Baptism by immersion: must the head be immersed for validity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FriendlySkeptic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FriendlySkeptic

Guest
The other day I went to Mass and saw a baptism…not something that I ordinarily do. Actually, there were two infants baptized at a large font. One of the children was my nephew’s son.

The priest immersed both children, but NOT their heads. He immersed just their bodies, basically by dipping them into the water all the way up to their necks, but not their heads.

Were these baptisms valid? Does the head also need to be immersed during immersion baptisms?
 
It was valid. In the case of immersion of an infant, the head is not immersed. Never was. Normally, the immersion is none horizontally rather than vertically, something like giving the child a bath. What usually happens is that priest splashes some of the baptismal water on the child’s head, but in any case, the back of the head does indeed get wet. .
 
Water must at least touch the head.

If the priest just dipped the baby, for example, butt first and only the butt/torso got wet this is NOT a valid baptism. You can find info on “butt baptisms” at places like Fr Z’s blog. Fr. Z received confirmation from the CDF that the head MUST touch water.

If the priest dipped the baby such as the back of the head was in water, it is valid. It isn’t necessary to dunk the baby’s face under the water.

It is best if water is poured over the baby’s head so there is no doubt.

You witnessed it so you will have to say if the baby’s head actually was put in the water or not. If not, I suggest you urge the parents to contact the diocese about this matter. Invalid baptism means no other sacraments would be valid. Or simply take the baby in the bathroom and peform a conditional baptism to ensure it is properly baptized. But really, if the priest is doing this improperly it should be brought to his attention or the diocese’s attention to ensure it is corrected.
 
malphono said:
It was valid. In the case of immersion of an infant, the head is not immersed. Never was.
Click to expand...
Not to doubt you, my friend, but how do you know this? Is there an official church instruction book on baptisms that explain this?
 
malphono said:
It was valid. In the case of immersion of an infant, the head is not immersed. Never was. Normally, the immersion is none horizontally rather than vertically, something like giving the child a bath. What usually happens is that priest splashes some of the baptismal water on the child’s head, but in any case, the back of the head does indeed get wet. .
Click to expand...
Right, the head MUST touch water.

You cannot say absolutely this was a valid baptism because you don’t know that the head touched the water.

The face need not be submerged, but the head must receive water on it during the baptism. So called “butt baptisms” are invalid.
 
FriendlySkeptic said:
Not to doubt you, my friend, but how do you know this? Is there an official church instruction book on baptisms that explain this?
Click to expand...
I’ve seen it done, both in the Oriental Churches and in the Usus Antiquior.
1ke said:
Right, the head MUST touch water.

You cannot say absolutely this was a valid baptism because you don’t know that the head touched the water.

The face need not be submerged, but the head must receive water on it during the baptism. So called “butt baptisms” are invalid.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of a “butt baptism” before … :eek: Anyway, I think in a case like this one has to make the assumption that the priest did splash the head in one way or another. The infant’s head would have had to have been supported, so it could have simply been by the priest moving his wet hand over the back of the child’s head or around the forehead or chin area.
 
malphono said:
I’ve seen it done, both in the Oriental Churches and in the Usus Antiquior.

I’ve never heard of a “butt baptism” before … :eek: Anyway, I think in a case like this one has to make the assumption that the priest did splash the head in one way or another. The infant’s head would have had to have been supported, so it could have simply been by the priest moving his wet hand over the back of the child’s head or around the forehead or chin area.
Click to expand...
The heads of the two babies that I witnessed baptized(?) the other day were not wet at all.
 
FriendlySkeptic said:
The heads of the two babies that I witnessed baptized(?) the other day were not wet at all.
Click to expand...
Then it was an invalid baptism.

Do a conditional baptism as soon as possible! And, yes, bring it to the attention of those authority.
 
malphono said:
Then you’d best take the matter up with the priest.
Click to expand...
My nephew and I spoke about taking it up with the priest. My nephew said that the priest’s attitude is one of carelessness, and he’d probably be dismissive. What my nephew needs is an official church document on this matter.
 
FriendlySkeptic said:
My nephew and I spoke about taking it up with the priest. My nephew said that the priest’s attitude is one of carelessness, and he’d probably be dismissive. What my nephew needs is an official church document on this matter.
Click to expand...
Suggest to your nephew that he conditionally baptize his child in the bathtub ASAP.

