[Wallace T.]

Was Robert Bork baptized into his family's Protestant denomination? If so, does the Catholic Church not recognize the legitimacy of his prior baptism? If the Catholic Church does not recognize the prior baptiam, is the non-recognition due to the absence of what Rome regards as legitimate and continuous apostolic succession in the Protestant churches (Episcopals included)? Since all churches that can legitimately call themselves Protestant are necessarily Trinitarian, it would appear the language of administration would be acceptable per se. (I suppose an Eastern Orthodox baptism would be regarded as a legitimate sacrament.)

[philosofy123]

Werlcome Judge Bork. I love you man. This thing is a MARKET SHARE thing. Catholics are up to cature lost market share to the protestants. Score one for the Catholics.

[wideawake]

All baptisms of water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are considered valid by the Catholic Church whether administered by the Catholics or not.

I know Reformed Christians who were raised Christian but not baptized until their late teens or early twenties - their feeling was that they shouldn't be baptized until they really experienced being born again.

If Bork belonged to such a denomination, and fell away from churchgoing as a young man, it's possible that he was never baptized.

[k omalley]

The Catholic church recognizes baptisms performed by Protestant churches. If Bork was a "generic" protestant, chances are he never got around to being baptized. It is not an uncommon occurence.

[Reo]

"does the Catholic Church not recognize the legitimacy of his prior baptism?"

It did when my wife and I became Catholics nine years ago. As we both had been baptised as children in our parents' Protestant denominations (Presbyterian and Congregational), our priest brought us into the Church with us reciting the Nicene Creed in a small, private ceremony. A wonderful, grace-filled day!

[B-Chan]

Great news! Welcome home, Judge Bork!

NB: The Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms, whether performed by Protestant, Orthodox, or Evangelical clergy, as long as these are valid in form (trinitarian) and matter (water).

Valid baptisms perfomed by laymen and even non-Christians are also recognized, believe it or not!

I was baptized as an teenager in an Assemblies of God church. When I was reconciled to the Catholic Church, our priest declined to perform another baptism, since my "Evangelical baptism" was done in the name of the Holy Trinity and was thus completely valid. When serious doubt exists as to the validity or correct performance of a previous baptism, a bishop will sometimes authorize a "conditional" Catholic baptism (i.e. "just in case"), but this is rare; the Evangelical church where I was originally baptized didn't even record my baptism, but its validity was accepted by the Church upon my word alone, with the option of obtaining testimony of witnesses (which they did not ask for).

[piasa]

The Catholic church recognizes the prior baptism, but he may not have had one, or may not be sure he had one; perhapd there is no formal record of it.

My sister was baptised by a Catholic nun since she was near death when born. It didn't matter that we were Lutheran - the Lutheran church recognized the baptism as fact, and she later grew up and was confirmed in the Lutheran church. The Word is more than good enough to overcome denominational differences- or the depth or purity of any water used in the sacrament.

[utahagen]

The Catholic Church recognizes most Christian baptisms. However, some Protestant denominations don't baptise infants, so perhaps Bork was never baptised for that reason. Also, some of the more loosey-goosey COngregationalist Churches play down the sacramental element of baptism so much that being baptised is very casual. Perhaps there was a ceremony that Bork himslef is unsure "counted", so the Church conditionally rebaptised him, which they do sometimes when the person may have been baptised before.

[Coleus]

If so, does the Catholic Church not recognize the legitimacy of his prior baptism? >>>>>

I think they do. Maybe this was done as a ceremonious occasion and he received the other sacraments along with it: Eucharist and Confirmation or maybe he was never baptized, who knows.

[Mannaggia l'America]

If so, does the Catholic Church not recognize the legitimacy of his prior baptism?

Yes, it is recognized.

My wife is in the process of converting, and I had expected that she would be baptized in the Church, but she was told that they do not baptize if you were baptized in another Christian denomination (she was baptized Lutheran). Her first sacrements will be Penance and Communion.

From what I understand, it is not done again because it would seem to say that your first baptism as a Christian was "not valid".

[Campion]

If the Catholic Church does not recognize the prior baptiam, is the non-recognition due to the absence of what Rome regards as legitimate and continuous apostolic succession in the Protestant churches (Episcopals included)?

No. Apostolic succession is not required for baptism, since (in Catholic theology) anyone is a valid minister of the sacrament, as long as they intend to do what the church does, that is, baptize in the Name of the Trinity.

Sometimes Protestants who become Catholic are conditionally baptized, if they were originally baptized by sprinkling, or if they can't show any evidence of their original baptism and no witnesses can be found.

But it sounds to me like Judge Bork was never baptized at all.