Blessing a river to baptize large groups

[Digitonomy]

Apparently missionaries in the Baltic lands centuries ago performing baptisms of large groups would bless flowing rivers, then have converting tribes walk through to the other side.

I can think of two objections to this practice, but I’m not familiar enough with the precise form of the sacrament to know whether these statements are true.

1. 
   *]Each person must be baptized indvidually, and baptisms without repeating the sacramental formula for each convert are not valid.
   *]The water must be actively poured by the minister of the sacrament, and thus water that is only passively flowing across someone’s head does not create a sacrament.
   
   Would such a baptism be valid?

 

[J2K]

Apparently missionaries in the Baltic lands centuries ago performing baptisms of large groups would bless flowing rivers, then have converting tribes walk through to the other side.

I can think of two objections to this practice, but I’m not familiar enough with the precise form of the sacrament to know whether these statements are true.

1. 
   *]Each person must be baptized indvidually, and baptisms without repeating the sacramental formula for each convert are not valid.
   *]The water must be actively poured by the minister of the sacrament, and thus water that is only passively flowing across someone’s head does not create a sacrament.
   
   Would such a baptism be valid?

1. 
   Unless there were an extraordinary circumstance, such a practice would not, today, result in valid baptisms for those who participated.
   
   Canon 850 requires that “baptism be administered in the order required in the approved liturgical books except in case of urgent necessity”. Those liturgical books include a number of elements such as the use of anointing with chrism and other liturgical formulae that would not be present in a “mass river baptism” ceremony.
   
   Canon 851 requires that all adults who are to be baptised (again, excepting in cases of urgent necessity) be catechized during a period prior to the baptism; it is highly doubtful that prior to leading converting tribes across the river, these tribespeople were instructed in the finer points of the CCC.
   
   Canon 857 requires the baptism take place in a church or oratory, so except for the rare churches and oratories that have rivers flowing through them, this would be a difficult requirement to manage.
   
   Canons 857, 858, 859 and 860 basically say that a baptism must take place in a baptismal font in the individual’s parish church (again with various levels of allowance made for exceptional circumstances).
   
   (You can read Canons 850-860 here.)
   
   If there is a possibility of any of the tribespeople having been validly baptized prior to this ceremony, they must not be re-baptized, thus once again making a “mass baptism ceremony” problematic.
   
   Finally, although it may appear to be alright for a priest to bless a river and “make the water holy water”, that flowing water would end up polluted and mixed with other water downstream (or at the very least, such a possibility exists). Since the priest cannot guuarantee the reverant handling of the holy water, he would be in violation of Canon 1171 that requires all sacramentals to be treated with reverence. In this case, the holy river water would not cease to be holy simply because it passed beyond the banks where the ceremony was taking place. Although some Eastern churches bless large bodies of water, they are not creating holy water per se, just blessing the water.
   
   So, in summary, although it may have been an “exceptional circumstance” when the early church was evangelizing and converting large groups of people in earlier centuries, by today’s laws and standards this practice would not result in canonically licit baptisms. Arguably, there are circumstances where a “mass baptism” could be valid without being licit (eg. if a priest were to mass-baptize a sports team lost in the wilderness where team members were dying so fast as to prevent baptizing them one-by-one) but overall this practice would be very very borderline theologically and liturgically speaking.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Unless there were an extraordinary circumstance, such a practice would not, today, result in valid baptisms for those who participated.

Canon 850 requires that “baptism be administered in the order required in the approved liturgical books except in case of urgent necessity”. Those liturgical books include a number of elements such as the use of anointing with chrism and other liturgical formulae that would not be present in a “mass river baptism” ceremony.

Canon 851 requires that all adults who are to be baptised (again, excepting in cases of urgent necessity) be catechized during a period prior to the baptism; it is highly doubtful that prior to leading converting tribes across the river, these tribespeople were instructed in the finer points of the CCC.

Canon 857 requires the baptism take place in a church or oratory, so except for the rare churches and oratories that have rivers flowing through them, this would be a difficult requirement to manage.

Canons 857, 858, 859 and 860 basically say that a baptism must take place in a baptismal font in the individual’s parish church (again with various levels of allowance made for exceptional circumstances).

(You can read Canons 850-860 here.)

If there is a possibility of any of the tribespeople having been validly baptized prior to this ceremony, they must not be re-baptized, thus once again making a “mass baptism ceremony” problematic.

Finally, although it may appear to be alright for a priest to bless a river and “make the water holy water”, that flowing water would end up polluted and mixed with other water downstream (or at the very least, such a possibility exists). Since the priest cannot guuarantee the reverant handling of the holy water, he would be in violation of Canon 1171 that requires all sacramentals to be treated with reverence. In this case, the holy river water would not cease to be holy simply because it passed beyond the banks where the ceremony was taking place. Although some Eastern churches bless large bodies of water, they are not creating holy water per se, just blessing the water.

So, in summary, although it may have been an “exceptional circumstance” when the early church was evangelizing and converting large groups of people in earlier centuries, by today’s laws and standards this practice would not result in canonically licit baptisms. Arguably, there are circumstances where a “mass baptism” could be valid without being licit (eg. if a priest were to mass-baptize a sports team lost in the wilderness where team members were dying so fast as to prevent baptizing them one-by-one) but overall this practice would be very very borderline theologically and liturgically speaking.

The question is would it be valid. The answer is of course yes. If done in the trinitarian formula with proper “matter” (water) and intent. It’s valid.

 

[babochka]

Finally, although it may appear to be alright for a priest to bless a river and “make the water holy water”, that flowing water would end up polluted and mixed with other water downstream (or at the very least, such a possibility exists). Since the priest cannot guuarantee the reverant handling of the holy water, he would be in violation of Canon 1171 that requires all sacramentals to be treated with reverence. In this case, the holy river water would not cease to be holy simply because it passed beyond the banks where the ceremony was taking place.** Although some Eastern churches bless large bodies of water, they are not creating holy water per se**, just blessing the water.

On Theophany, we bless water with the Great Blessing of the Waters. The same blessing is used whether the blessing takes place in a church with water in a font or outside with water in the river. The same prayers are said, the same words and gestures are used.

How do the two events differ in your understanding?

 

[J2K]

On Theophany, we bless water with the Great Blessing of the Waters. The same blessing is used whether the blessing takes place in a church with water in a font or outside with water in the river. The same prayers are said, the same words and gestures are used.

How do the two events differ in your understanding?

I was completely mistaken in my previous statement (which will teach me to do more research before opening my laptop to write about Eastern Rite churches): it would be wholly appropriate to refer to the waters blessed by both the Greater and Lesser Blessings as “Holy”.

Nevertheless I think there are some differences between the waters blessed using the Greater and Lesser Blessings of the Waters, and Roman Rite Holy Water that bear noting.

First of all, although blessings are often performed over springs, rivers and other large bodies of water, it seems that the chalice that is used to contain the water (in a church) during the blessing is very important, symbolizing the Theotokos. From what I have read it seems that this blessing of a smaller amount of water is usually performed as a precursor to the “procession to the Jordan” which takes place after the double blessing of the water in the church. Based on this I would say there was a difference between the natures of the two waters (although admittedly, theologically this would not be a huge difference).

Second, from a purely liturgical standpoint, since the rites for blessing these waters (Roman vs. Eastern) are formulaically different, I am not convinced that they are interchangeable. Although they are used for similar purposes (ie. baptism in this case), I don’t think that Roman Rite clerics would use “Agiasma” for Roman Rite baptisms. I have found references to these being actually qualitatively different but I admit that I cannot locate any canonical sources that say this.

Thirdly, in Roman Rite church there is an obligation to dispose of Holy Water using specific practices. This is one of the reasons that Roman Catholics don’t take it home with them or carry it around. Now, of course, there is no law against doing so; the individual who takes home the Body of Christ in a pyx must similarly guard against anything happening to the Host (and even more so in that case). But again, it seems that the Eastern Rite churches have a slightly different understanding of how the “agiasma” is to be used and disposed of.

Since the Roman Rite church has sprinkling of water just like the Eastern Rite churches, it is obvious that all Catholic churches accept that there is a use for blessed waters that results in some of it ending up on the ground. And unlike the Host, you don’t have to be careful where the particles of water end up that are poured on your child’s forehead during baptism, so obviously there is an understanding that the purpose of the water and the well-ordered use of it include having some of it end up on the floor.

