Act Acting » Child Actors » The nature of intent to baptize

The nature of intent to baptize

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   I’m going to try this again, since no one answered this point last time I posted on this subject. Actually, yes… a great many people did. Catholics hold that a baptism administered by a non-Christian can be valid. Yep. If the person being baptized was born last week, and thus incapable of any intent to be baptized, the only intent or lack of intent that can be relevant to the baptism’s validity must be that of the baptizer. Actually, no.  the intent or lack of intent that can be relevant to the baptism’s validity must be that of the parents, or custodians of the infant. Catholics say that person must _intend_ to follow the procedure that the church uses for baptism. Yep… A non-Christian generally would not believe in divince grace following from baptism, so it must be unnecessary for the baptizer to intend that result. Right… the intent is the baptized, or those acting on behalf of the baptized, in the case of infancy. If an non-Christian _actor_, playing the role of a priest in a movie, goes through the motions so that a baptism can be portrayed in the movie, he likewise does not intend any divine grace to follow; it’s only acting. And no actual baptism occurs. But he _does_ intend to follow the procedure used by the church. Actually, he intends to PORTRAY the procedure. Persons in this newsgroup have said that would _not_ be a valid baptism, since he does not _intend_to_baptize_. Actually, persons in this newsgroup (you claimed that nobody responded before… now make up your mind… did we or didn’t we), stated it would _NOT_ be a valid baptism because it was not the intent of any involved for it to be a valid baptism.  The actor portraying the priest did not intend for it to be valid… the actor portraying the individual to be baptized didn’t intend to be baptized, and if it is an infant baptism, the actors portraying the parents or custodians of the child didn’t A) intend for the child to be baptized or B) have the authority to make that decision on behalf of the child. A non-Christian’s intent to baptize must therefore consist of something _more_ than intent to follow the right procedure, but _less_ than intent that divine grace should result. You’re mistaken on where the intent lies… it’s not with the person doing the baptism… it’s with the person who is being baptized, or those speaking for the person being baptized.

Just to clarify that my other post appears to contradict this statement above, and should be in agreement with it.  The intent of the person doing the baptism should be to do what the person being baptized desires (perform a baptismal rite), even while really not knowing what it means or why it is being done. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It must be somewhere _between_ those two states of intent.  Specifically, where is it? How is it precisely defined?     — Mike Hardy It is defined quite clearly as the intent of the person BEING baptized or the responsible parties speaking on behalf of the person BEING baptized. Not the priest, not the actor who isn’t a priest but plays one on TV, not the non-Christian who is baptizing someone on their deathbed.  If the baptism isn’t gone into willingly either by the person being baptized or those custodially responsible to speak on the person’s behalf, then it is not a baptism.  It is simply getting wet and saying words. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

    I have to suspect that no canon lawyers are among those who answered, since I would think such a person would not have been as thrown-off-balance by the seeming ridiculousness of concrete examples and would have realized there was a legitimate question, and might have found the question interesting.

I didn’t find it interesting at all because the intent of the person baptizing has nothing to do with it and yes "rediculousness" is an apt term for the thread. FYI Baptism is conferred by either pouring or immersion. Anyone can baptize, even a non Christian. A single witness is necessary for validity according to the Navarre commentary on the New Code although Godparents and Parents are commonly present. Proper FORM is necessary for validity.  "I baptize you in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit." Proper MATTER is necessary for validity. That "matter" of course is water. The Canons suggest it be blessed (Holy Water) but that is not necessary for validity. The main thing necessary for canonical validity is the witnessing, reporting and recording of the event in the Parish record. Without that record a doubt might exist in later years and lead to un-necessary conditional Baptism. The Church does not take this lightly. Repeated Baptisms are considered contrary to divine law. JW – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Admittedly the movie example may not be the best way to get the point across, but seeing that scene in the movie after reading some articles about sacraments in the online Catholic Encyclopedia is what caused me to wonder about this.  That particular web resource made me realize that stereotypes that say that Catholicism is a more elaborate religion and has more dogmas than any other are almost certainly true.     John Searle is a philosopher who has written about what he calls "collective intentionality", which is a state of mind succinctly expressed by saying "we intend".  It appears that the answer given here to my question is that something like that may be considered necessary to validity of baptism (unless maybe one parent is baptizing his or her own newborn child, in which case maybe only one person’s intent is needed for validity?). Anyway, I suspect that some sort of collective intentionality is involved in a lot of what goes on in organized religion.       Mike Hardy Why not just say you have a problem with organized religion and leave it at that?      Because that’s not what I was trying to say.  I don’t see how you get that from what I wrote.     — Mike Hardy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Persons in this newsgroup have said that would _not_ be a valid baptism, since he does not _intend_to_baptize_. Actually, persons in this newsgroup (you claimed that nobody responded before… now make up your mind… did we or didn’t we),     I didn’t say no one responded to my posting — only that there was one point in it that no one answered.  And you have now answered it, and your answer contradicts something someone said last time. It is defined quite clearly as the intent of the person BEING baptized or the responsible parties speaking on behalf of the person BEING baptized.     This is the part that contradicts what someone said before. Someone said the intent of the baptizer to baptize was necessary. So I wondered: What is the difference between the intent of a non-Christian to baptize, when he doesn’t believe in the supernatural effects of baptism, and the intent of the actor in a movie to go through certain motions, including saying certain words? If the baptism isn’t gone into willingly either by the person being baptized or those custodially responsible to speak on the person’s behalf, then it is not a baptism. It is simply getting wet and saying words.     So am I right to say that Catholics still say it’s not valid unless the baptizer, although he may be a non-Christian, _intends_ to follow the procedure used by the church?  If so, then at least some _intent_ of the baptizer is necessary.

