Question about validity of Baptism and Confirmation

[Dannel11]

In my diocese, the Methodist denomination is on the list of Protestant denominations which confer valid baptisms. Recently, I was present at the baptism of my nephew at a Methodist church. The sacrament was conferred using the proper Trinitarian formula, but instead of pouring, sprinkling, or immersing him in water, the minister simply dipped his hand in the baptismal and laid his wet hand on the head of the child while reciting the formula.

So my question is, is this a valid baptism in the eyes of the Church?

If it is not, then what happens if later on he goes through RCIA and receives confirmation on the assumption that this baptism was valid since it was conferred by an approved denomination?

 

[peter26]

If its on the list, it will be assumed to be a valid baptism. The three conditions are flowing water, the Trinity formula and intention to baptise as the church sees the sacrament. If there was any doubt about the validity of the baptism, he would receive a conditional baptism.

 

[Dannel11]

The three conditions are flowing water, the Trinity formula and intention to baptise as the church sees the sacrament.

Correct. But I don’t see the Church addressing the wet hand baptisms which I have come to find out are extremely common in the Methodist community. In fact, when I see protestant baptism being discussed by canon lawyers, it seems the most import thing is the intention and the formula. As long as water is involved somehow they seem to say it is valid, which goes against the flowing water part.

If there was any doubt about the validity of the baptism, he would receive a conditional baptism.

But we know that doesn’t happen. As you said, if its on the list it the baptism is presumed valid.

So what about all these people with presumed valid baptisms getting confirmations? Is this a case where ecclesia suplet applies?

 

[peter26]

Apparently, ecclesia suplet does not apply to make a sacrament valid in cases where a required physical element of the sacrament is not present (based on a priest’s view on another site). There may be a danger here.

 

[FrDavid96]

Correct. But I don’t see the Church addressing the wet hand baptisms which I have come to find out are extremely common in the Methodist community. In fact, when I see protestant baptism being discussed by canon lawyers, it seems the most import thing is the intention and the formula. As long as water is involved somehow they seem to say it is valid, which goes against the flowing water part.

But we know that doesn’t happen. As you said, if its on the list it the baptism is presumed valid.

So what about all these people with presumed valid baptisms getting confirmations? Is this a case where ecclesia suplet applies?

The water does have to flow, however for it not to flow there would have to be such a small amount that it’s almost something that would have to be done on purpose. Put a few drops of water on your hand and see if the droplets move. You’ll see what I mean.

It’s not that the issue isn’t important, it’s simply that the likelihood that the water won’t flow is nearly impossible.

As far as having lists of communities who perform valid baptisms, those are just generalizations. In individual circumstances, if we have reason to doubt we certainly do investigate further.

If we know that there’s some non-Catholic minister out there baptizing with a non-Trinitarian formula, it’s not a valid baptism no matter if the community as a whole is on a list or not. It’s about the specific circumstances of any given situation.

 

[Dannel11]

The water does have to flow, however for it not to flow there would have to be such a small amount that it’s almost something that would have to be done on purpose. Put a few drops of water on your hand and see if the droplets move. You’ll see what I mean.

So you are saying that the transfer of water from the ministers hand to the head of the other person by laying their wet hand on them is enough to constitute flow?

 

[FrDavid96]

So you are saying that the transfer of water from the ministers hand to the head of the other person by laying their wet hand on them is enough to constitute flow?

What I am saying is this:

The water does have to flow, however for it not to flow there would have to be such a small amount that it’s almost something that would have to be done on purpose. Put a few drops of water on your hand and see if the droplets move. You’ll see what I mean.

 

[Dannel11]

What I am saying is this:

So you are saying that since baptism was not purposely withheld then it somehow most likely valid in a way you cannot precisely articulate?

I’m not trying to be snarky, but this is the issue I keep running into. You seem to be saying it is valid, however the Catholic Church does not promote the “wet hand” baptism as a valid form of the rite.

In every case I hear statements like “if we suspect the baptism is invalid we investigate”. However, no one can articulate what exactly are the criteria by which they investigate. Even for yourself, when given a specific situation by which to measure your own understanding, you are not willing to concretely say one way or another. I keep getting information which points to validity without exact criteria to actually make the call.

