Is my daughter's baptism valid?

[japhy]

:ehh:

You came here for a reason:

anyone concerned have been asked to contact the church about this matter. Before I do this, if I do, I thought it might be pertinent to discuss this online, as my thoughts are inconclusive about this. Any factual information or personal comments are welcome.

We have already explained the facts to you. You do not baptize a person in orange juice or soda or milk. You baptize a person in water. You do not baptize a person however you feel like it, using whatever names for God’s Three Persons you feel like – names which avoid using words like “Father” and “Son”, because they’re masculine, and names which avoid using the names the Trinity has had FOR ALL ETERNITY. You use the words “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit”.

Baptism isn’t yours, it’s God’s, and God has given it to His Church to faithfully administer. I am sorry that you encountered a priest who fails to administer the sacraments of God’s Church faithfully and validly.

Your daughter deserves a valid baptism.

 

[kage_ar]

Most kids are not made from spun sugar - they are smart and can handle tough things. Honesty is the best course in your situation.

As a mom, it is soooooo easy to get emotional and to want to protect your little girl, that is a good thing. My advice, make an appointment with your Pastor when he returns. Have HIM explain the Sacrament of Baptism to your daughter, and then get this baptism done ASAP.

Think about it, your daughter is going to get a clean slate, have all of her sins washed away in Baptism. What a wonderful thing! Make it a good thing, get her a new dress and pretty rosary or Bible, have a nice family dinner to celebrate. How you approach this will have a strong impace on her reaction.

 

[Walking_Home]

This quote actually bolsters the the urgency the others here have for you to get this done ASAP.

If you read the text is says suffer the little ones to come unto me,

DO NOT HINDER THEM…for theirs is the kingdom of heave.

the above passage is used often to underscore the urgency of infant baptism.

---

Ditto.

 

[lillydew]

I’m sorry you feel this way that you have to run out in such a defensive manner. I didn’t want to argue the point, only to discuss it so that I could be better informed when others come at me in the opposite direction (eg. family). I thought that this was in the nature of forums, ie. to be able to air your questions, thoughts and feelings so that a further clarity of how the church teaches is readily available. God knows how difficult it is in some places to get this clarity. However, it seems that this kind of discussion is not wanted here, so I will bow out now rather than possibly offending anyone else. However, it still has left me wondering what on earth would have happened to my stillborn baby seeming she was never baptised but had a beautiful church ceremony to bid her farewell.

This has been my first and last attempt at forum posting - I’ll go back to reading.

Till heaven unless sooner,
Lillydew:bowdown2:

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

God sees intentions, yes, which is why there can be “baptism of desire” in situations where a person cannot be physically baptized.

However, the Church can only go by the sacraments as God has laid them down. A sacrament requires valid matter, form, and intention. In this case the matter and intention were correct, but the form was not.

Your daughter may very well be baptized in God’s eyes. God is not bound by His sacraments and can do anything He wants. However, the Church is not omniscient, and thus requires a record that a valid baptism was performed.

Of course, your daughter is not at fault, and neither are you. The blame lies squarely with the priests who chose to muck about with the sacrament. However, since the Church’s highest authority on such matters has ruled that their mucking about renders their baptisms not only illicit but invalid, your daughter will have to have a valid baptism performed and recorded in order to continue in the life of the Church.

Remember, God also treasures obedience to those whom He has placed in authority, in all matters that are not sinful. Even if you are morally certain that He has already granted your daughter the graces of Baptism, He will not be offended and indeed will be further pleased if your family goes along with the Church’s judgment.

As another poster suggested, it’s possible a conditional baptism would suffice, thus leaving up in the air the question of whether your daughter was originally baptized “in God’s eyes” but still satisfying the Church’s requirements. That might soothe your husband’s concerns.

I’m not entirely sure what “in forma absoluta” in the Vatican’s response means, though. It’s possible that it would close off the avenue of conditional baptism. Still, you should inquire.

