Baptism - Water doesn't touch skin
#11
(09-30-2020, 07:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(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.

No, it would make it doubtful—that is, it would introduce a question as to whether it were valid or not, and this, if not a single drop of the water touched skin.

It is a situation where there might be a valid sacrament, but the question introduced suggests that it ought to be redone under the condition if it were not valid the first time. At least one theologian thinks it valid, since your hair is part of you, the others cited say "doubtful", not invalid.

Are you sure that the hair did not get wet and thus make the skin underneath wet? Could you feel the temperature difference of the water on your head?

I've seen plenty of adult baptisms in my life, and I've never managed to see on where the hair alone got wet, and not at least some skin, such as in one's part, a forehead, through the hair, an ear, etc.
Reply
#12
(09-30-2020, 09:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-30-2020, 07:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(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.

No, it would make it doubtful—that is, it would introduce a question as to whether it were valid or not, and this, if not a single drop of the water touched skin.

It is a situation where there might be a valid sacrament, but the question introduced suggests that it ought to be redone under the condition if it were not valid the first time. At least one theologian thinks it valid, since your hair is part of you, the others cited say "doubtful", not invalid.

Are you sure that the hair did not get wet and thus make the skin underneath wet? Could you feel the temperature difference of the water on your head?

I've seen plenty of adult baptisms in my life, and I've never managed to see on where the hair alone got wet, and not at least some skin, such as in one's part, a forehead, through the hair, an ear, etc.

For example, when I was baptized, it was centralized on the crown of my head (my hair), but then rolled down to my forehead. Plus, unless you have unbelievably thick hair, I'm sure one's scalp would be dampened by it.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#13
Seeing that the Church recognizes a baptism of desire that doesn't even require a formal Rite, ritual or ceremony, this type of technical minutiae of the words said, whether water touched the skin, etc., all seems very arbitrary. As if God is going to withhold his grace and mercy from an innocent person who, through no fault of their own, did not realize that since the water only touched their hair and not their skin their Baptism is invalid. Doesn't count! One can imagine God watching from above, crossing his arms and huffing and puffing, pouting, and then denying his grace to that poor soul. Storming off . . . "It has to touch the skin!!!!" Honestly, is this the God we want to believe in?

I don't agree with priest and deacons innovating, purposely changing words and rubrics to their own liking. But still, their errors seem to be on their souls, not those poor faithful who don't know any better.
[-] The following 3 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • Adventus, Augustinian, newenglandsun
Reply
#14
(09-30-2020, 09:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-30-2020, 07:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(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.

No, it would make it doubtful—that is, it would introduce a question as to whether it were valid or not, and this, if not a single drop of the water touched skin.

It is a situation where there might be a valid sacrament, but the question introduced suggests that it ought to be redone under the condition if it were not valid the first time. At least one theologian thinks it valid, since your hair is part of you, the others cited say "doubtful", not invalid.

Are you sure that the hair did not get wet and thus make the skin underneath wet? Could you feel the temperature difference of the water on your head?

I've seen plenty of adult baptisms in my life, and I've never managed to see on where the hair alone got wet, and not at least some skin, such as in one's part, a forehead, through the hair, an ear, etc.
It was very faint temperature difference...
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#15
(09-30-2020, 09:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Seeing that the Church recognizes a baptism of desire that doesn't even require a formal Rite, ritual or ceremony, this type of technical minutiae of the words said, whether water touched the skin, etc., all seems very arbitrary.  As if God is going to withhold his grace and mercy from an innocent person who, through no fault of their own, did not realize that since the water only touched their hair and not their skin their Baptism is invalid.  Doesn't count!  One can imagine God watching from above, crossing his arms and huffing and puffing, pouting, and then denying his grace to that poor soul.  Storming off . . . "It has to touch the skin!!!!"  Honestly, is this the God we want to believe in?

I don't agree with priest and deacons innovating, purposely changing words and rubrics to their own liking.  But still, their errors seem to be on their souls, not those poor faithful who don't know any better.

I'm inclined to agree. This seems like splitting hairs at this point (pun intended).
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#16
(09-30-2020, 09:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Seeing that the Church recognizes a baptism of desire that doesn't even require a formal Rite, ritual or ceremony, this type of technical minutiae of the words said, whether water touched the skin, etc., all seems very arbitrary.  As if God is going to withhold his grace and mercy from an innocent person who, through no fault of their own, did not realize that since the water only touched their hair and not their skin their Baptism is invalid.  Doesn't count!  One can imagine God watching from above, crossing his arms and huffing and puffing, pouting, and then denying his grace to that poor soul.  Storming off . . . "It has to touch the skin!!!!"  Honestly, is this the God we want to believe in?