So, all in all, although I think that Canon 1171 applies (probably to both or all three kinds of blessed waters), I’m not sure how that application plays itself out practically speaking when it comes to the management of “left over” water or water that has “moved on” from the initial site of blessing.

Do you think that “agiasma” and RC Holy Water are theologically interchangeable? I don’t mean ritually (like getting an RC priest to use “agiasma”), but theologically or philosophically? From what I know some blessings are considered valid in both rites and some are not. Let me know what you think!

 

[Digitonomy]

Unless there were an extraordinary circumstance, such a practice would not, today, result in valid baptisms for those who participated.

Canon 850 requires that “baptism be administered in the order required in the approved liturgical books except in case of urgent necessity”. Those liturgical books include a number of elements such as the use of anointing with chrism and other liturgical formulae that would not be present in a “mass river baptism” ceremony.

I think that Canon 850 should lead one to a contrary view, distinguishing between those elements required for licity detailed in following canons, and the validity that may be present if these elements are illicitly omitted.

Can. 850
Baptism is administered according to the order prescribed in the approved liturgical books, except in case of urgent necessity when only those things required for the validity of the sacrament must be observed.

J2K:

Canon 851 requires that all adults who are to be baptised (again, excepting in cases of urgent necessity) be catechized during a period prior to the baptism; it is highly doubtful that prior to leading converting tribes across the river, these tribespeople were instructed in the finer points of the CCC

Indeed, and the account I heard, although maybe apocryphal, described a chief who was joyfully celebrating at the post-baptismal celebration that he and his clan would now gain entry to eternal paradise. But when it was explained that his brethren that had died previously would be in hell or purgatory (if purgatory was a developed concept at this time), he promptly led his group back across the river to “unbaptise” them.

J2K:

Canon 857 requires the baptism take place in a church or oratory, so except for the rare churches and oratories that have rivers flowing through them, this would be a difficult requirement to manage.

I would dearly like to see such a church!

J2K:

Finally, although it may appear to be alright for a priest to bless a river and “make the water holy water”, that flowing water would end up polluted and mixed with other water downstream (or at the very least, such a possibility exists). Since the priest cannot guuarantee the reverant handling of the holy water, he would be in violation of Canon 1171 that requires all sacramentals to be treated with reverence. In this case, the holy river water would not cease to be holy simply because it passed beyond the banks where the ceremony was taking place. Although some Eastern churches bless large bodies of water, they are not creating holy water per se, just blessing the water.

Interesting point.

J2K:

So, in summary, although it may have been an “exceptional circumstance” when the early church was evangelizing and converting large groups of people in earlier centuries, by today’s laws and standards this practice would not result in canonically licit baptisms. Arguably, there are circumstances where a “mass baptism” could be valid without being licit (eg. if a priest were to mass-baptize a sports team lost in the wilderness where team members were dying so fast as to prevent baptizing them one-by-one) but overall this practice would be very very borderline theologically and liturgically speaking.

Perhaps I misunderstand the canons, but my interpretation is that the extraordinary circumstances of the wilderness scenario might allow a licit baptism in the absence of the usual elements. On the other hand that baptism would still be valid even if the team was just arriving for their voyage and dove in at the embarcation dock.

Well thought out and documented response; I’m glad my thread lured you out from lurking.:tiphat:

 

[Digitonomy]

On Theophany, we bless water with the Great Blessing of the Waters. The same blessing is used whether the blessing takes place in a church with water in a font or outside with water in the river. The same prayers are said, the same words and gestures are used.

How do the two events differ in your understanding?

When I hear of say the blessing of an island, I don’t assume that a lake on the island is then filled with holy water. If a priest blesses the lake, again I assume the water itself is not holy water, but the lake as a whole is blessed, with a purpose toward fishing, commerce, recreation, etc, but not necessarily sacramental use of the water. If a sailboat is blessed, I don’t assume a pitcher of water in the galley becomes holy water - although I don’t think it is excluded from the blessing of the boat.

Can you clarify where I may be steering my mental ship in the wrong direction, and explain the Eastern view on these issues?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The difference is event and intended purpose.