Usagi

It would mean I believe be Baptized using the Absolute (correct) Form (words).

 

[japhy]

It would mean I believe be Baptized using the Absolute (correct) Form (words).

“Absolute form” is in contradistinction to the “conditional form”.

Absolute form is “I baptize you…”, while the conditional form is “If you are not yet baptized (or similar words), I baptize you…”

 

[Usagi]

“Absolute form” is in contradistinction to the “conditional form”.

Absolute form is “I baptize you…”, while the conditional form is “If you are not yet baptized (or similar words), I baptize you…”

That’s what I was thinking when I said the Vatican’s response might not allow for conditional baptism as an option.

Usagi

 

[Cristiano]

That’s what I was thinking when I said the Vatican’s response might not allow for conditional baptism as an option.

Usagi

Well if a person went through the so-called celebration of Baptism with use of invalid words and you know it, then you cannot use a conditional form. You can use the conditional form only when unsure that there was a Baptism, if you are sure that the invalid wording was used than you have to use the absolute formula.

It is a can of worms and I think that the mother should go to a priest ASAP to discuss the matter and not to follow the idea the intent is the only thing needed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That’s what I was thinking when I said the Vatican’s response might not allow for conditional baptism as an option.

Usagi

Which applies would be determined in each individual case. If questionable then Conditional, if invalid then Absolute.

 

[lillydew]

Sorry to those concerned with this discussion,
I have had to post here again because I did go and speak with the priest about this question when he arrived here this morning and now I am more confused than ever. He told me that if all of the parties concerned had the right intentions at the time, then God would also see that and it would be fine. Do I listen to what you people have to say, or do I listen to my husband and this priest?
Just wondering???

 

[japhy]

He told me that if all of the parties concerned had the right intentions at the time, then God would also see that and it would be fine. Do I listen to what you people have to say, or do I listen to my husband and this priest?

Regardless of what we say, the Church has said that if the wrong form (the wrong words) were used, the people were not actually baptized and need to receive the sacrament again, for the first time. This isn’t my opinion, this is what the Church officially said on the matter.
First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer» is valid?

To the first question: Negative.

**Second question: **Whether the persons baptized with those formulas have to be baptized in forma absoluta?

To the second question: Affirmative.
Put simply, a baptism with the wrong names for the Persons of the Trinity is not valid, and a person “baptized” invalidly does need to be baptized in forma absoluta, that is, “in the absolute form”, which means they need to go through the sacrament as if they have never been baptized (because, in fact, they haven’t been baptized).

So to answer your question, I would not listen to this priest’s advice in this case, and request baptism for your daughter… or better yet, have your daughter request baptism herself.

It’s cases like these where a priest’s advice can cause you to question the Church’s authority, since this priest (perhaps ignorantly) is directly opposing the decision of the Church.

 

[starchyp]

For the sake of your daughter, please get her baptized. If you truly care for her, you must do do IMMEDIATELY. If the Church declares baptisms invalid because of euphemisms, then it is invalid. I is the fault of the priest for playing around and not following the words clearly laid out. Just go to a good priest and get her conditionally baptized. Surely it won’t hurt to do so, as it is always better to be safe than sorry.

 

[THurifer2]

I suggest you find a priest who is very very orthodox in his practices and ask him.

What you priest said does not line up with what the vicar of CHrist said.

Does this priest think he is more Catholic than the Pope?

Cause the pope said such a baptism is invalid.

 

[japhy]

Just go to a good priest and get her conditionally baptized. Surely it won’t hurt to do so, as it is always better to be safe than sorry.

The Church instructs that the baptism is to be given in the absolute form, not the conditional form.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Sorry to those concerned with this discussion,
I have had to post here again because I did go and speak with the priest about this question when he arrived here this morning and now I am more confused than ever. He told me that if all of the parties concerned had the right intentions at the time, then God would also see that and it would be fine. Do I listen to what you people have to say, or do I listen to my husband and this priest?
Just wondering???

