking about baptism before Jesus' death. Perhaps the purpose/meaning did not change? Thoughts?

 

One of my pastors is non-denom leaning pentecostal and he is reasearching baptism and water, starting with Genesis 1:8. I believe that baptism and communion are both mysteries that we do not fully understand.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Parrothead]

is this thread raising anyone else's BP or is it just me?

Don't let it do that.

 

This is a diverse board with lots of different Christian beliefs represented. I've not read yet that anyone particular set it trying to convert another. Just lots of examples of what and why people believe what they do. Don't take any of someone else's beliefs personally. :grouphug:

[ByGrace3]

That is a good point. Who was Jesus speaking to... maybe the first part of the verse is not applicable to all believers?

 

Well, I think [you] get into dangerous territory here. The truth is the entire Bible was originally written to someone else. The church at Galatia, the church at Ephesus, the church at Colossi, etc. I am all about context and exegesis (I have a masters from a Southern Baptist seminary :tongue_smilie:) but I think if you claim certain verses do not "apply" to the church as a whole, where do we stop with that? We do need to consider context and content, but we need to deeply understand it and not surface read. Who were the disciples to which Jesus was speaking? Lay men (fishermen and business) not seminary trained, not ordained or licensed. Just men Jesus called out to follow Him. Paul talks about how some are to be teachers, some apostles, etc so there were apostles after the original 13 (the 11 plus Matthias and Paul). Of course I believe in the priesthood of all believers (I Peter 2:9) explained here.

 

Just me .02 :tongue_smilie:

[Kathryn]

is this thread raising anyone else's BP or is it just me?

 

Why? OP asked about other people's beliefs. Why are other people's beliefs upsetting to you? I don't think anyone told the OP that her family was wrong. People are explaining what their denomination's or their own interpretation is of the requirements of baptism. There's no reason to be upset. :confused:

[Parrothead]

Forgive my wandering into "straining at gnats" territory, but I'm pretty confident the bathtub baptism would be neither invalid nor illicit under Catholic teaching.

 

To be valid, it must be using water, using the Trinitarian formula, with the same person administering the water and saying the words. It sounds like it was valid.

 

Licitness only applies to Catholics; it means "legal," which is to say, according to the canons (laws) of the Church. I gathered from the anecdote that these weren't Catholics, so they had no obligation to administer a sacrament according to Catholic canons. Thus not an illicit baptism, either.

 

On a final point, I think Catholics may be the only Christian group that teaches that a nonbeliever/ unbaptized person can validly administer Christian baptism. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong; I may well be.

You are correct in this. Only from a Catholic viewpoint would the OP's daughters baptism be illicit. But I also think the Catholics in the thread were talking about things from their POV. Which was what the OP asked for in her first post - "Just curious as to what others believe."

[Kathryn]

Well, I think [you] get into dangerous territory here. The truth is the entire Bible was originally written to someone else. The church at Galatia, the church at Ephesus, the church at Colossi, etc. I am all about context and exegesis (I have a masters from a Southern Baptist seminary :tongue_smilie:) but I think if you claim certain verses do not "apply" to the church as a whole, where do we stop with that? We do need to consider context and content, but we need to deeply understand it and not surface read. Who were the disciples to which Jesus was speaking? Lay men (fishermen and business) not seminary trained, not ordained or licensed. Just men Jesus called out to follow Him. Paul talks about how some are to be teachers, some apostles, etc so there were apostles after the original 13 (the 11 plus Matthias and Paul). Of course I believe in the priesthood of all believers (I Peter 2:9) explained here.

 

Just me .02 :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say walking and talking with Jesus and being called by him to be in leadership trumps seminary, ordination, and licensing any day. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

nm

[8circles]

is this thread raising anyone else's BP or is it just me?

 

I'm not sure why its bothering you so much. I'm sorry that its making you uncomfortable. Has someone said something about you or your faith that I'm missing?

[Juniper]

I'm not sure why its bothering you so much. I'm sorry that its making you uncomfortable. Has someone said something about you or your faith that I'm missing?

 

All in all, I think she was coming to my defense/was seeing the same things I was. ;)

 

There seems to be a bit of a double standard on some of the "Christian" threads, where it is okay for some posters state their opinion as fact, but there would probably be an uproar if others....say LDS did.

