Here is something to think about in regards to baptism.Found this on the subject to put your mind at ease: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#vi
The Council of Trent says that water must be "real and natural". CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema
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.
Chlorinated water is "real and natural". Consider that Baptismal water always contains salt and holy oil.Real and natural water is not treated water. It is water from the sea, well, lake, etc.
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.Were you there to observe the baptisms? Then you would know that the baptisms were valid - if the priest poured water on the head saying the words "I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Baptism in the Novus Ordo is valid under those conditions and your "baptism" would have been unnecessary and possibly a cause of confusion to your children.
Real and natural water is not treated water. It is water from the sea, well, lake, etc.Water from the tap is absolutely valid for baptism. Perhaps you should speak with your confessor about scrupulosity.
I used rain water to baptize all my kids. Do you really want to bargain your soul on chlorinated water?
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?
Water from the tap is absolutely valid for baptism. Perhaps you should speak with your confessor about scrupulosity.A friend just emailed me some quotes which prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt.
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.
I would add, though it's not relevant to the OP's question, that "natural water" is not a scientific measure. It's measured the same way that meat (for absitenence) is measured: according to what ordinary people believe it to be. A "test" that at least one moralist uses is whether or not it is suitable to wash with. Of course, even dirty water is valid matter for baptism, and that just further emphasizes the point.This was me. It's my first post in the thread.
Trent's phrase on "real and natural" water is simply emphasizing that they're talking about water, not something that happens to contain water or something that could be confused with water (like urine, for instance). There were lots of dubious baptisms due to matter throughout Church history, including baptisms with beer. Trent isn't looking four hundred years into the future here and warning us not to use distilled water for baptisms.
I'm not sure I know what chlorinated water is-- is that like pool water? I can't think of a reason that it wouldn't be valid matter.
Mithrandylan said:.
I would add, though it's not relevant to the OP's question, that "natural water" is not a scientific measure. It's measured the same way that meat (for absitenence) is measured: according to what ordinary people believe it to be. A "test" that at least one moralist uses is whether or not it is suitable to wash with. Of course, even dirty water is valid matter for baptism, and that just further emphasizes the point.
Trent's phrase on "real and natural" water is simply emphasizing that they're talking about water, not something that happens to contain water or something that could be confused with water (like urine, for instance). There were lots of dubious baptisms due to matter throughout Church history, including baptisms with beer. Trent isn't looking four hundred years into the future here and warning us not to use distilled water for baptisms.
I'm not sure I know what chlorinated water is-- is that like pool water? I can't think of a reason that it wouldn't be valid matter.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
How can an outcome be certain when input is presumed? Don't see it...Mith wrote "intention" not "input". If you read what's written rather than what you think, it would help you to "see it", don't you think?
Mith wrote "intention" not "input". If you read what's written rather than what you think, it would help you to "see it", don't you think?
I was speaking in generalities. Logic. Science. Facts. Take your pick..
An outcome cannot be certain when an input is presumed.
I haven’t studied sacramental theology much so I don’t know about what constitutes moral certainty about the intention of the minister but it seems to me that it should be theoretically impossible for a minister to deceive the public about his intention. How can you have an intention to not do what the Church does when you have an intention to appear to be doing what the Church does? The only way I can think of to do that is to not be a valid minister but only to appear to be a valid minister. Otherwise, I don’t see how a valid minister could form the intention to deceive without actually having the intention to do what the Church does. It is possible to perform the ceremony without intending to do what the Church does but only if you publicly state your intention so that you aren’t actually doing what the Church does. If you don’t state it publicly then you actually did do what the Church does and even if you didn’t initially intend to do what the Church does, you ended up doing what the Church does intentionally.
The intention of doing what the Church does, whatever that may be in
the opinion of him who administers the sacrament, is said to be required.