I think you should get the Bishop’s opinion in writing. I believe you indicated that it was the diocese that questioned the validity in the first place. You might include the Vatican document referenced above in a post.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry to those concerned with this discussion,
I have had to post here again because I did go and speak with the priest about this question when he arrived here this morning and now I am more confused than ever. He told me that if all of the parties concerned had the right intentions at the time, then God would also see that and it would be fine. Do I listen to what you people have to say, or do I listen to my husband and this priest?
Just wondering???

Listen to the Church itself. Look in the Catechism under “Baptism” in the section on the Sacraments.

I don’t know what the big deal is, quite honestly. If I had found out that someone I loved had not been baptized properly, it would not be a matter of blaming anybody, or feeling guilty about anything; it would be a matter of tracking down a good priest, getting a date, and having it done properly.

Mistakes happen. What we do when mistakes happen is, we admit that they happened, and then we fix them.

 

[lillydew]

I think you should get the Bishop’s opinion in writing. I believe you indicated that it was the diocese that questioned the validity in the first place. You might include the Vatican document referenced above in a post.

The reason for the delay has been that we’ve been waiting for the local bishop to make his reply on this matter. He has been in consultation with the parish over a number of issues and have just been waiting for the response on this particular issue. And because of this delay, that’s why I’m asking these questions. I feel the unsurety coming from them with the delay and that’ why I’ve hesitated.

 

[lillydew]

Also, can anyone confirm this for me.

 After reading the thread on whether the Eucharist is a valid sacrament (in the Liturgy and Sacraments category) it would appear that if the priest performing the sacrament did not have the right intention, as long as he used the 'formula', it (maybe?) still considered valid, that is, it is illicit, but valid (as opposed to being invalid).

 In the scenario with my daughter, the intention was there, but the formula was incorrect, and so therefore the differing opinions seem to rest on whether it was just an illicit act with right intention, or an invalid act, still with the right intention.  Phew!!!! :yup: :nope::shrug:   Have I got this right? 
  No wonder the Bishop is holding back for the while on this one!:gopray2:

 

[starchyp]

lilydew:
For each sacrament proper form, proper matter, and proper intent must be present in order to be valid. For baptism, the proper intent is clearly there, as your daughter has the desire to be baptized and the priest shows intent as he carries out the sacrament. Proper matter is obviously matter, whether it is by pouring or immersion. The conflict here is proper form. The proper form as declared by the Vatican is “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit/Ghost.” Any other euphemism, substitution, or combination of words would make the baptism lack proper form, ergo, it would be invalid. One could be baptized in any language but it must have the basic “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” formula. An example of a sacrament having right matter and right intent would be for example, Holy Orders. If the man truly wishes to be ordained, and the bishop truly desires to ordain him, and chrism is being used with laying of hands, but the bishop just says “I ordain you a priest” instead of “Almighty Father,grant to these servants of Yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew within them the Spirit of holiness. As co-workers with the order of bishops may they be faithful to the ministry that they receive from You, Lord God, and be to others a model of right conduct,” then the sacrament is invalid. I just cannot believe that priests would play around with something as serious as the sacramental formula. I hope everything goes well.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Also, can anyone confirm this for me.

After reading the thread on whether the Eucharist is a valid sacrament (in the Liturgy and Sacraments category) it would appear that if the priest performing the sacrament did not have the right intention, as long as he used the ‘formula’, it (maybe?) still considered valid, that is, it is illicit, but valid (as opposed to being invalid).

In the scenario with my daughter, the intention was there, but the formula was incorrect, and so therefore the differing opinions seem to rest on whether it was just an illicit act with right intention, or an invalid act, still with the right intention. Phew!!! :yup: :nope: Have I got this right?
No wonder the Bishop is holding back for the while on this one!

The Bishop may be “holding back” because of the seriousness of the matter and may be consulting with Rome himself. Intent is usually presumed because it is internal, unless it was expressed externally otherwise. Form and Matter can be judged externally.