Baptism by single pouring?

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

Fuerza

Guest
I’ve been thinking about this one for a while. In the past few years, all 3 of my baby cousins were baptized by triple immersion. Then a few weeks ago, my nephew was baptized using a single pouring after the recitation of the Trinitarian formula. Is this the standard for baptisms by pouring? I had always thought that they were done along the lines of a triple immersion (ie. 3 pourings during the recitation of the formula). I guess I’m not really sure exactly how it’s supposed to be done since the 4 baptisms mentioned above are the only ones I’ve been to that I’m old enough to remember. Thanks.
 
We do not have the facilities for immersion baptism at our parish, but it is done with 3 pourings of the water over the head of the child or adult, while saying the Trinitarian formula.
 
Fuerza said:
I’ve been thinking about this one for a while. In the past few years, all 3 of my baby cousins were baptized by triple immersion. Then a few weeks ago, my nephew was baptized using a single pouring after the recitation of the Trinitarian formula. Is this the standard for baptisms by pouring? I had always thought that they were done along the lines of a triple immersion (ie. 3 pourings during the recitation of the formula). I guess I’m not really sure exactly how it’s supposed to be done since the 4 baptisms mentioned above are the only ones I’ve been to that I’m old enough to remember. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Water is supposed to “flow” over the head while the words are spoken. It is possible to do this with triple immersion or triple pourings, or even by a single immersion or pouring. Any concerns must be directed to the Bishop of the diocese where the Baptism took place.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Water is supposed to “flow” over the head while the words are spoken. It is possible to do this with triple immersion or triple pourings, or even by a single immersion or pouring. Any concerns must be directed to the Bishop of the diocese where the Baptism took place.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that my nephew’s baptism might be invalid, since the pouring took place right after the words were spoken?
 
Fuerza said:
Does this mean that my nephew’s baptism might be invalid, since the pouring took place right after the words were spoken?
Click to expand...
It would shurly be something I would take up with a letter to the Bishop, since the practice does seem questionable at best.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
It would shurly be something I would take up with a letter to the Bishop, since the practice does seem questionable at best.
Click to expand...
That’s a possibility. I think I’ll post it to the AAA forum first and see if I get a response. It’s going to be very difficult to convince my family that it needs to be re-done if it turns out that there was a defect in form. They’re faithful, but very poorly catechized and would not understand the need. Hopefully, it’s still valid and none of that will be necessary.
 
Fuerza said:
I’ve been thinking about this one for a while. In the past few years, all 3 of my baby cousins were baptized by triple immersion. Then a few weeks ago, my nephew was baptized using a single pouring after the recitation of the Trinitarian formula. Is this the standard for baptisms by pouring? I had always thought that they were done along the lines of a triple immersion (ie. 3 pourings during the recitation of the formula). I guess I’m not really sure exactly how it’s supposed to be done since the 4 baptisms mentioned above are the only ones I’ve been to that I’m old enough to remember. Thanks.
Click to expand...
If this was done in a Catholic parish and the words were not said at the time the water was being poured it was not properly done. But it will already be recorded in the parish records. You should take your concerns to the priest. He should be the one to tell your family and might come to the house to conditionally baptize the baby. He may not be aware of what he did. If he insists his way was right you should speak to or write to the bishop asking what to do.

If I were in your situation, I would be very tempted to conditionally baptize the baby myself. I know it’s not permitted and I’m not advising you to do it since doing that would be a matter for confession. And it really should be taken up with the priest or bishop because the priest may be doing other baptisms that way.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
If I were in your situation, I would be very tempted to conditionally baptize the baby myself. I know it’s not permitted and I’m not advising you to do it since doing that would be a matter for confession.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree.

It should be brought to the priests attention because he may not know he is doing this and that it is questionable.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
The only thing that has to be done is either immersion or pouring of water. It can be done with three pours or immersions, or one long pour or immersion.

Here’s canon law:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2V.HTM
Here’s the liturgical formula:
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/2/SubIndex/40/ContentIndex/93/Start/89
here’s the CCC:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm
Click to expand...
From the CCC:

1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head. 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again**.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
If this was done in a Catholic parish and the words were not said at the time the water was being poured it was not properly done. But it will already be recorded in the parish records. You should take your concerns to the priest. He should be the one to tell your family and might come to the house to conditionally baptize the baby. He may not be aware of what he did. If he insists his way was right you should speak to or write to the bishop asking what to do.

If I were in your situation, I would be very tempted to conditionally baptize the baby myself. I know it’s not permitted and I’m not advising you to do it since doing that would be a matter for confession. And it really should be taken up with the priest or bishop because the priest may be doing other baptisms that way.
Click to expand...
Br.Rich_SFO said:
I don’t agree.

It should be brought to the priests attention because he may not know he is doing this and that it is questionable.
Click to expand...
I’m not even sure how to go about bringing it to the priest’s attention. I live 3 hours away from the rest of my family in a different diocese. Plus I’m not sure how to bring it up to him without ticking him off.

On top of that, my family wouldn’t really understand the difference between a valid and an invalid sacrament and would simply assume that the priest knew better than I did. This is going to be a tough one to correct if the baptism was in fact invalid.
 
Fuerza said:
I’m not even sure how to go about bringing it to the priest’s attention. I live 3 hours away from the rest of my family in a different diocese. Plus I’m not sure how to bring it up to him without ticking him off.