 

I love religious discussions, but no matter how strongly I believe something it doesn't make it a "fact," and that is okay. :001_smile:

 

Most of the posters on here have been wonderful, and I have enjoyed reading the responses.

[vonfirmath]

Deleted

[LMA]

Forgive my wandering into "straining at gnats" territory, but I'm pretty confident the bathtub baptism would be neither invalid nor illicit under Catholic teaching.

 

To be valid, it must be using water, using the Trinitarian formula, with the same person administering the water and saying the words. It sounds like it was valid.

 

Licitness only applies to Catholics; it means "legal," which is to say, according to the canons (laws) of the Church. I gathered from the anecdote that these weren't Catholics, so they had no obligation to administer a sacrament according to Catholic canons. Thus not an illicit baptism, either.

 

On a final point, I think Catholics may be the only Christian group that teaches that a nonbeliever/ unbaptized person can validly administer Christian baptism. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong; I may well be.

 

Only in an emergency would a baptism by a non-priest/deacon be considered valid by the Catholic Church. In an emergency anyone can administer the baptism with the correct formula.

[8circles]

All in all, I think she was coming to my defense/was seeing the same things I was. ;)

 

There seems to be a bit of a double standard on some of the "Christian" threads, where it is okay for some posters state their opinion as fact, but there would probably be an uproar if others....say LDS did.

 

I love religious discussions, but no matter how strongly I believe something it doesn't make it a "fact," and that is okay. :001_smile:

 

Most of the posters on here have been wonderful, and I have enjoyed reading the responses.

 

I think in this thread there have been opinions stated as fact from several theological views. Only one has been called out as problematic. ETA: And it isn't my view lest anyone think I'm taking it personally.

[vonfirmath]

 

On a final point, I think Catholics may be the only Christian group that teaches that a nonbeliever/ unbaptized person can validly administer Christian baptism. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong; I may well be.

 

If I was baptized in a particular church and the pastor who baptized me later realized he was not really saved and made things right, my baptism is still "perfectly valid" in the eyes of other churches. The non-salvation of the pastor at the moment does not make me need to be rebaptized. God knows the heart. I would not choose a known nonbeliever to do the baptizing. That feels like blasphemy to me. But it happens for folks to realize they do not have the personal relationship with Christ that they had been holding themselves out to have on occasion.

[TravelingChris]

I asked my minister, not a Catholic but a Presbyterian, about baptism under false pretenses of a minister. Specifically, I was asking about that I saw a number of people baptized by a chaplain who is now serving a life sentence in prison and if he was a charlatan, and not believing in what he preached, were those people still baptized? I was told yes, and that most churches would accept the baptism because the minister or priest is not actually doing the baptizing- it is God. So if the people thought they were being baptized and the ceremony occurred, it doesn't matter that it turned out that the minister was a fake or a psychopath or whatever.

[*********]

Since I started the original thread that this spun off of, I'll throw in my two cents. :D

 

A few disclaimers. I believe baptism is a sacrament required as a step of faith demonstrating to the world what God has already done in your heart. I do not believe it saves you, but it is a required step of obedience in the Christian walk.

 

That said, ;) Matthew 28 says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I am always slightly confused when believers are adamant that only pastors or ordained ministers have the authority to baptize. Is only the first part of this verse applicable to believers and the second for ordained ministers?

 

We have spoken with our oldest dd who has made a profession of faith and told her that when she chooses to take that step of obedience she will have a choice. She can be baptized at our church by one of the pastors or her dad and I can do it. Many at our church would think it scandalous despite the fact that dh and I are seminary graduates and he is both licensed and ordained.

 

However, we do believe it is a public event and even if her dad and I do our children's baptism it will be with other family and friends around to celebrate. While I certainly think the bathtub is acceptable, I don't think it would be my preference just for the difficult of immersion and the lack of public statement. However, that is personal preference and would not diminish the acceptability of the act at all. There are plenty of places where a bucket of water suffices because more water than that is not available...

 

I also think I would take into account the reasoning for doing it at home/not in church. If it was an issue of embarrassment or lack of desire to step out and be in front of the church, it would be a deal breaker. The whole "if you deny me before others I will deny you before my Father" thing. (paraphrase mine) :tongue_smilie:

 

I have a dear minister friend that has his youth baptize those they lead to Christ to demonstrate the discipleship process. It is a beautiful thing.

