Author Topic: "Real and Natural Water" (Read 5193 times)

curiouscatholic23 · « **on:** December 11, 2011, 05:00:51 PM »

What is the definition of "real and natural water" for a valid baptism performed by the laity? Is tap water ok? Bathtub water? River? Ocean?

Also, when the person performing the baptism pours the water over the head of the other person does the water have to be flowing throughout the baptism?

Or could he say I baptize you in the name of the father (pour water, stop),. the son (pour water again, stop), and the holy ghost (pour water, stop)?

Finally, is it acceptable to pour on the hair as long as just a little bit of water drips down to the forehead?

pax · « **Reply #1 on:** December 11, 2011, 05:04:49 PM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

What is the definition of "real and natural water" for a valid baptism performed by the laity? Is tap water ok? Bathtub water? River? Ocean?

Also, when the person performing the baptism pours the water over the head of the other person does the water have to be flowing throughout the baptism?

Or could he say I baptize you in the name of the father (pour water, stop),. the son (pour water again, stop), and the holy ghost (stop)?

Finally, is it acceptable to pour on the hair as long as just a little bit of water drips down to the forehead?

I think a molecule of water would suffice. The pour does not need to be continuous, but I think that pouring at some point during reciting the baptismal formula is necessary. A dunk in a body of water also works.

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** December 11, 2011, 05:08:48 PM »

Sprinkling works too.

Say the words *while* pouring, sprinkling or dunking - - - - and use water - hot or cold doesn't matter. Don't use soda, coffee, juice etc - just use water.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #3 on:** December 11, 2011, 05:09:39 PM »

Why don't you people just look stuff up and find out what the Church teaches?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article4

Lighthouse · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2011, 04:06:23 PM »

"Why don't you people just look stuff up and find out what the Church teaches?"

You'll get used to it. It's just the way things are done around here.

s2srea · « **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2011, 04:31:42 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Why don't you people just look stuff up and find out what the Church teaches?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article4

How about "Why don't you people just talk to a priest

and not have your friend baptize you since its a sin for a layman to do this (and likely to convince someone to do this) if there is no danger of death."

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #6 on:** December 12, 2011, 04:49:04 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Why don't you people just look stuff up and find out what the Church teaches?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article4

How about "Why don't you people just talk to a priest

and not have your friend baptize you since its a sin for a layman to do this (and likely to convince someone to do this) if there is no danger of death."

The answer will be oh so predictable.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #7 on:** December 12, 2011, 05:09:22 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

"Why don't you people just look stuff up and find out what the Church teaches?"

You'll get used to it. It's just the way things are done around here.

I'll never get used to it.

If you agree that it's wrong and productive of countless evils, why not join in and tell people directly and clearly on every possible occasion that they ought to look these things up, or talk to a traditional priest, instead of gleaning little bits of suspect doctrine here and there on the Internet, from people who make it up as they go along?

If five of us did this, the whole character of the board would be changed in weeks. Seriously.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** December 12, 2011, 05:14:35 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: Lighthouse
"Why don't you people just look stuff up and find out what the Church teaches?"

You'll get used to it. It's just the way things are done around here.

I'll never get used to it.

If you agree that it's wrong and productive of countless evils, why not join in and tell people directly and clearly on every possible occasion that they ought to look these things up, or talk to a traditional priest, instead of gleaning little bits of suspect doctrine here and there on the Internet, from people who make it up as they go along?

If five of us did this, the whole character of the board would be changed in weeks. Seriously.

Yes, and the amount of "discussion" would likely diminish substantially.

pax · « **Reply #9 on:** December 12, 2011, 05:14:40 PM »

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

Council of Florence, Sess. 8

Lighthouse · « **Reply #10 on:** December 12, 2011, 11:21:57 PM »

Gerty:

Quote

I'll never get used to it.

If you agree that it's wrong and productive of countless evils, why not join in and tell people directly and clearly on every possible occasion that they ought to look these things up, or talk to a traditional priest, instead of gleaning little bits of suspect doctrine here and there on the Internet, from people who make it up as they go along?

The "get used to it" part was an itty bit of dry humor. I wasn't seriously suggesting that you give up.

I'm thinking I have made the case for the necessity of sources. Sorry, if you missed it.

:kick-can:

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2011, 04:01:42 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Quote from: Lighthouse
"Why don't you people just look stuff up and find out what the Church teaches?"

You'll get used to it. It's just the way things are done around here.

I'll never get used to it.

If you agree that it's wrong and productive of countless evils, why not join in and tell people directly and clearly on every possible occasion that they ought to look these things up, or talk to a traditional priest, instead of gleaning little bits of suspect doctrine here and there on the Internet, from people who make it up as they go along?

If five of us did this, the whole character of the board would be changed in weeks. Seriously.

Yes, and the amount of "discussion" would likely diminish substantially.

Good call GTG.

Similar action should be taken in respect to the calumnies and detractions made here about the traditional clergy.

Readers of this forum keep seeing campaigners here name traditional clergy and accuse them of unnatural vices, cooperation in unnatural vices, promoting clergy who engage in unnatural vices, accusations of theft, etc. etc.....

If five people objected regularly, and told the campaigners directly and clearly on every possible occasion that they ought to STOP and read some books on morals or talk to a traditional priest about the campaign they are conducting, the whole character of the board could be improved in weeks.

Seriously.

And despite what SJB (one of the campaigners) wrote; maybe the amount of legitimate discussion would even increase substantially. If not, at least the volume of immoral and un-Catholic posts would be reduced.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2011, 06:02:57 AM »

RC,

I've never said a word publicly about any of it, and I'm not about to start. Privately I have told people exactly what you are suggesting.

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2011, 11:55:19 AM »

Quote from: RC

And despite what SJB (one of the campaigners) wrote; maybe the amount of legitimate discussion would even increase substantially. If not, at least the volume of immoral and un-Catholic posts would be reduced.

So accusations of theft are off limits even when the evidence is discussed?

This is why I maintain that this is not about "accusations of unnatural vice," but about all accusations, even when evidence is offered. This of course, doesn't apply to Bp. Petko, as unnamed SSPX sources discussing his effeminate nature and like of lace and vestments is okay, I guess.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2011, 05:49:50 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: RC
And despite what SJB (one of the campaigners) wrote; maybe the amount of legitimate discussion would even increase substantially. If not, at least the volume of immoral and un-Catholic posts would be reduced.

So accusations of theft are off limits even when the evidence is discussed?

This is why I maintain that this is not about "accusations of unnatural vice," but about all accusations, even when evidence is offered. This of course, doesn't apply to Bp. Petko, as unnamed SSPX sources discussing his effeminate nature and like of lace and vestments is okay, I guess.

You have never retracted your numerous and public allegations of unnatural vice against the clergy that you despise.

No good for you will come out of imputing things that are not true. Have I ever posted anything about Petko or unnamed SSPX sources discussing his effeminate nature and like of lace and vestments? No.