Author Topic: Invalid baptism? (Read 536 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** November 18, 2019, 06:44:53 AM »

If a priest were baptizing a baby, and during the pronouncement of the form, attempted to pour water on the baby’s head, but because of the shape of the pouring vessel, the water only hit/flowed upon the baby’s head during the first cross (ie., in nomine patris...), but during the third cross, and possibly also during the second, the water instead of pouring out, merely ran down the side of the dish, clearly missing the baby, but from the priests angle, looked like it was pouring onto the baby, even though it wasn’t.

Would this be a valid baptism?

Doubtful or certain?

If I did a conditional baptism myself, would I sin?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2019, 07:10:01 AM »

Not sure, but if water need only flow once, why do the rubrics/rituale instruct the priest to make 3 ablutions (of which 2 would be superfluous)?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2019, 07:15:22 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 18, 2019, 07:10:01 AM

Not sure, but if water need only flow once, why do the rubrics/rituale instruct the priest to make 3 ablutions (of which 2 would be superfluous)?

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.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2019, 08:10:34 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 18, 2019, 07:10:01 AM

Not sure, but if water need only flow once, why do the rubrics/rituale instruct the priest to make 3 ablutions (of which 2 would be superfluous)?

Is it possible that, in Divine Providence, the Holy Ghost has prompted the Church to prescribe three ablutions for precisely this reason --- because one or more might "miss their mark", three ablutions conforms to the Trinitarian formula, and it is highly unlikely that all three would fail to be valid? Many non-Catholic sects only immerse their converts a single time while they say "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit". Very often, they omit the rudimentary genitive case that exists in English ("and of the..."), which seems unscriptural but is probably not invalid.

I have always assumed this is why three bishops are normally used for consecrating new bishops --- there could be defects in one bishop's validity (defect of rite, etc.), but highly unlikely for all three. Some schismatic bishops "collect" multiple lineages, and undergo several sub conditione (or ad cautelam) consecrations, after their initial consecration, to ensure validity of their orders --- out of all those consecrations, one or more has to be valid.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2019, 03:18:27 PM »

Quote

Having watched the video of the baptism, it is not certain that even the first ablution flowed on skin. You can clearly see 90%+ of the water miss the baby, and possibly, for one brief second (literally), water MAY have touched the baby, maybe, but if it did, did it pierce the hair and flow on skin???

It did look like there was a narrow dark strip of hair where water may have flowed, or was that from the cleric “drying” the head with the paper towel afterwards, but really only smearing chrism?

Is there any reason not to conditionally baptize?

We were always taught that, with regard to sacramental validity, one must take a tutiorist approach, and consequently Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to conditionally ordain priest’s whose ordination in the new Rite was merely probable (ie., doubtful), but not certain.

Does not the uncertainty of the contact with flowing water make this baptism likewise doubtful?

Would I sin in such circuмstances if I conditionally baptized, rather than shrugging my shoulders, and contenting myself to accept that if my newborn son died in the next several yeRs, maybe he would go to heaven, and maybe he wouldn’t?

Seems hard to believe God would want me to take such a risk.

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?

Author Topic: Invalid baptism? (Read 536 times)

Änσnymσus

Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

SimpleMan

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Ladislaus

Re: Invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Invalid baptism?