 

I do think the public aspect while not required (what to do if there is only one other believer in your area?) is a positive aspect and I desire that. I believe baptist is a public profession of your faith. But public can be believers gathered in celebration anywhere. For me I would desire that to be more than my immediate family, but it certainly is only a personal not a biblical thing.

 

Congrats on your dd's decision! :001_smile:

 

Very, very well stated. I agree with all of it except the 'bucket of water'. I believe that baptism should be by full immersion.

 

I refused to study with any churches on this subject. I came to the conclusion that I should get baptized one day when Romans chapter 6 kept playing through my head. I called the pastor and he said that he would baptize me when I was ready, as I had already told him my testimony (I was already saved and baptized in Spirit see Acts 10).

 

I studied the subject for a month and came to the conclusion that baptism is similar to circumcision, as in

 

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.

 

Baptism has nothing to do with belonging to a church and I refuse to be added to church membership. I just want to belong to HIM. :001_wub: Pastor agreed and I was baptized. :)

 

:party:Amen to THAT!

 

I believe that any believer can baptize, that one should be baptized in public if at all possible, by full immersion, as a sign of being born again. When my boys ask to be baptized, their father will do it. I can't WAIT; Lord I PRAY for that day... We will invite ALL the believers we know to witness it, and probably have it at a public beach; should the Lord see fit to call them.

[Violet Crown]

You are correct in this. Only from a Catholic viewpoint would the OP's daughters baptism be illicit. But I also think the Catholics in the thread were talking about things from their POV. Which was what the OP asked for in her first post - "Just curious as to what others believe."

 

But my point was exactly that - that such a baptism by non-Catholics is perfectly licit from a Catholic point of view.

 

Let me try an analogy. An invalid baptism is like driving your car on the sidewalk. An illicit baptism is like driving your car on the left side of the road in the U.S.

 

A "baptism" with motor oil, or "in the Name of Tom, Dick, and Harry" is invalid always and everywhere for everyone.* Just like driving your car on the sidewalk is always wrong, not because someome decided that would be a useful rule, but because it's just innately bad driving.

 

Driving your car on the left-hand side, though, is only illegal if you're in a country where it's illegal. Nobody would say "The English drive illegally, from an American point of view." It would make no sense, because "illegal" only has meaning according to the laws applying to the actor.

 

In exactly this way, it makes no sense to say a baptism performed by Protestants outside Catholic canons (and "illicit" means "outside Catholic canons") is illicit from a Catholic point of view. Non-Catholics aren't bound by Catholic canons, just like English drivers aren't bound by US law. Protestant baptisms, assuming validity, aren't illicit from Catholics' point of view, just like the English driving on the left aren't driving illegally from Americans' point of view.

 

 

*Please read "according to Catholic teaching" into all declarative sentences.

[Jpoy85]

I dont know. I have mixed thoughts.

 

I think it should be done in a river or church by a pastor. I dont think theres an age for getting baptized.

I was baptized as a baby in the Methodist church. My children were as well. I grew up watching people in the Pentecostal church being baptized in rivers as adults (no babies- they dont generally believe in baptizing babies but dedicating them).

However, in order to become a member of the current church (methodist) i had to be baptized or show proof. Well it was 27yrs ago in a church that is now owned by the district and doors boarded up...so I had no proof. It worked out ok though, i didnt get baptized again and im a member.

 

If my children are older and want to be re-baptized, id make sure they understood what it means and ask what belief they wanted to be baptized in and then look into what it requires.

[Violet Crown]

Only in an emergency would a baptism by a non-priest/deacon be considered valid by the Catholic Church. In an emergency anyone can administer the baptism with the correct formula.

 

The second sentence is correct, but not the first. A baptism not by an ordained person with jurisdiction, in a non-emergency situation, would be valid (that is, a real baptism) but not licit/legal (for Catholics; as discussed above, non-Catholics have no obligation to seek out a Catholic priest with jurisdiction for baptism, and mighty odd it would be if they were).

 

If a non-emergency baptism by a layman, or a priest without jurisdiction, rendered the attempted baptism altogether invalid, it would go against the ancient principle that any baptism with the correct form, matter, and intent is valid (real). Think of what it would do to RCIA! All those converts would have to prove that whoever baptized them in their Protestant church wasn't an ex-Catholic (who would retain an obligation to baptize according to Catholic canons).

