FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin (/showthread.php?tid=87778)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - Adventus - 10-02-2020

MM, 

Well, my disagreement was intended to be mild and more of a critique as a means to get clarity. I understand it’s not something that materializes within manuals but that rather you were extrapolating from a myriad of sources; and that is what I was in part trying to address. Certainly, moral theologians are going to carry some weight, and it would be folly of me to dismiss that. However, at best it can cause doubt and that is pretty much as far as that goes.


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - Melkite - 10-02-2020

I know immersion isn't necessary for a valid baptism, but man, would it eliminate legal conundra like this.


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - Augustinian - 10-02-2020

(10-02-2020, 04:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: I know immersion isn't necessary for a valid baptism, but man, would it eliminate legal conundra like this.

I'm with you on that.


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - jovan66102 - 10-02-2020

(10-02-2020, 04:55 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 04:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: I know immersion isn't necessary for a valid baptism, but man, would it eliminate legal conundra like this.

I'm with you on that.

If the Faith had stayed round the Mediterranean it might still be the normative way of baptism, but having to break the ice on the font in an unheated Church, in England or Scandinavia e.g., did tend to discourage it a bit.



RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - Adventus - 10-02-2020

(10-02-2020, 04:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: I know immersion isn't necessary for a valid baptism, but man, would it eliminate legal conundra like this.

I said as much in an earlier post. St. Thomas seems to have preferred it, perhaps to avoid all this.


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - Augustinian - 10-02-2020

(10-02-2020, 05:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 04:55 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 04:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: I know immersion isn't necessary for a valid baptism, but man, would it eliminate legal conundra like this.

I'm with you on that.

If the Faith had stayed round the Mediterranean it might still be the normative way of baptism, but having to break the ice on the font in an unheated Church, in England or Scandinavia e.g., did tend to discourage it a bit.

Come on, what's a little hypothermia compared to the remission of sins?


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - jovan66102 - 10-02-2020

(10-02-2020, 05:36 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 05:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 04:55 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 04:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: I know immersion isn't necessary for a valid baptism, but man, would it eliminate legal conundra like this.

I'm with you on that.

If the Faith had stayed round the Mediterranean it might still be the normative way of baptism, but having to break the ice on the font in an unheated Church, in England or Scandinavia e.g., did tend to discourage it a bit.

Come on, what's a little hypothermia compared to the remission of sins?

Well, given the state of health care prior to, say, the invention of central heating, it would have guaranteed a speedy entrance into heaven for a goodly percentage of the newly baptised. However, I would think that evangelisation might have been a bit more difficult. I can just see some Anglo-Saxon warrior, who's not too sure about this whole White Christ business to begin with, telling St Augustine, 'You want to break the ice in that tank and dunk me three times? Do I look crazy?'


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - newenglandsun - 10-02-2020

(10-02-2020, 06:02 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 05:36 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 05:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 04:55 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(10-02-2020, 04:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: I know immersion isn't necessary for a valid baptism, but man, would it eliminate legal conundra like this.

I'm with you on that.

If the Faith had stayed round the Mediterranean it might still be the normative way of baptism, but having to break the ice on the font in an unheated Church, in England or Scandinavia e.g., did tend to discourage it a bit.

Come on, what's a little hypothermia compared to the remission of sins?

Well, given the state of health care prior to, say, the invention of central heating, it would have guaranteed a speedy entrance into heaven for a goodly percentage of the newly baptised. However, I would think that evangelisation might have been a bit more difficult. I can just see some Anglo-Saxon warrior, who's not too sure about this whole White Christ business to begin with, telling St Augustine, 'You want to break the ice in that tank and dunk me three times? Do I look crazy?'
St. Augustine would have said, "Well, you are Scandinavian..."


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - LionHippo - 10-02-2020

Getting wrapped around the axle to a certain point makes the sacraments look like superstitious magic spells instead of a sign of God's grace.

It just seems like common sense, and the prevalence of the mercy of God that He would dispense the grace of baptism upon an innocent person seeking the sacrament, even if the technicalities of the celebration were inadvertently performed incorrectly.

Again: innovation and novelty cannot be tolerated. But honest mistakes should not invalidate the sacraments for others who are innocently receiving them.

Case in point, and this may be a bit crude, but: for years, how many priests who were guilty of abuse of minors still went on to hear confessions, and consecrate the Eucharist? I'd be almost certain that none of them were in a state of grace while doing so. We always hear of "consecrated hands, consecrated hands!" But sadly, how many of those "consecrated hands" which perhaps hours before were used to inappropriately touch some poor victim were then allowed by God to celebrate Mass and consecrate the Eucharist? Only theological gymnastics can justify the technicalities that this was still possible.

So honestly, to me, seen in this light, it's kind of small potatoes to worry about whether water only touched someone's hair and not their skin. It's a joke to think that God would deny the grace of baptism to an innocent baby or someone seeking it in good conscience because a drop of water didn't touch their skin. But He somehow allowed thousands of priests in a state of mortal sin to offer the sacraments to innocent faithful for who knows how long.


RE: Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin - Augustinian - 10-02-2020

(10-02-2020, 09:08 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Case in point, and this may be a bit crude, but:  for years, how many priests who were guilty of abuse of minors still went on to hear confessions, and consecrate the Eucharist?  I'd be almost certain that none of them were in a state of grace while doing so.  We always hear of "consecrated hands, consecrated hands!"  But sadly, how many of those "consecrated hands" which perhaps hours before were used to inappropriately touch some poor victim were then allowed by God to celebrate Mass and consecrate the Eucharist?  Only theological gymnastics can justify the technicalities that this was still possible.

Theological gymnastics are not really necessary at all, as the priesthood is an office bestowed on individuals, regardless of the state of their soul. To say sin could remove these faculties would be to subscribe to Donatism, which was condemned centuries ago. That said, I get what you are saying. I thoroughly doubt God would be so unmerciful as to allow a good, well-intentioned Catholic into heaven simply because the water of their baptism touched their hair rather than their scalp.