As to the mass baptism in the river scenario – I don’t see what is “invalid” (or even necessarily “illicit”) in the least. Sure, it’s not the NORM, however, if all the necessary elements are present then it’s a true baptism. Instruction and location, etc are normal, ordinary, and good - however not what makes the baptism true.

 

[jlhargus]

Apparently missionaries in the Baltic lands centuries ago performing baptisms of large groups would bless flowing rivers, then have converting tribes walk through to the other side.

I can think of two objections to this practice, but I’m not familiar enough with the precise form of the sacrament to know whether these statements are true.

1. 
   *]Each person must be baptized indvidually, and baptisms without repeating the sacramental formula for each convert are not valid.
   *]The water must be actively poured by the minister of the sacrament, and thus water that is only passively flowing across someone’s head does not create a sacrament.
   
   Would such a baptism be valid?

1. 
   If the Church approved it then it was valid. The Canon law today, I would say, was not the same then. I was baptized in a river not blessed. I was not baptized again when I became Catholic.

 

[FrDavid96]

Christ Himself was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River.

We know that the earliest Christians likewise baptized in the Jordan River; and that we have continued to do so through to the present day.

How anyone can possibly say that baptism in a river would not be valid? That makes no sense.

Be assured that Baptism in a river is perfectly valid.

Yes, the Church does (for the most part) prefer that Baptism be done inside the church-building, in a proper baptistry. However, remember that the baptistry is itself a symbol of the Jordan River. The preference to use a baptistry has nothing to do with validity—nothing whatsoever.

There is nothing (absolutely nothing) about Baptism in a river that would make the attempt invalid, so long as the other requirements for validity are met (Trinitarian formula, etc.).

 

[J2K]

I think that Canon 850 should lead one to a contrary view, distinguishing between those elements required for licity detailed in following canons, and the validity that may be present if these elements are illicitly omitted.

You are correct here, I should have used the term illicit as opposed to invalid. All that is required for validity is water and the Trinitarian formula.

Indeed, and the account I heard, although maybe apocryphal, described a chief who was joyfully celebrating at the post-baptismal celebration that he and his clan would now gain entry to eternal paradise. But when it was explained that his brethren that had died previously would be in hell or purgatory (if purgatory was a developed concept at this time), he promptly led his group back across the river to “unbaptise” them.

Yes, there was a great deal of consternation among my atheist family members when I told them that they could not un-baptize themselves even if they got on the “deny the Holy Spirit” bandwagon of a couple of years ago.

Perhaps I misunderstand the canons, but my interpretation is that the extraordinary circumstances of the wilderness scenario might allow a licit baptism in the absence of the usual elements. On the other hand that baptism would still be valid even if the team was just arriving for their voyage and dove in at the embarcation dock.

I’m not sure that the baptism would be licit in the wilderness although it would most certainly be valid. Obviously, the licitness would depend on the interpretation of how dire the situation was etc. but other canons come into play such as the law against baptizing in someone else’s territory without their permission etc. So in my exact/precise example, the baptism would be licit (since by definition the threat of imminent death would be compelling enough to allow even an atheist to perform the baptism), but it’s a really close shave and changing even a few variables to decrease the “all or nothing” nature of the example would immediately place you in illicit territory IMO.

Well thought out and documented response; I’m glad my thread lured you out from lurking.:tiphat:

Thanks for the welcome, and for providing such a nice thread to join

 

[J2K]

The difference is event and intended purpose.

As to the mass baptism in the river scenario – I don’t see what is “invalid” (or even necessarily “illicit”) in the least. Sure, it’s not the NORM, however, if all the necessary elements are present then it’s a true baptism. Instruction and location, etc are normal, ordinary, and good - however not what makes the baptism true.

Licitness is a function of compliance with (current) church laws. Insofar as the baptism does not follow those laws it is, by definition, illicit. You are correct that it does not make it less “true” provided by “true” you mean “valid” (ie. “true” in a spiritual or theological sense). However, instruction, location etc. are most definitely requirements (in the Roman Rite) for a baptism to be licit. They are not suggestions or just good ideas or even just “how it happens to be done most of the time” but rather absolute requirements for licitness (notwithstanding clauses in canon law that allow licitness even in situations where other laws are contravened, such as in my sports team example where even an atheist could baptise the team because Canon 861.2 allows such a circumstance).

