Is this kind of BEACH Baptism Valid?

Please take a look at this baptism performed at the beach:
Calvary Chapel South Orlando Beach Baptism

Considering how solemn is the baptism ceremony in the Catholic Church, I wonder if those women in bikini can make their baptism, somewhat, invalid? Or maybe it doesn’t matter how profane or vulgar one dresses, as long as there is this intention to be baptized, the protestant can do it any way they want so long they use the trinitarian formula? What are the restrictions or reservations of reverence, if any, that if violated, God at His own discretion, can nullify the protestant baptism?

I think treating the Lord’s sacrament like that is profane and blasphemous.

I don’t know if its valid. I do wonder if the minister called upon the Holy Spirit to come down upon the water and make the water Holy? And what about the anointing with oil? I guess I’m a traditionalist!

:shrug: :eek:

Looks like a beach party with dunking to me! Usually even a baptism in a lake or river, the participants will wear white garments, not a bikini or swim trunks.

Man, I’m so glad I’m a Catholic!

If they used a Trinitarian formula, I don’t see any reason it should be invalid. I guess I also didn’t see it as particularly irreverent – how different is it from the baptisms in the River Jordan?

This was my thought as well.

I think it may be
invalid, they used salt water not fresh water.

This is not a Catholic baptism – it is Protestant. As long as they used water and the Trinitarian formula, there is no reason to think it is invalid. Salt water does not invalidate the sacrament.

For people in RCIA, the questions about baptism have to do with whether it was in the Trinitarian formula and done with water.

We don’t ask if it was done in a church. We don’t ask what the people were wearing. And we don’t ask if it was fresh water or salt water.

It’s not that simple. Consider this document regarding the invalidity of the Mormon baptism.

The Form. …] The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity.

Therefore it boils down to whether it is a “real” Trinitarian formula or only an apparent one. I do not know what the case is for this denomination.

The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism

Could it also be the case here? It is something that we (at least I) cannot address here, but could be.

The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints …] It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.

Thus, it boils down to the doctrine of this denomination and whether or not it hinders the form, the minister’s intention, and the recipient’s disposition.

I was not sure that salt water was valid matter, but I found this post shows that it is indeed valid.

Doesn’t Holy Water blessed under the old Roman Ritual have salt added to it? If salt in sea water were to make that matter invalid for Baptism, what does that mean for tap water which has fluoride, chlorine, and possibly other substances added to it?

In the early Church, those who are baptized were baptized naked. Because we are being born again into Christ, we are baptized the way we were born, naked. So what you wear had nothing to do with the validity of baptism. Today’s sensibilities would have adults being baptize wear a “baptismal gown” which is a white gown worn over pretty much nothing. Some may put on swimwear underneath. But traditionally anyone who is baptized is baptized naked. Today we only do that with infants.

For me the question is, is the baptism “invalid” or just weird? If I baptize a dying man who wants it, it’s valid. If the people chose to be baptized and the minister baptised them, no matter how weird I may find it, it’s probably valid.
Besides, if someone asked for baptism, and received it in good faith, who am I to say it’s not valid?

I was just going to post this.

I don’t see anything that would mark this as invalid. I didn’t have my sound on so I have no idea what was said.

That song was an invalid form of music.

That doesn’t make very much sense to me. I was taught in RCIA that in an emergency, you can even baptize someone with saliva or ditch water.

Yes, I should have been clearer–what I meant by Trinitarian formula was that they used a valid Trinitarian formula – intending to baptize as the Church intends baptism.

There is nothing in this video per se that would indicate otherwise – the validity certainly cannot be judged by the garments, the music, or the seawater.


Two songs, actually.

What is “invalid” to you.

“Holy is the Lord, God almighty, the earth is filled with His glory”

Yeah I can see how that might be unsettling. :whacky:

Anyway, the guy singing was Chris Tomlin. These songs are from his cd. This wasn’t live music being played at the baptism. This music was added to the video after it was already made. We have no way of knowing what, if any, music was played at this baptism.

I agree. It remains to see whether the doctrine of this denomination is sound enough so as not to hinder the minister’s intention or the recipient’s disposition, thus rendering the baptism invalid.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit