Catholic Views on Priesthood Authority

[smac97]

I would like to better understand how Catholics approach the concept of priesthood authority.  This topic came to mind earlier today when I came across this article: 

Quote

Vatican says some Christians may need to be rebaptised
by Madoc Cairns
The announcement, signed by Pope Francis, stresses that baptisms must use the approved formula in order to be valid.

The Vatican’s doctrinal experts have advised that certain baptisms may need to be redone, after clarifying that baptisms using an adjusted formula are not valid. 

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Vatican body in charge of overseeing doctrinal issues, responded to a question on baptism yesterday. The questioner asked whether baptisms were valid when administered using the form of words: “We baptise you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” There have been recorded instances in some Christian Churches of that form of words, or one similar to it, being used.

In their response, the CDF clarified that the only acceptable formula for baptism is “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This means that anyone who was baptised using a different form of words should be considered not to have received the sacrament yet.

It seems that the Catholic Church is not as concerned about the particulars of the authority by which the sacrament/ordinance is performed, and instead focus on the sufficiency of the verbiage.

Similarly, it would seem that the verbiage predominates over the mode of baptism, such that any mode will be accepted as long as the proper wording ("formula") is used.  Is that correct?

Quote

In some cases, this will mean that baptisms will need to be redone.

So the sufficiency and validity of the sacrament turns on the wording?  Am I understanding this correctly?

Quote

Although the doctrinal office generally emphasises that baptisms “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” are valid, this is not universally the case. In one notable example, the CDF previously ruled that Mormon baptisms, despite using the correct formula, are invalid due to the non-trinitarian theology of that religion. 

So the considerations are:

• Mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) - Any mode is acceptable.
• Theology of the Officiating Religious Group - Most religions have acceptable theological compatibility so as to not require re-baptism.
• Priesthood Authority - Apparently not a concern?  
• Wording ("Formula") - "{T}he only acceptable formula for baptism is 'I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"

Is this a correct summary?

Quote

According to the announcement, the modifications to the baptismal formula were introduced to “to express the participation of the family and of those present”, as well as to “avoid the idea of the concentration of a sacred power in the priest to the detriment of...the community”. The traditional formula, was, however necessary, in part so that participants “recognise with absolute clarity the gesture of Christ in the ritual action of the Church”. When an individual priest or layperson administers the sacrament of baptism, the document states “it is really Christ Himself who baptises”.

This seems to corroborate the idea the actual "authority" is not a factor in how the Catholic Church evaluates the sufficiency of a baptism.  I did not know a "layperson" could officiate in a Catholic baptism.

The contrast between this an the Latter-day Saint approach is fairly significant.  We emphasize all four of the above considerations.  A baptism must be A) by immersion, B) by someone vested with priesthood authority, C) using a specifically-worded prayer.  The "theology" held by the individual officiating in the ordinance is, I think, predicated on the individual being in good standing in the Church.  That would entail belief in the basics (mostly set forth in the AoF).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 7, 2020 by smac97

[mrmarklin]

I'm not Catholic, but I believe that the word "I" in the invocation is critical because it implies that the person doing the baptism has the authority to do so.  Using "we" is too general to imply that authority.

[The Nehor]

What if you are a reigning monarch. Is the royal "we" acceptable in that case?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

What if you are a reigning monarch. Is the royal "we" acceptable in that case?

Also the editorial "we" should work out, too  

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

What if you are a reigning monarch. Is the royal "we" acceptable in that case?

I'm not sure how many reigning Monarchs are doing baptisms...…………………………..

[MiserereNobis]

There are 7 sacraments in the Catholic Church. Sacraments are what LDS would call ordinances. In order for a sacrament to be valid, it must have valid form, matter, and intent.

In the case of baptism, the form is the wording used, the matter is water, and the intention is to do what the Church and Christ would want. Priesthood is not necessary for baptism, though it is the standard/ordinary way. In extraordinary circumstances, even non-Catholics, non-Christians, or even atheists(!) could validly baptize, as long as there is valid form, matter, and intent.

From the catechism:

Quote

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation

If you would like to read why LDS baptism is not considered valid, here is the full document (it's not long and is respectful and reasonable from a Catholic point-of-view).

