The only Protestant baptism I know of that would not be accepted by the Catholic or Orthodox Churches is baptism in Jesus’ Name alone (the formula being often “I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”) as that does not follow Christ’s command to “baptize in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28). While the churches that do this are often non-Trinitarian “Oneness Pentecostal” churches, occasionally you’ll find someone who does believe in the Trinity but who believes “Jesus’ Name” baptism is more valid.
You’re absolutely right, but this is not an issue with most mainstream Christian sects, and the Presbyterians are definitely a mainstream Christian sect.
A Mormon who wanted to become Catholic would almost certainly have to be baptized, and a Unitarian probably would be, too. But it’s extremely unlikely that a priest who knew what he was doing would require a duly baptized Presbyterian to be baptized again.
Exactly right, I think – that’s what I meant when I said that baptisms that are not trinitarian would not be accepted by the RCC.
Is it possible the wife in the OT was pulling a ‘bait and switch’?
It would be the rare Unitarian who would be baptized at all. We have naming ceremonies that don’t involve either water or Christ. Given the open nature of UUs you can probably find UU ceremonies involving water and Christ and even the trinity, but if I were a RCC priest I’d have any UU rebaptized. If they believe its a formality, if they don’t, then it’s a “make the new wife happy” ruse.
If you were a RC priest, you’d almost certainly believe in the Church teaching ex opere operato, which states that sacraments are efficacious “because of the work performed”–that is, a baptism proper in form, matter, and intent (here, meaning that water is used along with the name of each Person of the Trinity and that the minister of the sacrament intends to baptize) is valid regardless of other factors like whether it was done as a formality. 
I wasn’t that familiar with Unitarian practice, but what you say just confirms my initial suspicion that the rare Unitarians who want to become Catholic WOULD have to be baptized.
Sadly, that’s “laymen who pay attention”. One of the things that my generation was told to exhaustion was that “you don’t need to be confirmed to get married in a church”: we were told in class.
We were told when we signed up for Confirmation Catechism.
We were told during Confirmation Catechism.
We were told in Mass, and in the Ceremony of Forgiveness (the “massive” one held right before Confirmation).
We were told during the Confirmation ceremony itself!
And then, when we were having some celebratory donuts and coffee, is when one of my classmates, who’d attended the same Masses as me for the year her Confirmation Catechism had lasted (I’d opted for the three-year version), said “but why did the bishop say you don’t need to be confirmed to get a church wedding? Yes you do!”
Right, Loli, I’m sure you know your Canon better than the Archbishop :smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:<— that’s the rest of the teenagers in the room smacking Loli…
Exactly. Plus this sort of thing happens all the time. This sort of thing is so common with new born-again Christians that it’s a sort of running joke. They experience something amazing and want to share it so bad that they don’t think about how they come across to others. It’s even worse with their spouses or other people they care deeply about.
And think about it. If your wife joined some sort of cult or started drugs or doing any other dangerous behavior, do you think you’d be able to not be pushy in trying to save her? That’s the sort of thing that’s going on from her perspective. Her husband is participating in a way of life that is going to kill him.
I actually applaud this women for her patience. I’m not sure I could keep on just praying for something that isn’t happening without either giving up or trying to help it along. I would assume by now that the answer is no and that I need to move on.
I’ve seen quite a few evangelicals who wind up divorcing their unbelieving spouses.
I think a lot of the problem is that — at least when I was a teenager in the 1980s — youth leaders spend too little time on the basic theology/doctrine*. So kids spend several years just hearing all of the “Bible stories”, and then suddenly they’re teenagers and all they get is a barrage of lessons about why they shouldn’t have premarital sex, why they shouldn’t drink/do drugs, why they shouldn’t listen to rock & roll, etc., etc. I was an adult before it dawned on me that, while I knew all the “Bible stories”, I couldn’t recall hearing much about Jesus and salvation.
*In Protestant churches, anyway. Protestants don’t have a standardized “catechism” they teach to all the kids like the RCC has.
I think I ran into a moron of a priest. There was nothing unusual about my baptism (I don’t remember it, but I know that my Mom and Dad would have had it done in accord with the practices of the Presbyterian church they attended weekly).
Meh. It was 25 years ago, and while it’s a part of my life history, I don’t dwell on it. The girl and I broke up (this event was one of the many reasons), and as I understand things, she was able to find someone more “religiously suitable” for her. I still agree with what Nava said upthread: I dodged a bullet with that girl.
RCC formation was even worse for a while, at least mine. Do we have to believe in miracles? Jesus loves you. What is the Church’s position on abortion? Jesus loves you. And divorce? Jesus loves you. Beating up your spouse? Jesus loves you. Jesus loves me the same whether I’m a Catholic, a Muslim or a salmon, what is the difference between me being a Catholic and me being, say, a Lutheran? Jesus loves you.
My Confirmation class was made up of people who’d spent years asking questions about the Church’s official position on whatever to be told either “Jesus loves you” or “that’s not in this year’s curriculum”. There had been a couple of decent teachers in the bunch but that was two out of several dozens.
I’m 52 and went to Catholic schools for 13 years. I find this very easy to believe.
It no longer surprises me when I meet self-identified Catholics who either have no clue what the Church teaches on the big issues or who vaguely know but never got the feeling it was important.
Thing is, even though I had all the last of the old school nuns, I never learned much from them about basic theology. Those old nuns were obsessed with the TRAPPINGS of old-school Catholicism and the MINOR traditions, but had no knowledge or interest in the important things. They beat it into our heads that I couldn’t eat for an hour before receiving Communion, but did they ever explain to us that Communion bread IS the body of Christ? Nope. Hence, LOADS of practicing Catholics my age think it’s some sort of symbolic thing.
You sound just like my wife. She’d have sent the kids to Sunday school, except she knew she would get no help from me. She still lights candles for the High Holidays and even conducts a seder (no help from me), but deep down she admits she is as much an atheist as me.