Can You baptize Yourself?

[SisterSnowflake]

Oh, my!

My tenth grade theology students (all boys) have a perplexing question. In the event of an emergency, anyone, even a non-Christian, can baptize. What if nobody else is present? Can you baptize yourself?

I can find no evidence either for OR against this (looked in universal catechism, U.S. adult catechism, and even canon law!).

We know all about baptism by desire, but what about actual water baptism?

We had some great discussions about this at the convent last night!

Thanks in advance.

God bless.

Sister H.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Oh, my!

My tenth grade theology students (all boys) have a perplexing question. In the event of an emergency, anyone, even a non-Christian, can baptize. What if nobody else is present? Can you baptize yourself?

I can find no evidence either for OR against this (looked in universal catechism, U.S. adult catechism, and even canon law!).

We know all about baptism by desire, but what about actual water baptism?

We had some great discussions about this at the convent last night!

Thanks in advance.

God bless.

Sister H.

No, a person cannot Sacramentally Baptize themselves. The best they can do is pray for the Grace of Baptism through Baptism of Desire, although not equal to Sacramental Baptism it may suffice for salvation.

 

[NHInsider]

I would also suggest that, presuming this hypothetical situtation is in extremis (why else?) that if the person died expressing desire for Baptism, the Lord would honor that desire, and if instead he survived, he would present himself for sacramental Baptism at the soonest opportunity.

 

[ckempston]

The wording of the Catechism wouldn’t seem to exclude “self” from being both the baptized and the baptizer:

V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

As long as the requirements for validity are met, it seems to me that all other factors, even if they are normative, are not as required.

And this would not be without Biblical precedent. Naaman dunked himself seven times in the Jordan and was cleansed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The wording of the Catechism wouldn’t seem to exclude “self” from being both the baptized and the baptizer:

V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

As long as the requirements for validity are met, it seems to me that all other factors, even if they are normative, are not as required.

And this would not be without Biblical precedent. Naaman dunked himself seven times in the Jordan and was cleansed.

No, you are misinterpreting the Catechism.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

Thanks, everyone!!

Teenage boys come up with many interesting questions…things I would never have thought of, left to my own devices!

 

[ckempston]

No, you are misinterpreting the Catechism.

Right. Yeah, that’s real easy to say. Could you explain?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I don’t have a source at hand, but have seen good authority that one cannot baptize himself, or confer any other sacrament on himself. On the other hand, one can be baptized by anyone - non-Catholic, non-Christian, whatever. All that is necessary is that they intend to do whatever the Church intends. Just the intent; they don’t even need to know what that includes. There used to be, and hopefully still are instructions posted in the baby wards of hospitals as to what any one available is to do if a Catholic infant is in danger of death.

 

[LilyM]

One cannot baptise themselves any more than one can confer the sacrament of penance upon oneself - and surely we all know that not even a priest can do that.

In the catechism we read the following:

*815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But **the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion: **

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments*

So what part of a person supposedly baptising themself makes that supposed sacrament a visible bond of communion or a common celebration of divine worship? A bond and a common celebration surely requires at least two people, no?

 

[AJV]

Right. Yeah, that’s real easy to say. Could you explain?

Theologians usually give different reasons for this such as:

(1) In the economy of grace, God has chosen to make us part of the communion of believers. We are all dependent on each other in some way or another, and each has a role to play in dispensing God’s gifts of grace. God, although he is not bound to, associates us with his work . This is why we have the communion of saints, is it not? Baptism with at least another person is a communal act, with the entire Church. It’s not a “me and my salvation”

(2) With regard to the specific form of baptism, it supposes two people “I baptize you” likewise, though less obvious, for the indirect forms used in the Eastern Churches.

Any book going into the theology of the sacraments will give a complete explanation of why the minister of a sacrament cannot administer a sacrament to himself (or herself, in the case of baptism)

The Catechism will not give every single last detail because else it would be too bothersome to read (and it’s already quite bulky) If one were to read “anyone” as literal then we could say anyone means a dead person, an angel, a devil, etc. all of which are not possible.

The analogy with Naaman cannot hold, because Naaman was not receiving baptism. It may be taken as a type or figure of baptism, but we can’t extrapolate from it. On the contrary, we see in the NT that everyone was baptized by someone else. Some theologians even point out the necessity of someone else for baptism by indicating that Christ himself left us this positive example in being baptized by St. John the Baptist and not baptizing himself.

