There's a temptation to delay baptism due to social factors, or to think we don't need to do it 'as soon as possible' due to lower rates of infant mortality. Fr Michael Müller answers this.
I have heard that before Vatican II conditional baptisms for converts into the Church were standard due to the perfidiousness of Protestant belief and practice. Does anyone know if this is correct?
"Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated."
Traditionalist groups typically do. Unfortunately there is not so much consensus around the validity of NO Baptisms, even though there has been a demonstrable laxity in administration here. Bishop Sanborn's RCI is awake to the problem there though, at least.
Yeah. I used to depend on Bp Sanborn for a clear catechism, but I couldn't follow him on his journey to unheard of novelties like 'non-una-cum' or else mortal sin, and the idea that it is a mortal sin to enter a Catholic church and pray because of Novus Ordo cooties; and the enmity with SSPX who are the only TLM for most folks. That said, any 'traditional (read Catholic)' Bishop is a good.
I have heard that before Vatican II conditional baptisms for converts into the Church were standard due to the perfidiousness of Protestant belief and practice. Does anyone know if this is correct?
It is attested to by the Old Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#vii
"Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated."
Thanks for this information. Unfortunate that this level of prudence is not being practiced these days.
Traditionalist groups typically do. Unfortunately there is not so much consensus around the validity of NO Baptisms, even though there has been a demonstrable laxity in administration here. Bishop Sanborn's RCI is awake to the problem there though, at least.
Yeah. I used to depend on Bp Sanborn for a clear catechism, but I couldn't follow him on his journey to unheard of novelties like 'non-una-cum' or else mortal sin, and the idea that it is a mortal sin to enter a Catholic church and pray because of Novus Ordo cooties; and the enmity with SSPX who are the only TLM for most folks. That said, any 'traditional (read Catholic)' Bishop is a good.