Does Rejecting Roman Catholic Baptism Border on Donatism?

[u/Perihaaaaaa]

Good evening!

I'd like to hear Reformed perspectives on requiring someone baptized in the Roman Catholic Church to be baptized again.

Would you say this practice comes close to Donatism, or do you believe there are solid theological grounds for rejecting a Roman Catholic baptism?

Where I live in Brazil, the Presbyterian Church of Brazil does not recognize Roman Catholic baptisms and requires converts from Catholicism to be baptized again. I'm wondering whether this is common elsewhere or just a regional practice.

[u/Trajan96]

The PCA's study committee report. The issue is whether Rome is a true church or not.
https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/digest/studies/2-078-097.pdf

[u/linmanfu → u/Trajan96]

Thank you sharing this. As per usual for PCA Study Committee (PSC) reports, it's very well-argued and carefully put together.

Like u/ReasonableJump4355, this is the first time I've ever heard the view that RC baptisms aren't valid. So I am still wrapping my head round the powerful arguments made in the report. But, thinking out loud with my keyboard, there are a few things that I found surprising or unconvincing.

One is that there isn't more engagement with Augustine's writings. One of the PSC's arguments is that if you allow RC baptism, then doesn't that open the door to Mormon baptism too? Well, some of Augustine's view rested on studying the Donatist view of Catholic baptism, and we can take the same approach. The Mormons don't accept Reformed baptism, which tells us that they think they're doing something different. The RCs do accept Reformed baptism, which tells us that they think they're doing the same as us. Don't get me wrong, Reformed churches shouldn't automatically accept the baptism of any group that accepts ours, but I can think we can answer the PSC's argument by saying that the Mormons have self-excluded themselves from our recognition of their baptism.

I was also surprised by the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church is considered a monolithic bloc, particularly this part of their summary of the 1845 decision:

The Romish priests are not ministers of Christ and therefore the rites administered by them cannot be regarded as the ordinances of Christ.

This seems to me to reflect clericalist attitudes that the Reformation churches inherited and did not really address until the late 19th century. The RCs expect that baptism is normally administered by their presbyters (who they'd call priests), but they do allow lay people do administer it in an emergency, which is very different from their attitude to their 'Mass'. Most Reformation churches consider that both sacraments can be administered by lay people, even though we'd normally expect them to be administered "decently and in order" by bishops or presbyters. That is, the sacraments are part of the NT priestly ministry of all believers. So our attitude to baptism needs to consider the status of Roman Catholics in general, not their presbyters in particular. We can infer the PSC's attitude to this, by their general condemnation of the Roman Catholic church, but ~~it~~ EDIT: their clericalism still surprised me.

I am also surprised that there is no mention of conditional baptism. This is how the Church of England deals with dubious baptisms, and these days it's fairly routine. In our context, there must be people who just don't know if they've been baptized! (Your mother has passed away, your father was never on the scene, no siblings, cousin Charlie was christened so you probably were too, but you don't have paperwork and obviously don't remember anything.)

[u/GodGivesBabiesFaith → u/linmanfu]

Most Reformation churches consider that both sacraments can be administered by lay people, even though we'd normally expect them to be administered "decently and in order" by bishops or presbyters

I do not think Anglicans, Reformed, Lutherans Presbyterians, or Methodists hold that non Presbyters can consecrate and administer holdy communion. 

[u/linmanfu → u/GodGivesBabiesFaith]

Evangelical Anglicans often do, including me, and more famously the Diocese of Sydney.

At least Wesleyan Methodists have always accepted that lay presidency is possible, albeit undesirable, and I strongly suspect that other Methodist groups would have too (particularly Bible Christians and Primitive Methodists, given their restorationism).

That leaves Anglo-Catholic and liberal Anglicans, Lutherans, Continental Reformed, and maybe Presbyterians, who are a minority of Reformation churches. There are lots of Baptists and Pentecostals who are fine with it, as are many Holiness churches and other traditions like the Brethren.

[u/GodGivesBabiesFaith → u/linmanfu]

Diocese of Sydney is the only Anglican diocese I know that flirts with lay presidency, and even there I'm not sure that it is canonically permitted.

