| Author | |
Marybeth
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 02 2005
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1277
|
| Posted: July 24 2006 at 1:26pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I have a question to ask b/c with getting ready for vacation I don't have the time to research the answer. I am hoping for help! 
My cousin who is a baptized Catholic married a non-Catholic at a Unitarian Church several years ago. There was no priest or Catholic blessing given to their marriage.
They had their second baby in April and had him baptized at/in Lake Michigan by my cousin's uncle who left the priesthood in the 1960's. This man left the priesthood married, divorced and remarried. I am uncertain whether he had his first marriage annulled.
Is this ok since "once a priest, always a priest?"
I'm just not sure so needed to ask someone. I feel badly for my cousin since his cathecism preparation has been so "new age feel good".
TIA!
Marybeth
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: July 24 2006 at 1:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as the matter and words are correct (water and "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit") ANYONE can baptize. So if those bases were covered, it's a valid baptism, just not ideal. 
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
amyable
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 07 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3798
|
| Posted: July 24 2006 at 1:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm no expert, but I think Jenn is right. My MIL would baptize each of her babies before she left the hospital building. Her brother, a good Catholic priest, was OK with that but did have to use different words when they had a ceremony that they invited people to a few weeks later (something about the baby already having been baptized). So at least HE thought it was official.
__________________
Amy
mom of 5, ages 6-16, and happy wife of
The Highly Sensitive Homeschooler
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: July 24 2006 at 1:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I will add because this priest isn't affiliated with any diocese, it might be best to get another "conditional" baptism by another priest, so that there can be documented proof of baptism in the Church records. If this child will seek the other sacraments, he/she will have to have the official proof of baptism. Does that make sense?
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Sarah
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 17 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1624
|
| Posted: July 24 2006 at 3:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
An extraordinary minister (which means not the "ordinary"--the bishop or priest) can only baptize in case on necessity.
In case of survival, a priest should perform another ceremony.
scroll down to minister of sacrament-it doesn't work to click on it, though, you have to scroll.
In this link, I think it is intersting the preferences in order of who should perform the baptism. For example, priest before layman, man before woman, etc. . .
__________________
Six boys ages 16, 14, 11, 7, 5, 2 and one girl age 9
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: July 24 2006 at 6:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
There is a difference between illicit and invalid. The situation you describe is certainly illicit (ie not done by the proper person according to church's instructions) but with form and matter as required it might still be a valid sacrament. If the form and matter are there, baptism itself still took place. Now the form and matter are likely to be doubtful (an earlier act of disobedience would leave me wondering if this person was terribly concerned about the proper words of baptism which constitute the form of the Sacrament and whoever allowed the illicit ceremony may not have been terribly informed to know what to listen for in terms of words that constitute the form of the Sacrament) - so conditional baptism by the proper authorities would be in order so that there is no doubt (most important aspect) and an official record (this aspect will eventually come up at another sacramental moment when the proof of Baptism will be required.) In this case a conditional baptism with the words "If you can be baptised" preceeding the actual words of baptism is what is used.
This is often done for converts who were "baptised" in other churches that may or may not have used the correct words "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If there is any doubt at all this conditional form is used (or should be)since Baptism itself leaves a permanent mark on the soul and cannot be repeated. The conditional form is also used when the state of life or death is doubtful since Baptism is a sacrament of the living, it cannot be given to the deceased. But the precise moment of the seperation of the soul from the body is unknown definitively so the conditional form is often used just in case life may still be present (ie the soul has not quite yet left the body). The trinitarian form is essential for Baptism.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
hylabrook1
Forum Moderator
Joined: July 09 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5980
|
| Posted: July 24 2006 at 7:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi -
I have a further question about baptizing someone in an emergency (like if you are afraid they might die) or just because (not that you really think they might die, but you don't want them to be "unbaptized" for even a couple of weeks). I understand that if you have given birth and the baby might not live for some medical reason and you can't get a priest, absolutely, use the right words and go ahead and baptize your own baby. On the other hand, the baby is healthy, you could plan a "regular" baptism for a couple of weeks down the road, but you just don't want to, say, take your baby home from the hospital in the car without baptism because you could have a fatal accident on the way home. Is that really appropriate (can't think of a better word to use here) for you to go ahead and baptize that baby yourself?
I'm not trying to pick nits; I honestly wonder this, as I have known people to do this and then go ahead with the church ceremony a couple of weeks later, which, as far as I could tell, was not a conditional baptism.
Does anybody know what the real Church teaching is on this?
Thanks for your input.
Peace,
Nancy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: July 25 2006 at 8:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
In the case of baptizing in an emergency when a priest is unavailable or not likely to arrive in time - then baptizing yourself is not even illicit. Anyone is permitted to baptize in this situation, actually we are called to do so.
In the second situation, I do not think that I would baptize - first a priest would be available in plenty of time which would make your situation illicit. The church asks us to baptize our babies as soon after birth as possible (ie no undue delays here) but I think that you can count on God honoring your intent for baptism if something untoward happened on the way home (or have someone baptize conditionally at that point). .
No one can be baptized a second time, so if you have done an illicit baptism then you need to at least tell the priest. If your situation was certain (ie form and matter were proper) then baptism might not be done at all. The priest might choose to perform a conditional baptism for the sake of his certainty in attesting to the record.
Actually if an infant is in danger of death, they should be baptized and confirmed at the same time (only the bishop/priest can confirm). Look at CCC 1314.
You may want to look at CCC 1246, 1256, 1257-1259,1272 or really the whole section on baptism.
The information about conditional baptism came up when a deacon at our church could not access records from the past. He was fairly certain that he had been baptized but the pastor wanted not even a shade of doubt before ordination, and the situation was explained to the parish (so no scandal or embarrassment to this individual) and conditional baptism and confirmation given. I have also been present when people have been baptised in the name of Jesus in other churches but could not remember for sure the exact words, a careful pastor realizing that 30 years after the moment, it is hard to be certain and so there is no doubt in so important a matter, baptized conditionally.
My bil wishes his priest had done this when he converted as he later found out he had recalled incorrectly and they went back to the pastor for conditional baptism, confirmation and marriage blessing.
Great care should always be taken when we are speaking of the Sacraments or the Mass. There is a whole section in the CCC about the Mass and how we are not free to change from what the church has instructed.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Marybeth
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 02 2005
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1277
|
| Posted: July 26 2006 at 7:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thank you for the replies. I just didn't want my cousin to enroll his boys in Catholic school and be caught unaware regarding their baptisms. Now, it is just who in the family will be the one to say something?? 
I just feel for so many of my cousins b/c their church teaching was just desperately lacking. They all attended Catholic schools K-12! 
God bless,
Marybeth
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
4Real Forums : Domestic Church
Topic: Is this baptism valid?
