Author Topic: Valid or invalid baptism?  (Read 1332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
  • Reputation: +6447/-1028
  • Gender: Male
Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2017, 08:29:50 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Real and natural water is not treated water.  It is water from the sea, well, lake, etc.
    I used rain water to baptize all my kids.  Do you really want to bargain your soul on chlorinated water?

    You need to get your extreme scrupulosity under control.  If it looks like water, flows like water, etc. then it's water.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #16 on: November 17, 2017, 08:34:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Water from the tap is absolutely valid for baptism.  Perhaps you should speak with your confessor about scrupulosity.
    It is also a very serious sin to repeat a valid Sacrament, as well as to administer a Sacrament conditionally without good reason.  

    As to the original question, as long as water flowed onto the head at some point while the form was being pronounced, the baptism is valid.  The fact that the priest ran out of water as he said "..et Spiritus Sancti." would not invalidate the baptism.   The Ritual states three distinct pours for the rite, but this is not necessary for validity.

    Correct.  There's no requirement for validity that there be a specific number of infusions or that the infusions must take place exactly when certain words are pronounced.  These kinds of things are prescribed by the ritual for various symbolic reasons and not in the interests of validity.  So long as the proper words are pronounced by a proper minister with the proper intention and water is poured on the head in such a way that the water flows across the skin, the Baptism was certainly valid.

    I know one guy who questioned the Baptism of his kids because the priest said "Holy Spirit" instead of "Holy Ghost".  You can drive yourself nuts with this kind of thing.


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12427
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #17 on: November 17, 2017, 08:36:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correct.  There's no requirement for validity that there be a specific number of infusions or that the infusions must take place exactly when certain words are pronounced.  These kinds of things are prescribed by the ritual for various symbolic reasons and not in the interests of validity.  So long as the proper words are pronounced by a proper minister with the proper intention and water is poured on the head in such a way that the water flows across the skin, the Baptism was certainly valid.

    I know one guy who questioned the Baptism of his kids because the priest said "Holy Spirit" instead of "Holy Ghost".  You can drive yourself nuts with this kind of thing.

    I wrote this.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #18 on: November 17, 2017, 10:40:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is chlorinated water "real and natural"?   I've taken the steps to baptize all my kids because I believe the water used was not real and natural.  Also since my first 5 kids were baptized in the novus ordo I couldn't verify if the baptism was performed correctly.
    Matter, form, and intent is all that matters. 
    Matter: Water looks very different depending upon where you are in the world.  I was told that in an extreme emergency spit could be used.

    Form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," while pouring water on the head.  The catechism does not say the water must flow, nor does it say the pouring must be done three times.  The catechism does say, in case of necessity, water may be poured anywhere on the body, not absolutely requiring the head.

    Intent: you can never fully know the intent.

    As a bishop recently told me, keep our Faith simple.  God is not complicated.  He knows our intent.  As st. Bonaventure said, "When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." 

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #19 on: November 17, 2017, 11:20:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matter, form, and intent is all that matters.
    Matter: Water looks very different depending upon where you are in the world.  I was told that in an extreme emergency spit could be used.

    Form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," while pouring water on the head.  The catechism does not say the water must flow, nor does it say the pouring must be done three times.  The catechism does say, in case of necessity, water may be poured anywhere on the body, not absolutely requiring the head.

    Intent: you can never fully know the intent.

    As a bishop recently told me, keep our Faith simple.  God is not complicated.  He knows our intent.  As st. Bonaventure said, "When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth."

    Be very careful here.  Spit and pouring on other parts of the body (other than the head) are considered DOUBTFUL for validity.  That's why they can only be used in an extreme emergency where nothing else can be done.  You can NEVER use something that's CLEARLY invalid.  But in extreme necessity it's possible to use doubtful matter.  While the catechism does not explicitly state that the water must flow, that requirement is taught by theologians.  Now, it's next to impossible for water to touch the skin and not move (i.e. flow) ... so maybe that's why the catechism doesn't mention that.  Baptism involves a WASHING with water, and washing by definition means that the water must move across the skin.

    And, yes, you CAN know the intent.  If a person performs the rite as the Church prescribes, then the intent to DO what the Church DOES is there.


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12427
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #20 on: November 17, 2017, 11:20:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Be very careful here.  Spit and pouring on other parts of the body (other than the head) are considered DOUBTFUL for validity.  That's why they can only be used in an extreme emergency where nothing else can be done.  You can NEVER use something that's CLEARLY invalid.  But in extreme necessity it's possible to use doubtful matter.  While the catechism does not explicitly state that the water must flow, that requirement is taught by theologians.  Now, it's next to impossible for water to touch the skin and not move (i.e. flow) ... so maybe that's why the catechism doesn't mention that.  Baptism involves a WASHING with water, and washing by definition means that the water must move across the skin.

