Question about the validity of a Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Searching1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Searching1

Guest
If a mother, who is a Confirmed Roman Catholic layperson, personally uses ordinary water (not Holy Water) to perform a baptism on their newborn infant, and does so by putting the water on their own thumb and then, using that thumb, makes the sign of the cross on the infant’s forehead while reciting the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” – in this situation, does a valid, sacramental Baptism take place?
 
Last edited:
It is valid but it is illicit.

This question was the very reason I myself joined CAF several years ago, when my mother-in-law secretly baptized her granddaughter because the baby’s father is Jewish and her daughter converted to Judaism from Catholicism (after completely rejecting the Church and all religion for a number of years).

There’s no way the parents would ever have baptized the baby, and there’s no way any of us who strongly suspect my MIL did it will ever tell them that it happened. 99.9% sure it happened.
 
hope said:
I was told the water has to flow so I to doubt it as valid.
Click to expand...
It does (which incidentally is why baptism by sprinkling was dropped from the Rite a number of years back) so the answer to the OP’s question is probably not. In many cases where a baptism is done in irregular (that is, outside of the limits of Church law) situations, a priest may decide to conditionally baptise the person to be on the safe side before conferring any further sacraments, especially if there’s nothing written down to confirm what was done and how.
 
on_the_hill said:
But the mother said the words.
Click to expand...
It may not be sufficient. A priest would have to be consulted. Baptism by immersion, pouring, and sprinkling are valid (pouring and immersion are valid and licit) but it’s not clear that what the mother did as explained by the OP could even be classified as sprinkling.

In any such case, the person who baptizes a baby must report it to the pastor. In this case, the details are important and the priest may desire to conditionally baptize before completing the baptism rite.
 
1ke said:
Sprinkling is no longer licit, but would still be valid.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s right. IIRC it was the risk of invalidity (where the sprinkled water touched but didn’t flow or just didn’t touch at all) which led it it being removed as a licit method.
 
In the case of emergency lay people can baptise and then report it to the parish. In other cases the pastor of the parish may find that he will have to perform a conditional baptism. Baptising someone and raising them in the faith go together. If there are doubts that the person baptised will not be raised in the faith it is better to wait.
 
From what you describe I’d say yes. And it may be licit as well if done in an emergency. As far as flow, I’m sure some water flowed from the fingers to the child’s head. If there is a question in your mind speak to a priest. We are just academically exploring here.
Ps. The person baptizing need not be catholic or even Christian. Just intending what the Church intends. Baptism is so important and necessary that it’s the only sacrament anyone can preform.
 
If this mother is a Catholic, as you state, she needs to report this to her pastor as soon as possible. He can advise on validity, and record the baptism.
 
Hello! This is the OP.

To give everyone some context, two months after being born in 1986, I became extremely ill. My parents rushed me to the doctor where I was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis and prepped for surgery.

Before surgery, my Catholic mother baptized me in the exact way I described in the original post. She feared if I didn’t survive the surgery that I would go to purgatory seeing as how I was not baptized yet. I was baptized officially in an RC church later on but I wanted to post the question because I’ve been telling people my whole life I was baptized twice.

This was an emergency baptism. Considering this, was the baptism (1) valid, (2) sacramental, and (3) licit, despite the water not flowing? (Reminder: the water was not Holy Water.)
 
Searching1 said:
This was an emergency baptism. Considering this, was the baptism (1) valid, (2) sacramental, and (3) licit, despite the water not flowing? (Reminder: the water was not Holy Water.)
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if the water wasn’t Holy Water. If it was an emergency, then it’s probably licit, but since there was no flowing water, it was probably invalid. You really ought to discuss this with a priest though.
 
The idea of flowing interests me. If I have wet fingers and I trace the cross as I baptize, water flows. If the baby’s head is wet or has a drip, water flowed.
 
Searching1 said:
I was baptized officially in an RC church later on but I wanted to post the question because I’ve been telling people my whole life I was baptized twice.
Click to expand...
A person can only be baptized once. Any other attempts are just symbolic actions that have no affect.

So you were either baptized by you mother, or you were baptized later in church. Only one of those baptisms was valid. The other was either an attempt (your mom) or symbolic (at church).
 
OP confirms this here:
40.png
Question about the validity of a Baptism Liturgy and Sacraments
Hello! This is the OP. To give everyone some context, two months after being born in 1986, I became extremely ill. My parents rushed me to the doctor where I was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis and prepped for surgery. Before surgery, my Catholic mother baptized me in the exact way I described in the original post. She feared if I didn’t survive the surgery that I would go to purgatory seeing as how I was not baptized yet. I was baptized officially in an RC church later on but I wanted to p…
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top