Here is the summary paragraph:

Quote

Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And here is the nice ending paragraph that says just because we don't believe your baptism is valid doesn't mean we think you are bad people  

Quote

It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.

@smac97 I hope this answers your questions.

Edited August 7, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

There are 7 sacraments in the Catholic Church. Sacraments are what LDS would call ordinances. In order for a sacrament to be valid, it must have valid form, matter, and intent.

In the case of baptism, the form is the wording used, the matter is water, and the intention is to do what the Church and Christ would want. Priesthood is not necessary for baptism, though it is the standard/ordinary way. In extraordinary circumstances, even non-Catholics, non-Christians, or even atheists(!) could validly baptize, as long as there is valid form, matter, and intent.

From the catechism:

If you would like to read why LDS baptism is not considered valid, here is the full document (it's not long and is respectful and reasonable from a Catholic point-of-view).

Here is the summary paragraph:

And here is the nice ending paragraph that says just because we don't believe your baptism is valid doesn't mean we think you are bad people  

 

Can women perform valid baptisms then, in the Catholic church's view?

The idea that an atheist could perform a sacrament is interesting.  I guess my understanding of the Catholic church's views on authority have been wrong.

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, bluebell said:

Can women perform valid baptisms then, in the Catholic church's view?

The idea that an atheist could perform a sacrament is interesting.  I guess my understanding of the Catholic church's views on authority have been wrong.

Yes, in extraordinary circumstances. Since priesthood isn't required for baptism, the gender of the person administering baptism doesn't matter.

Let me reiterate, though, that this is for extraordinary circumstances. It is the exception, not the rule. A person should be baptized by a bishop, priest, or deacon if at all possible.

And I also want to say that priesthood is required for the other sacraments/ordinances (though marriage has some subtleties to it), so your understanding of the Catholic Church's view on authority is probably not wrong -- you just didn't know about the exception for baptism in extraordinary circumstances.

[Storm Rider]

The requirement of priesthood authority within Catholic Sacraments is not equivalent. Baptism is acceptable without the requirement of an actual Catholic priest performing the Sacrament. Conversely, only a Catholic priest can bless and perform the Eucharist.

In regards to LDS baptism, due to the fact that we do not mean the Trinity when we use the words, our baptism is unacceptable. Our beliefs of the Godhead put us too far outside of Catholic Orthodoxy to be acceptable even when we use the acceptable words in the baptismal prayer. 

[2BizE]

The assumption is this baptism is being performed by a catholic priest with the authority. The pope is then clarifying the verbiage.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like to better understand how Catholics approach the concept of priesthood authority. 

Thank you for asking this question.  I have wondered about the precise differences between our views myself. 

5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I'm not sure how many reigning Monarchs are doing baptisms...…………………………..

Yeah, I've only seen raining cats and dogs do baptisms (first by sprinkling, then by pouring, and then if it gets really really bad it is followed by immersion).

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

or even atheists(!) could validly baptize,

It puzzles me how atheists could validly baptize but Latter-day Saints could not, given that the primary reason for disallowing the LDS baptisms has to do with a particular theological view of the Godhead.  Is having no theological view better than having an incorrect one?   

Thank you for your responses, by the way.  I appreciate your contributions to provide the Catholic point of view.

Edited August 8, 2020 by InCognitus

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

It puzzles me how atheists could validly baptize but Latter-day Saints could not, given that the primary reason for disallowing the LDS baptisms has to do with a particular theological view of the Godhead.  Is having no theological view better than having an incorrect one?   

I think it is mostly in the words used to perform the baptism. It seems to me that a Mormon can baptise a Catholic born infant, if he uses the correct words when performing the baptism.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I'm not sure how many reigning Monarchs are doing baptisms...…………………………..

I am definitely not planning to take over a small nation and set up a theocracy there as the king. Definitely not. Why are you looking at me like that?

[mgy401]

Perhaps worth pointing out that the verbiage of the LDS baptismal prayer isn’t quite eternally cast in stone, either.  In this dispensation we’ve been instructed to use the specific form outlined in D&C 20:73.  But alternative forms were used in Mosiah 18:13 and 3 Nephi 11:25.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, in extraordinary circumstances. Since priesthood isn't required for baptism, the gender of the person administering baptism doesn't matter.