Thus St. Thomas: "Although he who does not believe that baptism is a
sacrament, or does not believe that it has any spiritual power, does not
intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless he intends to
do what the Church does, even if he counts that as nothing; and because the
Church intends to do something, therefore, as a consequence of this, he
intends implicitly to do something, though not explicitly."[1] But it is
not necessary that the minister think as the Church does, or that he not
err concerning her teaching; for it is enough if his intention is towards
something which is identically that which the Church intends, or, something
which amounts to the same thing, for example, if he intends to do that
which Christ instituted, or which is commanded in the Gospel, or which
Christians are accustomed to do according to the prescription of their
religion. (Thus it is apparent how even a Jєω or a pagan can have an
intention sufficient for baptizing. Consider for example a catechumen
placed in a moment of necessity, who asks a pagan saying, "Do for me, I
entreat you, this mercy, that you pour water on me, pronouncing the words,
'I baptize you,' etc., with the intention of doing what I myself intend to
receive according to the prescription of the law of Christians.)
I haven’t studied sacramental theology much so I don’t know about what constitutes moral certainty about the intention of the minister but it seems to me that it should be theoretically impossible for a minister to deceive the public about his intention. How can you have an intention to not do what the Church does when you have an intention to appear to be doing what the Church does? The only way I can think of to do that is to not be a valid minister but only to appear to be a valid minister. Otherwise, I don’t see how a valid minister could form the intention to deceive without actually having the intention to do what the Church does. It is possible to perform the ceremony without intending to do what the Church does but only if you publicly state your intention so that you aren’t actually doing what the Church does. If you don’t state it publicly then you actually did do what the Church does and even if you didn’t initially intend to do what the Church does, you ended up doing what the Church does intentionally..
Good stuff from Billot. Sounds just like what McHugh and Callan say (who I suppose would've lifted it from Billot), as they use the expression (when referring to intention) of a minister "intending to do what Christ commanded/instituted."
I really like that expression because it's clearer than intending to "do what the Church does," while at the same time making it clear enough that such an intention can include error about the thing that Christ instituted.
.#38 and #39 was me. I intended to check the box but I didn't. Get it? Actually, if truth be told, I never did intend to check the box. I may have desired to check the box but I didn't intend to. If I had intended to check the box, I would have at least made an attempt to click the box. But I didn't even make an attempt. My bad. Could a murder suspect claim that he never intended to murder the guy? Yes, he could but if the murder was accomplished by some elaborate scheme then the judge/jury will come to the conclusion that he actually did intend to murder the guy. So while I agree that a sacrament can be simulated, I disagree that it could be simulated merely by having/entertaining a thought about simulating it. In order to actually simulate a sacrament, you have to take some steps to achieve a simulation. If you don't take any steps to achieve a simulation then you never actually intended to simulate it (even if at some point you desired to simulate it). Performing a sacramental ceremony cannot be a simulation by default. Rather, if all the external requirements for validity are met then it is valid by default. The intention must have been there or it would not have happened as it did. I think intention is a pretty low bar to meet. On the other hand the form and matter have to be correct. Have you ever heard a priest repeat the words of consecration? I have. It is disconcerting to think that a mispronunciation of Latin could invalidate the sacrament but it could happen if the mispronunciation is bad enough to change the meaning. When I am serving I listen to the words but I don't worry about it because I also would not go to a Mass by a priest who was obviously incompetent or untrustworthy. I think I would be very scrupulous about a baptism performed by a non-Catholic. I would want to be absolutely certain that they used the correct form and matter. But I would trust a good priest even if I was not a witness of the form and matter.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, although I don't think sacramentalists look at it that way. They always admit the possibility of sacrament simulation (something most moralists at least touch on). Theoretically it is certainly possible, and grievously sinful, of course. Maybe a decent way to think about how it can be possible is to think about the Church's marriage laws. One cause for nullity of marriage is when consent is lacking-- not the Novus Ordo "they didn't know what they were getting into" type way, but in the real and substantial way: someone who says "I do" while very explicitly, at the same time, saying "I don't" internally.
.
Now, marriage is a sacrament, the validity of which is the responsibility of the marrying couple. Withholding intent to marry is synonymous with withholding intent to baptize or any other sacrament. And the Church recognizes, indeed even builds into her law, the possibility for intent to be explicitly withheld despite the outward appearance. So I think we can't get very far contending that it is theoretically impossible to withhold intent.
.
