If there was no water near for an emergency baptism

[YoungTradCath]

could something containing water like orange juice, soup, or blood be used as a substitute? I know it’s rare that something like this would occur, but you never know.

If I was baptized with soup, I’d laugh very hard.

 

[puzzleannie]

no, the matter for baptism is water

 

[promethius]

no, the matter for baptism is water

or perhaps blood, if you happen to be a martyr!

 

[catholictiger]

could something containing water like orange juice, soup, or blood be used as a substitute? I know it’s rare that something like this would occur, but you never know.

If I was baptized with soup, I’d laugh very hard.

no way

as others say water is matter for baptism

I suspect if you can’t baptist someone and it is out of your control, God won’t say despite your best efforts you couldn’t baptize this person so he goes to hell.

no

if you don’t have blessed water near by then look for some, idk what you should do in the mean time though.

 

[silicasandra]

I could be completely wrong about this, but I have heard that saliva can be used for baptism in cases where there is absolutely no water available.

But again, I could be completely wrong and have no evidence whatsoever to back this up - just a conversation where someone else told me it could be done.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I could be completely wrong about this, but I have heard that saliva can be used for baptism in cases where there is absolutely no water available.

But again, I could be completely wrong and have no evidence whatsoever to back this up - just a conversation where someone else told me it could be done.

This was my first thought, but I also have no idea if it would be valid.

 

[bearer]

You’d need a lot of spit to be able to pour it over a person’s head.

 

[Cranch]

I have heard our pastor discuss with engaged couples the importance of baptizing a newborn at home or in the hospital if the child is in imminent danger of death. He explained a few drops of water squeezed from a cloth were all that was needed along with “I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Evan]

I could be completely wrong about this, but I have heard that saliva can be used for baptism in cases where there is absolutely no water available.

But again, I could be completely wrong and have no evidence whatsoever to back this up - just a conversation where someone else told me it could be done.

Interesting, I’ve heard exactly the opposite. That saliva cannot be used as it is not water.

 

[Cristiano]

I could be completely wrong about this, but I have heard that saliva can be used for baptism in cases where there is absolutely no water available.

But again, I could be completely wrong and have no evidence whatsoever to back this up - just a conversation where someone else told me it could be done.

I used to think exactly the way you do but then I was shown that I was completely wrong and saliva cannot be used. If you do a search here on CAF there should be a couple of threads that discuss the specifics of saliva.

BTW I did not think exactly the way you do. I did not think that I could be wrong about it.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

no, the matter for baptism is water

How many impurities in ppm can you have in the water and still have valid matter for the sacrament of baptism?

would muddy water be valid? water with boiled vegetables? you get what I am asking.

 

[Evan]

How many impurities in ppm can you have in the water and still have valid matter for the sacrament of baptism?

would muddy water be valid? water with boiled vegetables? you get what I am asking.

I believe the usual response by the Church is 'If a normal person would look at the material and call it water, that’s what we mean."

If you pour stuff of of veggies, I call it water (as in “poor the water off the taters and mash them up”)

If it’s muddy, I may call it water (dirty water). But at some point, I call it mud. So it would be a judgement call. But with mud, you can often squeeze water out of it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Baptism of Desire.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I believe the usual response by the Church is 'If a normal person would look at the material and call it water, that’s what we mean."

If you pour stuff of of veggies, I call it water (as in “poor the water off the taters and mash them up”)

If it’s muddy, I may call it water (dirty water). But at some point, I call it mud. So it would be a judgement call. But with mud, you can often squeeze water out of it.

So the water I boil potatoes in would be ok since it is called water, but if I am making potato soup then that is another story since I would call it broth or soup? What about if you strain the water from soup just as you would strain water from mud? I think I would call that water.

From the Summa

Article 4. Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for Baptism.

Objection 2. Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (3, ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ’s. Therefore it seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Objection 4. Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Objection 5. Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above (Article 3). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.

I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways: first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration. And each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.

Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by mixture or by alteration, the water’s nature is not changed. Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.

But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, however, there may be a natural change of the water, without destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.

We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism.

Does anyone mind explaining what exactly changes the species of water?

If I am reading this correctly if it behaves like water and has the nature of water then it is proper matter for baptism no matter how many impurities are mixed in. So soup would be proper matter as long as it wasn’t thick enough to lose the properties of water.

This is an important question, you never know when you might witness an accident and have nothing but soup to perform a baptism with.

 

[Evan]

So, I think I agree with St Thomas.

If it’s water, it’s water. If it’s not, it’s not. And, just like, time. I know what it is, but I can’t explain it.

I know what it’s not,

not blood
not wine
not saliva
not mud
not H20 (not just 1 molecule, but there must be enough to form water)
not water vapor
not steam
not ice

 

[malphono]

I believe the usual response by the Church is 'If a normal person would look at the material and call it water, that’s what we mean."

If you pour stuff of of veggies, I call it water (as in “poor the water off the taters and mash them up”)

If it’s muddy, I may call it water (dirty water). But at some point, I call it mud. So it would be a judgement call. But with mud, you can often squeeze water out of it.

Yes, I think that’s just about right.

The water potatoes are boiled in is still water. But when things are added to make a soup, it’s no longer. It has become soup. Normal mud is dirt mixed with water. When the dirt is extracted, one is left with water.

It seems to me that all of this is similar to the discussion of “what is considered bread” which comes up regularly around here.