On top of that, my family wouldn’t really understand the difference between a valid and an invalid sacrament and would simply assume that the priest knew better than I did. This is going to be a tough one to correct if the baptism was in fact invalid.
Click to expand...
I think this is serious enough to call the parish secretary to make an appointment with the priest (concerning a ‘personal matter’). You could mention you were there recently for a baptism. To me, driving 3 hours each way would be worth it, even with the gas prices. Or you could write to the priest and ask him to reply to you about what could be done. Then if you aren’t satisfied you should write to his bishop.

When you speak to the priest, you could say that there is a matter that has really been troubling you. Then explain what you observed. You wonder if he was aware that he was doing it that way. And you are troubled that the baptism might not be valid. If you can get the idea across that you aren’t accusing him of wrongdoing, but sometimes an observer can see something that the participant can’t see, he shouldn’t get ‘ticked off’.

IMO you shouldn’t bring this up yet to the parents if you think they wouldn’t understand.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Water is supposed to “flow” over the head while the words are spoken. It is possible to do this with triple immersion or triple pourings, or even by a single immersion or pouring. Any concerns must be directed to the Bishop of the diocese where the Baptism took place.
Click to expand...
The Rite of Baptism that I’m looking at clearly calls for a triple immersion or a triple pouring:

He baptizes the child, saying:
N., I baptize you in the name of the Father,

He immerses the child or pours water upon it.
and of the Son,

He immerses the child or pours water upon it a second time.
and of the Holy Spirit.

He immerses the child or pours water upon it a third time.
 
Phemie said:
The Rite of Baptism that I’m looking at clearly calls for a triple immersion or a triple pouring:

He baptizes the child, saying:
N., I baptize you in the name of the Father,

He immerses the child or pours water upon it.
and of the Son,

He immerses the child or pours water upon it a second time.
and of the Holy Spirit.

He immerses the child or pours water upon it a third time.
Click to expand...
But this looks like the words are said first and then the child is dunked or poured on. Maybe this is what the priest was looking and and how he interpreted it?
 
Claire_from_DE said:
But this looks like the words are said first and then the child is dunked or poured on. Maybe this is what the priest was looking and and how he interpreted it?
Click to expand...
I just wonder why priests don’t know to do this when we were taught how to do this back in grade school? I had to remind my pastor that a triple immersion was required and he still anoints the babies on the forehead although the Rite clearly says “crown of the head”. One day he does it right and points out the difference between the anointing at Baptism and that at Confirmation, the next time he does it wrong. It’s really weird being in this parish.
 
Phemie said:
The Rite of Baptism that I’m looking at clearly calls for a triple immersion or a triple pouring:

He baptizes the child, saying:
N., I baptize you in the name of the Father,

He immerses the child or pours water upon it.
and of the Son,

He immerses the child or pours water upon it a second time.
and of the Holy Spirit.

He immerses the child or pours water upon it a third time.
Click to expand...
Since posting this thread I found the section in the Summa Theologica concerning baptism.

newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm

Sections 7 and 8 deal with this. Apparently both St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope St. Gregory the Great were of the opinion that a single immersion is sufficient. It does not mention single pouring specificially, but those two sections taken together seem to indicate that it is acceptable.

My main concern still lies with the timing of the words and the pouring, since they were not done at the same time. I’m still looking into this one.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
But this looks like the words are said first and then the child is dunked or poured on. Maybe this is what the priest was looking and and how he interpreted it?
Click to expand...
The words in red are the actions that accompany the words in black above them.
 
Fuerza said:
My main concern still lies with the timing of the words and the pouring, since they were not done at the same time. I’m still looking into this one.
Click to expand...
The Rite of Baptism has variations authorized within it. The two things that make a baptism valid are the pouring of water over the head of the individual (or the immersion of the individual) and the Trinitarian Formular (In the name of the Father, the Son…). There are untold numbers of babies validly baptised by their grandmothers who did not even use the formal Rite of Baptism, but got the water and the Trinitarian Formula right while doing it.
 
Andy_Corder said:
The Rite of Baptism has variations authorized within it. The two things that make a baptism valid are the pouring of water over the head of the individual (or the immersion of the individual) and the Trinitarian Formular (In the name of the Father, the Son…). There are untold numbers of babies validly baptised by their grandmothers who did not even use the formal Rite of Baptism, but got the water and the Trinitarian Formula right while doing it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. I admit that it is difficult to research this since nowhere does it explicitly say that this type of “asynchronous” baptism is invalid. Do you kow of any precedent in a Catholic Church in which a priest has said the words and then poured the water? All the videos that I’m finding on youtube have the priest reciting the formula while pouring. As a matter of fact, the only time I’ve seen anything like this before was in that “religions of the world” TV special a few months back, in which a Baptist pastor recited the Trinitarian formula and then immersed the young girl afterwards.
 
Upon further research I found this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the “Old Catholics” generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place;"

Full article: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

You would think that this would provide a definitive answer, however the article only states that the efficacy has been called into question. Since this was written before 1913, and since today the Catholic Church generally recognizes Baptist baptisms, it would seem logical to conclude that this has been answered and that this form is valid. However, since I have yet to find an official statement, I still can’t be sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top