I don't agree with priest and deacons innovating, purposely changing words and rubrics to their own liking.  But still, their errors seem to be on their souls, not those poor faithful who don't know any better.

"Baptism of Desire," is a term I really don't like because it is only analogically like Sacramental Baptism. "Baptism of Desire" describes a process by which, through an extraordinary working of grace, one of the effects of sacramental Baptism is given, namely Sanctifying Grace. "Baptism of Desire" does not confer the indelible mark of the Sacrament: the Baptismal Character. As a result, one who is justified by said process is not a member of the Church, only of the Communion of Saints.

Part of this process, however, like a Perfect Act of Contrition, requires the intention to receive Baptism as soon as possible. So, if we know there is a defect in a Sacramental rite, we are obliged to fix it. One needs to formally enter the Church if possible, so it does matter and is hardly arbitrary.

If someone was incorrectly Baptized, but went through life think all was right, and trying to confess his sins, and life a good Christian life, it is pretty clear that God would very likely give the necessary graces for his salvation. We have papal commentary to this point from Pope Innocent III. Still, if we realized this, then there is an obligation to fix it if we can. If we don't we fall into the same trap of laxity that asks "Why do I need to confess my sins when God knows I am sorry already?"

God can work through means other than the rites He has given us, but He expects us to use the means we have, which means to use them correctly.

And there are also consequences for souls. Consider the situations we know of with regard to "priests" who were invalidly Baptized, and which was recently discovered. These men grew up as Catholics, went to seminary, were seemingly ordained, and while they may have had Sanctifying Grace on their souls through the grace of God, they were not Catholics, and were not Priests, and all of the confessions they heard, blessings they gave, and sacraments (aside from Baptism) including Masses, were invalid.

Yes, God does not bind Himself to giving grace only through the Sacraments, but dismiss the Sacramental Theology of the Church and adopt that Aussie "she'll be right, mate" attitude, and one might as well become a liberal Protestant or Modernist thinking that Hell is empty because God is a big sugar daddy.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#17
(09-30-2020, 09:44 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(09-30-2020, 09:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-30-2020, 07:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(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.

No, it would make it doubtful—that is, it would introduce a question as to whether it were valid or not, and this, if not a single drop of the water touched skin.

It is a situation where there might be a valid sacrament, but the question introduced suggests that it ought to be redone under the condition if it were not valid the first time. At least one theologian thinks it valid, since your hair is part of you, the others cited say "doubtful", not invalid.

Are you sure that the hair did not get wet and thus make the skin underneath wet? Could you feel the temperature difference of the water on your head?

I've seen plenty of adult baptisms in my life, and I've never managed to see on where the hair alone got wet, and not at least some skin, such as in one's part, a forehead, through the hair, an ear, etc.
It was very faint temperature difference...

Hair is a pretty terrible conductor of heat, so if you felt any temperature difference, and unless you were sporting thick greasy hair or super curly hair, chances are pretty good the water touched the skin of your head.

That said, were I you, I would take the question to a good solid priest, explain that you learned from someone who studied Sacramental theology in the seminary that if the Baptismal water did not touch one's skin there was a doubt as to whether this was valid. Put it to him for his judgment and remedy if possible.

The worst that should happen here is that you consider the Baptism questionable, and then get it redone under condition to be sure, but it's probably best to talk to a priest you can trust. We, here, can only reference manuals and provide suggestions, and do not have the care of your soul.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#18
(09-30-2020, 10:59 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Hair is a pretty terrible conductor of heat, so if you felt any temperature difference, and unless you were sporting thick greasy hair or super curly hair, chances are pretty good the water touched the skin of your head.

That said, were I you, I would take the question to a good solid priest, explain that you learned from someone who studied Sacramental theology in the seminary that if the Baptismal water did not touch one's skin there was a doubt as to whether this was valid. Put it to him for his judgment and remedy if possible.

The worst that should happen here is that you consider the Baptism questionable, and then get it redone under condition to be sure, but it's probably best to talk to a priest you can trust. We, here, can only reference manuals and provide suggestions, and do not have the care of your soul.
I emailed the Archimandrite. He asked if I was baptized Episcopalian (Anglican). I clarified that it was Continuing Anglican. He said Anglican baptism is valid. Period. I asked about the hair/skin issue. He asked if the hair was attached to me or not. I said it was. I await his next reply.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#19
That's why I was confused by the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia in post #2. I don't know how many baptisms I observed as an altar boy in the Anglican Church, but it was a lot. I've been to quite a few Catholic baptisms in the last 40 years as well. In terms of the manner in which the actual baptism is done, the two are identical. 
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#20
What is the theological meaning and value of water touching skin? I could see it more clearly if it only touched clothes or some other thing a person wears that is not part of the body, but hair is part of the body and also part of the head.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Adventus's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)