In addition, this baptism will be presumed to be valid unless someone suspects it is not. Who would ever suspect it is not unless someone who was a witness at that baptism with knowledge of the Catholic understanding of proper matter, form, and intention says something? What happens if the baptism was not valid and confirmation was conferred? Would they be baptized by desire which validates the confirmation?

 

[Gorgias]

So you are saying that since baptism was not purposely withheld then it somehow most likely valid in a way you cannot precisely articulate?

Think of it this way: picture triple immersion in a standing trough. Is there ‘flow’? Yet, it’s clearly a valid baptism.

You seem to be saying it is valid, however the Catholic Church does not promote the “wet hand” baptism as a valid form of the rite.

That would not be a licit way for a Catholic priest or deacon to administer the sacrament; however, that doesn’t imply invalidity, per se.

In every case I hear statements like “if we suspect the baptism is invalid we investigate”. However, no one can articulate what exactly are the criteria by which they investigate. Even for yourself, when given a specific situation by which to measure your own understanding, you are not willing to concretely say one way or another. I keep getting information which points to validity without exact criteria to actually make the call.

Is it your call to make?

 

[FrDavid96]

So you are saying that since baptism was not purposely withheld then it somehow most likely valid in a way you cannot precisely articulate?
…

What I am saying is that I don’t appreciate when people respond to my posts by writing:

“So you are saying…” and then insert some outlandish conclusion completely and totally different from what I actually wrote.

If you take the time to read what I did write, you will see that I can indeed articulate the “how” very clearly and that’s exactly what I did. But you’re so quick to jump to conclusions and write back “so you are saying…” that you apparently aren’t even reading what I wrote.

I’m happy to engage in dialogue and conversation. I only ask that you actually read what I wrote and draw your conclusions from what I posted rather than jump to conclusions that do not reflect what I posted.

If you want to ask a question about what I posted, by all means ask it. If you want me to expand on what I posted to be more specific or to explain some point, by all means say so. But please do not tell me that I am saying or writing something other than what I am actually writing.

If you can do that, I’ll be back…

 

[Dannel11]

Think of it this way: picture triple immersion in a standing trough. Is there ‘flow’? Yet, it’s clearly a valid baptism.

In this case, water is moving relative to the person being baptized; therefore there is at least one sense of flow although the baptism itself is not being performed in “living water”.

Is it your call to make?

It is for me to investigate. As the only person present at that ceremony with any knowledge of what a valid baptism looks like, as someone who is concerned about the salvation of his family, by virtue of what we are called to do by our baptism and confirmation into the Church, I think pointing out a potentially invalid sacrament is my duty, don’t you think?

We are our brothers keeper. We are to help our brothers and sisters achieve salvation. If I am to ever say something about this baptism, I need all the facts to back up what I suspect to be true so the correct action can be taken.

 

[Dannel11]

What I am saying is that I don’t appreciate when people respond to my posts by writing:

“So you are saying…” and then insert some outlandish conclusion completely and totally different from what I actually wrote.

You are assuming I am being argumentative and coming up with outlandish examples and I am not reading what you wrote. I can assure you that I am trying to have a very serious conversation and I am not trying to catch you in some trap.

I also want to say that I appreciate the time you are taking to provide a response. Any frustration that comes through in my response is simply frustration at the vagueness I am finding at every turn when it comes to evaluating this situation. I thought that something as straight forward as baptism would be more cut and dry.

I most certainly read what you wrote because I am trying to apply the principle you set forth in a specific case. This is a very common technique for understanding. Someone puts forth a principle and then the principle is tested against the case at hand. Please don’t be offended by that.

This is what actually happened. This is not a hypothetical example. There was no water dripping from the ministers hand. He dipped his hand into the font, when removing his hand he actually gave it a quick shake to ensure he didn’t drip water on the floor as he walked over to the child who was a few feet away from the font. He placed his wet hand on the child’s head. The only flow I can think of in that situation is the transfer of water from a wet hand to the hair of the child.

From what you wrote, I would interpret that you would call that valid because if the child’s hair was wet at all, some water droplets had to flow at least some “small amount” as you put it. Again, I was getting specific to ensure I interpreted your explanation correctly, not trying to rattle you.

To make things clearer, I will reword my followup question to the following:

If I correctly understand what you have said, the small amount of transfer of small water droplets from the ministers hand to the head of the other person by laying their wet hand on them is enough to constitute flow. Is this correct?