 

 

[Please read "according to Catholic teaching" into all declarative sentences.]

Edited August 15, 2012 by Sharon in Austin

[ByGrace3]

Since I started the original thread that this spun off of, I'll throw in my two cents. :D

 

 

 

Very, very well stated. I agree with all of it except the 'bucket of water'. I believe that baptism should be by full immersion.

 

 

 

:lol: I had to laugh at that because I COMPLETELY believe in baptism by immersion, however I remember fun discussions in theology and doctrine classes In seminary about "but what if you are in a desert and there is no water available? Or what if the person is dying and there is no water, etc." that is the only reason I said that. Baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo which means immerse. Definitely believe in baptism by immersion. ;)

[Violet Crown]

If I was baptized in a particular church and the pastor who baptized me later realized he was not really saved and made things right, my baptism is still "perfectly valid" in the eyes of other churches. The non-salvation of the pastor at the moment does not make me need to be rebaptized. God knows the heart. I would not choose a known nonbeliever to do the baptizing. That feels like blasphemy to me. But it happens for folks to realize they do not have the personal relationship with Christ that they had been holding themselves out to have on occasion.

 

Thanks, that's helpful. What would your church think of a baptism performed deliberately by a non-Christian? Would there be a sense that the baptism must, or ought to be, re-done? And if you don't mind, would you say what church/denomination you would consider yourself, if any?

[ByGrace3]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say walking and talking with Jesus and being called by him to be in leadership trumps seminary, ordination, and licensing any day. :D

 

My point was they were lay people called out. Today many people make a big deal out of the "seminary graduate, ordination, licensing" when the most important thing is being "called." Don't get me wrong I am all about those other things and encourage them in ministry, I just don't see the need to get hung up on them. ;)

[Bluegoat]

You are correct in this. Only from a Catholic viewpoint would the OP's daughters baptism be illicit. But I also think the Catholics in the thread were talking about things from their POV. Which was what the OP asked for in her first post - "Just curious as to what others believe."

 

:iagree:

 

That's what I meant, it would be illicit for a Catholic to do it.

[Parrothead]

But my point was exactly that - that such a baptism by non-Catholics is perfectly licit from a Catholic point of view.

 

Let me try an analogy. An invalid baptism is like driving your car on the sidewalk. An illicit baptism is like driving your car on the left side of the road in the U.S.

 

A "baptism" with motor oil, or "in the Name of Tom, Dick, and Harry" is invalid always and everywhere for everyone.* Just like driving your car on the sidewalk is always wrong, not because someome decided that would be a useful rule, but because it's just innately bad driving.

 

Driving your car on the left-hand side, though, is only illegal if you're in a country where it's illegal. Nobody would say "The English drive illegally, from an American point of view." It would make no sense, because "illegal" only has meaning according to the laws applying to the actor.

 

In exactly this way, it makes no sense to say a baptism performed by Protestants outside Catholic canons (and "illicit" means "outside Catholic canons") is illicit from a Catholic point of view. Non-Catholics aren't bound by Catholic canons, just like English drivers aren't bound by US law. Protestant baptisms, assuming validity, aren't illicit from Catholics' point of view, just like the English driving on the left aren't driving illegally from Americans' point of view.

 

 

*Please read "according to Catholic teaching" into all declarative sentences.

I don't disagree. I think we are talking in circles about the same thing. I think.

 

The OP said she was curious about what others believe. Several Catholics have stated that if a Catholic had done what her family did it would be valid but illicit. Which is exactly what you said above. I think.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Parrothead

[Parrothead]

:iagree:

 

That's what I meant, it would be illicit for a Catholic to do it.

Okay, that made perfectly reasonable sense to someone.

 

Sometimes my thinking is "different."

[Bluegoat]

Thank you for answering my question sister. :) I really don't know what you mean by "tradition holds". What exactly does that mean? My brain automatically wants to say "myth", but I think that is not right. In explanation you could compare it to, say what gets put into a history book, or what is written in the Bible. Are the sources similar?