Let me reiterate, though, that this is for extraordinary circumstances. It is the exception, not the rule. A person should be baptized by a bishop, priest, or deacon if at all possible.

And I also want to say that priesthood is required for the other sacraments/ordinances (though marriage has some subtleties to it), so your understanding of the Catholic Church's view on authority is probably not wrong -- you just didn't know about the exception for baptism in extraordinary circumstances.

Yes, this is what I was taught.

We must remember that for a Catholic one cannot enter into heaven or be saved if one is not baptized. We have baptism for the dead so our picture of it is entirely different. The urgency of allowing virtually anyone to do a baptism if the baby is about to die is strictly because it is such an urgent sacrament.

Catholics used to believe that a child who was unbaptized went to a place called Limbo instead of heaven, even through of course, no fault of the baby. That belief now has become more flexible I believe.

This further emphasizes the reason for the importance of baptism.

So in an emergency anyone who knows enough about Catholicism could baptize a baby correctly for Catholics to count her as baptized. 

Baptizing the baby would actually be more important than saving her life since her eternity would be involved.

At least that's the way I learned it

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like to better understand how Catholics approach the concept of priesthood authority.  This topic came to mind earlier today when I came across this article: 

It seems that the Catholic Church is not as concerned about the particulars of the authority by which the sacrament/ordinance is performed, and instead focus on the sufficiency of the verbiage.

Similarly, it would seem that the verbiage predominates over the mode of baptism, such that any mode will be accepted as long as the proper wording ("formula") is used.  Is that correct?

So the sufficiency and validity of the sacrament turns on the wording?  Am I understanding this correctly?

So the considerations are:

• Mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) - Any mode is acceptable.
• Theology of the Officiating Religious Group - Most religions have acceptable theological compatibility so as to not require re-baptism.
• Priesthood Authority - Apparently not a concern?  
• Wording ("Formula") - "{T}he only acceptable formula for baptism is 'I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"

Is this a correct summary?

This seems to corroborate the idea the actual "authority" is not a factor in how the Catholic Church evaluates the sufficiency of a baptism.  I did not know a "layperson" could officiate in a Catholic baptism.

The contrast between this an the Latter-day Saint approach is fairly significant.  We emphasize all four of the above considerations.  A baptism must be A) by immersion, B) by someone vested with priesthood authority, C) using a specifically-worded prayer.  The "theology" held by the individual officiating in the ordinance is, I think, predicated on the individual being in good standing in the Church.  That would entail belief in the basics (mostly set forth in the AoF).

Thanks,

-Smac

The underlying reason for changing the form (words) of baptism from singular to plural would be from an overemphasis on the Protestant view of the priesthood of all believers. Catholics have always believed in this but not to the point where there is some sense in which everybody present is baptising. It is theologically false that a plurality of persons can validly baptize.  

 

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, in extraordinary circumstances. Since priesthood isn't required for baptism, the gender of the person administering baptism doesn't matter.

Let me reiterate, though, that this is for extraordinary circumstances. It is the exception, not the rule. A person should be baptized by a bishop, priest, or deacon if at all possible.

And I also want to say that priesthood is required for the other sacraments/ordinances (though marriage has some subtleties to it), so your understanding of the Catholic Church's view on authority is probably not wrong -- you just didn't know about the exception for baptism in extraordinary circumstances.

Miserere,

I completely agree with what you explain here, but we need to explain that an unlawful baptism does not necessarily invalidate the efficacy of the Sacrament. I think our LDS friends could easily misunderstand that if someone, not a priest, baptized when the circumstances were ordinary, that the baptism would be null and void. I will try to dispel such a possible misunderstanding.