Canon 854 in the modern law might allow a bishop’s conference to have a standing law that allows for this type of baptism. But I am assuming that we are talking about current law as it stands, unmodified, from the Vatican (there are too many regional variants depending on local custom to truly answer any question in less than 30 pages or so!)

 

[J2K]

If the Church approved it then it was valid. The Canon law today, I would say, was not the same then. I was baptized in a river not blessed. I was not baptized again when I became Catholic.

The church’s approval is not needed for validity. All that is needed is water (immersion or pouring) and the Trinitarian formula. Church “approval” provides licitness which is not quite the same.

I admit that I did not research canon law at the time this story might have taken place but these particular laws have changed relatively little. What is more likely is that the conference of bishop’s responsible for the area would have decreed that this kind of baptism was licit because of the need to evangelize the local tribes. Changing the laws like this is common and allows great flexibility for local bishops so canon law doesn’t have to change as much. Canon 854 might allow for this flexibility already although there may be a more appropriate law to quote there; I’m not sure whether the “prescripts” referred to in that law apply specifically to the nature of the water used (ie. the bishops can extend beyond immersion and pouring to include sprinkling) or whether they apply more generally to all prescripts for the baptismal rite.

It is important to note that, as Catholics, we “confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, so your baptism in an “unblessed” river is perfectly valid as long as the minister of your baptism intended to do what the Catholic church intends when he or she performed your baptism. So although your baptism was not licit per se in the Catholic church, it was 100% valid and thus, because of Canon 864, you cannot be baptized a second time even when you enter into full communion with the church. The idea is that it is Christ Himself who performs the baptism, not the minister of the sacrament (who ends up being a vessel instead of an actual actor). Thus, your minister, being filled with the presence of Christ and intending to do what the Catholic church does (ie. confer baptism upon you) performed a valid baptism in an unblessed river.

 

[babochka]

although blessings are often performed over springs, rivers and other large bodies of water, it seems that the chalice that is used to contain the water (in a church) during the blessing is very important, symbolizing the Theotokos. From what I have read it seems that this blessing of a smaller amount of water is usually performed as a precursor to the “procession to the Jordan” which takes place after the double blessing of the water in the church. Based on this I would say there was a difference between the natures of the two waters (although admittedly, theologically this would not be a huge difference).

The water is blessed using the Great Blessing of the Waters after the Divine Liturgy on Eve of Theophany (when we celebrate Christ’s Baptism in the Jordan). It is again blessed the next day after the liturgy. Some parishes bless a smaller amount in the church. Some do this, and then proceed to a nearby body of water to do the same blessing. Still others simply proceed to the body of water. Regardless, it is exactly the same blessing. (We don’t mind repeating ourselves in the East!) Since it is the same blessing - same ritual (same readings, same words, same gestures, same hydrogen, same oxygen) I can’t think of any way in which the nature of the water would be different based on the location of the water…

Second, from a purely liturgical standpoint, since the rites for blessing these waters (Roman vs. Eastern) are formulaically different,

Of course they are different. They are different rites. The rite of absolution is different, the consecration is different, the rite for Anointing of the Sick is different. The rite for blessing a home, boat, or car is different. As is the rite for blessing water.

I am not convinced that they are interchangeable. Although they are used for similar purposes (ie. baptism in this case), I don’t think that Roman Rite clerics would use “Agiasma” for Roman Rite baptisms.

Since the rite of baptism contains the blessing of the water, in most cases it would be unnecessary. But if a priest were in need of water for an ermergency baptism and was given a choice between Byzantine/Orthodox Holy Water and tap water, which do you think he’d choose?

Thirdly, in Roman Rite church there is an obligation to dispose of Holy Water using specific practices. This is one of the reasons that Roman Catholics don’t take it home with them or carry it around.

I wasn’t aware that it was contrary to Latin Rite tradition to bring Holy Water into the home. In most Latin Rite churches I’ve been in, there have been containers of Holy Water with spouts, making the water available to the faithful. Other than blessing when entering and leaving the church, how is Holy Water typically used by the faithful?

But again, it seems that the Eastern Rite churches have a slightly different understanding of how the “agiasma” is to be used and disposed of.

