Baptism while sleeping

  • Thread starter Thread starter davymax3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I never said that it was the right thing to do or Jesus asked us to, I just said that it was logical, although misguided. A sensible person could very well put their own soul in jeopardy for another. The movie, “what dreams may come,” is about that, and the idea certainly resonated with many people and is a logical thing. Again, I’m not saying it’s right, just that it makes sense to a lot of people. It’s not just some strange psychotic motive.
I’m wasn’t suggesting your friend psychotic, I certainly never questioned the sanity of a person who would do such a thing. I AM saying the behaviours it’s incompatible with logic and reason (hence their being misguided and wrong).

Even the best of humans does things at times that totally fly in the face of logic and reason and good sense - betting on a horse race, speeding on the road, cramming at the last minute for a school test instead of studying properly, eating till you explode at Christmas.

The fact that you’re not psychotic if you do those things doesn’t make it any less irrational and illogical and unreasonable and not sensible to do them - many times after you’ve done them you will say to yourself ‘how could I have been so stupid/idiotic as to do xyz’. It just means it’s a temporary rather than permanent condition.
As for the rest of what you said. I completely agree. I don’t think it was valid. He was arguing with me about it and I decided to ask on here in order to get some more opinions and maybe some quotes from church doctors and such. However, just because I think it was invalid because the recipient didn’t have a desire for baptism, doesn’t mean that I think the minister was insane or an idiot or something. It was certainly a bad choice, however, many in Dante’s hell have committed a sin similar to this in excessive love.
Dante’s people did it because they weren’t being logical or rational or sensible either! Not, as I said above, that they ARE insane or idiots (not as a permanent state), just doing this one thing that IS irrational and illogical, as even the best of us do sometimes.
 
The tone of posts here has become contentious and uncivil. Please assume others are posting in good will, don’t pounce on others for making misstatements, and post with charity or I will have to close the thread.
 
My apologies if I said anything that seemed hostile. I certainly did mean to. I appreciate the good discussion we’ve had on this issue.

Where do we draw the line though for Baptizing? If we can almost all agree that the Baptism while an unwilling person is sleeping is not valid, then what is a more gray case? Where do we draw that line?
 
Ummm…yes it is. If someone to receive Communion doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, that doesn’t mean Mass didn’t really happen. It is the minister, acting in persona Christi, that effects the Sacrament.

What the intention of the recipient affects is their ability to receive the graces from the Sacrament. Again, if a communicant unworthily receives the Sacrament of Eucharist, then they truly received Christ, but they did not open themselves up to the infinite grace there contained, but opened them up to their own spiritual ruin (anti-grace if you will).
A lot of people have posted on the question so I won’t rehash the points in response to your answer to support that the baptism as related in the OP according to Church is invalid.

I agree with what you posted about obstacles to grace, but the rules for all the Sacraments are not the same. Baptism is not analogous to the Eucharist in this sense. The Eucharist operates according to somewhat different rules because it is already a Sacrament - the act of a communicant in receiving it does not make it one.

As St. Thomas puts it: “The sacrament of the Eucharist is fully accomplished in the consecration of the matter, while the other sacraments are fully accomplished in the application of the matter to the man to be sanctified”

Consequently the intention of the communicant does not really enter into the equation, in the same way that the intention of the person to be batpised does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top