The Church has long taught that it is unlawful to baptize children without the consent of the parents:

"If, however, they [children of unbelievers] have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents' will."---St. Thos. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q.68, a. 10, Denziger #1481  

But what happens if a child is baptized unlawfully? Does the Church admit that such a baptism is invalidated? On the contrary, a supernatural event occurs, which according to a letter by Pope Benedict XIV, on Feb 28, 1747, supercedes the force of natural justice put forth above by St. Thomas. I should note that I doubt that the practical application of this judgment by the pope could have ever been carried out if someone ever disobeyed the Church's instructions. The pope is explaining the Church's position so as to discourage any such practise of unlawful baptism as forcefully as he could. Pope Benedict taught that the Church, through baptism would incur an onerous obligation to such an unlawfully, but validly baptized child. In this case, he is speaking of the child of Jewish parents, but the case would be the same for all unbelievers:

"But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they may be piously and religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, which, though it may be unlawful, nevertheless is true and valid."---from the epistle "postremo mense" to the Viceregent in the City, Denziger #1482 

To reiterate, nobody wants to contemplate the kidnapping of a child from its parents. I doubt that this ever happened even once. I hope not. I believe there were overzealous Catholics, perhaps medical people, or mid-wives who could mistakenly have reasoned with themselves against the Church's law and custom, that they were doing a good thing by secretly baptising a child of an unbeliever. I believe that this undoubtedly happened on numerous occasions, sadly. The pope above is telling this government official to communicate to his citizens that whether this taking the child away from parents, could be carried out in practise, that it should be carried out for the reason given above by St. Thomas. These unlawful baptisms were being performed by souls who had slight thought for the supernatural ramifications of their actions. They probably did this in secret with no thought of separating child from parents. They did not think about, much less accept the Church's judgment, that such an unlawfully baptized child would be "liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents." The point, which I have probably oversold, for our LDS friends is that the Church is for these reasons against any but a priest baptising except the circumstance be extraordinary. But the above makes clear, that even if some Catholic lay person should foolishly baptize under ordinary circumstances, the baptism is valid.

3DOP

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

The underlying reason for changing the form (words) of baptism from singular to plural would be from an overemphasis on the Protestant view of the priesthood of all believers. Catholics have always believed in this but not to the point where there is some sense in which everybody present is baptising. It is theologically false that a plurality of persons can validly baptize.  

 

Miserere,

I completely agree with what you explain here, but we need to explain that an unlawful baptism does not necessarily invalidate the efficacy of the Sacrament. I think our LDS friends could easily misunderstand that if someone, not a priest, baptized when the circumstances were ordinary, that the baptism would be null and void. I will try to dispel such a possible misunderstanding.

The Church has long taught that it is unlawful to baptize children without the consent of the parents:

"If, however, they [children of unbelievers] have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents' will."---St. Thos. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q.68, a. 10, Denziger #1481  

But what happens if a child is baptized unlawfully? Does the Church admit that such a baptism is invalidated? On the contrary, a supernatural event occurs, which according to a letter by Pope Benedict XIV, on Feb 28, 1747, supercedes the force of natural justice put forth above by St. Thomas. I should note that I doubt that the practical application of this judgment by the pope could have ever been carried out if someone ever disobeyed the Church's instructions. The pope is explaining the Church's position so as to discourage any such practise of unlawful baptism as forcefully as he could. Pope Benedict taught that the Church, through baptism would incur an onerous obligation to such an unlawfully, but validly baptized child. In this case, he is speaking of the child of Jewish parents, but the case would be the same for all unbelievers:

"But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they may be piously and religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, which, though it may be unlawful, nevertheless is true and valid."---from the epistle "postremo mense" to the Viceregent in the City, Denziger #1482 

To reiterate, nobody wants to contemplate the kidnapping of a child from its parents. I doubt that this ever happened even once. I hope not. I believe there were overzealous Catholics, perhaps medical people, or mid-wives who could mistakenly have reasoned with themselves against the Church's law and custom, that they were doing a good thing by secretly baptising a child of an unbeliever. I believe that this undoubtedly happened on numerous occasions, sadly. The pope above is telling this government official to communicate to his citizens that whether this taking the child away from parents, could be carried out in practise, that it should be carried out for the reason given above by St. Thomas. These unlawful baptisms were being performed by souls who had slight thought for the supernatural ramifications of their actions. They probably did this in secret with no thought of separating child from parents. They did not think about, much less accept the Church's judgment, that such an unlawfully baptized child would be "liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents." The point, which I have probably oversold, for our LDS friends is that the Church is for these reasons against any but a priest baptising except the circumstance be extraordinary. But the above makes clear, that even if some Catholic lay person should foolishly baptize under ordinary circumstances, the baptism is valid.

