Would you baptize?

[Frank11]

While reading the comments on the article “Women and Priesthood Power”, a thought occurred to me. Would you baptize a friend as a Catholic or Protestant in an emergency?

Imagine you are on a difficult hiking trail in the mountains with your friend and suddenly a thunderstorm comes up with hail and snow. You find shelter from the storm in a rocky niche, but you realize that the situation and the later descent will be life-threatening.

Your friend has recently become a devout Christian, but has not yet been able to decide which denomination he should join. In this situation, he now asks you to baptize him as a Catholic. He knows what you have to do for this. He also knows that it doesn't matter whether you are Mormon or Buddhist, male or female.

Would you perform the baptism "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Frank11 said:

While reading the comments on the article “Women and Priesthood Power”, a thought occurred to me. Would you baptize a friend as a Catholic or Protestant in an emergency?

Imagine you are on a difficult hiking trail in the mountains with your friend and suddenly a thunderstorm comes up with hail and snow. You find shelter from the storm in a rocky niche, but you realize that the situation and the later descent will be life-threatening.

Your friend has recently become a devout Christian, but has not yet been able to decide which denomination he should join. In this situation, he now asks you to baptize him as a Catholic. He knows what you have to do for this. He also knows that it doesn't matter whether you are Mormon or Buddhist, male or female.

Would you perform the baptism "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

Yes, if asked and it’s okay by the principles/doctrine of their Church.  Might even do it if asked even if I know it’s against their Church’s doctrine as that could be something resolved after we survived.

[Frank11]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Might even do it if asked even if I know it’s against their Church’s doctrine as that could be something resolved after we survived.

In this case, the baptism would be fully valid and would not be repeated. It would only have to be registered after an interview.

[Calm]

Just now, Frank11 said:

In this case, the baptism would be fully valid and would not be repeated. It would only have to be registered after an interview.

Why would it be a problem if it’s according to their faith’s principles and practices?

I don’t believe people baptized in other churches are going to hell.  That’s not LDS doctrine.

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

While reading the comments on the article “Women and Priesthood Power”, a thought occurred to me. Would you baptize a friend as a Catholic or Protestant in an emergency?

Imagine you are on a difficult hiking trail in the mountains with your friend and suddenly a thunderstorm comes up with hail and snow. You find shelter from the storm in a rocky niche, but you realize that the situation and the later descent will be life-threatening.

Your friend has recently become a devout Christian, but has not yet been able to decide which denomination he should join. In this situation, he now asks you to baptize him as a Catholic. He knows what you have to do for this. He also knows that it doesn't matter whether you are Mormon or Buddhist, male or female.

Would you perform the baptism "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

I don't consider myself able to baptize someone a Catholic.  So even if my friend says he knows what is needed, I would say no because I don't have the ability to do it.  I know that Catholics do accept baptisms from others in life-or-death situations, but I would feel like I am overstepping the boundaries.

[Tony uk]

The Catholic church has a formula, or by my understanding, it did up until recently. Anybody could baptize with water, saying, in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit. I think the intention, within the Catholic church. Is that it would make them Catholic. 

 My own theory on the matter, and the above. Is that I would use the above formula, with the intention of baptising, in the first instance as a Christian, if that makes sense.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

While reading the comments on the article “Women and Priesthood Power”, a thought occurred to me. Would you baptize a friend as a Catholic or Protestant in an emergency?

Imagine you are on a difficult hiking trail in the mountains with your friend and suddenly a thunderstorm comes up with hail and snow. You find shelter from the storm in a rocky niche, but you realize that the situation and the later descent will be life-threatening.

Your friend has recently become a devout Christian, but has not yet been able to decide which denomination he should join. In this situation, he now asks you to baptize him as a Catholic. He knows what you have to do for this. He also knows that it doesn't matter whether you are Mormon or Buddhist, male or female.

Would you perform the baptism "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

Absolutely.

Along vaguely similar lines, on occasion I've been asked by members of the LDS Church who knew that I was no longer a member to give them a blessing. 

[Peacefully]

I would it if it gives them peace and/or hope. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Frank11 said:

While reading the comments on the article “Women and Priesthood Power”, a thought occurred to me. Would you baptize a friend as a Catholic or Protestant in an emergency?

Imagine you are on a difficult hiking trail in the mountains with your friend and suddenly a thunderstorm comes up with hail and snow. You find shelter from the storm in a rocky niche, but you realize that the situation and the later descent will be life-threatening.

Your friend has recently become a devout Christian, but has not yet been able to decide which denomination he should join. In this situation, he now asks you to baptize him as a Catholic. He knows what you have to do for this. He also knows that it doesn't matter whether you are Mormon or Buddhist, male or female.

Would you perform the baptism "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

Yes, I am using his liturgy out of kindness as a favor and not the Melchizedek Priesthood out of covenant.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Frank11 said:

While reading the comments on the article “Women and Priesthood Power”, a thought occurred to me. Would you baptize a friend as a Catholic or Protestant in an emergency?

Imagine you are on a difficult hiking trail in the mountains with your friend and suddenly a thunderstorm comes up with hail and snow. You find shelter from the storm in a rocky niche, but you realize that the situation and the later descent will be life-threatening.

Your friend has recently become a devout Christian, but has not yet been able to decide which denomination he should join. In this situation, he now asks you to baptize him as a Catholic. He knows what you have to do for this. He also knows that it doesn't matter whether you are Mormon or Buddhist, male or female.

Would you perform the baptism "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

Yes I would 

[Stargazer]

No, I feel that as a holder of the true priesthood, in conscience I could not perform such a baptism.

However, I could comfort my friend with the information that both Catholicism and Protestantism hold with the principle called "Baptism of Desire," referred to in Latin as baptismus flaminis, literally 'baptism of the spirit/breath.' This is a doctrine according to which a person is able to attain the grace of justification through faith, perfect contrition and the desire for baptism, without the water baptism having been received. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear on the subject. In Part 2, section 2, chapter 2, article 1(vi) "The necessity of baptism," in paragraph 1260 it reads:

Quote

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

The Lutherans are quite explicit on this topic as well. In an article describing "The Necessity of Holy Baptism," the American Association of Lutheran Churches says the following:

Quote

"Though Baptism is necessary, both Scripture and Church History have offered some special exceptions. For this reason, the Church across the ages has delineated between what may be called normative practice and absolute practice. Though it is normative that the Christian be baptized, it is not absolutely necessary. Though it is normative that persons who come to faith will immediately be baptized, there are exceptions. Early Christians recognized martyrdom as a special exception to the rule of water Baptism. Another exception was for one who had the desire to be baptized, but who was prevented. Some theologians made an exception for infants who died prior to the eighth day, upon which they would have been baptized. Furthermore, it was recognized that there was a special relationship between faith and Holy Baptism. When one received faith, the first act of obedience to God's Word was to be baptized. Conversely, if one were baptized as an infant, he or she received Christ and salvation, and therefore had received faith."

So by all intents and purposes, my friend is home free without my having to do something which would violate my conscience. At least by his or her own accepted theology.

This is how the post-apostolic Christian churches save themselves from the accusation that God is a respecter of persons, condemning those people to hell who never had the chance to hear the gospel and accept it. Studiously ignoring of course that God provided a way that they reject, and turn to non-scriptural philosophizing instead of relying upon their own canon of scripture.

[The Nehor]

No. I would offer to make out with them instead if they are up for it.

[Chum]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No. I would offer to make out with them instead if they are up for it.

"Congratulations on your Saliva Baptism!"