Baptism and Rebaptism -- A Word from BEM
One of the issues that has come up in our conversation concerning baptism is the issue of re-baptism. Now for many who practice believers baptism, baptizing someone as a believer who had been baptized as an infant -- no matter if by sprinkling or pouring or by immersion (Greek Orthodox immerses infants) -- the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document says this:
This is the essential reason why Disciples congregations practice Open Membership. The above statement is brief, so what is interesting is the interpretive commentary that was added below."Baptism is an unrepeatable act. Any practice which might be interpreted as "re-baptism" must be avoided."
Churches which have insisted on a particular form of baptism or which have had serious questions about the authenticity of other church's sacraments and ministries have at times required persons coming from other church traditions to be baptized before being received into full communicant membership. As the churches come to fuller mutual understanding and acceptance of one another and enter into closer relationships in witness and service, they will want to refrain from any practice which might call into question the sacramental integrity of other churches or which might diminish the unrepeatability of the sacrament of baptism.
The issue of baptist practice has been raised, but what of the practices of other traditions regarding let's say Protestant baptisms. If as we've recently been told by the Pope, Protestant churches aren't real churches and have defective sacraments, how would they deal with us? I wouldn't re-baptize a Catholic, but would they want to rebaptize me?
Comments
Well, keep in mind, the Pope doesn't speak for all Catholics. :-)
No, Catholics accept Protestant Baptisms. Actually, Catholic sacramental theology assumes the promise given by God regarding Baptism is quite robust. AFAIK, an atheist can validly celebrate the Sacrament of Baptism in an emergency situation. Though the Roman church does not consider Protestant churches to be valid churches, it does nevertheless consider its members to be valid, real Christians, and any Christian can validly, licitly celebrate Baptism.
In any situation where there is doubt — say, one believes one was baptized as a child but is not sure, or where the exact formula used is not known but there is suspicion that a heterodox formula (like "Jesus our God") was used — then the person is conditionally baptized. The traditional formula is preceded by "If you are not yet baptized..."
I would encourage groups that have doubts about the efficacy of infant Baptisms or the use of sprinkling to adopt such a conditional formula. It's a long-accepted solution when there is any doubt, and it does not state categorically that the previous Baptism was invalid, leaving room for God's work where humans disagree.
I happen to know that the Baptist representatives to Faith and Order, and the Mennonite and Brethren ones, tried to get that statement changed. When it wasn't, it led to the baptistic members of the WCC "not receiving" the statement.