3DOP

What about this scenario. I have an LDS aunt that went into labor prematurely in a Catholic hospital and delivered the baby but was she unconscious afterwards and the baby was not expected to live. One of the nurses decided that the baby needed to be baptized before it died and she did not know the religion of my aunt so she performed the baptism without consent because there was no one available to get the consent. Fortunately both the baby and mother survived. My aunt was not offended but very grateful to the nurse for caring so much for the salvation of her baby.  Was it right for the nurse to baptize the baby? 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

What about this scenario. I have an LDS aunt that went into labor prematurely in a Catholic hospital and delivered the baby but was she unconscious afterwards and the baby was not expected to live. One of the nurses decided that the baby needed to be baptized before it died and she did not know the religion of my aunt so she performed the baptism without consent because there was no one available to get the consent. Fortunately both the baby and mother survived. My aunt was not offended but very grateful to the nurse for caring so much for the salvation of her baby.  Was it right for the nurse to baptize the baby? 

Hi JAHS.

The nurse did not have time to consult with anyone and did what she thought best under the extraordinary circumstances. It appears that she understood that if consent could be had, it was necessary. I am no canon lawyer, but as explained, this would seem to be in accord with the law of the Church.

Now this baptized person would be your cousin? Since your cousin is already baptized, probably without documentation, what you have explained should be told to church authorities in the ironic event that your cousin ever decided to formally join the Catholic Church. If what you have explained could be confirmed, no baptism could be required. According to Catholic teaching, baptism leaves a permanent mark, or character on the soul. One cannot become unbaptized. If the events could not confirmed, it would seem like only a conditional baptism would be in order because there could be no moral certainty that your cousin was either baptized or unbaptized. When this happens the minister says something to the effect that "Name, if you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of...etc."

[smac97]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It is theologically false that a plurality of persons can validly baptize.  

Could you clarify this?  Misere stated: "{E}ven non-Catholics, non-Christians, or even atheists(!) could validly baptize, as long as there is valid form, matter, and intent."  You then stated that you "completely agree with what you explain here," so I'm not sure I understand the Catholic position.

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Miserere,

I completely agree with what you explain here, but we need to explain that an unlawful baptism does not necessarily invalidate the efficacy of the Sacrament. I think our LDS friends could easily misunderstand that if someone, not a priest, baptized when the circumstances were ordinary, that the baptism would be null and void. I will try to dispel such a possible misunderstanding.

The Church has long taught that it is unlawful to baptize children without the consent of the parents:
...
But what happens if a child is baptized unlawfully? Does the Church admit that such a baptism is invalidated? On the contrary, a supernatural event occurs, which according to a letter by Pope Benedict XIV, on Feb 28, 1747, supercedes the force of natural justice put forth above by St. Thomas.

I should note that I doubt that the practical application of this judgment by the pope could have ever been carried out if someone ever disobeyed the Church's instructions. The pope is explaining the Church's position so as to discourage any such practise of unlawful baptism as forcefully as he could. Pope Benedict taught that the Church, through baptism would incur an onerous obligation to such an unlawfully, but validly baptized child. In this case, he is speaking of the child of Jewish parents, but the case would be the same for all unbelievers:

"But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they may be piously and religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, which, though it may be unlawful, nevertheless is true and valid."---from the epistle "postremo mense" to the Viceregent in the City, Denziger #1482 

This is very interesting to me.  Thank you for taking time to explain it.

I previously listed four considerations on which we Latter-day Saints may differ from our Catholic friends.  I guess we should add a fifth:

• Mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) - Any mode is acceptable.
• Theology of the Officiating Religious Group - Most religions have acceptable theological compatibility so as to not require re-baptism.
• Priesthood Authority - Apparently not a concern?  Anyone can officiate in a baptism?
• Wording ("Formula") - "{T}he only acceptable formula for baptism is 'I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"
• Intent/Volition - The intent of the parents is strongly preferred for an infant baptism, but nevertheless not absolutely required in order for the baptism to be valid.

