Is my wife's baptism valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kepha15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And I was noting that one can not be baptized against ones will.

Such is an* invalid* baptism. One gets only wet.

Again a child at the age of reason can reject baptism.
The Church doesn’t teach that. Under normal circumstances you should not force baptism on people not because it invalidates the sacrament but because its out of respect to the other person’s free will. But choice cannot invalidate Baptism. The only Sacraments that depend on choice are those that includes vows, which is Holy Orders and Marriage. The reason being you cannot make a vow without consent, and no vow means no Sacrament. Not in the case of Baptism. If an atheist is a victim of a hit and run and is dying, you can go over and baptize the person whether he approves of it or not. Its no different than a baby who has no choice or awareness of the Sacrament, but receives the grace of it nonetheless.

There is nothing in the CCC that supports your claim.
 
The Church doesn’t teach that. Under normal circumstances you should not force baptism on people not because it invalidates the sacrament but because its out of respect to the other person’s free will. But choice cannot invalidate Baptism. The only Sacraments that depend on choice are those that includes vows, which is Holy Orders and Marriage. The reason being you cannot make a vow without consent, and no vow means no Sacrament. Not in the case of Baptism. If an atheist is a victim of a hit and run and is dying, you can go over and baptize the person whether he approves of it or not. Its no different than a baby who has no choice or awareness of the Sacrament, but receives the grace of it nonetheless.

There is nothing in the CCC that supports your claim.
This is all within the Teachings of the Church. It is Sacramental Theology.

What I noted is the case.

Baptism very much involves for adults (those of the age of reason) …choice. If one is opposed to receiving Baptism…no amount of water will confer the sacrament.

One only gets wet.

The Atheist if he would remain opposed to God and baptism…it will not be a valid baptism.

(If though he left the door open…then it could perhaps be…God would know at that point…for perhaps just as the car accident happened he reached out toward God…)
 
This is all within the Teachings of the Church. It is Sacramental Theology.

What I noted is the case.

Baptism very much involves for adults (those of the age of reason) …choice. If one is opposed to receiving Baptism…no amount of water will confer the sacrament.

One only gets wet.

It is impossible to confer the sacrament of baptism against a persons will.

The Atheist if he would remain opposed to God and baptism…it will not be a valid baptism.

(If though he left the door open…then it could perhaps be…God would know at that point…for perhaps just as the car accident happened he reached out toward God…)
Yes, for adults they should seek it out of their own free will. But again the lack of it does not invalidate the sacrament. You’re claim of “they’re getting wet and nothing more” has no basis in Church teaching. One cannot block the grace of God. If the minister has the proper intention, proper matter and proper form, you are baptized whether you liked it or not.

Also, consent cannot be given by a 7-year old. That is why the Church cannot marry someone who’s younger than 14, because they cannot validly give a vow.

I also misspoke about Holy Orders. There are no vows for Holy Orders. A child can be given Holy Orders validly (thought the Church won’t do that).
 
Yes, for adults they should seek it out of their own free will. But again the lack of it does not invalidate the sacrament. You’re claim of “they’re getting wet and nothing more” has no basis in Church teaching. One cannot block the grace of God. If the minister has the proper intention, proper matter and proper form, you are baptized whether you liked it or not.

Also, consent cannot be given by a 7-year old.
If the person is above the age of reason…they may put their will against it. God does not force them.

A will opposed to the sacrament of baptism would be an impediment to the sacrament of baptism taking place.

Yes…consent can be given by a 7-year old. And they are to give it…the parents can not just bring them to be baptized (even in the early centuries of the Church such was the case).
 
If the person is above the age of reason…they may put their will against it. God does not force them.

A will opposed to the sacrament of baptism would be an impediment to the sacrament of baptism taking place.

Yes…consent can be given by a 7-year old. And they are to give it…the parents can not just bring them to be baptized (even in the early centuries of the Church such was the case).
I don’t find it anywhere that there is an impediment to baptism because of the lack of consent. I checked the CCC. I’m going into Canon Law…
 
I don’t find it anywhere that there is an impediment to baptism because of the lack of consent. I checked the CCC. I’m going into Canon Law…
This is Sacramental Theology…

Your not going to find it necessarily in either of those sources.

