Valid Baptism?

[japhy]

And yet the Church fiercely opposes coercion. You have to freely assent to the faith, without which it is impossible to please God. Beyond the age of 7, you must manifest that faith to be baptized.

(And could the other posters stop bickering about an initial lack of clarity that has since been cleared up? It adds nothing to the conversation.)

 

[christcnection1]

Point is you should have started and stayed with a description that reflected her age for folks reading even if only as a courtesy.

She was a teenager. Would it have mattered what age is she was past the age of reason? No. All teenagers are past the age of reason, unless there is something abnormal with them.

 

[christcnection1]

And yet the Church fiercely opposes coercion. You have to freely assent to the faith, without which it is impossible to please God. Beyond the age of 7, you must manifest that faith to be baptized.

(And could the other posters stop bickering about an initial lack of clarity that has since been cleared up? It adds nothing to the conversation.)

It definitely adds fruitless conversation, particularly when it was qualified after my second post.

Thank you.

 

[christcnection1]

Point is you should have started and stayed with a description that reflected her age for folks reading even if only as a courtesy.

If I’m not mistaken this issue has been clarified already.

 

[christcnection1]

And yet the Church fiercely opposes coercion. You have to freely assent to the faith, without which it is impossible to please God. Beyond the age of 7, you must manifest that faith to be baptized.

I think what happened was she pretended to manifest the faith. It was never really in her heart. She was just trying to get her mother off her back.

I am not blaming anyone in the Church; the priest probably didn’t even know. This is an understandable thing for a teenager to do. I probably would have acted that way at that age if I was being coerced by a parent.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If I’m not mistaken this issue has been clarified already.

The issue was NOT questioned again - just your writing style.

 

[christcnection1]

The issue was NOT questioned again - just your writing style.

(I am talking about you questioning my writing style over and over.)

I forgive you for belaboring this issue (questioning my writing) which has been irrelevant since my second post on the first page. It has nothing to do with the topic at this point. It has not for a long time. Either add some insight into the topic, drop the issue, or write me a personal message continuing your assault on my terrible writing style. This pestering has no place on this thread.

I am not responding to this anymore. If you desire to have the final word on an irrelevant issue, by all means go for it.

My suggestion to you is to drop it. You made your point. It was well-taken, but it still doesn’t change a thing. I already clarified the age of the individual.

 

[puzzleannie]

A
Is her Baptism therefore invalid as a result of her lack of faith and desire to follow the Lord and His Church?

If not, wouldn’t the Church then be justified in baptizing those who don’t believe, essentially against their will?

.

no in canon law an adult, who for the purposes of initiation sacraments is one who has reached the age of discretion or catechetical age (usually age 7) is considered an adult, and may not be baptized or confirmed against their will. the canon is very clear. however consent is presumed if the person consents verbally. if the child protested and the priest knew she did not want baptism, but the sacrament was still done it is valid but illicit. The validity depends on the proper matter, form and intent on the part of the celebrant, not the recipient. That is why preparation for baptism is longer for these adults.

Also if your friend was baptised any time after the mid-1970s she would have been, if canon law was observed, confirmed and received first communion at the same time, through RCIA. That would have included at a minimum a year of instruction with plenty of opportunity to accept or reject, especially at the rites designed for that purpose, where consent is asked to continue with the process, namely the rite of acceptance and rite of election.

The problem seems to be, if the facts of the story are as stated, with a docile daughter and manipulative controlling mother, not with how the sacraments operate. yes if your friend consented at the time she is validly baptized.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

(I am talking about you questioning my writing style over and over.)

I forgive you for belaboring this issue (questioning my writing) which has been irrelevant since my second post on the first page. It has nothing to do with the topic at this point. It has not for a long time. Either add some insight into the topic, drop the issue, or write me a personal message continuing your assault on my terrible writing style. This pestering has no place on this thread.

I am not responding to this anymore. If you desire to have the final word on an irrelevant issue, by all means go for it.

My suggestion to you is to drop it. You made your point. It was well-taken, but it still doesn’t change a thing. I already clarified the age of the individual.

**
Please review the sequence of posts before hassling me for responding to what you directed to me.

TIA.**

 

[japhy]

Please review the sequence of posts before hassling me for responding to what you directed to me.

PLEASE, for the love of God, stop filling this thread with these useless posts. (You’re making ME guilty of it right now.) The very fact of the matter is this: the original poster was not using ecclesiastical terminology, but secular terminology. He called the girl a “child” and then a “teenager”. The first is vague, but the second is more specific: a teenager is at least 13 years old. By using the word “child”, from the context, it’s clear that this was not an “independent teenager”, but one still under parental control. You wouldn’t call someone younger than 13 or older than 19 a teenager (unless you were confused or obtuse), and teenagers can be considered children (although they are not, from the ecclesiastical point of view).

So please stop arguing over a lack of detail, a lack of clarity, writing style, and all that other garbage. It simply doesn’t belong here. It’s not charitable, it’s not helping the conversation, and it wasn’t even necessary.

If you must continue, please take it to private messages.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Never said it was. I said she was a teenager from the start. If you believe that all teenagers are adults, I can live with that. However, this still doesn’t answer my question.

