Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism (Was Re: In Communion with Rome?) Message-ID: Date: 30 Oct 90 05:28:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 28 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In Catholic doctrine, to validly baptize you need this: - pure and natural water (the matter) - the formula: I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc. (the form) - intention to baptize (the intention) There is no requirement on the minister besides whatever is implied by these three. The reason for the ease with which this sacrament can be administered is its universal importance. Such a situation is, of course, not a normal one. If the person being baptized in such a case did not die, then a priest would attempt to ascertain sometime later whether the baptism was done properly. If there was no doubt, it would not be repeated, because rebaptizing is sacrilege -- an abuse of a holy thing. If there was some doubt, a conditional rebaptism would be performed (If you are able to be baptized, I baptize you, etc.). If it is obvious that the baptism was invalid, it would be performed unconditionally. In some times and places in the past, at least, there may have been some problems with Protestant baptisms, because of the cavalier way in which the sacrament was treated. In the past, some of the Orthodox hesitated about Catholic baptisms, as I think somebody noted. The case of Baptism and the Eucharist is slightly different in that the minister *is* important in the Eucharist.