 

[ckempston]

Theologians usually give different reasons for this such as:

(1) In the economy of grace, God has chosen to make us part of the communion of believers. We are all dependent on each other in some way or another, and each has a role to play in dispensing God’s gifts of grace. God, although he is not bound to, associates us with his work . This is why we have the communion of saints, is it not? Baptism with at least another person is a communal act, with the entire Church. It’s not a “me and my salvation”

Of course, but we’re talking about someone in extremis, not the normative method.

(2) With regard to the specific form of baptism, it supposes two people “I baptize you” likewise, though less obvious, for the indirect forms used in the Eastern Churches.

Any book going into the theology of the sacraments will give a complete explanation of why the minister of a sacrament cannot administer a sacrament to himself (or herself, in the case of baptism)

Are we talking about only the Seven Sacraments here? Is Baptism of Desire still a sacrament? (asking seriously, because I don’t know). Because the “minister of the sacrament” (the person desiring baptism) would also be the recipient. If God somehow makes an exception here, it’s a little ridiculous to say that God wouldn’t make an exception for someone baptizing themselves on a deserted island. The answer someone gave in regard to the Baptism of Desire seems to leave room for doubt. Why not remove doubt and baptize yourself? Other Sacraments likewise leave room for the sacrament to still occur without a minister - the same end is achieved with the Sacrament of Penance through a “perfect act of contrition.” So, to say it’s impossible to have a sacrament without a minister seems incorrect.

The Catechism will not give every single last detail because else it would be too bothersome to read (and it’s already quite bulky) If one were to read “anyone” as literal then we could say anyone means a dead person, an angel, a devil, etc. all of which are not possible.

That’s a little ridiculous. Even taking “anyone” literally, you would reasonably assume the baptizer is capable of performing the act. A dead person is not capable.

The analogy with Naaman cannot hold, because Naaman was not receiving baptism. It may be taken as a type or figure of baptism, but we can’t extrapolate from it. On the contrary, we see in the NT that everyone was baptized by someone else. Some theologians even point out the necessity of someone else for baptism by indicating that Christ himself left us this positive example in being baptized by St. John the Baptist and not baptizing himself.

Namaan is not the only example, you have the Israelites passing through the sea, and Noah and his family in the Ark, both of which are types of Baptism explicitly referenced in the New Testament. In both cases, it was God directly who did the “baptizing” and there was no other “minister”.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Of course, but we’re talking about someone in extremis, not the normative method.

Are we talking about only the Seven Sacraments here? Is Baptism of Desire still a sacrament? (asking seriously, because I don’t know). Because the “minister of the sacrament” (the person desiring baptism) would also be the recipient. If God somehow makes an exception here, it’s a little ridiculous to say that God wouldn’t make an exception for someone baptizing themselves on a deserted island. The answer someone gave in regard to the Baptism of Desire seems to leave room for doubt. Why not remove doubt and baptize yourself? Other Sacraments likewise leave room for the sacrament to still occur without a minister - the same end is achieved with the Sacrament of Penance through a “perfect act of contrition.” So, to say it’s impossible to have a sacrament without a minister seems incorrect.

That’s a little ridiculous. Even taking “anyone” literally, you would reasonably assume the baptizer is capable of performing the act. A dead person is not capable.

Namaan is not the only example, you have the Israelites passing through the sea, and Noah and his family in the Ark, both of which are types of Baptism explicitly referenced in the New Testament. In both cases, it was God directly who did the “baptizing” and there was no other “minister”.

“Perfect Act of Contrition” is not a Sacrament and Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are not Sacraments.

 

[ckempston]

“Perfect Act of Contrition” is not a Sacrament and Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are not Sacraments.

Gotta love your one-line responses with no references, just the expectation that someone take it on your authority. By your statement, do you simply mean that these are not one of the Seven Sacraments, or that they are not sacramental at all? Sacramental in a very general sense would seem to be anything that conveys God’s Grace, which could be a prayer, fasting, reading the Scriptures, etc. Didn’t Augustine say something about there being thousands of sacraments?

 

[Zooey]

Thanks, everyone!!

Teenage boys come up with many interesting questions…things I would never have thought of, left to my own devices!

I just am posting to say, that I really just *love *your students!! That must be a fascinating class.
God bless you as you teach,and your students as they learn.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Gotta love your one-line responses with no references, just the expectation that someone take it on your authority. By your statement, do you simply mean that these are not one of the Seven Sacraments, or that they are not sacramental at all? Sacramental in a very general sense would seem to be anything that conveys God’s Grace, which could be a prayer, fasting, reading the Scriptures, etc. Didn’t Augustine say something about there being thousands of sacraments?

