Baptism

[carmelite16]

I was told during one of my monthly prayer group meetings that Baptism is valid even without a priest or pastor …Someone in the group said that when she was a teenager (she is a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant denomination) , she and her brother “baptised” her best friend … This is the first time I ever heard such a thing. Is this in fact a “valid” Baptism ??

 

[thistle]

I was told during one of my monthly prayer group meetings that Baptism is valid even without a priest or pastor …Someone in the group said that when she was a teenager (she is a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant denomination) , she and her brother “baptised” her best friend … This is the first time I ever heard such a thing. Is this in fact a “valid” Baptism ??

When there is danger of death ocurring a person may be baptised by anyone ( even an atheist) provided running water is used and baptism is in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and this would be valid.
Outside danger of death baptism would have to be done by a priest to be valid.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I was told during one of my monthly prayer group meetings that Baptism is valid even without a priest or pastor …Someone in the group said that when she was a teenager (she is a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant denomination) , she and her brother “baptised” her best friend … This is the first time I ever heard such a thing. Is this in fact a “valid” Baptism ??

I will point you to the Catechism, which also contains the source reference from canon law. After reading it, you can answer the question yourself.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3L.HTM

The Ecumenical Directory will complement your reading, particularly at no. 95 a-c.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

Finally, Catholics United for the Faith has a summary worth reading.
cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=20

 

[cameron_lansing]

I should have referenced no. 99 from the Ecumenical Directory (I am scheduled for cataract surgery and hope to be excused for the error). I will paste.

Particularly, "99 a) There is no doubt about the validity of baptism as conferred in the various Eastern Churches. It is enough to establish the fact of the baptism. In these Churches the sacrament of confirmation (chrismation) is properly administered by the priest at the same time as baptism. There it often happens that no mention is made of confirmation in the canonical testimony of baptism. This does not give grounds for doubting that this sacrament was also conferred.

b) With regard to Christians from other Churches and ecclesial Communities, before considering the validity of baptism of an individual Christian, one should determine whether an agreement on baptism (as mentioned above, n. 94) has been made by the Churches and ecclesial Communities of the regions or localities involved and whether baptism has in fact been administered according to this agreement. It should be noted, however, that the absence of a formal agreement about baptism should not automatically lead to doubt about the validity of baptism.

c) With regard to these Christians, where an official ecclesiastical attestation has been given, there is no reason for doubting the validity of the baptism conferred in their Churches and ecclesial Communities unless, in a particular case, an examination clearly shows that a serious reason exists for having a doubt about one of the following: the matter and form and words used in the conferral of baptism, the intention of an adult baptized or the minister of the baptism. 111

d) If, even after careful investigation, a serious doubt persists about the proper administration of the baptism and it is judged necessary to baptize conditionally, the Catholic minister should show proper regard for the doctrine that baptism may be conferred only once by explaining to the person involved, both why in this case he is baptizing conditionally and what is the significance of the rite of conditional baptism. Furthermore, the rite of conditional baptism is to be carried out in private and not in public. 112"

 

[Harrison]

When there is danger of death ocurring a person may be baptised by anyone ( even an atheist) provided running water is used and baptism is in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and this would be valid.
Outside danger of death baptism would have to be done by a priest to be valid.

Anyone can validly baptize regardless of the situation, but outside of a danger of death scenario it may be illicit.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I was told during one of my monthly prayer group meetings that Baptism is valid even without a priest or pastor …Someone in the group said that when she was a teenager (she is a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant denomination) , she and her brother “baptised” her best friend … This is the first time I ever heard such a thing. Is this in fact a “valid” Baptism ??

In my response I am assuming that your friend and her brother were Catholic when they “baptized” their friend, and that they followed the correct form for baptism (pour water over the head three times or immerse in water three times with the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”). Since two people were doing the baptizing, this is questionable. The same person must pour the water and say the words. Did this happen?

Assuming the proper form was used and your friend actually intended to do what the Church does in Baptism, if there was no danger of death the baptism was probably valid but illicit (a real baptism but not done according to Church law). She and her brother would have been responsible:

• to immediately report the baptism to the local Catholic parish so that the baptism could be recorded (if the baptized person ever wanted to receive other Catholic sacraments how would she be able to prove that she had been baptized if the church had no records?)
• to be certain that the person they baptized would be raised in the Catholic faith, be catechized, receive the Sacraments regularly, etc.

Baptism brings responsibility. Once someone is baptized they are bound to follow the laws of the Church. To baptize someone when there is no founded hope that this will happen is to do them a great disservice.

 

[thistle]

Anyone can validly baptize regardless of the situation, but outside of a danger of death scenario it may be illicit.

I do not think that is correct.
Baptism other than by a priest is only allowed in case of necessity (e.g. someone is near death) otherwise it must be by a priest.