 

I can't totally speak for the Orthodox Church, but in this case I suspect she means information passed down through the years through the Church. In some cases Tradition (with a big T) is authoritative - it includes Scripture and its proper understanding, the liturgy, and so on. In other cases it is less authoritative but still probably true, and that can include all kinds of historical information, or sometimes things that are done a particular way but don't necessarily need to be done that way. Just as an example, many people don't realize that tradition says that St Joseph was a widower with older children when he married Mary, and those are the brothers Christ refers to in Scripture. It isn't written in Scripture but the information has been passed down.

[Bluegoat]

Okay, that made perfectly reasonable sense to someone.

 

Sometimes my thinking is "different."

 

Nothing wrong with being different - it's often better than being the same.

[Violet Crown]

I don't disagree. I think we are talking in circles about the same thing. I think.

 

The OP said she was curious about what others believe. Several Catholics have stated that if a Catholic had done what her family did it would be valid but illicit. Which is exactly what you said above. I think.

 

Ah. Then yes. My apologies for my misunderstanding and the unnecessary lengthy post.

[Parrothead]

Ah. Then yes. My apologies for my misunderstanding and the unnecessary lengthy post.

:grouphug: I just want don't want anyone confused. There is so much confusion (to outsiders) about the Church already. :D

[amy g.]

My Catholic MIL was a newborn nurse. She baptized many babies in the hospital if it looked like they might not live long enough to be baptized by a priest.

[vonfirmath]

Thanks, that's helpful. What would your church think of a baptism performed deliberately by a non-Christian? Would there be a sense that the baptism must, or ought to be, re-done? And if you don't mind, would you say what church/denomination you would consider yourself, if any?

 

I grew up independent Baptist. I've belonged to southern baptist, regular baptist, and independent churches and currently attend an evangelical free church.

 

It would depend on circumstances? I can't imagine, as a Christian, deliberately seeking out a non-Christian to baptize me. So I don't know how that would even come up.

 

If someone non_Christian deliberately baptized someone but that person thought they were Christian? I can't imagine they would have a problem with it. They didn't have a problem with my baptism in a church that had a different "title" on it than their denomination. None of these churches have.

 

I don't think I'd have a problem with some nurse baptizing my kid in the hospital. Its not like getting them wet is going to cause any issues. But the churches I have attended would not accept an infant baptism as a baptism from a church of "like faith and practice". Other than that -- I'm not sure what would count or not count given the wide range of churches I've had have no problems with mine.

Edited August 15, 2012 by vonfirmath

[Violet Crown]

Vonfirmath,

 

Thanks very much for the detailed information. My Baptist exposure has mostly been to Southern Baptists, and at least around here they seem to have strict rules about what would be an acceptable baptism. (Not that there's anything wrong with strict; I like people who know where they stand and aren't afraid to say so.)

 

I can see that it would be unlikely to be an issue at all in a church tradition that doesn't practice paedobaptism. Maybe some Presbyterians or Episcopalians would chime in on their churches' views of baptism by non-Christians.

 

Thanks again!

[Bluegoat]

Vonfirmath,

 

Thanks very much for the detailed information. My Baptist exposure has mostly been to Southern Baptists, and at least around here they seem to have strict rules about what would be an acceptable baptism. (Not that there's anything wrong with strict; I like people who know where they stand and aren't afraid to say so.)

 

I can see that it would be unlikely to be an issue at all in a church tradition that doesn't practice paedobaptism. Maybe some Presbyterians or Episcopalians would chime in on their churches' views of baptism by non-Christians.

 

Thanks again!

 

I'm Anglican. We'd tend to approach it the same way at the Catholic Church.

[Violet Crown]

I'm Anglican. We'd tend to approach it the same way at the Catholic Church.

 

Any warm body can baptize?

[Bluegoat]

Any warm body can baptize?

 

Yup. Though normally that wouldn't be ideal.

[Violet Crown]

Yup. Though normally that wouldn't be ideal.

Of course. I only took an interest in the question myself when birth #1 started to go south fairly seriously; and so for birth #2, I extracted the promise from non-Christian dh (pretty easily; he's a fantastic guy, which is why I married him) that if something went really wrong, he would step in with an emergency baptism.

 

That's when I started noticing that a lot of denominations would say that baptism had to be administered by a Christian, and I wondered if Catholics were alone in considering it "real" baptism, even if by a non-believer, if there was nevertheless the right intention.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Sharon in Austin

[Kathryn]

Any warm body can baptize?

 

Yup. Though normally that wouldn't be ideal.

 

Episcopalian and this is what we were taught.