B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes such is possible …but normally NOT LICIT
not normally a good practice ~!! not something Christians go around doing…
- Status
not normally a good practice ~!! not something Christians go around doing…
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Why aren’t validity and licit linked. If a baptism is valid but illicit what’s the point of it being illicit? It doesn’t “undo” the sacrament and I presume no one is punished (not that I’m suggesting they should be). Has someone who has committed an illicit act committed a sin? Mortal or venial? If it’s illicit surely it shouldn’t happen in the first place? I know in my parish you couldn’t just turn up at the presbytery and say to the priest baptise this child. Before baptism enquiries are made about who’s who and why they want the child baptised. When I became a godfather I felt like I was being questioned by the police by the woman who arranged the baptism and I’d been a regular parishioner for years.
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
Here is what the online Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the subject: The question is also discussed as to whether the infant children of Jews or infidels may be baptized against the will of their parents. To the general query, the answer is a decided negative, because such a baptism would violate the natural rights of parents, and the infant would later be exposed to the danger of perversion. We say this, of course, only in regard to the liceity of such a baptism, for if it were actually administered it would undoubtedly be valid.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
But, isn’t that encyclopedia out-of-date by nearly 100 years.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes a Catholic can sin via doing something illicit…
Yes of course it should not happen…but the very nature of baptism …the very importance of it is makes it possible for it to happen more readily than other Sacraments…it direct link with salvation etc…
Yes it is important that Sponsors be chosen well …
(I see you survived…
)
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
I guess that depends on how changeable and how reliable Catholic teaching is. If the Catholic Church teaches the truth, and the truth does not change, then what she taught 100 years ago is still true today.
(I’m not necessarily presenting the Catholic Encyclopedia as the voice of the Church, just as one knowledgeable opinion).
B
Bookcat
Guest
and actually there can be a case where one can licitly baptize a child against the will of the parents…(normally this should never be done and in fact one should seek that the Child will be raised in the Faith)…and that is when the Child is dying…(in danger of death)
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I should have been more precise. Since it was published we’ve had first the 1917 Code of Canon Law and then the 1983 Code of Canon Law plus Vatican II and a revision of all the Rites so just not sure how up-to-date it might be on Baptism. In once sense I think New Advent have done a great job but for me I’d have preferred they’d used their resources on creating an up-to-date version, now that would be a fantastic resource.
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
I never heard of any claim that the Church has changed or attempted to change the nature of any of the sacraments. If she has not, then any commentary on the nature and effects of the sacraments should be as true now as it was 100 years ago.
Some details regarding liceity may have changed (e.g. how long of a fast is required before Holy Communion), and details of form as well (e.g. what language is spoken), but these do not touch the essence of the sacraments.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Many of these sorts of things (particularly regarding Baptism) were settled centuries ago even in the first few centuries…(for example in the 3rd Century …during the “rebaptism controversy”…when the Church stood very firm about not being able to re-baptize…(conditional baptism is different it “on condition” and is never an attempt to rebaptize …which is not possible)
J
jmcrae
Guest
Right. There are two possible valid baptisms, outside of those being done in the Church by a member of the Catholic clergy: the first is, in danger of death, and the second is, by the representative of a non-Catholic Christian community, where the one being baptized is being baptized into that community.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Actually no …again even a non-Christian etc can validly baptize…and this can be completely valid even when not in danger of death.
This is simply the understanding of Baptism in the Catholic Church.
One need not have “a representive of a non-catholic community” or any danger of death.
Valid Baptism…is well valid. Even if done by a non-believer (of course with the right intention, matter and form)
B
Bookcat
Guest
As to “who” can baptize…validly…the answer is “anyone with the right intention to do what the Church does” (with proper matter and form of course)
(they do not have believe it or understand it…but for example intend to make the person a Christian at the persons request cause Christ commands it etc)
(Such is the teaching of the Church…and this has been something that came up even in the early centuries…(3rd) and later for example at the Council of Trent…tis not a new question)
The sacraments operate Ex opere operato --by the very preforming of the work itself…GOD acts (this is his work! his gift of grace!)…even if the guy who does it is a very very bad sinner in mortal sins up to his ears…God can work through him…such does not effect the validity of the baptism.
Of course the ordinary minister in the Latin Rite is a Bishop or Priest or Deacon…and in case of necessity “anyone” can licitly and validly baptize (cause of the importance of this sacrament). Such is the teaching of the Church.
And even outside of necessity …it is still possible for anyone to validly baptize.
They need not be Christian, a minister of any kind, a man or a woman, or have “necessity of death coming”…that is not for validity.
Of course we are not to “baptize as lay persons”…outside of necessity…(such would be wrong to do for us…would be illicit …such is “to be done” only in necessity…even though it is always “possible” to baptize…even though it would be valid)
But be that as it may…in looking back at the question of was a baptism “valid”…who it was who baptized…does not effect validity …nor if it was necessity or not…for the sacrament of Baptism works by the power of the Holy Spirit…
tis Christ who baptizes…even if the person doing the pouring or immersing is a pagan…
(they do not have believe it or understand it…but for example intend to make the person a Christian at the persons request cause Christ commands it etc)
(Such is the teaching of the Church…and this has been something that came up even in the early centuries…(3rd) and later for example at the Council of Trent…tis not a new question)
The sacraments operate Ex opere operato --by the very preforming of the work itself…GOD acts (this is his work! his gift of grace!)…even if the guy who does it is a very very bad sinner in mortal sins up to his ears…God can work through him…such does not effect the validity of the baptism.
Of course the ordinary minister in the Latin Rite is a Bishop or Priest or Deacon…and in case of necessity “anyone” can licitly and validly baptize (cause of the importance of this sacrament). Such is the teaching of the Church.
And even outside of necessity …it is still possible for anyone to validly baptize.
They need not be Christian, a minister of any kind, a man or a woman, or have “necessity of death coming”…that is not for validity.
Of course we are not to “baptize as lay persons”…outside of necessity…(such would be wrong to do for us…would be illicit …such is “to be done” only in necessity…even though it is always “possible” to baptize…even though it would be valid)
But be that as it may…in looking back at the question of was a baptism “valid”…who it was who baptized…does not effect validity …nor if it was necessity or not…for the sacrament of Baptism works by the power of the Holy Spirit…
tis Christ who baptizes…even if the person doing the pouring or immersing is a pagan…
- Status