Can saliva be used for an emergency Baptism?

[laszlo]

INNOCENT III 1198-1216

The Matter of Baptism
412 You have asked whether children ought to be regarded as Christians whom, when in danger of death, on account of the scarcity of water and the absence of a priest, the simplicity of some has anointed on the head and the breast, and between the shoulders with a sprinkling of saliva for baptism. We answer that since in baptism two things always, that is, “the word and the element,” are required by necessity, according to which Truth says concerning the word: “Going into the world etc.” [Luke 16:15; cf. Matt. 28:19 ], and the same concerning the element says: “Unless anyone etc.” [John 3:5 ] you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I think that the only reason water with another material in it is even allowed is that water, being the universal solvent, almost always has something dissolved in it.

For example, when I was about to baptize my daughter I was going to use tap water. Now i’m sure the tap water had flourine added (because most cities add flourine to the their tap water) not to mention some dissolved minerals from the pipes and it’s natural source (Potassium, Calcium, etc). So it truly wasn’t PURE water in the chemical sense. In fact water will even dissolve a few molecules of a glass you are drinking out of.

However, that is something most people would consider water, which is what the article was trying to say. It’s when we try to use something that we know as meant to be something else that we have problems.

Oh, and about the baptizing my daugher, because I know someone will ask. I felt she was in danger of death (she had a heart condition), but me and my wife got in an argument about me baptizing her so I did not. Thankfully someone else did all of about five minutes before she died twelve hours later(whew).

Just my personal opinion on the subject. Don’t forget if it’s an adult in an emergency, baptism of desire is sufficient. In the case of unbaptized infants, we can hope on God’s infinite love.

Andy

I agree with you that the water we use from the public water supply does not meet the chemical definition of “pure”, i.e. consisting solely of molecules of dihydrogen monoxide in it’s liquid state, H2O (l) [can’t seem to do subscripts on here]. However, it does meet the environmental health definition of “pure”, i.e. fit for human consumption. This is the water used in baptism and, of course, it will never be chemically pure water: may contain chlorine to disinfect it, may contain fluoride for dental health, will contain other dissolved matter depending on the geology of the area where it was collected and the materials from which the pipes it has travelled through were made.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I live in a large city in the developed world so water is always readily available but I cannot imagine a situation where some water could not be had for baptism. I cannot comment on the validity of saliva because I simply do not know, I do know however that it is mostly water. I cannot begin to imagine how one goes about collecting tears to baptism someone.

 

[FrDavid96]

I live in a large city in the developed world so water is always readily available but I cannot imagine a situation where some water could not be had for baptism. I cannot comment on the validity of saliva because I simply do not know, I do know however that it is mostly water. I cannot begin to imagine how one goes about collecting tears to baptism someone.

A good start is this: if you’re not referring to it by the word “water” then it is not considered “water” for purposes of baptism. If one has to ask the question “can I use …?” then the answer is “no.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Wait, ordinated persons can, so you can alo call a deacon right?

My point was that someone in a true emergency shouldn’t be posting on an internet forum asking “I’m in an emergency situation, what do I do.” Such a person should be contacting the nearest Catholic priest.

Would you want someone giving CPR to post on an internet forum “what’s the ratio of chest compressions to breaths?” and standby for a few dozen different responses? Of course not. Call 911.

 

[smichhertz]

The answer is plain and simple: NO

Because saliva is not water.

The remote matter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual meaning. Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water. When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained.

source: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VI