Teaching on need to undergo Major Surgery

[Brigid]

I think, I'm not a priest though, that baptism alone (for an adult) does forgive sins no matter the repentance of the party. However I'm thinking that the Grace that Sacrament imparts would not be available unless there was repentance.

I would agree with Shin in having a traditional priest explain this to you.

[Shin]

So that, if someone were to be baptized and not repent a certain mortal or venial sin, he would gain the character of baptism, but it would not wash away these sins until the person actually repented them later on.

I have a question about this.... let's say a person got baptized as an adult (in a church that considers baptism a Sacrament), but didn't really believe in it or in God and wasn't really repentant for sin.

Are their sins not forgiven until they turn to God and repent later on?

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter, from the Summa Theologica:

Article 7. Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required on the part of the one baptized?

Objection 1. It seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized. For the one baptized is, as it were, "patient" in the sacrament. But an intention is required not on the part of the patient but on the part of the agent. Therefore it seems that the intention of receiving Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized.

Objection 2. Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be omitted, the Baptism must be repeated; for instance, if the invocation of the Trinity be omitted, as stated above (66, 9, ad 3). But it does not seem that a man should be rebaptized through not having had the intention of receiving Baptism: else, since his intention cannot be proved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack of intention. Therefore it seems that no intention is required on the part of the one baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original sin. But original sin is contracted without the intention of the person born. Therefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part of the person baptized.

On the contrary, According to the Church's ritual, those who are to be baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament.

I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Romans 6:4: "We are buried together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1. When a man is justified by Baptism, his passiveness is not violent but voluntary: wherefore it is necessary for him to intend to receive that which is given him.

Reply to Objection 2. If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee."

Reply to Objection 3. Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also against actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention.

[Brigid]

Lesson: go with your first thought/inclination - mine being that it forgave (due to the Sacrament/the blood of Christ) Original Sin, but not actual sin. Yes, a conditional baptism might be in order, but mostly (IMHO) if the proper intention on the part of the priest or the correct words were not there.

St. Thomas is so clear!

[Shin]

Lesson: go with your first thought/inclination - mine being that it forgave (due to the Sacrament/the blood of Christ) Original Sin, but not actual sin. Yes, a conditional baptism might be in order, but mostly (IMHO) if the proper intention on the part of the priest or the correct words were not there.

St. Thomas is so clear!

Well, he isn't always right.. ever so very rarely.. I understand the conclusion you came to to, it's nearly mine..

In any case, to a traditional priest in a real situation rather than hypothetical case. I keep saying 'traditional' because we are in such troubled times and there are some priests who would not express the correct teaching on the matter, I am certain, and so that is what I always recommend if at all possible, especially in matters of advice.

Baptism is interesting.. for a long time I wondered if one could baptize oneself -- I asked Catholic Answers.. got no reply.. But then I heard a sermon on Audio Sancto, and it was clarified there.. no you can't.. takes another person..

[Brigid]

Baptism is interesting.. for a long time I wondered if one could baptize oneself -- I asked Catholic Answers.. got no reply.. But then I heard a sermon on Audio Sancto, and it was clarified there.. no you can't.. takes another person..

Yup, no way. I have heard from a seminarian tho' that in case of a large disaster (earthquake, etc.) you could go out in the yard, turn on the hose and baptize, "I baptize you in the name of......." to anyone who passed by.
That would be licit, too, since people would be in danger of death. Even if validity were questionable, it would be an act of charity.

[Shin]

Baptism is interesting.. for a long time I wondered if one could baptize oneself -- I asked Catholic Answers.. got no reply.. But then I heard a sermon on Audio Sancto, and it was clarified there.. no you can't.. takes another person..

Yup, no way. I have heard from a seminarian tho' that in case of a large disaster (earthquake, etc.) you could go out in the yard, turn on the hose and baptize, "I baptize you in the name of......." to anyone who passed by.
That would be licit, too, since people would be in danger of death. Even if validity were questionable, it would be an act of charity.

I never thought of that!  Amazing!

It has to be 'running water' I heard a priest insist, and there it is! 

[Brigid]

Baptism is interesting.. for a long time I wondered if one could baptize oneself -- I asked Catholic Answers.. got no reply.. But then I heard a sermon on Audio Sancto, and it was clarified there.. no you can't.. takes another person..

Yup, no way. I have heard from a seminarian tho' that in case of a large disaster (earthquake, etc.) you could go out in the yard, turn on the hose and baptize, "I baptize you in the name of......." to anyone who passed by.
That would be licit, too, since people would be in danger of death. Even if validity were questionable, it would be an act of charity.

I never thought of that!  Amazing!

It has to be 'running water' I heard a priest insist, and there it is! 

Only thing is, I wonder if there would be any water coming out of the hose in that kind of situation.

[Patricia]

I wouldn't want to be baptized with a hose , but if it saved my soul why not?

[Shin]

Only thing is, I wonder if there would be any water coming out of the hose in that kind of situation.

Well, in an earthquake who knows? Water could be everywhere or nowhere which makes me think, at least you wouldn't have that problem with a flood!