FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
This would be more of an issue with adults with helmet type hair where the water just goes off their hair and never touches the skin.

No skin = Not valid?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on baptism:

Quote:As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the "Old Catholics" generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.

This paragraph discusses the validity of non-Catholic baptisms.  Looks like it casts doubt on the validity of Episcopalian baptisms because, among other things, the water might not touch the skin.  So, I'd say that water must touch the skin during baptism.  Which is easy to accomplish for someone with "helmet hair."  Just part the hair at the middle and a long, thin stretch of skin is exposed, or pour the water on the forehead.  Or get a haircut.  Several options are possible.
Also from Catholic Encyclopedia:

"It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void."
Not prefered it sounds like, but still valid if it only touches the hair. It's still part of the body.
I had had this concern recently too because my hair was buzzed before my baptism but I couldn't remember it touching the skin. I think it did just barely touch it. But then I read that about it MUST touch the skin and had been worried if I was receiving the sacraments invalidly...
https://wdtprs.com/2018/02/ask-father-ar...sms-valid/
Here's Fr. Zuhlsdorf...the waters must touch at least the hair. In other words, baptism that hits only the hair on the head of the catechumen...VALID.
Part of the issue was the reading of this says:

"The use of sprinkling, when the water does not clearly touch the skin of the person being baptized."

http://rcchurch.com/uploads/Baptism_Guidelines_web.pdf

So it was thought that skin isn't necessarily synonymous with body, like hair. That it had to be skin.

So I was looking for something (church document) that clearly says it is still valid even if it touches hair only.
(09-30-2020, 04:12 PM)Adventus Wrote: [ -> ]Part of the issue was the reading of this says:

"The use of sprinkling, when the water does not clearly touch the skin of the person being baptized."

http://rcchurch.com/uploads/Baptism_Guidelines_web.pdf

So it was thought that skin isn't necessarily synonymous with body, like hair. That it had to be skin.

So I was looking for something (church document) that clearly says it is still valid even if it touches hair only.
I need to get this sorted out, because then my baptism is potentially invalidated...
(09-29-2020, 08:11 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]https://wdtprs.com/2018/02/ask-father-ar...sms-valid/
Here's Fr. Zuhlsdorf...the waters must touch at least the hair. In other words, baptism that hits only the hair on the head of the catechumen...VALID.

I appreciate that Fr Z did some research and asked about this, but I would note that he does not cite any manuals, and he is usually pretty good about this in answering such questions. The manuals paint a much more negative picture.

The problem is that most traditional manuals say baptism in which water touches only the hair, and not the skin are doubtful and must be repeated conditionally. Davis, Halligan, Prümmer, and Merkelbach. Noldin thinks it probably valid, but admits others have doubts.

Given that all moral theologians agree that we must always follow the safest path in the Sacraments, and ensure validity in the case of any positive doubt (while despising mere "maybes" which are negative doubts), when any reputable theologian says "doubtful" then conditional Baptism must be given. Since several reputable manuals (ones used in many seminaries before the Council and even after), I don't think it possible to presume validity if water merely touched the hair (and no skin), though I think it unlikely if the head was down over the font or a bowl that some skin was not touched (e.g. an ear, forehead, neck, etc.).
(09-30-2020, 06:34 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-29-2020, 08:11 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]https://wdtprs.com/2018/02/ask-father-ar...sms-valid/
Here's Fr. Zuhlsdorf...the waters must touch at least the hair. In other words, baptism that hits only the hair on the head of the catechumen...VALID.

I appreciate that Fr Z did some research and asked about this, but I would note that he does not cite any manuals, and he is usually pretty good about this in answering such questions. The manuals paint a much more negative picture.

The problem is that most traditional manuals say baptism in which water touches only the hair, and not the skin are doubtful and must be repeated conditionally. Davis, Halligan, Prümmer, and Merkelbach. Noldin thinks it probably valid, but admits others have doubts.

Given that all moral theologians agree that we must always follow the safest path in the Sacraments, and ensure validity in the case of any positive doubt (while despising mere "maybes" which are negative doubts), when any reputable theologian says "doubtful" then conditional Baptism must be given. Since several reputable manuals (ones used in many seminaries before the Council and even after), I don't think it possible to presume validity if water merely touched the hair (and no skin), though I think it unlikely if the head was down over the font or a bowl that some skin was not touched (e.g. an ear, forehead, neck, etc.).
Well that basically nullifies my entire conversion...because the water only touched my hair (nobody ever told me for this or brought this issue up for six years!!! this was back in 2014!!!), then I have not been baptized, not chrismated, I've been "communing" sinfully...etc.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5