What is a "valid baptism" according to the Roman Catholic Church?

[YoursTrue]

I know the context. Why would the fact that someone turns out to be not validly baptized affect whether their marriage is valid?

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church considers only some rule violations to affect the validity of a sacrament. There are many rules that, if broken, make the sacrament illicit but not invalid.

So why do you think that the validity of someone's baptism would have any of the effects you describe? Why would this scenario impact the validity of the Sacraments of Marriage or Holy Orders?

So the question is: What exactly does an "invalid baptism" imply or mean for the individual? So let's say a person's baptism has been invalidated by the Roman Catholic Church. Then what happens theologically beyond that, for instance, if a person doesn't get "re-baptized."

 

[RestlessSoul]

That would be nice, but not how it works in the real world of an institutional Church such as the CCC, which has strict guidelines.

You sure about that? I’m a Catholic only in the loosest sense, but remember being taught that anyone can baptise a child (doesn’t have to be a priest), in exactly the simple manner described in your post above.

I would take the OP article with a heavy pinch of salt tbh.

 

[YoursTrue]

It seems strange to me that they would declare baptisms invalid over this issue considering that there's a fair bit of diversity among the churches in communion with Rome of what the exact words ought to be.

For instance, here's the wording in the Byzantine Rite churches (one of the Eastern Rite churches under the authority of the Pope):


Holy Christening Baptism according to The Practice Of The Byzantine Rite - Archeparchy of Pittsburgh

If Latin Rite priests think that "we baptize you" is too vague, I wonder what they make of the churches that use the passive voice like the Byzantine Rite (which apparently Rome considers valid).

While you bring up some interesting questions and good points, I also find it interesting that there is the Byzantine Rite and other rites, I suppose. Valid? Invalid? Rebaptize if possible? For what purpose, however?

 

[Rival]

You sure about that? I’m a Catholic only in the loosest sense, but remember being taught that anyone can baptise a child (doesn’t have to be a priest), in exactly the simple manner described in your post above.

I would take the OP article with a heavy pinch of salt tbh.

Anyone can baptise if need be, but it has to be using either of those specific words. Hence why the JW baptism is invalid.

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

And,

"In 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) responded to questions about the validity of baptisms if any words are changed. They authoritatively ruled that to say “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” does not convey the sacrament of baptism. Rather, ministers must allow Jesus to speak through them and say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In making this clarification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith referred to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which reminded us that no one, “even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” Our own consultation with the CDF resulted in the same conclusion in this case: baptisms performed by Fr. Andres using “we” are invalid."

Addressing the Validity of Baptisms - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

 

[Rival]

While you bring up some interesting questions and good points, I also find it interesting that there is the Byzantine Rite and other rites, I suppose. Valid? Invalid? Rebaptize if possible? For what purpose, however?

Baptisms from other Trinitarian Churches, such as Anglican, are valid; but if one is a Catholic Priest and doing a baptism, one is bound by the Catechism.

 

[YoursTrue]

You sure about that? I’m a Catholic only in the loosest sense, but remember being taught that anyone can baptise a child (doesn’t have to be a priest), in exactly the simple manner described in your post above.

I would take the OP article with a heavy pinch of salt tbh.

It has been brought out that there are different rituals associated with various churches. So then a follow up question is, what does it MEAN (to believers or -- the RCC) if a person is baptized, and what does it mean (to the RCC) if the baptism is declared invalid. Penalties? Curses from God? Marriages?

 

[YoursTrue]

Baptisms from other Trinitarian Churches, such as Anglican, are valid; but if one is a Catholic Priest and doing a baptism, one is bound by the Catechism.

OK, so if a person has been baptized in the Anglican church, can he become a priest in the RCC if he is not re-baptized in the Catholic church? Which brings up another question but since you declare it's ok by Catholic teaching to have been baptized in any trinitarian church, I'm wondering about that.

