FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: baptism question
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(01-27-2019, 07:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-27-2019, 06:43 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Let’s take step one here and take out that rubbish you have written in your signature.

I still believe everything in my signature line.

I’m sorry to hear that.  You ought not think that way.
Do you spend much time daily in quiet, mental prayer?  Are you spending much time simply asking Christ to help you, and fill your heart with grace?
Remember something important: prayer is a part of the NATURAL LAW.  As humans, we’re designed for it.  If we don’t do it, we’re going against what we’re designed to do, and we’re not experiencing our TRUE end of all things in life: God.  All the fasting and everything else isn’t much good unless it’s leading you to a Mystical Love and union with Christ.  That’s what Christianity is all about.  It’s about loving God, and our neighbor for His sake.  Seek to be with Him in every moment.
I'm sure I could always spend more time praying than I do, but I think I do pray quietly for at least a few minutes each day.  I'm trying to get into the habit of praying the Akathist for the Departed that Formerbuddhist recommended to me a while back.  I don't pray it daily though, but when I do, I pray it slowly and thoughtfully.  I tried to get into the practice of praying the Jesus Prayer while exercising, but I got bored with that pretty quickly.
(01-27-2019, 06:16 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-27-2019, 05:40 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Good point. I hope MM sees this and gives his opinion. I assume from the 'she' that it was a Methodist or Episcopalian baptism? If either, she was violating the rules of her Church. I was baptised as a teenager in the Methodist Church and I served countless baptisms in the Episcopal Church, and both Churches' liturgies use Our Lords words verbatim.

Yeah, it was at a UMC church.  Female pastor.  The parents like this church because they had been going to a very progressive, mega-church-like Catholic parish prior to moving to this area.  An inclusive, social justice oriented parish is very important to them.

MM, crap.  My gut told me you were going to tell me that.

So, now my question is, how do I broach this to the parents?  The father was raised in a Baptist missionary family, became mostly agnostic during his early adulthood, and as far as I know, is still basically agnostic, though we never talk about it, so I'm really not sure.  The mother was raised Catholic.  I am godfather to their two eldest children, the oldest three were baptized Catholic and this is baby #4.  The mother has been thinking over the past few years that she does not believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.  Allowance of same-sex marriage is also very important to her and, not as important, prefers that women should be allowed to be ordained.  Beyond that, AFAIK she still believes everything the Catholic Church teaches.  My godchildren are 7 and 5, so I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to be speaking to them directly about the importance of their Catholic baptism and my obligations as their godfather (the younger wouldn't really understand and, while extremely intelligent, I'm not sure how much the elder would understand either).  Also, I'm obviously concerned about the validity of the baptism of the youngest (so I guess EENS is also something they don't believe in, or going UMC would never have been considered).  I know they wouldn't be offended by me bringing it up, but I also don't think they would agree with me, and so probably will do nothing.  Is it more appropriate to wait until their daughter is an adult and bring it up with her directly?

I think you should always take a problem up firstly with the person who created it.

Talk to the minister, and share your concerns. Tell her how you appreciated the words on the importance of the Trinity, but were very concerned that she changed the words of the Baptism from what Jesus taught. You can tell her that Catholics would consider that it is not a Baptism if we don't do what Our Lord instructed. Many Protestant would say the same thing, and you know that the formula that the Church uses is not what she said.

You are worried that there will be serious questions on the child's baptism later, so you want her to explain the error to the parents and re-baptize the child privately. Be gentle, but if she resists tell her that you will have to go to the parents and explain this, because as we know we need Baptism to be saved, and you certain want the child saved.

If the minister balks, then address the parents. Explain that the Catholic teaching as well as the Methodist (to the extent they have a teaching) is that the words of Christ need to be used. The minister did not, and the child needs to be properly baptized. You are concerned. Explain why. If the minister refuses to baptize the child, ask the parents if they want the child baptized, and tell them how to do it properly. One of them pours normal water over the head saying "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 

You can then witness them conditionally baptizing the child, and then three of you will know for the future.

If the parents balk, find some way of retaining some kind of written proof or testimony to give to the child later when the child can understand it. Write something on it like, in the event of my incapacitation or death give this envelope to X. Valid sacraments and marriage in the future depend on being baptized.

I think going right to the parents removes the minister's responsibility and risks others suffering as a result. Confront the source of the problem.