Other than the fact that we drink it rather than cross ourselves with it, I don’t think there is a significant difference.

I’m going to quite the rituals, but I think I’ll need to make another post to do so.

 

[J2K]

Before I reply specifically, please note that I already indicated that my answer should have focused on licitness and not validity. I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that the OP was using the term “valid” loosely and responded on that basis. I apologize for the confusion.

Christ Himself was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River.

Validity and licitness do not solely depend on the events of Christ’s life so I’m not sure I see the relevance of this fact (although I agree that this happened).

We know that the earliest Christians likewise baptized in the Jordan River; and that we have continued to do so through to the present day.

Likewise, tradition is wonderful but does not override current laws, but I assume you are still arguing against my saying that the baptism would not be valid, which I concede it would be.

How anyone can possibly say that baptism in a river would not be valid? That makes no sense.

Here are some (admittedly contrived) scenarios where baptism “in a river” would not be valid: 1) the minister “sprinkles” water on the recipient; 2) the minister puts one hand in the river and the other hand on the recipient’s forehead; 3) the minister does not use the Trinitarian formula; 4) the minister believes that the Trinity is actually three individual Gods that work together.

Am I missing something? AFAIK none of those would be valid.

Be assured that Baptism in a river is perfectly valid.

I’m certain that baptism in a river can be valid, but I outlined above a handful of scenarios where it would not be.

Yes, the Church does (for the most part) prefer that Baptism be done inside the church-building, in a proper baptistry. However, remember that the baptistry is itself a symbol of the Jordan River. The preference to use a baptistry has nothing to do with validity—nothing whatsoever.

I concede that validity is unrelated to location, but I disagree with your characterization of canon law requirements and prescripts as “preferences”. Licitness of sacraments is not optional, it’s not “just” a recommendation. While I would never deny the literal validity of a sacrament just because it lacked licitness I think that it is very disingenuous to imply that licitness is nothing more than “preference”. The Church has fought (very very bloody) wars over questions of licitness, so to claim that these are just “guidelines” is, at best, borderline ontological reductionism.

There is nothing (absolutely nothing) about Baptism in a river that would make the attempt invalid, so long as the other requirements for validity are met (Trinitarian formula, etc.).

Here, we agree completely!

 

[babochka]

A continuation from my last post:

Do you think that “agiasma” and RC Holy Water are theologically interchangeable? I don’t mean ritually (like getting an RC priest to use “agiasma”), but theologically or philosophically? From what I know some blessings are considered valid in both rites and some are not. Let me know what you think!

I think they are interchangeable and I think that can best be seen by looking at the blessings themselves. If you want to know Byzantine theology, just look at the liturgical texts. The theology is explicitly stated.

Here is the traditional Roman Rite blessing of water. I’ve included this one because it is most explicit about what is being asked for.

O water, creature of God, I exorcise you in the name of God the Father almighty, and in the name of Jesus Christ His Son, our Lord, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. I exorcise you so that you may put to flight all the power of the Enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that Enemy with his apostate angels: through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.
Let us pray.
O God, Who for the salvation of mankind has built Thy greatest mysteries on this substance, water, in Thy kindness hear our prayers and pour down the power of Thy blessing + into this element, made ready for many kinds of purifications. May this, Thy creature, become an agent of divine grace in the service of Thy mysteries, to drive away evil spirits and dispel sickness, so that every-thing in the homes and other buildings of the faithful that is sprinkled with this water may be rid of all uncleanness and freed from every harm. Let no breath of infection, no disease-bearing air, remain in these places. May the wiles of the lurking Enemy prove of no avail. Let whatever might menace the safety and peace of those who live here be put to flight by the sprinkling of this water, so that the healthfulness, obtained by calling upon Thy holy name, may be made secure against all attack. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever.

Great Blessing of the Waters:
For the sake of “brevity” I’ve edited this, but the entire ritual can be found here: frederica.com/writings/the-great-blessing-of-the-waters-by-st-sophronius-of-jerusal.html I encourage you to read the entire ritual.

GREAT ARE YOU, O LORD, AND MARVELOUS ARE YOUR WORKS AND NO WORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PRAISE YOUR MARVELS.