 

[Rival]

It has been brought out that there are different rituals associated with various churches. So then a follow up question is, what does it MEAN (to believers or -- the RCC) if a person is baptized, and what does it mean (to the RCC) if the baptism is declared invalid. Penalties? Curses from God? Marriages?

See here, as I just linked Addressing the Validity of Baptisms - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

 

[Rival]

OK, so if a person has been baptized in the Anglican church, can he become a priest in the RCC if he is not re-baptized in the Catholic church? Which brings up another question but since you declare it's ok by Catholic teaching to have been baptized in any trinitarian church, I'm wondering about that.

It can be done, but obviously there are nuances. I'm unaware of the details, but his baptism is valid and doesn't need redoing. Many former Anglicans have become Catholic priests.

 

[YoursTrue]

It can be done, but obviously there are nuances. I'm unaware of the details, but his baptism is valid and doesn't need redoing. Many former Anglicans have become Catholic priests.

You are speaking of baptism, is that right? about Anglican priests becoming Catholic priests. I find that interesting, because their Anglican baptism is valid, I suppose?

 

[Rival]

You are speaking of baptism, is that right? about Anglican priests becoming Catholic priests. I find that interesting, because their Anglican baptism is valid, I suppose?

Yes, it is. Any former Anglican male can become a Catholic priest.

The church only accepts baptisms from other faith communities that used the proper form and matter of the sacrament. Even these baptisms must use the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” to be valid.

 

[viole]

Invalid baptisms in Arizona point to something very wrong in the Catholic Church (nbcnews.com)

I would say that what is really wrong in the Catholic church is not necessarily related to that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

It has been brought out that there are different rituals associated with various churches. So then a follow up question is, what does it MEAN (to believers or -- the RCC) if a person is baptized, and what does it mean (to the RCC) if the baptism is declared invalid. Penalties? Curses from God? Marriages?

Well my wife and I were once told, by a particularly backward old priest, that we weren’t properly married, because our wedding was in an Anglican Church. But we didn’t take him seriously, and it hasn’t affected anything as far as I know. No one has since challenged my son’s baptism or first communion on that or any other basis, and if they did they’d be wasting their breath.

 

[metis]

You sure about that? I’m a Catholic only in the loosest sense, but remember being taught that anyone can baptise a child (doesn’t have to be a priest), in exactly the simple manner described in your post above.

In a life-or-death emergency, yes, and one can even use spittle if no water is nearby. I wonder if that's why people keep spitting at me?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

So, thousands of people were baptized in the first years after the time of Christ, before the "church" came up with this exact wording. Are they all invalid?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So, thousands of people were baptized in the first years after the time of Christ, before the "church" came up with this exact wording. Are they all invalid?

Better tell John the Baptist he wasn’t doing it right

 

[Rival]

So, thousands of people were baptized in the first years after the time of Christ, before the "church" came up with this exact wording. Are they all invalid?

Obviously not, but the Church formalised the process. It's not "just" a baptism. It has theological implications that were hammered out in the early centuries of the Church. It seems a lot of folks here don't like or even know about this kind of 'legalism' but it's there.

 

[YoursTrue]

See here, as I just linked Addressing the Validity of Baptisms - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

I see they addressed the question, and it does involve salvation as far as they are concerned. I agree that the Lord Jesus did get baptized and told his followers to get baptized.

Well my wife and I were once told, by a particularly backward old priest, that we weren’t properly married, because our wedding was in an Anglican Church. But we didn’t take him seriously, and it hasn’t affected anything as far as I know. No one has since challenged my son’s baptism or first communion on that or any other basis, and if they did they’d be wasting their breath.

Amazing.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would say that what is really wrong in the Catholic church is not necessarily related to that.

Ciao

- viole

I'm not going to disagree. But it sure does make one wonder bout things. Some say anyway it's all shrouded in mystery and fables, etc. So anything could go I suppose.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, thousands of people were baptized in the first years after the time of Christ, before the "church" came up with this exact wording. Are they all invalid?

Oops someone more knowledgeable than I am would have to offer an answer.