Talk:Conditional baptism

Untitled

I doubt that converts from Mormonism are a case for conditional baptism. There is not any positive doubt that the Baptism could have been valid also (which is required for a conditional baptism; or is there?), so, they'd have to be baptized absolutely in my view.--2001:A60:1534:9401:F51B:C55B:1F3A:EAB2 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm removing this reference. The Mormon belief in a Trinity differs substantially from the Catholic belief - enough that the Catholic church has issued an official statement to that effect.User2635 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conditional baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816040600/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

An erroneous sentence which has no source to support it, needs revision

Article claims:

"Mainline Christian theology (including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Anglican, Lutheran and most other Protestants) has traditionally held that only one baptism is valid to confer the benefits of this sacrament."

This statement is misleading. Many non-RCC Christians believe that Spirit baptism & water baptism are distinct, and call neither a "sacrament." (John baptized with water, but Christ baptized with with the Spirit, even with fire.) 1 Cor 12:13 Spirit baptism. The statement about their being "benefits of this sacrament," sounds like sacramentalism. A common POV among non-RCC theologians is that water baptism is a means of identifying publicly with the Lord Jesus, but has nothing to do with salvation. The discussion should not focus on the word "validity," but on whether or not more than one water baptism is proper. And also, there is the POV that putting water on a baby, is not baptism at all, and that water baptism may not be done without the baptized person wanting it. I think I shall revise and simplify this sentence.(PeacePeace (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC))

The whole article seems to conflate beliefs of various Christian churchs - as near as I can tell. I'll try to clean up the worst of it, but it certainly requires more than I know of the respective religions.User2635 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "Other Cases" section

The entirety of this section is sourced to the 1962 update to the 1952 edition of the Rituale Romanum, which was only the operating text up until the Vatican II council, which specifically overturned its use. The currently active and relevant ritual is the Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, revised 2003, English translation The Order of Baptism of Children. The current Order retains the conditional formula as above, but removes all of the special cases of conditional baptism as given in the 1952 document. In the the (currently active) 2003 edition the possible circumstances where a baptism might not be valid and licit are all covered by a form that is sadly not in the available preview pages on Google Books for citation but is no longer the (literally dehumanizing!) language in the 1952 edition.

Since I don't have a copy of the 2003 Order to hand to cite the exact langauge I'm just going to remove it; if I can find the exact language I'll come back and provide the currently active text.

More broadly speaking, lately I have been sending a lot of friends who have gotten more interested in Catholic inside baseball with the election of Pope Leo to Wikipedia articles on Catholicism to contextualize some of what I'm explaining, and I absolutely see a number of signs of POV pushing from proponents of the theory that the pre-Vatican II Rituale Romanum and Missale Romanum versions are the only acceptable liturgical forms and the reforms of the Vatican II Council are heretical, especially as you start to get down to the smaller/less-trafficked articles on more obscure points of canon law and church catechism. I strongly urge editors working in this area who are not intimately familiar with spotting the ways in which this theory manifests in obscure doctrinal issues to pay very careful attention to publication dates on Church sources in general to make sure the citations are not to pre-Vatican II material. ~2026-81514-6 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-81514-6: would you mind listing what you found on Wikipedia that according to you constitute a number of signs of POV pushing from proponents of the theory that the pre-Vatican II Rituale Romanum and Missale Romanum versions are the only acceptable liturgical forms and the reforms of the Vatican II Council are heretical? Veverve (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The biggest tell is what I mentioned to look out for: disproportionate citations to pre-1952 primary material (or secondary sources that are reliant on it and taking it as the current operating system of canon law or catechism) without mentioning that it was heavily revised by Vatican II.

There's definitely an innocent possible explanation for it (the pre-1952 material is mostly out of copyright and is more widely and freely available online as discoverable/verifiable for source reliability checks, while the later material is still under copyright and mostly only available in dead tree) but given that a lot of the current conflict in the Catholic church, and especially in the US Catholic church, revolves around the debate about the post-Vatican II reforms, and there is a very active subset of the "traditionalist Catholic" movement that rejects Vatican II and is agitating for the overturn of its reforms, it's something to keep an eye out for.

If I can get Wikipedia to properly cough up a password reset email for my old editor account I do intend to make a concerted survey of article and source quality and highlight the articles I think need the most help, but since I was here I figured I'd fix this one and drop a cautionary note! ~2026-81514-6 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Just replying here to note that I did in fact get Wikipedia to cough up the password reset email finally, and the above temporary account edits were from me! rahaeli (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rahaeli: disproportionate citations to pre-1952 primary material: it is probably simply because the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain and case therefore be copy-pasted verbatim into WP articles. While it is normal from a historical point of view to present the way things were before, it will give a certain bias if it is the only source being used. Same goes for old editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Veverve (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)