 

[FrDavid96]

You are assuming I am being argumentative and coming up with outlandish examples and I am not reading what you wrote. I can assure you that I am trying to have a very serious conversation and I am not trying to catch you in some trap.

I also want to say that I appreciate the time you are taking to provide a response. Any frustration that comes through in my response is simply frustration at the vagueness I am finding at every turn when it comes to evaluating this situation. I thought that something as straight forward as baptism would be more cut and dry.

I most certainly read what you wrote because I am trying to apply the principle you set forth in a specific case. This is a very common technique for understanding. Someone puts forth a principle and then the principle is tested against the case at hand. Please don’t be offended by that.

This is what actually happened. This is not a hypothetical example. There was no water dripping from the ministers hand. He dipped his hand into the font, when removing his hand he actually gave it a quick shake to ensure he didn’t drip water on the floor as he walked over to the child who was a few feet away from the font. He placed his wet hand on the child’s head. The only flow I can think of in that situation is the transfer of water from a wet hand to the hair of the child.

From what you wrote, I would interpret that you would call that valid because if the child’s hair was wet at all, some water droplets had to flow at least some “small amount” as you put it. Again, I was getting specific to ensure I interpreted your explanation correctly, not trying to rattle you.

To make things clearer, I will reword my followup question to the following:

If I correctly understand what you have said, the small amount of transfer of small water droplets from the ministers hand to the head of the other person by laying their wet hand on them is enough to constitute flow. Is this correct?

What I am saying is that the water must flow.

What I am not saying is whether or not the water actually did flow in the particular event that you have described.

I was not there. I did not see it. Therefore all I can say is to re-phrase what I’ve already posted: if the water flowed, then it was a valid method; whereas if the water did not flow, then it was not a valid method.

What does it mean that the water flows? It means that there is sufficient water (at a bare minimum) that the drops of water will move down the person’s head/forehead. That is the bare minimum to know that enough water was applied to be valid.

Sprinkling is a valid form of baptism, although this is the least preferred method and should be avoided except for emergencies. If one is sprinkling at a baptism, how does one know that he has used a sufficient amount of water? By asking the same question, does the water flow? If it’s enough water that it moves (even just a little) once it’s applied then the bare minimum has been met. On the other hand, if someone has a device like a water mister (the type used to mist houseplants) it might put some water on the person, but not enough that it’s at least drops of water that move. It’s the same with any other device one might imagine (a damp towel or a medical syringe with pure water, or whatever else).

In order to be a valid baptism, the water must move over the person. If it moves, even just a little bit, then it’s a valid form. If there is not enough water that it moves, then it’s not a valid form.

 

[Dannel11]

What does it mean that the water flows? It means that there is sufficient water (at a bare minimum) that the drops of water will move down the person’s head/forehead. That is the bare minimum to know that enough water was applied to be valid.

This is extremely helpful. Thank you.

In the case of the baptism I witnessed, given that fact that there was no need to wipe water away from the child either with towel or by hand, I would conclude that not a single drop of water was formed nor any trickle of water. His hair was merely moistened.

As for my nephew, I know that he will need a conditional baptism if he was ever to convert. However, this brings up another concern because we have dozens of people every year at our parish who are going through RCIA and the parish just assumes their baptisms are valid.

I wonder how many people are getting confirmed who have never had a valid baptism and how that affects their confirmations. I guess this is a topic of another post at some later time.

Thanks again.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is extremely helpful. Thank you.

In the case of the baptism I witnessed, given that fact that there was no need to wipe water away from the child either with towel or by hand, I would conclude that not a single drop of water was formed nor any trickle of water. His hair was merely moistened.

As for my nephew, I know that he will need a conditional baptism if he was ever to convert. However, this brings up another concern because we have dozens of people every year at our parish who are going through RCIA and the parish just assumes their baptisms are valid.

I wonder how many people are getting confirmed who have never had a valid baptism and how that affects their confirmations. I guess this is a topic of another post at some later time.

Thanks again.

The criteria is not a “need to wipe water away from the child either with towel or by hand.”

Again, the criteria is whether or not there is a bare minimum of water that it moves even just a little.

What I am saying is that the water must flow.
… if the water flowed, then it was a valid method; whereas if the water did not flow, then it was not a valid method.