GREAT ARE YOU, O LORD, AND MARVELOUS ARE YOUR WORKS AND NO WORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PRAISE YOUR MARVELS.

GREAT ARE YOU, O LORD, AND MARVELOUS ARE YOUR WORKS AND NO WORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PRAISE YOUR MARVELS.

For by your divine will You brought forth all things out of nothing into being; by your might you control all creation; by your providence You govern the universe, O You who made the whole world out of four elements and crowned the cycle of the year with four seasons.

…

And You, O God, while remaining boundless, without beginning, and beyond all words deigned to come down upon earth, to assume the likeness of a servant, and to become like man.

Because of your compassionate mercy, O Master, You were unable to endure and to behold the race of mankind under the tyranny of the devil. For this reason You have come to save us.

We acknowledge your grace. We proclaim your mercy. We do not conceal your gracious acts. You have set mankind free; by your birth You have sanctified the Virgin’s womb; and since your manifestation all creation praises You.

For You, O our God, have appeared on earth and have dwelt among men. You sanctified the waters of the Jordan by sending down your Holy Spirit from heaven, and you have crushed the heads of the dragons who lurk there.

The Priest makes the sign of the Cross over the water three times, each time saying:

THEREFORE, O KING AND LOVER OF MANKIND, ALSO BE PRESENT NOW THROUGH THE DESCENT OF YOUR HOLY SPIRIT AND SANCTIFY + THIS WATER.

THEREFORE, O KING AND LOVER OF MANKIND, ALSO BE PRESENT NOW THROUGH THE DESCENT OF YOUR HOLY SPIRIT AND SANCTIFY + THIS WATER.

THEREFORE, O KING AND LOVER OF MANKIND, ALSO BE PRESENT NOW THROUGH THE DESCENT OF YOUR HOLY SPIRIT AND SANCTIFY + THIS WATER.

And give to it the grace of redemption and the blessing of the Jordan. Make it a source of incorruptibility, a gift of sanctification, a remission of sins, a remedy for sickness, a destruction of demons, inaccessible to the adverse powers, and filled with the might of your angels, so that all who drink and receive of it may be blessed in their souls and bodies, healed of their sufferings, sanctified in their homes, and may receive every befitting grace.

For You are our God, who, with water and the Spirit, restored our nature made old by sin.

You are our God, who drowned sin in the waters at the time of Noah.

You are our God, who in the sea, and at the hands of Moses, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of Pharaoh.

You are our God who cleaved the rock in the wilderness, so that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed, and your thirsty people were satisfied.

You are our God who, with fire and water and at the hands of Elijah, delivered Israel from the errors of Baal.

THEREFORE, O MASTER, SANCTIFY THIS WATER BY YOUR HOLY SPIRIT.

THEREFORE, O MASTER, SANCTIFY THIS WATER BY YOUR HOLY SPIRIT.

***THEREFORE, O MASTER, SANCTIFY THIS WATER BY YOUR HOLY SPIRIT.

Grant sanctification, blessing, cleansing and health to all those who touch it, and to those upon whom it is poured, and to those who receive of it.

---

.

 

[Digitonomy]

How anyone can possibly say that baptism in a river would not be valid? That makes no sense.

It was my understanding that baptism generally requires pouring water over the head. That is certainly the illustration I’ve usually seen involving John the Baptist. If the band of people simply wade through say a hip-deep river, is that sufficient?

Also, although it doesn’t go to validity, can you comment on whether the blessing of a river creates a giant flowing mass of holy water, or just a blessed geographic feature?

 

[FrDavid96]

It was my understanding that baptism generally requires pouring water over the head.

Yes, generally. Not absolutely.

That is certainly the illustration I’ve usually seen involving John the Baptist. If the band of people simply wade through say a hip-deep river, is that sufficient?

I’m not sure if that’s an accurate description of how things were done. Can you say that you know for certain that there was not a priest or some missionary (or likely several) who actually did baptize each person either by immersion or by pouring?

I don’t know what ritual was used at the time in question, so I don’t know if there even was a blessing of the water performed.

The Baptism of the Ukraine was in 988. I’m not sure if that included the current Baltic States, but I know that it was generally the same time-period. I simply do not know what ritual forms would have been used, other than the obvious Trinitarian formula.