If you're really stuck, send me a PM and I'll be happy to contact the minister if you can get details.
(01-27-2019, 08:33 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]I think you should always take a problem up firstly with the person who created it.

Talk to the minister, and share your concerns. Tell her how you appreciated the words on the importance of the Trinity, but were very concerned that she changed the words of the Baptism from what Jesus taught. You can tell her that Catholics would consider that it is not a Baptism if we don't do what Our Lord instructed. Many Protestant would say the same thing, and you know that the formula that the Church uses is not what she said.

You are worried that there will be serious questions on the child's baptism later, so you want her to explain the error to the parents and re-baptize the child privately. Be gentle, but if she resists tell her that you will have to go to the parents and explain this, because as we know we need Baptism to be saved, and you certain want the child saved.

If the minister balks, then address the parents. Explain that the Catholic teaching as well as the Methodist (to the extent they have a teaching) is that the words of Christ need to be used. The minister did not, and the child needs to be properly baptized. You are concerned. Explain why. If the minister refuses to baptize the child, ask the parents if they want the child baptized, and tell them how to do it properly. One of them pours normal water over the head saying "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 

You can then witness them conditionally baptizing the child, and then three of you will know for the future.

If the parents balk, find some way of retaining some kind of written proof or testimony to give to the child later when the child can understand it. Write something on it like, in the event of my incapacitation or death give this envelope to X. Valid sacraments and marriage in the future depend on being baptized.

I think going right to the parents removes the minister's responsibility and risks others suffering as a result. Confront the source of the problem.

If you're really stuck, send me a PM and I'll be happy to contact the minister if you can get details.

Thank you for the great advice!

In the event that the pastor is not interested, but the parents are and are ok with it, is it licit for me to perform a conditional baptism, or should I recommend they go to an ordained clergyman first? Or, rather, is it licit for me to perform it without trying to find a clergyman to do it first?
(01-27-2019, 09:24 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-27-2019, 08:33 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]I think you should always take a problem up firstly with the person who created it.

Talk to the minister, and share your concerns. Tell her how you appreciated the words on the importance of the Trinity, but were very concerned that she changed the words of the Baptism from what Jesus taught. You can tell her that Catholics would consider that it is not a Baptism if we don't do what Our Lord instructed. Many Protestant would say the same thing, and you know that the formula that the Church uses is not what she said.

You are worried that there will be serious questions on the child's baptism later, so you want her to explain the error to the parents and re-baptize the child privately. Be gentle, but if she resists tell her that you will have to go to the parents and explain this, because as we know we need Baptism to be saved, and you certain want the child saved.

If the minister balks, then address the parents. Explain that the Catholic teaching as well as the Methodist (to the extent they have a teaching) is that the words of Christ need to be used. The minister did not, and the child needs to be properly baptized. You are concerned. Explain why. If the minister refuses to baptize the child, ask the parents if they want the child baptized, and tell them how to do it properly. One of them pours normal water over the head saying "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 

You can then witness them conditionally baptizing the child, and then three of you will know for the future.

If the parents balk, find some way of retaining some kind of written proof or testimony to give to the child later when the child can understand it. Write something on it like, in the event of my incapacitation or death give this envelope to X. Valid sacraments and marriage in the future depend on being baptized.

I think going right to the parents removes the minister's responsibility and risks others suffering as a result. Confront the source of the problem.

If you're really stuck, send me a PM and I'll be happy to contact the minister if you can get details.

Thank you for the great advice!

In the event that the pastor is not interested, but the parents are and are ok with it, is it licit for me to perform a conditional baptism, or should I recommend they go to an ordained clergyman first?  Or, rather, is it licit for me to perform it without trying to find a clergyman to do it first?

In fact it almost certainly is not conditional, but just in case of doubt it is better to offer conditionally to protect the sacrament.

If the minister is not open and the parents are keen or open , I'd suggest you urge them to do the baptism, and instruct them on i, rather than you doing it.

That avoids the questions on liceity or any suggestion that you did something and they were forced into it or communicatio in sacris, with the various questions around that. It also allows you to act as a witness. If one of the parents did the conditional baptism, then it provides two witnesses, only one of whom is family and therefore there is a third disinterested party shuold there be any questions.
(01-27-2019, 10:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]In fact it almost certainly is not conditional, but just in case of doubt it is better to offer conditionally to protect the sacrament.

