baptism question
#19
(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.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 04:56 PM
RE: baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 04:59 PM
RE: baptism question - by jovan66102 - 01-27-2019, 05:09 PM
RE: baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 05:33 PM
RE: baptism question - by jovan66102 - 01-27-2019, 05:40 PM
RE: baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 06:16 PM
RE: baptism question - by FultonFan - 01-27-2019, 06:43 PM
RE: baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 07:43 PM
RE: baptism question - by FultonFan - 01-27-2019, 08:07 PM
RE: baptism question - by MagisterMusicae - 01-27-2019, 08:33 PM
RE: baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 09:24 PM
RE: baptism question - by MagisterMusicae - 01-27-2019, 10:17 PM
RE: baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 10:44 PM
RE: baptism question - by MagisterMusicae - 01-27-2019, 11:02 PM
RE: baptism question - by MagisterMusicae - 01-27-2019, 05:47 PM
RE: baptism question - by jovan66102 - 01-27-2019, 06:02 PM
RE: baptism question - by Melkite - 01-27-2019, 08:16 PM
RE: baptism question - by Dave Parrott - 01-29-2019, 01:40 PM
RE: baptism question - by MagisterMusicae - 01-29-2019, 05:32 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)