In church Law a teenager is an adult, unless they have a severe mental deficiency

 

[christcnection1]

**
Please review the sequence of posts before hassling me for responding to what you directed to me.

TIA.**

Sequence reviewed… nothing has changed.

We all agree that the age should have been specified in the beginning. What’s your goal at this point?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I think what happened was she pretended to manifest the faith. It was never really in her heart. She was just trying to get her mother off her back.

I am not blaming anyone in the Church; the priest probably didn’t even know. This is an understandable thing for a teenager to do. I probably would have acted that way at that age if I was being coerced by a parent.

If so then she is validly Baptized (however there seems to have been a failure on the pastors part to asses the situation) and she must now recognize the fact that she is Baptized Catholic and subject to the Laws and precepts of the Catholic Church. She should begin learning the faith in preparation for living it. However as an “Adult” st her Baptism the pastor should have also Confirmed her and she should have received her First Holy Communion at the same time. If not she be preparing for them.

 

[christcnection1]

but the sacrament was still done it is valid but illicit. The validity depends on the proper matter, form and intent on the part of the celebrant, not the recipient. That is why preparation for baptism is longer for these adults.

The problem seems to be, if the facts of the story are as stated, with a docile daughter and manipulative controlling mother, not with how the sacraments operate. yes if your friend consented at the time she is validly baptized.

Thank you Puzzieannie. I found your response helpful.

Now if a Sacrament is illicit, does that change anything for the recipient?

 

[christcnection1]

If so then she is validly Baptized (however there seems to have been a failure on the pastors part to asses the situation) and she must now recognize the fact that she is Baptized Catholic and subject to the Laws and precepts of the Catholic Church. She should begin learning the faith in preparation for living it. However as an “Adult” st her Baptism the pastor should have also Confirmed her and she should have received her First Holy Communion at the same time. If not she be preparing for them.

Amen Br. Rich… I hope she does; however, at this time she has very little interest in God or the Church.

She told me she received Communion but was never Confirmed. All this took place in Mexico. Perhaps their order of things is a little different.

At any rate, I appreciate your responses. I found them helpful.

I suppose I was getting invalid vs. illicit mixed up. I’m still not completely sure what that means, particularly for my friend.

 

[christcnection1]

In church Law a teenager is an adult, unless they have a severe mental deficiency

Br. Rich, this has been qualified and clarified many posts ago. It’s neither an argument or a concern at this stage. I agree that this is what the Church teaches. Thank you.

 

[christcnection1]

PLEASE, for the love of God, stop filling this thread with these useless posts. (You’re making ME guilty of it right now.) The very fact of the matter is this: the original poster was not using ecclesiastical terminology, but secular terminology. He called the girl a “child” and then a “teenager”. The first is vague, but the second is more specific: a teenager is at least 13 years old. By using the word “child”, from the context, it’s clear that this was not an “independent teenager”, but one still under parental control. You wouldn’t call someone younger than 13 or older than 19 a teenager (unless you were confused or obtuse), and teenagers can be considered children (although they are not, from the ecclesiastical point of view).

So please stop arguing over a lack of detail, a lack of clarity, writing style, and all that other garbage. It simply doesn’t belong here. It’s not charitable, it’s not helping the conversation, and it wasn’t even necessary.

If you must continue, please take it to private messages.

you’re right, but don’t stress about it. I’m just a little saddened and perplexed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Amen Br. Rich… I hope she does; however, at this time she has very little interest in God or the Church.

She told me she received Communion but was never Confirmed. All this took place in Mexico. Perhaps their order of things is a little different.

At any rate, I appreciate your responses. I found them helpful.

I suppose I was getting invalid vs. illicit mixed up. I’m still not completely sure what that means, particularly for my friend.

The country makes no difference Canon Law is Canon Law for the Latin Rite Church. So the Pastor should have in most cases Confirmed her when he Baptized her. She has the Baptismal Grace available to her when and if she ever accepts it.

 

[christcnection1]

The country makes no difference Canon Law is Canon Law for the Latin Rite Church. So the Pastor should have in most cases Confirmed her when he Baptized her. She has the Baptismal Grace available to her when and if she ever accepts it.

That’s good to know. Thank you. I will try to find out why she wasn’t also Confirmed at that same time.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I’m likely misunderstanding you here, but if I dumped a glass of water on someone with the right intent and the right words, could I validly baptize a nonbeliever?

If you use water (pouring, sprinkling, or immersion), praying the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and when doing so, intend to do as the Church intends (i.e., not pretending, goofing around, etc.), then the sacrament of baptism is valid. It is illicit (unlawful) to do so if the recipient is unwilling, however, their willingness or lack of it does not invalidate the sacrament.

If all conditions required for the essential rite are observed, on the part of the minister, the recipient, the matter and form, but some non-essential condition is not complied with by the recipient, the sacrament is received validly but not licitly
Catholic Encyclopedia - Sacraments]

In my opinion, without attrition which presupposed an act of faith, the person (of the age of reason) has received the sacrament validly, but their lack of attrition/faith creates a barrier to “worthy reception.” Consequently, it is much like receiving marriage without being in a state of grace. The marriage is valid, but not worthily received (lacks the graces of worthy reception). Nonetheless, once a state of grace is attained after the valid sacrament, the graces that one would have received are then recieved, because the barrier that one placed for worthy reception are then removed.