Author Topic: Would these hypothetical baptisms be valid?  (Read 109 times)

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3061
  • Thanked: 805 times
Would these hypothetical baptisms be valid?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:27:10 AM »
Just wondering whether any of these hypothetical baptisms would be valid, and if any theologians or popes have commented on these sorts of things.

- Case 1: The baptizer takes the person-to-be-baptized into the bathroom and tells him to stand in the shower. Then the baptizer turns on the water while saying the right words with the right intention, such that the person-to-be-baptized becomes drenched by the shower water.

- Case 2: Similar to the above, except that the water is already running. (Such that it's not the baptizer who turns on the water.) Would it make a difference if the baptizer physically pushes the other person into the shower rather than telling him to step in on his own?

- Case 3: There's a baptizer, the person-to-be-baptized, and some other guy. The baptizer remotely baptizes the person using the other guy as his instrument. (i.e. The other guy, who is following the baptizer's commands, says the right words and pours the water. But the other guy doesn't have the right intention. It is only the baptizer who has the right intention.)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 07:34:38 AM by Daniel »
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 828
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Would these hypothetical baptisms be valid?
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2020, 02:30:44 PM »
Just wondering whether any of these hypothetical baptisms would be valid, and if any theologians or popes have commented on these sorts of things.

- Case 1: The baptizer takes the person-to-be-baptized into the bathroom and tells him to stand in the shower. Then the baptizer turns on the water while saying the right words with the right intention, such that the person-to-be-baptized becomes drenched by the shower water.

- Case 2: Similar to the above, except that the water is already running. (Such that it's not the baptizer who turns on the water.) Would it make a difference if the baptizer physically pushes the other person into the shower rather than telling him to step in on his own?

- Case 3: There's a baptizer, the person-to-be-baptized, and some other guy. The baptizer remotely baptizes the person using the other guy as his instrument. (i.e. The other guy, who is following the baptizer's commands, says the right words and pours the water. But the other guy doesn't have the right intention. It is only the baptizer who has the right intention.)

My opinion is that one and two are highly doubtful, requiring a conditional baptism.  The novelty of the instrument used cannot be overlooked.  A sea shell comes to mind as an instrument traditionally used to administer the water.   A cupped hand I imagine functions as an instrument.  A shower is not a similar or remotely comparable instrument. 

For number three, one aspect is simple, when correct matter and form are used, correct intention is presumed.  The only proof of faulty intention lies in the matter and the form, or in obvious cases the invalidity of the minister(retardation/drunkenness).  If you are going to introduce a new concept such as "remote" baptizing, you are going to have to define it.   If you consider use of the word "commands" as a sufficient definer, I will object, and require you to define your use of the word "commands". 
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 03:01:53 PM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel