Before Vatican II, did eastern orthodox and protestants have to get re-baptized?

[st.dominic_savio]

Before Vatican II, did eastern orthodox and protestants have to get re-baptized when they converted to the catholic church?

[SouthpawLink]

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__sacramental.htm#protestantbaptism

Before Vatican II, did the Church accept Protestant baptisms?

Already in the 3rd century, the Church defined that the fact that it is a heretic who administers the sacrament of baptism does not make it invalid (Dz, 110). The baptisms of Protestants are consequently to be considered valid, unless a reasonable and prudent doubt occurs as to a defect of the required matter, form or intention (cf. Roman Ritual, Titulus II, Caput 3, §11 & 12). If there is certitude about the validity of the Protestant baptism, then there is no need to repeat the administration of the sacrament. The ceremonies are to be supplied, the convert makes a general confession, a profession of Faith and abjuration of heresy, and the excommunication incurred is lifted.

However, the usual situation is that it is practically impossible to prove the validity of the Protestant baptism. Since the investigation is very difficult to do and the validity of the Protestant baptism practically impossible to establish, the custom before Vatican II was to baptize conditionally practically every convert being received into the Church. This is still the practice of traditional priests, who are aware of their obligation to guarantee with certainty the validity of the sacrament. This does not mean that the validity of Protestant baptisms is denied, but simply that they do not have the certitude.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

[spasiisochrani]

It's true that former Protestants were often baptized conditionally because the priest found it easier than attempting to conduct an investigation into the validity of the original baptism.  Easten Orthodox were never re-baptized.

[UnamSanctam]

Baptism is valid as long as: (my words)
1) Baptism done by priest or bishop
2) Baptism must be made "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
3) Baptism must reference the three persons and the unity of nature
4) Baptism must be made with same intent as Catholic Baptism; the washing away of original sin must be intent,
5) Anyone baptized or not may baptize in emergency AND if potential recipient is fully aware and consenting


From source (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.)

   1. Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
   2. The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
   3. Baptism confers the grace of justification.
   4. Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.
   5. Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.
   6. Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.
   7. Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.
   8. Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.
   9. The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.
(on baptism)

   1. The Sacraments of the New Covenant contain the grace which they signify, and bestow it on those who do not hinder it.
   2. The Sacraments work ex opere operato, that is, the sacraments operate by the power of the completed sacramental rite.
   3. All the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer sanctifying grace on the receivers.
   4. Three Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, imprint a character, that is an indelible spiritual mark, and, for this reason, cannot be repeated.
   5. The sacramental character is a spiritual mark imprinted on the soul.
   6. The sacramental character continues at least until the death of the bearer.
   7. All Sacraments of the New Covenant were instituted by Jesus Christ.
   8. There are seven Sacraments of the New Law.
   9. The Sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind.
  10. The validity and efficacy of the Sacrament is independent of the minister's orthodoxy and state of grace.
  11. For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the Sacramental sign in the proper manner.
  12. The minister must have the intention of at least doing what the Church does.
  13. In the case of adult recipients moral worthiness is necessary for the worthy or fruitful reception of the Sacraments.
(on sacraments in general)


We therefore must diligently examine the converts regarding Baptism in order to deem valid and licit. Not all heretics, schismatics and other states of nature administer Baptism as it must be, in its true form. I think maybe we have become lax in that regard, of late.

[thetraditionalfrog]

In my family, an Orthodox relative converted to Catholicism prior to Vatican II. She was given catechism then was received by a priest. She wasn't conditionally re-baptized. She was confirmed and received her first Holy Communion afterwards though. I am surprised she was re-Confirmed as in the Orthodox, like Eastern Rites Confirmation occurs as part of the baptism rite. Also, in the Orthodox/Eastern Rites communion can be immediately received. My understanding is Confirmation, like Baptism is indelible and can not be redone, so why the need unless the priest questioned the validity, which is unlikely as meticulous as the Orthodox are. Does the Church not recognize the validity of Orthodox Confirmation? If so, that would surprise me, as it should call in to question the validity of the whole Baptismal Rite. That would be problematic for Catholics as the Eastern Rites use the same ritual.

I also had a protestant relative who converted, and he was likewise catechized then confirmed. No condition Baptism was done.

[Tim]

Unam Sanctam anyone can baptize not just clerics, as long as it's the Triniterian form.  Baltimore Catechism # 318 and 319.

tim

[JayneK]

It goes back at least as far as the Council of Trent that heretics can validly perform baptisms.

[UnamSanctam]

Unam Sanctam anyone can baptize not just clerics, as long as it's the Triniterian form.  Baltimore Catechism # 318 and 319.

tim

You must observe that rule one is supplemented with rule five in my points. The emergency issue makes possible the validity of heretics' baptism and atheist baptism. However, these actions are only valid when in the context of the sum of all the rules. For example, a heretic's baptism (even when Trinitarian) of a dying man can still be invalid if not done properly in accordance with the other procedural necessity's.

[UnamSanctam]

It goes back at least as far as the Council of Trent that heretics can validly perform baptisms.

Yes, but I think that we have lost the diligence with which we examined the nature and form of those heretical baptisms. We cannot just except any heretics baptism, for not all heretics would baptize with the intention of the Church.

[newyorkcatholic]

In my family, an Orthodox relative converted to Catholicism prior to Vatican II. She was given catechism then was received by a priest. She wasn't conditionally re-baptized. She was confirmed and received her first Holy Communion afterwards though. I am surprised she was re-Confirmed as in the Orthodox, like Eastern Rites Confirmation occurs as part of the baptism rite. Also, in the Orthodox/Eastern Rites communion can be immediately received. My understanding is Confirmation, like Baptism is indelible and can not be redone, so why the need unless the priest questioned the validity, which is unlikely as meticulous as the Orthodox are. Does the Church not recognize the validity of Orthodox Confirmation? If so, that would surprise me, as it should call in to question the validity of the whole Baptismal Rite. That would be problematic for Catholics as the Eastern Rites use the same ritual.

I also had a protestant relative who converted, and he was likewise catechized then confirmed. No condition Baptism was done.

I'd assume the Catholic priest was simply misinformed about the Orthodox practice.  Otherwise it would be sacrilege to try to re-confirm someone, as the Orthodox Chrismation is perfectly valid and is the same sacrament that we call Confirmation.  Also she did not receive her first Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, since the Orthodox also communicate infants ... she just received Holy Communion for the first time in the bosom of the true Catholic Church in union with Peter.

About the conditional baptisms: it's an issue of prudence while respecting the theology of valid baptisms done by heretics ... given the craziness going on in Prottie groups, you can no longer assume they are baptising the way the standard Methodist/Lutheran whatever Prottie groups were doing, now they are using rose petals instead of water, etc etc, and so perhaps conditional baptism (in private not as part of the public reception) should be brought back into common use.