Quirky moment during a baptism

[Gertabelle]

This morning at mass a beautiful infant was baptized – God bless her!

As Father was saying the words of the baptism, he accidentally inserted a comment to someone. So it went like this:

“Baby Girl], I baptize you in the name of the Father, comment inserted here to someone near the baptismal font], and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

They dried off the little one’s head, and the congregation applauded to welcome her. Then Father said something like, “I accidentally added something to the words of baptism. So just in case, I’m going to do it again.”

And then he poured the water and said the words again without interruption. This priest is amazing – pastoral and holy and humble. Not sure what distracted him (I was close, but my view was partially blocked), and not surprised he took the step to make sure the baptism was valid.

My question: Was this necessary?

 

[coachdennis]

At the risk of sounding cynical…

whether or not it was necessary, I cannot say. But I can assure you, from my years of working in parishes, someone will be either calling the church office tomorrow complaining he did something wrong or has a first draft of a letter all ready written for the local bishop.

If I was the priest I would do it over just as a case of CYA. There is nothing more discouraging than answering the phone on Monday morning in a church office. Every amateur liturgical expert, theologian, scrupulosity sufferer, and just plain busybody comes out of the woodworks!

Again sorry about the negativity, but reality is not pretty. And we wonder why our priests get burned out…**

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This morning at mass a beautiful infant was baptized – God bless her!

As Father was saying the words of the baptism, he accidentally inserted a comment to someone. So it went like this:

“Baby Girl], I baptize you in the name of the Father, comment inserted here to someone near the baptismal font], and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

They dried off the little one’s head, and the congregation applauded to welcome her. Then Father said something like, “I accidentally added something to the words of baptism. So just in case, I’m going to do it again.”

And then he poured the water and said the words again without interruption. This priest is amazing – pastoral and holy and humble. Not sure what distracted him (I was close, but my view was partially blocked), and not surprised he took the step to make sure the baptism was valid.

My question: Was this necessary?

If he inserted a comment into the essential words of the sacramental form itself, then yes he was correct to reapply the matter while saying the proper form in its integrity.

Infant baptism at a font can be a challenge, depending upon the font’s construction. One is dealing with an infant who often reacts (suddenly!) to the water it experiences by moving. The movement can cause the parent to unconsciously shift the child from being positioned directly over the receptacle meant to receive the water that is being poured. This can result in blessed baptismal water going on the parent and on the floor…and perhaps this was what was happening, from experience.

 

[GLam8833]

In the mechanics of the baptism, it was probably
NOT necessary, but for the sake of the parent(s)
and onlookers it will be appropriate!!

 

[Gorgias]

In the mechanics of the baptism, it was probably
NOT necessary, but for the sake of the parent(s)
and onlookers it will be appropriate!!

Actually, it’s exactly the opposite: for the sake of the parents and onlookers, it was probably NOT necessary, but for the sake of the validity of the sacrament, it was quite appropriate!

 

[Gertabelle]

Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut on this!

 

[dans0622]

Should he have “done it again”? I suppose it would depend on what the interjection was, exactly. The priest certainly took the safer course. In my non-Sacramental theologian opinion, I suppose a conditional baptism would have been most appropriate.

St. Thomas says:

If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted. newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8

Dan

 

[Gertabelle]

Should he have “done it again”? I suppose it would depend on what the interjection was, exactly. The priest certainly took the safer course. In my non-Sacramental theologian opinion, I suppose a conditional baptism would have been most appropriate.

St. Thomas says:

Dan

Thank you very much for that! I love St Thomas, and the New Advent website! (God bless Mr Knight and his family!) This information was extremely useful in helping me to learn more about this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This morning at mass a beautiful infant was baptized – God bless her!

As Father was saying the words of the baptism, he accidentally inserted a comment to someone. So it went like this:

“Baby Girl], I baptize you in the name of the Father, comment inserted here to someone near the baptismal font], and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

They dried off the little one’s head, and the congregation applauded to welcome her. Then Father said something like, “I accidentally added something to the words of baptism. So just in case, I’m going to do it again.”

And then he poured the water and said the words again without interruption. This priest is amazing – pastoral and holy and humble. Not sure what distracted him (I was close, but my view was partially blocked), and not surprised he took the step to make sure the baptism was valid.

My question: Was this necessary?

Wow, what a great priest you have. I wish all clergy had this type of attention to detail!