Conditional Baptism

[FrGareth]

I am in a position where I shall need to confer a conditional baptism prior to the Easter Vigil. Looking for guidance on the liturgical form, I see that para 393 of the norms (http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/RCIA.pdf) says:

"... (when) it seems necessary to confer baptism again conditionally, the minister should explain beforehand the reasons why this is being done and a nonsolemn form of baptism is to be used. The local Ordinary is to decide in each case what rites are to be included or excluded in conferring conditional baptism."

I shall await with interest to see what directives (if any) come from my local Ordinary together with permission. Meanwhile, I wonder what combinations of rites are used as a "nonsolemn form of baptism" in other dioceses?

FrGareth

[Gabriel]

I presume there is not a diocesan form as the Ordinary has to decide in each case...

Perhaps more pertinent as reception of the baptised is not normative at the Easter Vigil I would wonder if the Rite presumes conditional Baptism and Reception (and Confirmation and Eucharist) in the same liturgy?

[FrGareth]

The diocesan application form refers to "conditional baptism in the private form". I do not think it is envisaged that the priest celebrates a whole Mass privately.

In this particular case, the candidate was almost certainly baptised, but the paperwork cannot be obtained. The person has journeyed on RCIA together with another who is certainly baptised and who will be received and confirmed at the Easter Vigil. So the person is treated "as if" a candidate for reception, not for baptism.

Also, and more fundamentally, conditional baptism must be followed by the Sacrament of Reconciliation (in case the original baptism was valid) before receiving Holy Communion - and Reconciliation must not be combined with Mass. So an all-in-one rite is not possible.

FrGareth

[Southern Comfort]

Also, and more fundamentally, conditional baptism must be followed by the Sacrament of Reconciliation (in case the original baptism was valid) before receiving Holy Communion

That is completely cuckoo, if true. No other person, whether being initiated or not, has to receive the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving Communion unless it is definitively known that they are in a state of grave sin. In the case of those being received into full communion, they may be reconciled (before they are received), but it's their choice, not the minister's or the Church's. If they have not been baptised, they will receive baptism, confirmation and eucharist in short order, without reconciliation intervening.

Why should someone who has been conditionally baptised be any different? If the original baptism was valid, then the implications for that person's state of grace are considerable, and no one can judge any different.

I suppose I also have to mention here the craziness of the RCIA, which recommends that the elect receive the sacrament of reconciliation before they are baptised ─ i.e. before they are even members of the Church. A moment's thought will show that you can't actually administer a sacrament to someone who is not yet a member of the Church. [And yes, I do know that if a catechumen dies before baptism, they receive a Christian burial as someone belonging to the "household of the faith"; but they are not yet an actual member.]

It sounds to me as if the rules or recommendations surrounding conditional baptism are equally bonkers.

[Gabriel]

My point was a 'wonder' but the subsequent points don't wholly make me reconsider.

To try and clear some things up.
RCIA does not state to my knowledge that the unbaptised should or even may receive reconciliation before initiation.
I am not sure where FrGareth's 'conditional baptism must be followed by the Sacrament of Reconciliation' comes from. The Rite of Reception 395 is slightly more tentative.
My understanding is that canonically acceptable proof, if there is no paperwork, would be the letter of witness. Similar to proofs of freedom before Marriage.

I am afraid that it adds further grist to my view that it may have been unfortunate that 2 separate and distinct rites - initiation of the unbaptised and reception of the baptised - were included in one book. I can recognise the sense and benefits that were seen at the time but it has had long-term consequences and a blurring of understanding which is unhelpful.

[FrGareth]

In reply to SC, someone conditionally baptised should not be treated differently - once they are certainly baptised, they should have the same opportunity as other candidates for reception into full communion, to approach a priest of their choosing to make confession before communion - which requires a gap between the conditional baptism and the reception.

Like Gabriel. I am not aware of any requirement for those not yet baptised to receive the sacrament of reconciliation - this cannot be, because - as SC implies - sacramental reconciliation can only be celebrated by those who are already baptised. If there is a requirement for this, I'd like to see the text!

I might, however, suggest to those being baptised at the Easter Vigil, that to help them appreciate the freeing from sin being celebrated by their baptism, that they might find it beneficial to review their past lives with myself or another priest - but that this is in no way a requirement. What is required are the scrutinies, which are meant to get them thinking about spiritual blindness, spiritual death, and the forgiveness of sin!

SC raises an interesting point here about when someone is REQUIRED to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It might run and run, so I think I'll start another thread.

I am not sure where FrGareth's 'conditional baptism must be followed by the Sacrament of Reconciliation' comes from. The Rite of Reception 395 is slightly more tentative.

