Water for emergency baptisms?

[MarcusAndreas]

I have a hypothetical (Yes, hypotheticals are absurd and all they do is open worm cans and distract from the point) relating to emergency baptism. In an emergency where one did not have access to water, would using one’s own spit be valid to baptize with? It is basically water. Anyone know?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here is my opinion.

Baptism requires water, saliva is not water.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Here is my opinion.

Baptism requires water, saliva is not water.

Then what is it?

I suppose the teaching of baptism of desire could be applicable in this situation, thus resulting in the desire alone in lieu of water being sufficient in the emergency.

 

[adrift]

I wish I had my notes from the high school class in which the priest went over this in detail. The only thing I remember is that you could use soup. There were qualifications I believe. If I remember correctly it had to contain a certain amount of water.

As for your question, I don’t think so because you have to pour it. I don’t think you would have enough volume.

 

[5Loaves]

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, **is validly conferred only by a washing of true water **with the proper form of words.
Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring;

 

[ProLifeMom]

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

"Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom for Christ, or through “baptism of desire”, that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood."

 

[DorianGregorian]

“No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced,*** even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ***, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” - Council of Florence “Cantate Domino”

Incorrect, the Church has never taught Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Desire ex cathedra. Baptism by water is the only Baptism that has been defined by the Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Then what is it?

I suppose the teaching of baptism of desire could be applicable in this situation, thus resulting in the desire alone in lieu of water being sufficient in the emergency.

Salvia is salvia, water is water.

They are not the samething.

 

[Zekariya]

Human saliva is 98% water… Just saying.

 

[adrift]

“No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced,*** even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ***, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” - Council of Florence “Cantate Domino”

Incorrect, the Church has never taught Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Desire ex cathedra. Baptism by water is the only Baptism that has been defined by the Church.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1258
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Human saliva is 98% water… Just saying.

Don’t know where you got that percentage from but that shows that saliva is not water otherwise it would be 100% water.

Also baptism must be done either by immersion or by pouring water. Spitting on a person does not count as pouring. How much salvia must you gather to pour it and how long would it take to gather it?

Not to get to sick but urine is 95% water, so can it be used? Again, no becasue it is not water.

 

[SimonDodd]

Saliva is saliva. It doesn’t suffice to say "oh, but spit is 90% water; beer is 90% water, and we know that isn’t valid matter for baptism. see Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma 178 (Deferrari, trns. 1955.) Baptism requires water.

 

[Newbie2]

Don’t know where you got that percentage from but that shows that saliva is not water otherwise it would be 100% water.

Also baptism must be done either by immersion or by pouring water. Spitting on a person does not count as pouring. How much salvia must you gather to pour it and how long would it take to gather it?

Not to get to sick but urine is 95% water, so can it be used? Again, no becasue it is not water.

Actually urine is more like 99% or greater water.

I’m pretty certain God would take into consideration someone’s wish to baptize in an emergency situation where there was no water available.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually urine is more like 99% or greater water.

Well then website I went to got it a bit off, but it still is not water.

I’m pretty certain God would take into consideration someone’s wish to baptize in an emergency situation where there was no water available.

That is not how the Sacraments work. Water is required for a valid Sacramental Baptism, no water, no baptism.

 

[dconklin]

Not that this is actual Church teaching, but when I was in 5th grade, Sister Mary Grace told us in the church at the Baptismal Font during a lesson on Baptism that we could use our own saliva in an emergency. You dared not argue with Sister Mary Grace.

 

[Newbie2]

Well then website I went to got it a bit off, but it still is not water.

That is not how the Sacraments work. Water is required for a valid Sacramental Baptism, no water, no baptism.

Well, no, of course it wouldn’t be a “valid sacrament”. But if the person was dying, which would likely be the case if it were an “emergency” baptism, would the Almighty turn someone away from heaven because a valid sacramental baptism would not have been able to have been performed? I’d think not, which was my point.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, no, of course it wouldn’t be a “valid sacrament”. But if the person was dying, which would likely be the case if it were an “emergency” baptism, would the Almighty turn someone away from heaven because a valid sacramental baptism would not have been able to have been performed? I’d think not, which was my point.

How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?

We do not know the answer to either.

We can hope and pray but we can not know.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am not saying we can baptise with saliva. As an aside I find the idea quite repulsive. As other posters have said saliva is not pure water. However, water from the public water supply is not 100% pure water. It contains other substances. It is interesting though what one should do if someone is at the point of death and there is no water to hand. I wonder if there’s ever been a dubium to the Holy See on this matter.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am not saying we can baptise with saliva. As an aside I find the idea quite repulsive. As other posters have said saliva is not pure water. However, water from the public water supply is not 100% pure water. It contains other substances. It is interesting though what one should do if someone is at the point of death and there is no water to hand. I wonder if there’s ever been a dubium to the Holy See on this matter.

Thanks for the post, it got me thinking so I did a Google search and here is what I found.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Baptism.

Under the matter and form section (bold emphasis added).
The remote matter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual meaning. Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water. When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained.
So I guess without access to anything that man can call water saliva could be used in a “case of absolute necessity” but if I had such a case and the person did not die I would encourage them to have a proper conditional baptism just to be sure.

 

[Brendan]

Human saliva is 98% water… Just saying.

So is steak, but you can’t baptize someone by dropping a chunk of tenderloin over the forehead either