Author Topic: Valid or invalid baptism? (Read 3348 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** November 16, 2017, 11:33:32 AM »

I know of a child who was baptized in the traditional rite, but whose celebrant almost ran out of water at the 3rd infusion.

Would the baptism still be valid even if the 3rd infusion (in which there was only a drop of two of water left, which was "poured" onto the infant) did not "flow" (i.e., but the first two infusions did)?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2017, 11:58:31 AM »

And aside from the requirement that water "flow," there was also a very brief break in "simultaneity" between form and matter, when the cleric completed the form, but did not pour the water, which he was surprised to find almost empty, and had to shake out the 1-2 drops slightly after completing the form.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2017, 12:36:50 PM »

Here is something to think about in regards to baptism.

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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 16, 2017, 12:43:34 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 12:36:50 PM

Here is something to think about in regards to baptism.

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.

Found this on the subject to put your mind at ease: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#vi
See the section on "Matter:"
The remote matter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual meaning. Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2017, 01:19:16 PM »

Chlorinated water is "real and natural". Consider that Baptismal water always contains salt and holy oil.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 16, 2017, 01:37:17 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 01:19:16 PM

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 used rain water to baptize all my kids. Do you really want to bargain your soul on chlorinated water?

Nadir · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2017, 02:27:41 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 12:36:50 PM

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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2017, 03:29:21 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 01:37:17 PM

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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2017, 03:32:11 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 01:37:17 PM

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?

.
Real and natural water could be polluted water. Would you prefer water from a mountain stream containing giardia bacteria to water "treated" with chlorine that would kill the germs?
.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2017, 03:36:14 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 03:29:21 PM

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.

A friend just emailed me some quotes which prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt.
In fact, I wonder if you might be him?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 16, 2017, 03:52:43 PM »

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** November 16, 2017, 03:53:53 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 03:52:43 PM

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.

This was me. It's my first post in the thread.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #12 on:** November 16, 2017, 04:17:34 PM »

Quote from: Mythrandylan as "Anonymous" on Thu Nov 16 2017 13:52:43 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Quote from: Anonymous on November 16, 2017, 03:52:43 PM

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.

.
Chlorinated pool water can contain a wide variety of chlorine concentrations, but in any case the amount of chlorine is going to be in the extreme minority, that is, less than 1% by volume or weight. Even highly chlorinated pool water is far below 0.1% or 1/1000th concentration. That is, 999 parts water and 1 part chlorine.
.
And furthermore, you can add a dechlorinating agent that neutralizes the chlorine -- even while not removing it -- in which case there would be even MORE non-water components to the mix, yet the liquid would not be chlorinated water anymore. Yet it would not therefore become somehow unnatural or unreal water.
.
It would be just as real and natural as when some FD&C Blue #2 is added to make it look better.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** November 16, 2017, 04:18:23 PM »

Duuh. Stupid box again. That was me, above.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** November 17, 2017, 03:46:19 AM »

If you look at it and it looks like water, then it is "real and natural" water. Trent did not say to examine it under an electron microscope or even a magnifying glass.

Aside from that, from the description of the baptism in the OP, the baptism is presumed valid, if there is any doubt at all, then the OP must prove invalidity. That's how that works.

Even if only one drop of water hit the skin and rolled down even a minute fraction while the words were being said, there would be no doubt, in your case, the baptism was valid and you could not prove otherwise.

Author Topic: Valid or invalid baptism? (Read 3348 times)

Änσnymσus

Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Nadir

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Neil Obstat

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Mithrandylan

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Änσnymσus

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Neil Obstat

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?

Stubborn

Re: Valid or invalid baptism?