The point of a conditional baptism is that we turn someone whose canonical situation is ambiguous, into someone who is certainly a baptised Christian capable of completing initiation by Confirmation and Eucharist. When we thus complete the initiation, we may also be receiving the person into the church by virtue of this act - and RCIA 395 asks that this be precded by confession. So my point is not that conditional baptism must be followed by Reconciliation - but that the completion of initiation must be preceded by confession, and logically the conditional baptism should precede confession to avoid the awkwardness of an unbaptised person attempting to celebrate a sacrament.

My understanding is that canonically acceptable proof, if there is no paperwork, would be the letter of witness. Similar to proofs of freedom before Marriage.

In this case the person strongly suspects they were baptised as an infant but there are no living relatives to ask for a letter of witness.

As usual, and especially when law is involved, the attempt to be consistent leads to much complexity and no little controversy...

FrGareth

[Southern Comfort]

Yes, I'm afraid that posting late at night clouds the brain..... (and here I am, doing it again!)

I was of course thinking of para 482 in the US edition of RCIA (Rite of Reception into Full Communion) = para 9 of the Rite of RiFC itself, which refers to those being received into Full Communion being recommended to make a confession of sins before [receiving the remainder of the initiation sacraments], but only if they think they need to. Like Gareth, I believe that having a talk with a priest, reviewing one's past life, is a very good thing indeed. If this leads ultimately to sacramental absolution and the candidate is happy with it, so be it, and if not, that's OK too. However, I still think that, even in this case, it's very debatable whether the candidate can actually receive the sacrament at all, not yet being a communicating member of the receiving Church.

What I was thinking of, and was the subject of my ill-thought-out fulmination, was those pastors (and there are quite a lot of them out there) who insist on the elect going to confession as a precondition for being baptised at the Easter Vigil. In my view, this is quite scandalous, and Bishops should be ensuring that it does not happen. And no, the RCIA itself does not recommend this. I apologise for muddying the waters by stating that it did.

So my point is not that conditional baptism must be followed by Reconciliation - but that the completion of initiation must be preceded by confession, and logically the conditional baptism should precede confession to avoid the awkwardness of an unbaptised person attempting to celebrate a sacrament.

Here I do take issue with you. I am sure the Orthodox would have something interesting to say about the completion of initiation having to be preceded by confession, given that they administer Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist in the same celebration. I simply don't believe this to be true, and it also tends towards denying the fact that the Eucharist, as a theologian once said (can't remember which one), is in fact itself the greatest sacrament of reconciliation. As far as following conditional baptism with reconciliation is concerned, what effect then does baptism have upon the recipient? Is only original sin forgiven, or all past sins? Why the need for reconciliation?

(I have not yet read the new thread. Perhaps there is an answer there.)

[FrGareth]

I am sure the Orthodox would have something interesting to say about the completion of initiation having to be preceded by confession...

My fault, for imprecise language... here I have used the word "complete" to imply the case when a person was incompletely initiated by being baptised (only) some time ago. Of course SC and the Orthodox are right in that the combined celebration of Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist has no need of confession because baptism forgives sins - and this initiation is "completed" in the same ceremony in which it begins.

I wonder how the orthodox would deal with an adult who wished to become orthodox and who had been baptised (only) as an infant?

...it also tends towards denying the fact that the Eucharist, as a theologian once said (can't remember which one), is in fact itself the greatest sacrament of reconciliation.

The Paschal Sacrifice is the greatest act of reconciliation, re-presented in each Mass, and I would concede that Eucharist is the Sacrament which most clearly DEMONSTRATES the reconciling sacrifice of Christ - but not the one which most extensively EFFECTS it. All the sacraments draw their saving power from the same sacrifice of Christ, and only Baptism and Penance effect the reconciling to God of one who has sinned mortally. Eucharist should not be received by one with unconfessed mortal sin, except in pastoral circumstances which require the intention to make confession as soon as practically possible.

As far as following conditional baptism with reconciliation is concerned, what effect then does baptism have upon the recipient? Is only original sin forgiven, or all past sins? Why the need for reconciliation?

