Is it Really Water?

[MChase]

In the old rite (pre-Vatican 2) the priest puts a few drops of oil in the font prior to baptism. Not sure if that is still done in the new rite.

Here's my question: what does 'invalid' even mean within a Reformed context? In a Roman Catholic context it means that the sacrament 'didn't work'. In the case of baptism it would mean that the infusion of sanctifying grace was prevented either because of defect in matter or intention. Since we Reformed don't believe in baptismal regeneration, what does an 'invalid' baptism mean? I was baptized as an infant in the RC and wasn't required to undergo the sacrament again when joining a Presbyterian church.

I'm not presuming to comment on any particular administration of the sacrament (or lack thereof), but think of the Lord's Supper being administered in a private household by a bunch of college students with no ordained minister, no preaching, no fencing, etc. Is that a valid administration of the Supper? I'd say no.

This is different than the Lutheran church administering the Lord's Supper, where we would disagree with all that is going on - certainly with all they think is going on - but it is still valid.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

In the old rite (pre-Vatican 2) the priest puts a few drops of oil in the font prior to baptism. Not sure if that is still done in the new rite.

Here's my question: what does 'invalid' even mean within a Reformed context? In a Roman Catholic context it means that the sacrament 'didn't work'. In the case of baptism it would mean that the infusion of sanctifying grace was prevented either because of defect in matter or intention. Since we Reformed don't believe in baptismal regeneration, what does an 'invalid' baptism mean? I was baptized as an infant in the RC and wasn't required to undergo the sacrament again when joining a Presbyterian church.

Would you agree that there is some kind of standard that separates "baptism" from "not-baptism"?

We both agree (I hope) that baptism performed using perfumed oil instead of water is not baptism.

We both agree (I hope) that someone who is knocked unconscious, kidnapped and blindfolded, and then dunked completely in pure water while someone says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" can not really be said to be baptized.

At some point, a baptism done "just wrong enough" simply doesn't count.

I think it's good for people to explore the limits of this stuff.

 

[yeutter]

the form of the Sacrament of Baptism has two essential elements: the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

In some Roman communions, if the priest didn't have the right thoughts, then the sacrament was invalid. This, ironically, comes close to that. If x isn't just right, then it is not right. That also brings to mind the old Donatist heresies.

It is my understanding that the Church of Rome recognizes a baptism as valid if:

1. the person to be baptized is dipped into [immersed] in water, or the infant has water poured over their head
2. and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." are uttered over the baptized person
3. and the baptism is performed with Trinitarian intent. That is to say, the person performing the baptism must intend what the Catholic Church intends in order for the baptism to be valid. Therefore for the baptism to be valid in the eyes of the Church of Rome. when the person performing the baptism baptizes "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he must mean in the name of the Trinity, and he must intend to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of Christ's Church.

On the other hand, if the person performing the baptism is a cultist who denies the Trinity, the Church of Rome would regard the baptism as being invalid.
For instance members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ["Mormons"] refer to themselves as Christians, they do not believe the same thing that Catholics, Canonical Orthodox, and Trinitarian Protestants believe about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Rather than believing that these are Three Persons in One God [the Trinity], the LDS cult teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate deities. Therefore, the Church of Rome
denies the validity of LDS baptism, because Mormons, when they baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," do not intend what Christians intend, that is, they do not intend to baptize in the name of the Trinity.

The Church of Rome permits midwives and nurses to perform baptisms of dying infants, and regards these baptisms as valid as long as water is sprinkled or poured on the head of the infant, the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' are used, and the midwife or nurse performs this baptism with Trinitarian intent.

 

[Rome2Geneva]

I'm not presuming to comment on any particular administration of the sacrament (or lack thereof), but think of the Lord's Supper being administered in a private household by a bunch of college students with no ordained minister, no preaching, no fencing, etc. Is that a valid administration of the Supper? I'd say no.

This is different than the Lutheran church administering the Lord's Supper, where we would disagree with all that is going on - certainly with all they think is going on - but it is still valid.

I'm looking for a Reformed definition of validity in regards to the administration of the sacraments. My entire formation in sacramental theology is thoroughly Roman Catholic. I still have a lot to learn regarding the Reformed understanding of these terms and concepts. So I'm not being rhetorical when I ask these questions.

So in talking about validity of a sacrament my first question is: Did it 'work'? What you are describing above would fall under the Roman Catholic definition of illicit: not permitted. For instance, A Catholic priest who leaves the faith and becomes an atheist could still validly transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ (according to Rome). However this consecration would be uncanonical: illicit.

Regarding Reformed theology, what determines if a sacrament 'works', ie: the particular grace of the sacrament having been received? If an adult convert to the Reformed faith is unknowingly baptized in water to which a copious amount of some foreign substance has been added, has that person not been visibly brought into communion with the Covenant community of the Church? The matter with which he has been baptized is certainly illicit, but does that mean that his baptism would be useless and have to be repeated? In other words, what is the particular grace that would not have been received in this case?

 

[Rome2Geneva]

the form of the Sacrament of Baptism has two essential elements: the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."




It is my understanding that the Church of Rome recognizes a baptism as valid if:

1. the person to be baptized is dipped into [immersed] in water, or the infant has water poured over their head
2. and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." are uttered over the baptized person
3. and the baptism is performed with Trinitarian intent. That is to say, the person performing the baptism must intend what the Catholic Church intends in order for the baptism to be valid. Therefore for the baptism to be valid in the eyes of the Church of Rome. when the person performing the baptism baptizes "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he must mean in the name of the Trinity, and he must intend to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of Christ's Church.

On the other hand, if the person performing the baptism is a cultist who denies the Trinity, the Church of Rome would regard the baptism as being invalid.

Not true. As long as the person used the correct matter (water) and form (I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) it is presumed that the person baptizing intends to do 'what the Church does'. According to Rome even atheists can validly baptize in an emergency. That's because Rome believes that sacraments work: ex opere operato.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Francis Turretin has a satisfactory treatment of this question in his institutes.