What does it mean that the water flows? It means that there is sufficient water (at a bare minimum) that the drops of water will move down the person’s head/forehead. That is the bare minimum to know that enough water was applied to be valid.

… By asking the same question, does the water flow? If it’s enough water that it moves (even just a little) once it’s applied then the bare minimum has been met. … it’s at least drops of water that move. …

In order to be a valid baptism, the water must move over the person. If it moves, even just a little bit, then it’s a valid form. If there is not enough water that it moves, then it’s not a valid form.

 

[Dannel11]

The criteria is not a “need to wipe water away from the child either with towel or by hand.”

Again, the criteria is whether or not there is a bare minimum of water that it moves even just a little.

I’m just looking at side effects of that.

For most people, if a drop of water rolls down their face, they would wipe it away. Given that I saw no drop of water, no wiping was needed, and neither his face nor clothing was wet, it is pretty easy to conclude there was no flow of water other than the transfer of water from the ministers hand to the child’s hair.

Given that you thought my followup question regarding the hand on the hair as valid was an “outlandish conclusion”, I think it is safe to say that there was no flow of water unless there was a drop of water that fell from the minsters hand to the child’s head in a way that was not visible from my perspective (not very likely as I was standing about six feet away, but possible).

Thus, my conclusion is that he would require a conditional baptism if he were ever to convert.

Do you think my conclusion is in error?

 

[otjm]

I’m just looking at side effects of that.

For most people, if a drop of water rolls down their face, they would wipe it away. Given that I saw no drop of water, no wiping was needed, and neither his face nor clothing was wet, it is pretty easy to conclude there was no flow of water other than the transfer of water from the ministers hand to the child’s hair.

Given that you thought my followup question regarding the hand on the hair as valid was an “outlandish conclusion”, I think it is safe to say that there was no flow of water unless there was a drop of water that fell from the minsters hand to the child’s head in a way that was not visible from my perspective (not very likely as I was standing about six feet away, but possible).

Thus, my conclusion is that he would require a conditional baptism if he were ever to convert.

Do you think my conclusion is in error?

You are overthinking it. I get what Father is saying.

Flow does not require slopping wet. If I dip my hand into water, and put it – the wet hand - on anything, I can pretty much guarantee the water will flow on what I touch. Not flow like needing to be sopped up, but my hand is more than just damp. If I lifted my hand straight up, water would move on my hand; and as my hand touched a forehead, the water would flow - not run down the face; flow. Palm down, on the forehead, the water will flow.

We do not bind God with the sacraments; God binds us.

 

[Dannel11]

Flow does not require slopping wet.

Did you read what I wrote? I said it would be valid if a single drop of water landed upon the child. That is not sopping wet. That is one tiny drop!

I saw no drop. The child was not over the font. He was several feet away from the font. The minister purposely shook drops of water from his hand prior to touching the child’s head so no drops would even be present.

If I dip my hand into water, and put it – the wet hand - on anything, I can pretty much guarantee the water will flow on what I touch. Not flow like needing to be sopped up, but my hand is more than just damp.

The amount of flow you just described was specifically said by FrDavid96 to not be flow. He said to consider merely touching the child’s hair with a wet hand as flow was an outlandish conclusion.

We do not bind God with the sacraments; God binds us.

Of course, but you must realize that Christ gave us the sacraments to do in a specific way until he returns. This means we cannot make things up as we go along. The Bible has cases where people who were baptized had not yet had the Holy Spirit come to them. The reason for this is because their first baptism was not valid and this had to be corrected.

This is the reason for the specific form, matter, and intention of all the sacraments. It is not enough for one to use improper form, matter, and/or intention and assume everything worked out. This is why the Church doesn’t accept the baptisms of all protestant denominations and will “rebaptize” them properly if given the chance. If we don’t consider Mormon, JW, or Pentecostal baptisms valid, then how am I overthinking this lack of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion as not valid?

In this case we are talking about the most important of all the sacraments. Baptism is necessary for justification. If baptism was not conferred, then neither was the infused disposition which accompanies the sanctifying grace given at baptism. This is a serious impediment for one that hopes for the salvation of a member of their family, don’t you think?

In other words, if you had a son and a priest deviated from the baptism rite in this way, would you feel comfortable with the baptism knowing what was supposed to happen? I know I would not and I would ask that water be actually poured over the child to ensure the baptism is valid.