They are not Sacraments, as in 7 Sacraments. I try not to call anything else “sacraments” because it does cause confusion. The term Sacramental or Sacramentals for Holy Water, Candles, Blessings etc. is generally well understood.

 

[AJV]

Of course, but we’re talking about someone in extremis, not the normative method.

I would like to give a more substantive response and will try to do so over the weekend. But if you are interested, one text, off the top of my head is the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. Actually, I just thought of another: it’s on the Internet Archive - “The sacraments” by Pohle.

God has positively willed that sacraments should have a person administering, who takes the place of Christ the principal Minister, and a person to whom it is administered. If he didn’t will it, then he would have told the apostles to baptize themselves, forgive their own sins, and so forth.

Are we talking about only the Seven Sacraments here? Is Baptism of Desire still a sacrament? (asking seriously, because I don’t know). Because the “minister of the sacrament” (the person desiring baptism) would also be the recipient. If God somehow makes an exception here, it’s a little ridiculous to say that God wouldn’t make an exception for someone baptizing themselves on a deserted island. The answer someone gave in regard to the Baptism of Desire seems to leave room for doubt. Why not remove doubt and baptize yourself? Other Sacraments likewise leave room for the sacrament to still occur without a minister - the same end is achieved with the Sacrament of Penance through a “perfect act of contrition.” So, to say it’s impossible to have a sacrament without a minister seems incorrect.

This is a bit more technical and one of the parts I’ll try and go into over the weekend, but read the Summa in the meantime (although I should note it gives the teaching of what has come to be known as the Thomistic school).

W.r.t. baptism of desire, we do not know which way God will extend salvation to the person. God operates through the sacraments as an ordinary means of grace, but has not chosen to dispense sacramental effects solely through this method.

That’s a little ridiculous. Even taking “anyone” literally, you would reasonably assume the baptizer is capable of performing the act. A dead person is not capable.

It didn’t seem so ridiculous to me. After all, if angels can appear on earth, they can serve as ministers, no? Likewise for devils or spirits, etc.

Namaan is not the only example, you have the Israelites passing through the sea, and Noah and his family in the Ark, both of which are types of Baptism explicitly referenced in the New Testament. In both cases, it was God directly who did the “baptizing” and there was no other “minister”.

I understand. But these are types of baptism, not baptism itself. As you know, the main thrust is the themes- deliverance, cleansing, etc. Can we infer that because the Trinitarian words weren’t pronounced from on high over the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea, or invoked by Naaman as he dipped himself, that all we need to do is dunk ourselves with the intention of being cleansed and renewed by grace? Of course not.

 

[ckempston]

I would like to give a more substantive response and will try to do so over the weekend. But if you are interested, one text, off the top of my head is the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. Actually, I just thought of another: it’s on the Internet Archive - “The sacraments” by Pohle.

Thanks, I’ve only browsed Summa Theologica, I’ll look at it more in-depth.

God has positively willed that sacraments should have a person administering, who takes the place of Christ the principal Minister, and a person to whom it is administered. If he didn’t will it, then he would have told the apostles to baptize themselves, forgive their own sins, and so forth.

Yes, I agree with this, but again, the question was sort of an exception to the rule, not the normative method.

This is a bit more technical and one of the parts I’ll try and go into over the weekend, but read the Summa in the meantime (although I should note it gives the teaching of what has come to be known as the Thomistic school).

W.r.t. baptism of desire, we do not know which way God will extend salvation to the person. God operates through the sacraments as an ordinary means of grace, but has not chosen to dispense sacramental effects solely through this method.

Ok, sounds reasonable.

It didn’t seem so ridiculous to me. After all, if angels can appear on earth, they can serve as ministers, no? Likewise for devils or spirits, etc.

I’m not so sure I’d agree that, hypothetically, a supernatural being couldn’t perform a baptism, but a dead person certainly could not.

I understand. But these are types of baptism, not baptism itself. As you know, the main thrust is the themes- deliverance, cleansing, etc. Can we infer that because the Trinitarian words weren’t pronounced from on high over the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea, or invoked by Naaman as he dipped himself, that all we need to do is dunk ourselves with the intention of being cleansed and renewed by grace? Of course not.

I agree. Types are not the thing itself, and certainly all analogies break down at some point.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

I just am posting to say, that I really just *love *your students!! That must be a fascinating class.
God bless you as you teach,and your students as they learn.

Thanks so much! God bless you, too!

Yes, working with teenage boys seven hours a day, five days a week leads to lots of laughs, interesting discussions, and unique questions! They are a fun group…teens really are good people…lots of work, too!