    And, yes, you CAN know the intent.  If a person performs the rite as the Church prescribes, then the intent to DO what the Church DOES is there.

    mine again   :facepalm:

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #21 on: November 17, 2017, 02:34:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Be very careful here.  Spit and pouring on other parts of the body (other than the head) are considered DOUBTFUL for validity.  That's why they can only be used in an extreme emergency where nothing else can be done.  You can NEVER use something that's CLEARLY invalid.  But in extreme necessity it's possible to use doubtful matter.  While the catechism does not explicitly state that the water must flow, that requirement is taught by theologians.  Now, it's next to impossible for water to touch the skin and not move (i.e. flow) ... so maybe that's why the catechism doesn't mention that.  Baptism involves a WASHING with water, and washing by definition means that the water must move across the skin.

    And, yes, you CAN know the intent.  If a person performs the rite as the Church prescribes, then the intent to DO what the Church DOES is there.
    Extreme emergency is what I said.  God knows our intent.
    It is VERY possible for water to touch the skin and not flow.  Washing can involve the water being moved across the skin, not necessarily water moving freely across the skin.  For instance, sponge bathing using damp washcloths.
     if intent were automatic based on matter and form, then the Church would not require matter, form, and intent to make the sacrament valid.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12427
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #22 on: November 17, 2017, 02:45:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Extreme emergency is what I said.  God knows our intent.
    It is VERY possible for water to touch the skin and not flow.  Washing can involve the water being moved across the skin, not necessarily water moving freely across the skin.  For instance, sponge bathing using damp washcloths.
     if intent were automatic based on matter and form, then the Church would not require matter, form, and intent to make the sacrament valid.

    Yeah, well, it needs to be made clear that these emergency procedures are of DOUBTFUL validity.

    No, it's hardly possible for water to touch the skin and not flow.  Unless it's on a perfectly flat surface, water moves.

    You don't understand intention properly, since the way you explain it no one can every really know if any given Sacrament is valid.


    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #23 on: November 17, 2017, 02:57:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dollars to donuts the anonymous poster is Stubborn.  He's been on record before essentially removing intent from sacramental validity because it is impossible to know.


    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #24 on: November 17, 2017, 03:06:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah, well, it needs to be made clear that these emergency procedures are of DOUBTFUL validity.

    No, it's hardly possible for water to touch the skin and not flow.  Unless it's on a perfectly flat surface, water moves.

    You don't understand intention properly, since the way you explain it no one can every really know if any given Sacrament is valid.
    You are wrong.  Water can be moved across the skin in such a way that it evaporates before it moves on it's own.
    Exactly my point, that no one can ever be completely certain that a sacrament is valid.  One can only do their best and leave the rest to God.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #25 on: November 17, 2017, 03:08:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholics are required to have moral certainty about the sacraments they receive. 
    .
    If you receive a sacrament about which you are doubtful (not scrupulously doubtful, but about which you have reason to doubt), you sin.
    .


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8240
    • Reputation: +2967/-550
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #26 on: November 17, 2017, 03:15:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dollars to donuts the anonymous poster is Stubborn.  He's been on record before essentially removing intent from sacramental validity because it is impossible to know.
    Nope, the posts I made here I clicked the box. Except for #4 where I forgot - I said:
    Chlorinated water is "real and natural". Consider that Baptismal water always contains salt and holy oil.

    Second, all the sacraments, once administered, are presumed valid by the Church until proven otherwise.
    If it were any other way, what would the Church preserve and defend? The answer of course is, nothing.
    The OP is worrying about absolutely nothing, the child is certainly baptized - according to what the OP described. 
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #27 on: November 17, 2017, 03:54:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholics are required to have moral certainty about the sacraments they receive.  
    .
    If you receive a sacrament about which you are doubtful (not scrupulously doubtful, but about which you have reason to doubt), you sin.
    .
    You can't possibly know the intent of the person who administers the sacrament.   Since we can't possibly know, it can't come in to our equation of our moral certainty.  We can only be morally certain of matter and form.  We must assume intent.
    Stubborn is right, that The Church assumes validity unless otherwise proven.
    Stubborn is also right that the OP is worrying about nothing.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3152
    • Reputation: +3848/-156
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #28 on: November 17, 2017, 04:39:43 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Intention is presumed when a Catholic minister uses the correct matter and form. Then validity is certain.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Valid or invalid baptism?
    « Reply #29 on: November 19, 2017, 04:19:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Intention is presumed when a Catholic minister uses the correct matter and form. Then validity is certain.
    How can an outcome be certain when input is presumed?  Don't see it...

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16