Is this a correct assessment of the Catholic position?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

34 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi JAHS.

The nurse did not have time to consult with anyone and did what she thought best under the extraordinary circumstances. It appears that she understood that if consent could be had, it was necessary. I am no canon lawyer, but as explained, this would seem to be in accord with the law of the Church.

Now this baptized person would be your cousin? Since your cousin is already baptized, probably without documentation, what you have explained should be told to church authorities in the ironic event that your cousin ever decided to formally join the Catholic Church. If what you have explained could be confirmed, no baptism could be required. According to Catholic teaching, baptism leaves a permanent mark, or character on the soul. One cannot become unbaptized. If the events could not confirmed, it would seem like only a conditional baptism would be in order because there could be no moral certainty that your cousin was either baptized or unbaptized. When this happens the minister says something to the effect that "Name, if you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of...etc."

Later when the child was 8 years he was baptized into the Mormon Church, so he got it twice and is saved either way. 🙂
Does a Mormon baptism invalidate a Catholic baptism?

[poptart]

Are CMRI and SSPX baptisms valid?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify this?  Misere stated: "{E}ven non-Catholics, non-Christians, or even atheists(!) could validly baptize, as long as there is valid form, matter, and intent."  You then stated that you "completely agree with what you explain here," so I'm not sure I understand the Catholic position.

I believe he means baptism can only happen once. A person cannot be baptized by multiple people because only one is valid. 
 

Edited:  I am corrected by MN below...I usually check when it comes to other faiths, always good to remember even if familiar with some aspects, we should let people speak for themselves if at all possible. 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It is theologically false that a plurality of persons can validly baptize.  

Could you clarify this?  Misere stated: "{E}ven non-Catholics, non-Christians, or even atheists(!) could validly baptize, as long as there is valid form, matter, and intent."  You then stated that you "completely agree with what you explain here," so I'm not sure I understand the Catholic position.

The problem with the baptisms that the Vatican declared invalid is the use of "We baptize you..." instead of "I baptize you..." That's what 3DOP means by "plurality of persons." Multiple people cannot baptize someone -- there is no "we" only "I." The baptisms are invalid because the changed wording is a theologically false position.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I previously listed four considerations on which we Latter-day Saints may differ from our Catholic friends.  I guess we should add a fifth:

• Mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) - Any mode is acceptable.
• Theology of the Officiating Religious Group - Most religions have acceptable theological compatibility so as to not require re-baptism.
• Priesthood Authority - Apparently not a concern?  Anyone can officiate in a baptism?
• Wording ("Formula") - "{T}he only acceptable formula for baptism is 'I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"
• Intent/Volition - The intent of the parents is strongly preferred for an infant baptism, but nevertheless not absolutely required in order for the baptism to be valid.

Is this a correct assessment of the Catholic position?

 Pretty much, with a few clarifying details. Under the consideration of priesthood authority, I'd reiterate that the preferred/recommended/standard/ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, priest, or deacon. I would change intent/volition to parental consent and reiterate 3DOP's point that if there is no parental consent, then the baptism is unlawful but still valid. Then I would add the category of intent: the person performing the baptism must intend to do what the Church intends. If two kids are playing around and on pours water on another and says the words that's not a valid baptism because they are just playing around -- they don't have the same intention as the Church.

[MiserereNobis]

56 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Later when the child was 8 years he was baptized into the Mormon Church, so he got it twice and is saved either way. 🙂
Does a Mormon baptism invalidate a Catholic baptism?

We believe baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that can never be removed. Nothing can invalidate it. In other words, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave  

So yes, your cousin is still technically Catholic, though now he's a heretic. I'm gettin' the inquisition on the line and giving them his address 😀

[MiserereNobis]

50 minutes ago, poptart said:

Are CMRI and SSPX baptisms valid?

Absolutely. I haven't kept up on the details of current events, but I believe that SSPX priests have even been granted jurisdiction to hear confession and witness marriages. 3DOP can clarify if I've gotten that wrong.