Also, although it doesn’t go to validity, can you comment on whether the blessing of a river creates a giant flowing mass of holy water, or just a blessed geographic feature?

My reaction to the question is really to shrug my shoulders and say “what difference does it make?”

 

[babochka]

When I hear of say the blessing of an island, I don’t assume that a lake on the island is then filled with holy water. If a priest blesses the lake, again I assume the water itself is not holy water, but the lake as a whole is blessed, with a purpose toward fishing, commerce, recreation, etc, but not necessarily sacramental use of the water. If a sailboat is blessed, I don’t assume a pitcher of water in the galley becomes holy water - although I don’t think it is excluded from the blessing of the boat.

Can you clarify where I may be steering my mental ship in the wrong direction, and explain the Eastern view on these issues?

When we bless a car, we pray for certain things. We pray that a guardian angel guides it upon the rightful road and we pray for the safe passage of those who travel in it. When we bless a fishing boat, we pray for the safety of the crew and passengers, as well as a bountiful catch for the benefit of those who will eat them. When we bless candles, we pray for that those who see their light will be enlightened in the light of Christ, enlighted against sin by the glowing of the Holy Spirit. When we bless objects, it is always for the spiritual and physical benefit of those who make use of them.

When we bless water, no matter its quantity or location, we pray “Make it a source of incorruptibility, a gift of sanctification, a remission of sins, a remedy for sickness, a destruction of demons, inaccessible to the adverse powers, and filled with the might of your angels, so that all who drink and receive of it may be blessed in their souls and bodies, healed of their sufferings, sanctified in their homes, and may receive every befitting grace.” When a river, lake or another body of water is blessed, this is the blessing used.

It is not the lake, as a geographical feature, that is blessed. It is clearly, through the words of the text and the actions of the priest the water in the lake that is blessed. I don’t understand at all how the water in a font in a church could become Holy Water through such a blessing, but the water in a lake or river would not become holy through that same blessing. I’m not really sure how to answer your question because I lack that basic understanding.

Orthodox Wiki has a decent basic explanation of the blessing of the water:

Water is seen by the Church as the prime element of creation. In blessing water, it is asked that the original purpose of water, as a source of life, blessing and holiness be revealed as one drinks it. In the Book of Genesis, creation began when the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.

In the blessing of water it is seen that the world and everything in it is “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and when it becomes corrupted, God saves it once more by effecting the new creation in Christ, his divine Son and our Lord by the grace of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 6:15)

 

[Digitonomy]

Can you say that you know for certain that there was not a priest or some missionary (or likely several) who actually did baptize each person either by immersion or by pouring?..

My question was not so much historical, such that video footage miraculously taken at the time could answer the question, but hypothetical: Would such baptisms as described be valid, whether those descriptions are strictly accurate or completely fabricated. Or would they be valid only under certain conditions?

You already addressed one of my specific concerns, that pouring is not required for validity.

If pouring is not required, must the minister even be in the immediate vicinity (say a foot or two) of the convert, or can he give his blessing from the shore 40 feet away as the current carries the convert to another spot before making landfall?

The other specific concern I mentioned in the OP was whether there is any problem with validity in baptizing multiple people at once.

FrDavid96:

My reaction to the question is really to shrug my shoulders and say “what difference does it make?”

The Church certainly values a distinction between that which is holy water, and that which is not. You have helped explain some of the finer points of this in previous threads.

If blessing the river does indeed create holy water, the next time I witness a group river baptism maybe I’ll fill a bottle for my own use, or dip my fingers in to bless myself before entering the riverside chapel where they’ve filled the holy water fonts with sand.

And of course there are more persnickety questions that beg to be asked if holy water is confected (is that the right word?) upon blessing a river, such as

1. 
   *]Is it just the water in the immediate vicinity that is blessed? In which case I assume the holy water flows rapidly downstream.
   *]Or is it the water in a specific segment of the river that is blessed, in which case the water that enters that segment immediately becomes holy water, while that which exits the segment ceases to be holy water - this seems the least likely to me.
   *]Perhaps the entire length of the river is instantly filled with holy water - but for how long?
   *]Perhaps the priest’s intent is the determining factor, just as it is with what bread and wine are transsubstantiated during mass.