Scenario A:
1. Person is validly baptised, but proof is lost. Original and all actual sins up to that point are removed.
2. Time passes. The person sins again - according to Proverbs 24:16 even the "just man falls seven times a day"
3. Person decides to become Catholic.
4. Conditional baptism is performed. This has no effect, since the person is already baptised.
5. Reconciliation is celebrated. All sins since the day of baptism are absolved.
6. Reception into the Church - confirmation and first communion

Scenario B:
1. Person decides to become Catholic. They have in fact never been validly baptised, though they suspect they might have been.
2. Conditional baptism is performed. Original and all actual sins up to that point are removed.
3. Reconciliation is celebrated. This has no effect, since the person has just been reconciled to God by baptism.
4. Reception into the Church - confirmation and first communion

Following the conditional baptism - reconciliation - confirmation/communion route ensures a person ends up a baptised and forgiven Catholic even though you don't know whether scenario A or scenario B applies in their particular case. If you were sure it was case B you wouldn't reconcile. But you are not sure - which is why you are doing a conditional baptism in the first place!

[mcb]

I wonder how the orthodox would deal with an adult who wished to become orthodox and who had been baptised (only) as an infant?

I think they regard any baptism outside the Orthodox church(es) as invalid. Some Orthodox churches rebaptise converts in this situation; others deem the 'defective' baptism to remedied by Chrismation (which is their equivalent of our Confirmation).

[Southern Comfort]

Scenario A:
1. Person is validly baptised, but proof is lost. Original and all actual sins up to that point are removed.
2. Time passes. The person sins again - according to Proverbs 24:16 even the "just man falls seven times a day"
3. Person decides to become Catholic.
4. Conditional baptism is performed. This has no effect, since the person is already baptised.
5. Reconciliation is celebrated. All sins since the day of baptism are absolved.
6. Reception into the Church - confirmation and first communion

Yes, yes, I understand this. But doesn't this require a judgement call that the person has probably committed a grave sin since being validly baptised? Not one I'd be happy to make, myself. Knowing that the the graces of Holy Communion can deal with all except grave sin (cf. Catechesism para 1393-4) I'd rather let Jesus handle it than presume guilt in the person.

[FrGareth]

But doesn't this require a judgement call that the person has probably committed a grave sin since being validly baptised?

No more so than in requiring children to make First Confession before First Communion. Why should an adult be exempt from what is required from a child who has only just attained moral reason?

[Southern Comfort]

But doesn't this require a judgement call that the person has probably committed a grave sin since being validly baptised?

No more so than in requiring children to make First Confession before First Communion. Why should an adult be exempt from what is required from a child who has only just attained moral reason?

So what happens if you baptise, confirm and give first Eucharist to a child of catechetical age at the Easter Vigil this year? No sacrament of Reconciliation in that sequence. My point is twofold: (a) it is not always required that a child confess before receiving First Communion and so (b) is it reasonable to require it at all?

[JW]

A layman's and non-theologian's view so very much IMHO:

I think we have to be careful about thinking that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to be avoided at all costs!! It is after all a sacrament, with all that that entails. It is not a sacrament only to be received following serious sin! It is a great source of grace and of growing strong in Christ and we should all try to participate regularly - though most of us don't!! So, part of RCIA would be educating the catechist as to the value of this resource that Christ instituted for us.

With conditional baptism, perhaps a way forward is for the pastor to ask the candidate if s/he would like to attend the sacrament of reconciliation privately prior to the conditional baptism. If such a suggestion is likely to upset the candidate or gives rise to serious pastoral issues, then, as SC has said, God is quite capable of sorting this out without us getting too tied up in the theology. The pastor and the candidate have both tried to do the right thing in very unusual circumstances and neither should worry further. After all, reception into the Church is a time of rejoicing for all of us.

[festivaltrumpet]

(a) it is not always required that a child confess before receiving First Communion and so (b) is it reasonable to require it at all?

The cited example when confession is not required before First Communion is when Baptism occurs immediately beforehand. One cannot possibly use this to argue that as the sacrament of confession is not conferred here in its usual form, it is therefore not required at all. Clearly, absolution is given by baptism, which is why confession is superfluous in this case, but not so in any other. A theology degree is scarcely needed to grasp this, probably not even a GCSE in Religious Studies.

[Southern Comfort]

(a) it is not always required that a child confess before receiving First Communion and so (b) is it reasonable to require it at all?

The cited example when confession is not required before First Communion is when Baptism occurs immediately beforehand. One cannot possibly use this to argue that as the sacrament of confession is not conferred here in its usual form, it is therefore not required at all. Clearly, absolution is given by baptism, which is why confession is superfluous in this case, but not so in any other. A theology degree is scarcely needed to grasp this, probably not even a GCSE in Religious Studies.

You have failed to understand the question, which is whether a child is capable of grave sin at all. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us (para 1394) that Holy Communion absolves all but grave sin. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask why a child should be expected to make their first confession before receiving Communion for the first time, especially when there are circumstances (such as those I previously cited) when this is not required.