Baptism: A question about pouring/single infusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter CivisRomanusSum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CivisRomanusSum

Guest
According to the Roman Catechism:

"It is a matter of indifference whether the ablution be performed once or thrice. For it is evident from the Epistle of St. Gregory the Great to Leander that Baptism was formerly and may still be validly administered in the Church in either way. The faithful, however, should follow the practice of the particular Church to which they belong.

Pastors should be particularly careful to observe that the baptismal ablution is not to be applied indifferently to any part of the body, but principally to the head, which is the seat of all the internal and external senses; **and also that he who baptises is to pronounce the sacramental words which constitute the form, not before or after, but when performing the ablution." **

Suppose the minister baptizes by single infusion (pouring only once, instead of thrice) while saying the prescribed form/sacramental words (the Trinitarian formula). Does it matter if he stops pouring or runs out of water while he’s not yet finished saying the words? Does the baptism become invalid if midway through the pouring/reciting of the form (like say, before “and of the Holy Spirit”) he runs out of water? Must the pouring and flowing of the water correspond and be precisely timed with the enunciation of all the sacramental words, such that the water must continue to flow without interruption from the beginning to the precise end of the formula, for the baptism’s validity? (Relatedly, how much water is necessary for the baptism to be valid?)
 
You’re being far too literal here. Consider the small crosses in the Missal indicating when a priest must make the sign of the cross over the paten and chalice. Do you think he ceases speaking the canon in order to stop? Likewise, do you think the infusions of baptism must be timed perfectly so it begins and ends precisely as the invocations of the Divine Persons begin and end. Indeed, do you think God would consider a person unbaptized if the priest who administered the sacrament didn’t have the precise rhythm of a jazz drummer?
 
The water (note: not necessarily holy water) has to touch the head of the person being baptised and has to actually “flow” / roll down at least some of the person’s head (as far as I’m aware the direction isn’t important as is the distance). The minister of baptism (which can be a layperson) also has to pronounce the Trinitarian formula (ie. ."in the name of the father…) as well as having the intention to baptise (so saying “I baptise you” kind of helps). Interestingly, while immersion or pouring are the two options available today, sprinkling also used to be an option however this was abandoned out of concern for ensuring the “flow” part.
 
InThePew said:
The water (note: not necessarily holy water) has to touch the head of the person being baptised and has to actually “flow” / roll down at least some of the person’s head (as far as I’m aware the direction isn’t important as is the distance). The minister of baptism (which can be a layperson) also has to pronounce the Trinitarian formula (ie. ."in the name of the father…) as well as having the intention to baptise (so saying “I baptise you” kind of helps). Interestingly, while immersion or pouring are the two options available today, sprinkling also used to be an option however this was abandoned out of concern for ensuring the “flow” part.
Click to expand...
Right. The key, as far as this question is concerned, is the fact that baptism is a “washing” with water (see canon 849).

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top