“If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” while pouring water three times over the baby’s head.
 
1ke said:
Suggest to your nephew that he conditionally baptize his child in the bathtub ASAP.

“If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” while pouring water three times over the baby’s head.
Click to expand...
It may come have to come to this.

Still, I know that if my nephew had an official church document on this, he’d discuss it with the pastor so that at least there will be fewer doubts about future baptisms. My nephew’s immediate concern is with his son’s baptism, but he’s also concerned about others getting baptized by that priest.
 
FriendlySkeptic said:
It may come have to come to this.

Still, I know that if my nephew had an official church document on this, he’d discuss it with the pastor so that at least there will be fewer doubts about future baptisms. My nephew’s immediate concern is with his son’s baptism, but he’s also concerned about others getting baptized by that priest.
Click to expand...
A situation like this was on Catholic Answers Live last night. A priest dipped a child into the water on an angle and the baby’s head was never wet.

Tim Staples said he wasn’t sure, but that it was most likely valid (not proper) but still most likely valid. I believe he also said check with the Priest or Pastor.
 
phil19034 said:
A situation like this was on Catholic Answers Live last night. A priest dipped a child into the water on an angle and the baby’s head was never wet.

Tim Staples said he wasn’t sure, but that it was most likely valid (not proper) but still most likely valid. I believe he also said check with the Priest or Pastor.
Click to expand...
I heard this on CA radio also but they did find the Canon that stated the water must touch skin and flow. (Nothing about touching the head with water at all.) They all agreed that it was a valid baptism. Also one should not conditionally baptize unless there is an emergency. and that there is no time to get a proper baptism. This would not apply because there is time to figure this out.

I fall on the side that it is Valid:thumbsup:
 
ProdigalSun said:
I heard this on CA radio also but they did find the Canon that stated the water must touch skin and flow. (Nothing about touching the head with water at all.) They all agreed that it was a valid baptism. Also one should not conditionally baptize unless there is an emergency. and that there is no time to get a proper baptism. This would not apply because there is time to figure this out.

I fall on the side that it is Valid:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, but still, this is the opinion of the radio people.

Am I to believe that there’s no official church document on something this important?
 
ProdigalSun said:
Also one should not conditionally baptize unless there is an emergency. and that there is no time to get a proper baptism. This would not apply because there is time to figure this out.

I fall on the side that it is Valid:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
This is incorrect; a conditional baptism need not be done only in an emergency. In fact priests do it often for RCIA candidates for whom they can’t find documentation on prior baptism.
 
While looking for a definitive answer (and documentation) from the Church, I came across this, which leads me to believe that a baptism in which water is not poured on the head is of doubtful validity. If the water is poured on the head (even if the rest of the baby has not emerged from the womb) and the baby survives, there is to be no conditional baptism. If water is poured on another part of the body (because the head has not yet emerged) and the child lives, the child is to be conditionally baptized.

This is from the Rituale Romanum, regarding emergency baptisms performed on babies still during the birth process:
Code: 
No child is to be baptized while still enclosed in the mother's womb,   as long as there is a probable hope that it can be properly brought   forth and then baptized. If only the head of the child has come forth   and there is danger of its dying, it should be baptized on the head;   if afterward it is born and lives, baptism may not be repeated   conditionally. If another member of the body makes its appearance and   there is danger of death, the baptism should be conferred   conditionally upon that member; if the child lives after birth it must   be rebaptized conditionally. Should a mother die in confinement, the   fetus should be extracted by those obliged thereto by their   profession, and if there is a certainty that it lives, it should be   baptized absolutely, otherwise conditionally. A fetus baptized while   in the mother's womb must be rebaptized conditionally after birth.
Click to expand...
 
FriendlySkeptic said:
Thanks for the info, but still, this is the opinion of the radio people.

Am I to believe that there’s no official church document on something this important?
Click to expand...
Actually it was not just from the radio guys put from information the radio guys loked up in the catechism.

they said (paraphrsing here) that in a valid baptism the water much touch the skin and flow. It said noting about touching the head.

It’s not like they grab this info from thin air… These “guys” can look this stuff up pretty quickly and are quite konwledgeable about this “Catholic stuff”👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top