ASK FATHER: Is baptism by fake women ‘priests’ valid? (Catholic Caucus)

WDTPRS ^ | May 15, 2015 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[capt. norm]

As stated in the Bible (not in exact words) but faith (like beauty) is int eh eyes/heart of the beholder.

Even the money-grubbing faith-healers play into his hands because the people they scams end up with the real thing, in their hearts, where it really counts.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"What if priests believe that they are real but God does not recognize them?"

I'm not at all clear what your question means, nor how it is relevant to this discussion.

One need not be a priest to baptize.

Are you a Catholic? Did you miss that this is a Catholic Caucus thread?

[Cicero]

That’s great. I don’t know of anything else that the expression “It’s better late than never” fits so well.

[Verginius Rufus]

My grandmother's great-grandmother was a midwife (in a village in the mid-19th century in Europe when all babies were born at home). She sometimes had to baptize babies who were likely to die soon after birth.

(I know about this from reading parish records, not from family tradition.)

[Grateful2God]

Or do as other denominations and consent to their ordination?

[mountainbunny]

According to my priest, yes. The baptizer does not have to be religious if the form is correct.

I remember him mentioning times when baptism isn’t even strictly required. Lets say a person is waiting to be baptized and had been going through the preparations - attending church, professing faith, reading the Bible, changing their lives to conform to God’s word.

If that person were to die for their faith, as some Middle Eastern Christians are doing, and as many early Christian martyrs did, it is termed a Baptism of Fire - the desire and transformation were there, even without the actual baptism.

Being willing to die for Christ is showing a true conversion of the heart.

[piusv]

When I first converted, I learned about the Trinitarian formula used in baptism and that anyone could baptize. Since then I have learned a lot about sacramental theology and know that there must be correct form, matter and intention for a valid sacrament. I am glad that the priest mentions "the intention to do what the Church does". This is often ignored.

Per Pope Leo XIII:

Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.

[redfreedom]

“Is baptism by fake women ‘priests’ valid?”

A similar question:

Are laws signed by fake presidents valid?

[Suz in AZ]

What’s keeping anybody from doing it? A secret satanist could baptize a bunch of people, register it and call it good. Cool. I guess if authority doesn’t matter then why have a pope or priests or any hierarchy for that matter. Make it a free for all. Let everyone make up their own versions of baptism. Groovy.

[Campion]

I’ve often wondered, if a person who is non Christian or even a pagan, can they baptize someone in the name of the Trinity?

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, the answer is yes, provided they have the proper "intent". The proper intent is to intend to do what the Church does, that is, to administer Trinitarian Christian baptism.

Remember, the spiritual effects of a sacrament come from Christ, not from the minister of the sacrament, who is just an agent or intermediary. Neither does it come through the faith of the minister.

However, this gets tricky if the minister is, e.g., a Mormon or JW. Those sects use the correct words, but do not mean by them what the Church means (because they reject the Trinity), so they are assumed not to have the proper intent.

However, if someone were baptized by a Mormon, and had a signed letter from the Mormon indicating that he or she intended to administer orthodox Christian, Trinitarian baptism, I think it would hard to argue that that baptism was not valid.

[Campion]

Let everyone make up their own versions of baptism

In order to be valid, "their own versions of baptism" would have to include the words "N., I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (or something very close to it), and would have to involve the administration of (something a reasonable person would call) water, probably either by immersion or pouring over the head.

As well as having the correct ministerial intent (see above), etc.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I did not know this was a Caucus thread, but I asked a legitimate question and I got legitimate answers.

Thank you all!

[Biggirl]

Was away from FR yesterday. Playing catch-up.

[Biggirl]

That is why any non-Catholic who is a baptized Christian that wants to become a Catholic going through RCIA is simply is “received” into the Church at Easter Sunday vigil.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Exactly. The person’s Baptism under the auspices of a Protestant Church is recognized by the Catholic Church.