U
Usagi
Guest
Our apologists should probably use that argument less, it’s true, since it’s not as though we have the Pope rushing to use his infallibility on every little question.
In the case of something like the mode of baptism, though, I don’t think it’s necessary. The Church permits both and, as far as we know, always has. There is no need for an infallible statement to assure everyone that immersion is not the only acceptable mode of baptism, since we have always known that.
As you point out, infallible definitions and declarations are used to bind the entire Church on a matter of faith or morals. Where multiple options exist, such as baptism by infusion or submersion, or communion on the tongue or in the hand, the Pope as supreme legislator can make one option the standard (rendering any others illicit), but the only sensible statement he could make using infallibility is “Yup, there sure are multiple options,” which the Church has already demonstrated in practice for most if not all of her two millennia.
Note that, when there have been questions, the Church has stepped up to clarify. For example, baptisms that refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by other names or “job titles” are known to be invalid, as are Mormon baptisms (because of their unusual doctrine of the Trinity) even though they use the proper words.
Usagi