Is this a valid baptism?

[PhilotheaZ]

I have just had my first pre-RCIA meeting with a woman who wants to become Catholic. She was raised in the United Church of Christ. When asking her about the manner of baptism, she told me that this is how it was done for her children, and she assumes the same for herself: the minister dipped his thumb in water and traced a cross on the forehead of the infant, saying the words of the Trinitarian formula (one cross for “in the name of the Father and of the Son,” a second cross for “and of the Holy Spirit”).

Is this a valid baptism? My concern is the means of application of the water: not immersion or pouring, but just tracing a cross. I thought that the water actually has to “flow.” Relevant citations from the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.

**1239 **The *essential rite *of the sacrament follows: *Baptism *properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.

1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

sound valid to me, the Church of Christ in not under catholic canons

 

[jpjd]

This is a matter for your priest to handle.

 

[FrDavid96]

This sounds like one of those cases of a doubtful baptism which should be referred to the bishop, through the pastor.

Just because that’s how her children were baptised (or not), doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how it was done for her. This raises a lot of questions.

 

[markxcool]

This is a matter for your priest to handle.

Oh! And it is also for us folks in the forums to handle, too! Thank you for posting it!

This sounds like one of those cases of a doubtful baptism which should be referred to the bishop, through the pastor…

And by all means, also pursue this with your pastor and bishop if need be.

Great post - thanks for quoting the Church Documents.

When it comes to sacraments or rituals, etc., there are many things that “could”, “should” or “must” be done.

For baptism to be valid this is what must be in play:

• Use of water touching the subject’s physical body (even saliva in extreme cases… but oil, blood, etc., DO NOT count)
• The contact with water must be an intentional action, subject can’t just be in water, water must be, for example, sprinkled or splashed
• The affirmation of the subject being baptized (e.g.: “I baptize you in the name of the F, S and HG” or “You are baptized in the name of the F., S. and HG”)
• the one who does the baptism has the intention to baptise the subject

This is what should be in play (Latin Rite):

• Minister of the Church presides over the event with due ceremonial
• Use of water flowing over the subject’s forehead, one pour or several (doesn’t matter)
• Words of the Minister as per the Church Documents affirming the baptism of subject

This is what *could *be in play (Latin Rite or other):

Whatever you like as long as it includes the about two musts and shoulds.

REMEMBER:

• Anyone can baptism another, even a pagan can baptize another pagan (i.e.: no priest needed)
• Only human beings can be baptised
• There are many types of baptism: Water, Blood and Desire
• Even if technically a baptism (unknowingly to the person) weren’t valid, but the person continued on to live a Christian life, they would be considered baptized by God (Desire)
• You can’t “undo” or “unbaptize” yourself or another person - its for all eternity

Bottom Line:

Their baptisms most likely are vaild, but go ahead and do another anyway! It will make for a phenomenal ceremony and life experience.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Use of water touching the subject’s physical body (even saliva in extreme cases… but oil, blood, etc., DO NOT count)

Do you have a source for this? I’ve always heard that baptism must be with water only.

Their baptisms most likely are vaild, but go ahead and do another anyway! It will make for a phenomenal ceremony and life experience.

Baptism isn’t about having a phenomenal ceremony or life experience. We don’t re-baptize people who are already validly baptized. If there is doubt about whether a baptism was valid, a conditional baptism is done.

 

[yablabo]

Do you have a source for this? I’ve always heard that baptism must be with water only.

Baptism isn’t about having a phenomenal ceremony or life experience. We don’t re-baptize people who are already validly baptized. If there is doubt about whether a baptism was valid, a conditional baptism is done.

You’re right…since it’s sacrilegious to repeat this sacrament when it’s been done validly already…as stated in the Council of Trent.

– Nicole

 

[PhilotheaZ]

This is a matter for your priest to handle.

Yes, I intend to bring it to my pastor. He is away for ten days (visiting his mother who is seriously ill, please pray for her), and I was just trying to get a quick preliminary read on the situation. I’ll ask him when he gets back.

Thanks for all your replies.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I know of a woman who was baptized in the UCC (Congregationalists, as they were called then) and converted to Orthodoxy by Chrismation.

Later it was discovered that while water was poured over her, the three persons of the Trinity were never invoked.

Because of this, I would suggest that in the case mentioned here, Baptism be administered at least conditionally to all concerned.

Actually, since in mainline Protestantism, baptism has been so sloppily administered (as we have seen on this thread), and there are others who alter the formula to avoid mentioning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or “Father who is Jesus and Son who is Jesus and Holy Spirit who is Jesus,” I feel that, it is best to remove all doubt and administer canonical baptism.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

IActually, since in mainline Protestantism, baptism has been so sloppily administered (as we have seen on this thread), and there are others who alter the formula to avoid mentioning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or “Father who is Jesus and Son who is Jesus and Holy Spirit who is Jesus,” I feel that, it is best to remove all doubt and administer **canonical **baptism.

Do you mean conditional baptism?

 

[markxcool]

Do you have a source for this? I’ve always heard that baptism must be with water only.

I stand corrected. Saliva is NOT valid. I looked up the issue and found I was mistaken. There is a thread in this forum that deals with this: Can saliva be used for an emergency Baptism? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=195628

I think the idea that I was going by may have its roots in the actions of Jesus in the NT using his spitle to cure, etc. (e.g.:tinyurl.com/lq4ndc)

Baptism isn’t about having a phenomenal ceremony or life experience. We don’t re-baptize people who are already validly baptized. If there is doubt about whether a baptism was valid, a conditional baptism is done.

Got you point, its not the primary goal, but it the cerimonial would definately have a good effect. And, also, yes, the baptism would be conditional.

You’re right…since it’s sacrilegious to repeat this sacrament when it’s been done validly already…as stated in the Council of Trent.
– Nicole

Gee wiz, “sacrilegious” sounds very drastic… this makes our faith and cannons sound like a mine field and if we make a mistake were ‘toast’. I get the idea though.

Nice thread.