No, he only needs to intend to do, and to actually do, what the baptized person asks, whether he understands it, believes in it or not.  If the minister intends to be acting, he isn’t baptizing.  He must be asked to perform a baptism by the person to be baptized (or by his Godparents if he’s incapacitated, an infant, etc.), agree to do what is asked, and then actually perform the rite. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     Let’s say a non-Christian actor playing a priest on TV has no intent to do anything except follow the procedure used by the church, including the utterance of the words, but the infants actual parents (not the actors playing the roles of parents) think it would be cool to get their child baptized in that strange way, and intend it to be an actual baptism, even though the actors don’t suspect this.  Is the actor’s intent to follow the same motions and words that the church uses, sufficient intent on his part?        Mike Hardy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    I’m going to try this again, since no one answered this point last time I posted on this subject.  Catholics hold that a baptism administered by a non-Christian can be valid.  If the person being baptized was born last week, and thus incapable of any intent to be baptized, the only intent or lack of intent that can be relevant to the baptism’s validity must be that of the baptizer. Catholics say that person must _intend_ to follow the procedure that the church uses for baptism.  A non-Christian generally would not believe in divince grace following from baptism, so it must be unnecessary for the baptizer to intend that result.  If an non-Christian _actor_, playing the role of a priest in a movie, goes through the motions so that a baptism can be portrayed in the movie, he likewise does not intend any divine grace to follow; it’s only acting.  But he _does_ intend to follow the procedure used by the church.  Persons in this newsgroup have said that would _not_ be a valid baptism, since he does not _intend_to_baptize_.  A non-Christian’s intent to baptize must therefore consist of something _more_ than intent to follow the right procedure, but _less_ than intent that divine grace should result.  It must be somewhere _between_ those two states of intent.  Specifically, where is it? How is it precisely defined?     — Mike Hardy

It has nothing to do with what one believes about the sacrament.  By your line of thought above, any person (Christian or otherwise) performing a baptism in a movie would be actually baptizing someone, which is pretty obviously not the case, and probably not why you intended to say.  What needs to be present is an intent to actually perform a Christian baptismal ritual on a person, intending through it to cause that which Catholics believe to happen at baptism, even without knowing just what that is.  This applies to anyone performing a baptism.   including the less-educated Catholic parents who may not know just what Baptism is supposed to do.  In reality, NONE of us really knows all there is to know about the Sacrament, because it is an act of Grace, and Grace is an infinite gift from God.  So considering that, it’s not all that hard to see why one need not understand the sacrament to perform it.

Response:

I was under the impression that lay people are only authorized to baptize in extreme cases – such as borderline death? BAM

Ordinarily, yes, you are correct.  If no priest is available another Catholic can do it, if no Catholic is available, another Christian can do it (preferrably one with sacraments, like an Orthodox), if no Christian is a vailable someone else can do it.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     I have to suspect that no canon lawyers are among those who answered, since I would think such a person would not have been as thrown-off-balance by the seeming ridiculousness of concrete examples and would have realized there was a legitimate question, and might have found the question interesting. Admittedly the movie example may not be the best way to get the point across, but seeing that scene in the movie after reading some articles about sacraments in the online Catholic Encyclopedia is what caused me to wonder about this.  That particular web resource made me realize that stereotypes that say that Catholicism is a more elaborate religion and has more dogmas than any other are almost certainly true.     John Searle is a philosopher who has written about what he calls "collective intentionality", which is a state of mind succinctly expressed by saying "we intend".  It appears that the answer given here to my question is that something like that may be considered necessary to validity of baptism (unless maybe one parent is baptizing his or her own newborn child, in which case maybe only one person’s intent is needed for validity?). Anyway, I suspect that some sort of collective intentionality is involved in a lot of what goes on in organized religion.       Mike Hardy Why not just say you have a problem with organized religion and leave it at that?

