Why do we always have to improve on what is perfect?This past weekend there were two baptisms in our parish. I have never seen them done this way and was wondering whether there are any issues of them being invalid or illicit.
The godparents “dipped” the babies into the water and the priest said the words of baptism.
You’re right, I focused on the immersion rather than the godparents holding them- but I wonder if the OP could see if the priest was sprinkling while saying the words? I don’t think there’s a requirement that the priest hold the babies.Why do we always have to improve on what is perfect?
I wouldn’t be happy if my babies were baptised this way. I want a Priest to do everything. Then walk them up to the front of the church and present them to Our Lady.
I don’t think that’s a lot to ask.
Baptism is conferred validly only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words (canon 849). This washing is made through pouring or immersion. (While sprinkling is no longer an option in the law or the rites, one could imagine a situation in which it could be licit and it would be valid.) Assuming the proper intention to confer baptism as a given, the same person must perform both actions for the validity of baptism.If the words and intent were correct, it’s valid. I don’t think there’s a proscription against immersion baptisms.
I think it might indeed be invalid. I believe the same person must say the words of baptism and pour the water.This past weekend there were two baptisms in our parish. I have never seen them done this way and was wondering whether there are any issues of them being invalid or illicit.
The godparents “dipped” the babies into the water and the priest said the words of baptism.
Whether or not the child was baptized is at issue here. It is not at all clear that it was done validly. There is nothing wrong with questioning it, when in fact it appears that valid form was NOT used.The people were baptized by a priest. Questioning wheter of not it was valid paralells a movement called Donatism. Look it up.
I asked if my baptism into a protestant church was valid and got an affirmative, my baptism was a full immersion baptism.If the words and intent were correct, it’s valid. I don’t think there’s a proscription against immersion baptisms.
No, actually, it doesn’t. Donatism is the heresy that says only a sinless person belongs in the church, and that the validity of a sacrament depends upon the personal worthiness of the priest conferring the sacrament. Donatism has nothing to do with questioning whether the person conferring the sacrament has followed proper form (one of the elements necessary for a sacrament to be validly conferred).The people were baptized by a priest. Questioning wheter of not it was valid paralells a movement called Donatism. Look it up.
Well, mgy, I trust this has been clarified for you, but again it is the form of the administration of the sacrament for validity that would be at question. It pertains to the supreme authority of the Church to define what is needed for their validity (canon 841). Judgement in a particular case of whether those elements were present would normally belong to the diocesan bishop.The people were baptized by a priest. Questioning wheter of not it was valid paralells a movement called Donatism. Look it up.
You aren’t being very charitable, in my view, because you cannot say that it appears the valid form was not used. We don’t know if the priest poured over the “immersed” children, we don’t know if the priest was applying the pressure to put the children under the water and if the godparents were simply supporting with hands underneath, and the original poster hasn’t weighed back in with clarifications here.Whether or not the child was baptized is at issue here. It is not at all clear that it was done validly. There is nothing wrong with questioning it, when in fact it appears that valid form was NOT used.
Donatism held that personal sins of the minister affected the validity of the Sacrament, No one here is claiming that.The people were baptized by a priest. Questioning wheter of not it was valid paralells a movement called Donatism. Look it up.
Where in the world does charity figure into it? The poster said the Pastor said the words and the godparents “dipped” the kid. I don’t know if that is proper or not but it doesn’t sound right to me either. Am I being uncharitable too because I got an impression from what someone wrote?You aren’t being very charitable, in my view, because you cannot say that it appears the valid form was not used. We don’t know if the priest poured over the “immersed” children, we don’t know if the priest was applying the pressure to put the children under the water and if the godparents were simply supporting with hands underneath, and the original poster hasn’t weighed back in with clarifications here.
Questioning it is fine. Saying it appears the valid form was not used is overstepping the bounds based on what we know.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with your statement.You aren’t being very charitable,
“Appears” is quite the proper word to use when we do not know for certain. Based on the OP’s information it does *appear *the baptism was invalid. Additional information would either confirm or refute the validity. I don’t have that information, therefore I made a qualified statement not a definitive one.in my view, because you cannot say that it appears the valid form was not used.
Which is why I qualified my statement.We don’t know if the priest poured over the “immersed” children, we don’t know if the priest was applying the pressure to put the children under the water and if the godparents were simply supporting with hands underneath, and the original poster hasn’t weighed back in with clarifications here.
I disagree.Questioning it is fine. Saying it appears the valid form was not used is overstepping the bounds based on what we know.
Yes, it is valid.Since we’re talking about valid baptism I just had a question. The Church considers most Protestant baptisms to be valid provided they are performed in the Name of the Trinity. But what if even when this is done those taking part in the baptism do not believe that it removes sin? This is the case with some of my friends who are part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God denomination. Before recently I was overjoyed by the fact that despite my friends were not completely in communion with the Church they were in an imperfect communion by way of baptism. But with talking to my friends, I found out that Penetecostals believe that baptism does not remove sin but is simply a symbol that confirms faith in Christ. Even though they don’t believe in what baptism realisticly does, when performed in the Name of the Trinity is the baptism still valid?
MGY, did you read the OP? The priest did NOT perform the baptism. The godparents “dipped” the child while the priest merely said the words of baptism. This is probably invalid because the same person must apply the water and pronounce the words of baptism (“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”). Besides the fact that this renders the baptism invalid already, the baptism could also be invalid depending upon how the child was “dipped”. If the child’s rear end only was dipped (as has been known to happen), or if his feet were dipped, the baptism would definitely be invalid. Water must flow over the face or forehead for a baptism to be valid.The people were baptized by a priest. Questioning wheter of not it was valid paralells a movement called Donatism. Look it up.
The question that needs to be asked is : WHO Baptized the child? Who was the minister of the Baptism. The answer cannot be both the priest and Godparents.I think it might indeed be invalid. I believe the same person must say the words of baptism and pour the water.