And I noted this in particular in regards to a will OPPOSED to baptism.
 
Pope Innocent III noted in 1201 in a letter to the Archbishop of Arles that one who never consents or “is absolutely unwilling receives neither the reality nor the character of the sacrament” (of Baptism).

(Reference: “The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church” Edited by J Neuner S.J and J Dupuis SJ …a book recommended in Feb 11 CA live show)
 
Sorry something is not right here. The intention of Baptism comes from the minister of Baptism, not the one receiving it. Can you forcibly baptize someone and still have it as a valid baptism? Yes. I believe it was standard practice in Catholic hospitals to baptize babies who were found to be in danger of death regardless if the parents want it or not.
Hello ConstantineTG,

For an adult to be validly baptized, he must have at least a habitual intention. For an authoritative statement on this, see the following:

“the intention or desire to receive baptism is a necessary requirement: if it is lacking, the baptismal character is not conferred on the adult. This does not apply to faith and penance, which are required if the adult is to receive the sacrament and its inherent fruits licitly: the intention is necessary for the validity of the sacrament, so that an adult baptized without faith and penance is baptized illicitly but validly; on the other hand, a person baptized without the will to receive the sacrament is neither licitly nor validly baptized” (The instruction In foliis of the Supr. S. Cong. of the Holy Office, 03-08-1860).

You can also see the entry under “Intention” in the Catholic Encyclopedia and that will also mention the need for an intention on the part of some recipients of sacraments.

Finally, you can read this section of the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article7

Infants, and their inability to have an intention, is another matter.

Thanks for your time.

Dan
 
Pope Innocent III noted in 1201 in a letter to the Archbishop of Arles that one who never consents or “is absolutely unwilling receives neither the reality nor the character of the sacrament” (of Baptism).

(Reference: “The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church” Edited by J Neuner S.J and J Dupuis SJ …a book recommended in Feb 11 CA live show)
The old version of Denzinger is online, conveniently. Here is Denzinger 411 (check the numbers in Nuener, I suspect I picked the one that matches what you cite, but there are two sets of numbers, of course, so match with the right set)411 This is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he willed conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to the observance of Christian Faith. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.
I’m providing this so the questioner (not you) can verify for themselves via an online resource. I didn’t really provide it for you, Bookcat, but you’ll have to let us know if I got the right number. Hope that makes sense.
 
Okay, I see where I mixed up the terminology. Lack of consent doesn’t instantly mean objection. Its invalid if one objects to it, but not necessarily if there is lack of consent. Children for one thing lacks the capacity to consent. An atheist not only would not consent to it, they would absolutely object to it.
 
The old version of Denzinger is online, conveniently. Here is Denzinger 411 (check the numbers in Nuener, I suspect I picked the one that matches what you cite, but there are two sets of numbers, of course, so match with the right set)411 This is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he willed conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to the observance of Christian Faith. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.
I’m providing this so the questioner (not you) can verify for themselves via an online resource. I didn’t really provide it for you, Bookcat, but you’ll have to let us know if I got the right number. Hope that makes sense.
Yes that looks right.
 
Okay, I see where I mixed up the terminology. Lack of consent doesn’t instantly mean objection. Its invalid if one objects to it, but not necessarily if there is lack of consent. Children for one thing lacks the capacity to consent. An atheist not only would not consent to it, they would absolutely object to it.
But if they would not consent too…as it noted in your quote (they never consent) that too can be a problem.

For an adult …baptism is to be accepted and if the person would not consent to it a problem enters there…

Now there is a difference between I would say “One who would consent if asked” though they are unconscious due to some life threatening event…and someone who “would not consent if asked” are is likewise unconscious.

The baptism could be “conditional” and if it can be it will be…if not …then not…
 
I don’t think this point was in question in the OP. The girl did not in any way reject, she simply was badly catechized.
I was not here addressing the the original post.

Threads develop…

more than one thing comes up…different related questions (or sometimes alas not related!)

(I too have jumped in thinking a person was answering the main question but was not…such is easy to do…hee hee I know)

I addressed the OP’s question fully early on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top