If the minister is not open and the parents are keen or open , I'd suggest you urge them to do the baptism, and instruct them on i, rather than you doing it.

That avoids the questions on liceity or any suggestion that you did something and they were forced into it or communicatio in sacris, with the various questions around that. It also allows you to act as a witness. If one of the parents did the conditional baptism, then it provides two witnesses, only one of whom is family and therefore there is a third disinterested party shuold there be any questions.

Just for the sake of discussing the question: if the parents are opposed, would it be illicit for me to do it secretly (not sure if that is covered under communicatio in sacris)? Invalid?  Unethical?  Immoral?

Regardless of if it is ok, I don't think I could bring myself to do it behind their backs.
(01-27-2019, 10:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-27-2019, 10:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]In fact it almost certainly is not conditional, but just in case of doubt it is better to offer conditionally to protect the sacrament.

If the minister is not open and the parents are keen or open , I'd suggest you urge them to do the baptism, and instruct them on i, rather than you doing it.

That avoids the questions on liceity or any suggestion that you did something and they were forced into it or communicatio in sacris, with the various questions around that. It also allows you to act as a witness. If one of the parents did the conditional baptism, then it provides two witnesses, only one of whom is family and therefore there is a third disinterested party shuold there be any questions.

Just for the sake of discussing the question: if the parents are opposed, would it be illicit for me to do it secretly (not sure if that is covered under communicatio in sacris)? Invalid?  Unethical?  Immoral?

Regardless of if it is ok, I don't think I could bring myself to do it behind their backs.

I wouldn't do it if you've let them know about the concerns, and they still remain opposed.

It is the fault of the minister. She is obliged in Justice to correct the error.

It is the purview of the parents to ensure the Baptism of their child, so they have a duty to the child to see it is done rightly.

You have an interest in Charity, but that extends only to informing the responsible parties of the problem, and then perhaps providing some means for informing the child later when she can understand the situation. I would in such a case make a testimonial letter up, make a copy to keep among your things, and then find some way to get her a copy at some point, in case you cannot tell her yourself.
The form (words) used were not in line with what is exactly proper. There is no debating that. From your description the matter was correct.  I will leave it up to a priest as to whether the whole thing was invalid due to the form after all the intention seems to be there. If the child grows up & decides to unite themselves with the True Church of Jesus Christ it should be at least brought up as a conditional baptism might possibly be in order.
(01-29-2019, 01:40 PM)Dave Parrott Wrote: [ -> ]The form (words) used were not in line with what is exactly proper. There is no debating that. From your description the matter was correct.  I will leave it up to a priest as to whether the whole thing was invalid due to the form after all the intention seems to be there. If the child grows up & decides to unite themselves with the True Church of Jesus Christ it should be at least brought up as a conditional baptism might possibly be in order.

When it comes to Sacraments, the Church obliges us to be tutiorists (morally strict).

If there is any probably and positive doubt, the Sacrament, if it be one which is necessary, must be repeated at least conditionally. A positive doubt is one based on some real reason (i.e. not just a mere possibility or "maybe"). A probable doubt is one that enjoys at least some reasonable argument for its existence.

There is clearly probably and positive doubt with this Baptism. The form was not a valid form. If "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier" is certainly invalid (and it's been declared so), then this even weaker form, interrupted by various statements and not expressing with any certainty the three Divine Persons, is almost certainly invalid.

Intention is a third element, but never substitutes for matter or form. A priest can intend as much as he want that the matter in the chalice become the Blood of Christ, but if it's grape juice and not wine, no beans. If he says the form for the Host and not the Chalice, no beans.

Since no priest is involved here, and the parents have left the Church, so unlikely to approach a priest, yet there is clear doubt, the best solution seems for Melkite to get the Prot minister to redo it, or if that does not work, urge the parents to conditionally baptize their child to be sure, while he witnesses so later if necessary he or one of the parents could testify to a certainly valid Baptism.

If none of that works, then his duty in Charity to the child is to make some kind of testimony by which she can later find out the problem. If she were in danger of death, he could certainly act himself, but outside of that it would create more problems for him to secretly conditionally baptize, and there's the issue of communicatio in sacris.

If the child were to be a Catholic, then going to an good priest with the problem would be the easy solution. I can guarantee you from my seminary studies in Sacramental theology that he would baptize again, and probably absolutely, not conditionally.
Pages: 1 2