I am happy to stand corrected if you can show me the Church document supporting your position.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I do not think that is correct. [responding to Harrison: Anyone can validly baptize regardless of the situation, but outside of a danger of death scenario it may be illicit.]
Baptism other than by a priest is only allowed in case of necessity (e.g. someone is near death) otherwise it must be by a priest.I am happy to stand corrected if you can show me the Church document supporting your position.

It is correct but the answer does not need to rest in a document as such. The key rests in the terms that Harrison uses.

Ilicit means not allowed, or illegal, or against the law.

Invalid means of no effect.

They are not identical. What is invalid is always also illicit. But what is illicit is not always invalid.

In the Latin Church, deacons are ordinary ministers of baptism as well. In Eastern Churches, they are extraordinary ministers of baptism. In the East, a deacon may only lawfully baptize in a case of necessity.

 

[jessep28]

Lutherans, at least in the LCMS share the same views - that a lay baptism is valid in the event of an emergency.

In the very back of the Lutheran Service Book (LCMS Hymnal), there is a section for a layperson to perform a baptism. A pastor has to be informed as soon as possible so that it can be recorded.

 

[thistle]

It is correct but the answer does not need to rest in a document as such. The key rests in the terms that Harrison uses.

Ilicit means not allowed, or illegal, or against the law.

Invalid means of no effect.

They are not identical. What is invalid is always also illicit. But what is illicit is not always invalid.

In the Latin Church, deacons are ordinary ministers of baptism as well. In Eastern Churches, they are extraordinary ministers of baptism. In the East, a deacon may only lawfully baptize in a case of necessity.

Okay but its not absolutely clear to me.

Where there is no emergency are you saying that baptism by anyone other than a priest or deacon is not allowed (i.e. illicit) but it would be valid?

 

[Phemie]

Okay but its not absolutely clear to me.

Where there is no emergency are you saying that baptism by anyone other than a priest or deacon is not allowed (i.e. illicit) but it would be valid?

Yes. I’ve known of grandparents to baptize their grandchildren in the tub when they became concerned that their parents had no intention of having them baptized. The baptisms are illicit but their grandchildren are still validly baptized. Unless they inform their pastor that they have done this, the baptism will go unrecorded but the grandchildren will still be free from the stain of original sin.

 

[chichizola]

Here is the Canon:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2U.HTM

Being the Canon a legal document, it is always good to get council, your priest.

Live Jesus!

may God Bless you,

 

[thistle]

Yes. I’ve known of grandparents to baptize their grandchildren in the tub when they became concerned that their parents had no intention of having them baptized. The baptisms are illicit but their grandchildren are still validly baptized. Unless they inform their pastor that they have done this, the baptism will go unrecorded but the grandchildren will still be free from the stain of original sin.

Suppose there is a group of trouble-making kids (don’t believe in anything but are aware of what constitutes a Christian baptism) and they get hold of a Hindu, Buddhist or whatever and even against the will of the person they perform a baptism with running water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Are we really saying that is a valid baptism?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Suppose there is a group of trouble-making kids (don’t believe in anything but are aware of what constitutes a Christian baptism) and they get hold of a Hindu, Buddhist or whatever and even against the will of the person they perform a baptism with running water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Are we really saying that is a valid baptism?

No. Once a person has reached the age of reason/age of discretion (around 7, but this can vary according to the individual’s maturity), they must consent (at least in a minimal way) to validly receive a sacrament. For infants, parents can make the decision on their child’s behalf.

 

[FCEGM]

A number of years ago off a beach in San Francisco a man was attacked by a shark; a woman came to his aid and baptized him - with his consent - just before he died. This points to the wisdom of the Church in allowing the practice in dire emergencies.

 

[thomas_jd]

“In case of necessity , any person even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula.” CC # 1256

If a person ,using the Trinitarian formula, ( in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
has the right intention the baptism is valid. The intention is the required issue.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Okay but its not absolutely clear to me.

Where there is no emergency are you saying that baptism by anyone other than a priest or deacon is not allowed (i.e. illicit) but it would be valid?

Yes.

 

[thistle]

No. Once a person has reached the age of reason/age of discretion (around 7, but this can vary according to the individual’s maturity), they must consent (at least in a minimal way) to validly receive a sacrament. For infants, parents can make the decision on their child’s behalf.

Okay I get that. What about in the example I gave if the Hindu, Buddhist or whatever was of the age of reason but was a bit naive and did not understand what was happening or even thought it was a game?

 

[Phemie]

Okay I get that. What about in the example I gave if the Hindu, Buddhist or whatever was of the age of reason but was a bit naive and did not understand what was happening or even thought it was a game?

Then it could not be said that they consented, could it? They would have to know what is being done and want it to happen.