Author Topic: Invalid baptism? (Read 2044 times)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2019, 12:14:26 PM »

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]From the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Doubt” (and note the final sentence, which explicitly references doubtful baptism):[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“It frequently happens, however, that the solution of a practical doubt is not attainable, while some decision is [/color]necessary[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]. In such cases the [/color]conscience[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] may obtain a "reflexive" [/color]certainty[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] by adopting an approved opinion as to the lawfulness of the action contemplated, apart from the intrinsic merits of the question. The question has been much discussed among different [/color]schools[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] of [/color]theologians[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] whether the opinion so followed must be of greatly preponderating authority in favour of liberty in order to justify an action the lawfulness of which appears intrinsically doubtful, whether it must be merely more probable than the contrary one, or equally probable, or merely probable in itself, even though less so than its contrary. (See [/color]MORAL THEOLOGY[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]; [/color]PROBABILISM[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)].) The fast, however, is the theory now generally accepted for all practical purposes; and the principle that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]lex dubia non obligat[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]--i.e. that a law which is doubtful in its application to the case in hand does not bind--is universally admitted. It must be observed, however, that where the question is one not merely of positive law but of securing a certain practical result, only the "safer" course may be followed. No opinion however probable, is allowed to take precedence of the most certain means of securing such ends; e.g. in providing for the validity of the [/color]sacraments[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], in discharging [/color]obligations[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] of [/color]justice[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], or in avoiding injury to others. Thus doubtful [/color]baptisms[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] and ordinations must be repeated conditionally.”[/color]

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2019, 12:19:52 PM »

From the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Doubt:”

“It frequently happens, however, that the solution of a practical doubt is not attainable, while some decision is necessary. In such cases the conscience may obtain a "reflexive" certainty by adopting an approved opinion as to the lawfulness of the action contemplated, apart from the intrinsic merits of the question. The question has been much discussed among different schools of theologians whether the opinion so followed must be of greatly preponderating authority in favour of liberty in order to justify an action the lawfulness of which appears intrinsically doubtful, whether it must be merely more probable than the contrary one, or equally probable, or merely probable in itself, even though less so than its contrary. (See MORAL THEOLOGY; PROBABILISM.) The fast, however, is the theory now generally accepted for all practical purposes; and the principle that lex dubia non obligat--i.e. that a law which is doubtful in its application to the case in hand does not bind--is universally admitted. It must be observed, however, that where the question is one not merely of positive law but of securing a certain practical result, only the "safer" course may be followed. No opinion however probable, is allowed to take precedence of the most certain means of securing such ends; e.g. in providing for the validity of the sacraments, in discharging obligations of justice, or in avoiding injury to others. Thus doubtful baptisms and ordinations must be repeated conditionally.”

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2019, 12:30:28 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 19, 2019, 12:14:26 PM

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]From the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Doubt” (and note the final sentence, which explicitly references doubtful baptism):[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“It frequently happens, however, that the solution of a practical doubt is not attainable, while some decision is [/color]necessary[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]. In such cases the [/color]conscience[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] may obtain a "reflexive" [/color]certainty[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] by adopting an approved opinion as to the lawfulness of the action contemplated, apart from the intrinsic merits of the question. The question has been much discussed among different [/color]schools[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] of [/color]theologians[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] whether the opinion so followed must be of greatly preponderating authority in favour of liberty in order to justify an action the lawfulness of which appears intrinsically doubtful, whether it must be merely more probable than the contrary one, or equally probable, or merely probable in itself, even though less so than its contrary. (See [/color]MORAL THEOLOGY[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]; [/color]PROBABILISM[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)].) The fast, however, is the theory now generally accepted for all practical purposes; and the principle that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]lex dubia non obligat[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]--i.e. that a law which is doubtful in its application to the case in hand does not bind--is universally admitted. It must be observed, however, that where the question is one not merely of positive law but of securing a certain practical result, only the "safer" course may be followed. No opinion however probable, is allowed to take precedence of the most certain means of securing such ends; e.g. in providing for the validity of the [/color]sacraments[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], in discharging [/color]obligations[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] of [/color]justice[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], or in avoiding injury to others. Thus doubtful [/color]baptisms[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] and ordinations must be repeated conditionally.”[/color]

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2019, 12:58:27 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 18, 2019, 07:15:22 AM

I don’t know the answer to this question, but I have been told by two different resistance priests that one pouring suffices for validity, and conditional baptism should not be done.

That is my understanding as well. As long as water touches the skin of the head and flows across it at some point during the pronunciation of the forum, then all the conditions for validity are met.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2019, 01:12:41 PM »

What if there are conflicting accounts from eye witnesses, and people who viewed a videotape of it, as to whether water ever flowed across the skin at all?

Some say yes, we definitely saw water flow across the skin.

Others equally well positioned, specifically to observe that water would flow across the skin, say they are unsure.

And still others (priests) watching an excellent video of it contradict each other: yes it did; certainly valid vs can’t be sure; better baptize conditionally.

Would this be cause for conditionally baptizing (ie., positive doubt)?

The excerpt from the CE seems to say yes?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Invalid baptism? (Read 2044 times)

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Ladislaus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?