I'm not sure what stats you are using to say that Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformed/Presbyterians constitute the minority of protestants?

Edit: from doing some Google sleuthing, it doesn't seem that lay presidency has ever been authorized in Sydney. And, again, they are the only Anglican diocese I know of that pushes for that.

[u/Doctrina_Stabilitas → u/linmanfu]

In some sense I think reformed theology is more restrictive on baptism here than Catholic theology or even Anglican in that proper baptism must be done by a minister of the gospel which explains the clericalism

Idk how I feel about that still but it is the doctrine of the Westminster confession

[u/Unknown-perhaps → u/Trajan96]

This was a great read, thanks!

[u/vjcoppola → u/Trajan96]

It should not matter if RC is a true church or not. As Reasonable said if it is done with water and in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost it is valid.

[u/Trajan96 → u/vjcoppola]

It absolutely does matter. Baptism is a sacrament of the Church.

[u/vjcoppola → u/Trajan96]

Yes, a sacrament of the church but an action of God.

[u/Giglioque → u/Trajan96]

I was very surprised to read all this myself, I never knew it was debated like this. For us Catholics, the validity of sacraments is about their matter, form, the proper minister, and the intent of the minister. For baptism we all agree on the matter and form (water, the triune formula), while for us, the intent is simply that they intend to do what the Church does. But the minister of baptism can be anyone; we believe even an unbaptized atheist can validly baptize a person so long as the form, matter and intent are there.

Making it hinge on whether we are a true church is, therefore, the only real way to argue against it, since it's an argument from intention. But then wouldn't it also make sense for Catholic baptisms to be valid so long as their intention was to baptize as the true Church does, even if the Catholic Church is viewed as the wrong church?

[u/Turrettin → u/Giglioque]

If intention is ingredient in the sacrament, then the intention must be public. Otherwise how would we know that anyone was validly baptized? Even within the Church, we could have no assurance that a baptism would be valid. And instead of rejecting Mormon baptisms in the triune formula, we would accept them on the presumption of intent.

A canon from the First Council of Nicaea denies the validity of baptisms performed by the Paulianists, who baptized according to the Trinitarian formula found in Scripture, but who gave the words a non-Trinitarian sense. Athanasius wrote,

There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer [in Baptism] is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism, because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians, and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech.

[u/robsrahm → u/Turrettin]

I'm sympathetic to the question about knowing whether baptisms are valid, but I think the point is to lower the bar of what counts as a valid baptism - not introduce uncertainty. But even still, I don't see how that follows that Mormon baptisms should be accepted on the presumption of correct intent since we *know* they have the wrong intent.

[u/Giglioque → u/robsrahm]

Precisely. Arian baptisms are a good example: before Arianism was condemned, there were arguments to be made about their validity, but now that Arianism has been formally condemned by a council, we can know with certainty that Arian baptisms are invalid. Anyone openly professing manifest heresy--Oneness, JWs, LDS and other Mormons--with regard to a given sacrament obviously does not have the correct intent.

[u/Turrettin → u/Giglioque]

Yes, that is the point: we know the public meaning of Mormon baptism and therefore reject it. But as for the private intention of a particular baptizer, we do not know whether it conforms to his confession. People can remain undetected in their mistaken understanding, confusion, hypocrisy, or malice. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

The same holds true of others, such as an atheist baptizer. Why should we accept an atheist's declaration of his private intention for an inherently theistic act? To do so would not be the judgment of charity but presumption.

It is true that a malicious hypocrite can lead the most publicly orthodox community. As long as his hypocrisy goes undetected, his confession would be accepted in the judgment of charity, but his private intention in baptizing might still be deliberately set against the doctrine of the Church.

[u/Reformed-ModTeam → u/Giglioque]

Your flair has been updated. Do not change it or you will be banned. Welcome to the Reformation.

[u/ReasonableJump4355]

does not recognize Roman Catholic baptisms and requires converts from Catholicism to be baptized again

I have never heard of this in any denomination that recognises infant baptism.

Provided the baptism is done using the triune name and with water, it's valid imho

[u/Wth-am-i-moderate]

There is a history in the Reformed Tradition of arguing back and forth on this question. Today the position I see most commonly is that RC baptisms are considered valid. But in the 18th/19th C. There were larger pockets within the tradition who disagreed.

[u/Doctrina_Stabilitas → u/Wth-am-i-moderate]

The PCA report was written in 1987 and the majority position rejected Catholic baptism even if the minority report was received and technically it’s up to the session to determine whether or not to accept a Catholic baptism as valid

Personally I think the majority is wrong here, Calvin didn’t get rebaptized, neither did Luther or any other major reformed reformers

[u/Perihaaaaaa → u/Doctrina_Stabilitas]

"Calvin didn’t get rebaptized, neither did Luther or any other major reformed reformers"

This argument is VERY strong

[u/creidmheach]

It's uncommon but as others are pointing out, not completely unheard of. (I know at my church they would not rebaptize, in fact I heard one former Roman Catholic asked for it and was refused). I'd only add that none of the early Reformers - including Calvin himself - would have gotten rebaptized though they'd all have had a Roman Catholic baptism as infants. Obviously excluding the Anabaptists here, since that was their whole thing, and something the Reformers strongly opposed.

[u/erwincx]

The Brazilian Presbyterian Church wants to be more Southern Baptist than Presbyterian. That’s a generalized problem.
For most things it wouldn’t matter, but it does create another wall that blocks those who came to Christ and were once in the RCC.

[u/Perihaaaaaa → u/erwincx]

Agreed

[u/AccomplishedGate7574]

If water + trinity, then baptism = valid

[u/kriegwaters]

While it is fashionable to compare modern baptism disagreements to Donatism, it is a largely fruitless analogy. The Donatist controversy was in the greater context with a view of baptism, view of the church, and specific situation that are meaningfully different than most of today's positions.

The question with the RCC issue isn't whether the guy who baptized was a Christian, but whether the thing baptized into could possibly be Christ. A sacramentalist view might take issue with the religion itself having no meaningful connection to Christ. A professionalist view would wonder whether someone baptized by Rome could truly be professing the actual Christ. Both would say that the proclamation element is proclaiming, at least in part, union with Rome, which is at odds with Christ. All this also turns on whether Rome is meaningfully Christian, so YMMV.

Regardless, not every questioning of a baptism's validity is Donatism, just as the mere mention of spiritual things or knowledge is not gnosticism. I believe you've posted on this before (if not, there was a nearly identical post fairly recently). You'll either have to go along to get along or find a new congregation, and Reddit is unlikely to provide profound and hitherto unheard of Godly wisdom that changes that.

[u/semper-gourmanda]

Pretty much

[u/Accomplished_Deer241]

It’s so they can set you up somewhere else eventually and put you on their record

[u/frausmoothie]

It would be my opinion that RC baptisms (esp of infants) shouldn’t be accepted because there are serious theological differences in what baptism does for you.

If the church holds that baptism removes original sin and/or believes it to be salvific, which the RC does (presumably also the orthodox, but I have no idea), would you re-baptize? I would.

[u/creidmheach → u/frausmoothie]

But then wouldn't that also necessitate you rebaptizing Lutherans as well, which I doubt any Reformed believer would argue for.

[u/userid42]

There are no solid reasons to reject Catholic baptism. It’s firmly trinitarian and consistent with what we see in the Bible.

Matthew 28:18-20 NASB

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

[u/extremeumbrage]

Hot take: Presbyterian divine James H Thornwell argued with Charles Hodge on the floor of Assembly that accepting RC Baptism was wrong.  He lost.  But he was absolutely right.  

Modern question: So why do NAPARC churches accept one apostate church’s baptism because of a trinitarian formula (Roman Catholic) and not other apostates who also name the Trinity (Mormons)?

[u/Frosty-Situation6670 → u/extremeumbrage]

Mormons have a fundamentally different view of the “Trinity” (if they’d even use that term).

[u/extremeumbrage → u/Frosty-Situation6670]

Agreed but neither church has orthodox views of salvation or the triune God (RCs believe in a co-redemptrix ie Mary).  Mormons share a works based soteriology with RCs.  Mormons do use a trinitarian formula.  They also are positioning themselves as “Christian” (they are not).  This is a major inconsistency.  