Of course, in the moral order of things, one shouldn't be scrupulous about such "possibilities." The reason these "possibilities" even cause problems to begin with is that modern man, including modern Catholic man, is accustomed to thinking materialistically-- he thinks that there are things which are 100% certain (like the laws of nature or the laws of God) and then there are varying degrees of "not 100% certain." But that's not how Catholic theologians have ever viewed certainty, as though it were a composite on a quantitative scale. That's a modern corruption, and it might be suitable for empirical sciences, but it is not suitable for anything else, including daily-decisions of even the mundane variety. Moral certainty is true certainty. It's not 99%, 100%, 45%, etc. "type" certainty. We should try our best to disavow ourselves of thinking of certainties in this way.
I agree that the bar is incredibly low. I didn't mean to imply that I think sacramental simulation is at all common, or that it could occur inadvertently. Theologians say that even a virtual intention suffices. I just meant to say that it is possible (to simulate a sacrament, i.e., to withhold intent purposefully, and willfully, despite the outward appearance of proper confection due to requisite form and matter).Right, I agree mostly with what you say here. But maybe I am misunderstanding you on the specific point of withholding intent despite the outward appearance of proper confection. I think the St. Athanasius story is an illustration of how the outward appearance is the key to knowing the proper intent. If the form and matter are correct and the minister is valid, and there is no outward sign that the intention is contrary then the sacrament is valid. There can be no possibility of it being invalid. The outward appearance is a manifestation of the intent. To say otherwise is to say that the minister could form 2 contrary intentions for the same act. That is impossible. So priests have to be responsible about saying the words of consecration. He can't go into a chapel and say a Mass and then afterwards say, oh, I didn't mean it, it was just practice. He would have to give some indication beforehand that it was not intended to be a Mass.
.
There's a (somewhat humorous) story about St. Athanasius. When he was a boy he was playing on the land near the Patriarch of Alexandria's property (I believe that Patriarch was named Alexander). Alexander looked out his window and saw a curious thing; a young man was officiating what looked like Easter baptisms. He went down to see what was going on and asked the boy who was doing the officiating (this boy was St. Athanasius) if he was a Christian. He said yes. And he asked about the others, and Athanasius said they were Pagans, and that they were playing "Bishop" or some such thing. Alexander asked Athanasius how he baptized them and Athanasius described the baptisms. Alexander told him that he had really baptized them. Athanasius was embarrassed and also shocked, since he thought only a bishop could baptize.
.
So there's an instance where someone intended to baptize, but didn't think they could (efficaciously). Still valid. Illustrative of the point (the low bar for intention).
I agree that the bar is incredibly low. I didn't mean to imply that I think sacramental simulation is at all common, or that it could occur inadvertently. Theologians say that even a virtual intention suffices. I just meant to say that it is possible (to simulate a sacrament, i.e., to withhold intent purposefully, and willfully, despite the outward appearance of proper confection due to requisite form and matter).
.
There's a (somewhat humorous) story about St. Athanasius. When he was a boy he was playing on the land near the Patriarch of Alexandria's property (I believe that Patriarch was named Alexander). Alexander looked out his window and saw a curious thing; a young man was officiating what looked like Easter baptisms. He went down to see what was going on and asked the boy who was doing the officiating (this boy was St. Athanasius) if he was a Christian. He said yes. And he asked about the others, and Athanasius said they were Pagans, and that they were playing "Bishop" or some such thing. Alexander asked Athanasius how he baptized them and Athanasius described the baptisms. Alexander told him that he had really baptized them. Athanasius was embarrassed and also shocked, since he thought only a bishop could baptize.
.
So there's an instance where someone intended to baptize, but didn't think they could (efficaciously). Still valid. Illustrative of the point (the low bar for intention).
That's an interesting example. Athanasius was not intending to do BAPTISM ... was just simulating it or playing. But he intended to perform the Church's ritual, to DO what the Church does when conferring Baptism..
Now, this was just Alexander's opinion of course, and he could have been mistaken..
..
Bingo. Very interesting, isn't it? Cuts right to the heart of the thing to illustrate in more operational terms what exactly intention is.
.
.
Yes, granted.