my priest does baptisms at the start of Mass.

he does not use water, just the oil. he never has sponsors, just the parents.

is this within the rules (no water definitely seems to me to fall outside Canon Law)?

does this affect the validity of the baptism (i would assume not)?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 17, 2004

Answers

he's an unconventional person.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 17, 2004.

Are you sure he is doing baptisms, and not simply conferring some kind of blessing? If he actually thinks he is doing baptisms, he is not. Baptism cannot be validly conferred without water.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 17, 2004.

Paul

this is what occurred to me - how can you have a baptism without water?

all i can say is that he presented 2 couples yesterday and announced that their babies were to be baptised there and then. he anointed chests with the oil. he put the sign of the cross on each child, as did the parents (no sponsors, he never seems to have sponsors).

all this i recall from my own kids' baptisms.

he also "claimed the children for Christ". that's part of the Baptism liturgy too, isn't it?

and there was no suggestion that this was a subsidiary or ancilliary act, it WAS the baptism. it lasted about 3 minutes, as the other baptisms he has done also lasted.

however, no water was used at all.

i would have "guessed" that the cermeony might be illicit, that is to say, outside the rules with the priest being personally cuplable, but the Sacrament nonetheless validly performed as the parents assume they are getting a "proper baptism" from the priest. that is, however, unsubstantiated guesswork.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 17, 2004.

Also

kids not dressed in white, no white garments at all

no candles - i recall for each of my kids (and the kid whose God- parent i am) having to take a Christening candle along

no statement of faith or rejection of Satan -- just one question was put to the parents - "What do you want", Answer "Baptism".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 17, 2004.

btw Paul

some research suggests that my guesswork is completely wrong.

and some further relection has reminded me that most kids seem to cry when sprinkled with water. maybe he wants to avoid that in front of a large audience.

what do you think i should do?

what if he sprinkled them privately before the ceremony?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 17, 2004.

The child(ren) may have been baptized emergently, i.e., at birth. The Church does not re-baptize conditionally if there's no reason to doubt the validity of the sacrament. However, the person being baptized emergently would be deprived of the graces that come from the other parts of the rite, being anointed, being given blessed salt, and so on. In such a case, it's entirely appropriate that there would be a ceremony including all the parts of the rite of Baptism short of the actal pouring of the water & pronouncement of the words.

-- none (no@no.no), May 17, 2004.

if i am correct in assuming that emergent baptism is used where there is some concern that the baby might not survive, then this is a real coincidence because he baptised a set of twins (one family) and also another family's young child.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 17, 2004.

none-

That is correct. My first child was baptized in the hospital by a nurse because he was in imminent danger of death, and no priest was immediately available. Later we had the Christening ceremony at church, without the actual baptism. (Yes, he survived and is now doing well as a young adult).

Ian-

If the priest baptized the children before the Mass and then had the public Christening ceremony, that would be allowable, though a bit difficult to understand. Technically the sponsors would not have to be present at the Christening, just at the actual baptism, though it would be even more difficult to understand why they would not want to be??

If in fact the "baptism" was performed without water, then it is not simply a matter of illicit form. Rather, no sacrament has occurred, and the child is not baptized. As for the parents "assuming" that their child is baptized, that is a valid point, and if they received a baptismal certificate then both they and the child him/herself later in life would rightfully (though not rightly) assume that the child was validly baptized. In such a case the principle of "baptism of desire" would allow the person to receive the graces of the sacrament, including valid reception of subsequent sacraments. Incidentally, "sprinkling" with water is not an approved method of baptism under most circumstances. The water must be poured (or the recipient immersed). Baptism by sprinkling in most circumstances (actually in all circumstances that the average person would ever encounter) would be illicit.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 17, 2004.