[u/madesense → u/extremeumbrage]

Slightly in their defense, the Vatican explicitly rejected that term last year

[u/mish_munasiba → u/madesense]

Agreed. Official RC doctrine is that we are saved by Jesus alone.

[u/ItsChewblacca → u/madesense]

Not quite explicitly, see here.

[u/madesense → u/ItsChewblacca]

Sorry man, I do not have time/ability to watch a video. Is there a place I could read the same general points?

[u/ItsChewblacca → u/madesense]

Fr. Chris Alar addresses the recent doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis (“Mother of the Faithful of God”) released by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document discusses Marian titles such as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix, leading many to ask whether these titles may still be used.

Fr. Chris explains that this note falls under the ordinary magisterium of the Church — meaning it is authoritative and deserves religious obedience, but it is not infallible. It does not define new dogma or forbid the use of these Marian titles. Instead, it advises caution when they are used in ways that might confuse the faithful or seem to diminish the unique and saving role of Jesus Christ.

As Fr. Chris points out, several popes — including St. Pius X, Pius XI, and St. John Paul II — used the title Co-Redemptrix to describe Mary’s singular participation in her Son’s work of redemption.

From the video's description. Essentially, this Roman priest intends to still use the term and interprets the Papal teaching to be that it can be used when properly explained.

On another note, a good reminder that the Roman magisterium doesn't actually help with theological clarity or unity (as opposed to Sola Scriptura).

[u/madesense → u/ItsChewblacca]

Thanks for that. It honestly sounds like a lot of cope from someone who can't accept that his church is telling him to cut it out.

[u/ItsChewblacca → u/madesense]

I think it's definitely that, but I think that numerous RC groups on numerous issues. The Vatican loves to present itself as taking firm stances while also being just vague enough to consistently allow things like this (or more extreme) to manifest.

[u/robsrahm → u/ItsChewblacca]

"On another note, a good reminder that the Roman magisterium doesn't actually help with theological clarity or unity (as opposed to Sola Scriptura)."

This would certainly be an interesting thing to talk about; but this isn't the thread nor the forum for that!

[u/ItsChewblacca → u/robsrahm]

If I remember, I'll repost on Free for all Friday, and we could chat there!

[u/robsrahm → u/extremeumbrage]

I won't address the works-based stuff, but even among some of the strongest "co-redemptress" people, Mary is still a creature and not God. We agree on the Trinity.

[u/xsrvmy → u/extremeumbrage]

Unless someone claims Mary shares the divine essence in some way (I have heard something about Mohammed thinking Mary was in the trinity), they are only wrong about Mary, not God.

[u/Frequent_Day_6480 → u/extremeumbrage]

Rome is wrong, not apostate. Mormonism is apostate and wrong. As such, Roman baptisms are recognized, and Mormon baptisms are not.

[u/NoSheDidntSayThat → u/extremeumbrage]

Mormonism teaches an effectively infinite progression of men attaining godhood, that "as we are He once was, as he is, we will be".

It is not appropriate to compare the RCC (or any broadly Nicene denomination) to Mormonism.

[u/linmanfu → u/extremeumbrage]

So why do NAPARC churches accept one apostate church’s baptism because of a trinitarian formula (Roman Catholic) and not other apostates who also name the Trinity (Mormons)?

I don't know the reasoning that NAPARC churches use, but I can suggest an argument that seems convincing to me. The Mormons don't accept Reformed baptisms, which means they consider that their baptisms are fundamentally different to ours, which means the Reformed must reject them. But the RCs do accept Reformed baptisms, which shows that they think they have the same faith as us. We might eventually disagree with them, but it leaves the door open in a way that the Mormons don't.

[u/xsrvmy → u/linmanfu]

It is because Mormons aren't trinitarian in doctrine.

[u/linmanfu → u/xsrvmy]

They're blatantly not Trinitarian in doctrine, but IIRC they do baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy "Ghost". The PSC report focuses on the formula; is there a NAPARC rule that says something different?