     Because that’s not what I was trying to say.  I don’t see how you get that from what I wrote.     — Mike Hardy

Response:

That would be the answer I said no one posted the first time I started a thread on this.    – Mike Hardy BUt that may be because people quickly found your scenario increasingly ridiculous and considered you to be a troll.

    I have to suspect that no canon lawyers are among those who answered, since I would think such a person would not have been as thrown-off-balance by the seeming ridiculousness of concrete examples and would have realized there was a legitimate question, and might have found the question interesting. Admittedly the movie example may not be the best way to get the point across, but seeing that scene in the movie after reading some articles about sacraments in the online Catholic Encyclopedia is what caused me to wonder about this.  That particular web resource made me realize that stereotypes that say that Catholicism is a more elaborate religion and has more dogmas than any other are almost certainly true.     John Searle is a philosopher who has written about what he calls "collective intentionality", which is a state of mind succinctly expressed by saying "we intend".  It appears that the answer given here to my question is that something like that may be considered necessary to validity of baptism (unless maybe one parent is baptizing his or her own newborn child, in which case maybe only one person’s intent is needed for validity?). Anyway, I suspect that some sort of collective intentionality is involved in a lot of what goes on in organized religion.       Mike Hardy

Response:

Catholics say that his intent to utter those words and bring her into contact with water are necessary, No.. Catholics do not say that.

   I didn’t say Catholics believe that that intent is _sufficient_; I said they believe it is _necessary_. Of course they also say some other things are necessary in addition to that.    Another poster suggested that intent to make his Christian friend feel better is what made the difference.  Could it be intent to cause his Christian friend to believe that a valid baptism had taken place is necessary?     — Mike Hardy Now we’re getting somewhere… the intent of the non-Christian is to help his Christian friend… he may not believe in the necessity/meaningfulness/supernatural aspect of Baptism, himself… but he knows it is of importance and value to his friend and his friend wants to genuinely experience it.

   I agree that this is finally starting to get somewhere. As I said, it seems that we are trying to define some state of intent intermediate between:  (1) intending the supernatural effects, and  (2) intending to perform certain motions and      say certain words. It seems that Catholics say that:  (1) is not necessary (since non-Christians      can validly baptize), and  (2) is not sufficient (since the movie baptism is not valid). That which is necessary and sufficient must be something less than (1) but more than (2), i.e., less than intending the supernatural effects but more than intending the words and motions.  Apparently, you’re saying the answer is that the baptizer must intend fulfill the wishes of the baptized person (or that person’s parents, etc.), or something along those lines.  That would be the answer I said no one posted the first time I started a thread on this.    – Mike Hardy

Response:

Catholics say that his intent to utter those words and bring her into contact with water are necessary, No.. Catholics do not say that.    I didn’t say Catholics believe that that intent is _sufficient_; I said they believe it is _necessary_. Of course they also say some other things are necessary in addition to that.

Then the issue is resolved.  It is more than just somebody following the forms.    Another poster suggested that intent to make his Christian friend feel better is what made the difference.  Could it be intent to cause his Christian friend to believe that a valid baptism had taken place is necessary?     — Mike Hardy Now we’re getting somewhere… the intent of the non-Christian is to help his Christian friend… he may not believe in the necessity/meaningfulness/supernatural aspect of Baptism, himself… but he knows it is of importance and value to his friend and his friend wants to genuinely experience it.    I agree that this is finally starting to get somewhere. As I said, it seems that we are trying to define some state of intent

intermediate between:  (1) intending the supernatural effects, and  (2) intending to perform certain motions and  say certain words. It seems that Catholics say that:  (1) is not necessary (since non-Christians can validly baptize), and

1 is not necessary for the person doing the baptism…  1 is necessary for the person BEING baptized (or those with the authority to speak on behalf of the person being baptism.  (2) is not sufficient (since the movie baptism is not valid).

Since the INTENT of the movie baptism was simply to portray the action, not actually baptize… then of course the movie baptism doesn’t work. If either party is unaware of the other’s intent… then the baptism cannot be valid.  An actress cannot secretly deem this baptism to be valid (especially since she is portraying the baptism of someone else) without the knowledge/consent of the individual doing the baptism. That which is necessary and sufficient must be something less than (1) but more than (2), i.e., less than intending the supernatural effects but more than intending the words and motions.  Apparently, you’re saying the answer is that the baptizer must intend fulfill the wishes of the baptized person (or that person’s parents, etc.), or something along those lines.

Yep… That’s it. That would be the answer I said no one posted the first time I started a thread on this.    – Mike Hardy

BUt that may be because people quickly found your scenario increasingly ridiculous and considered you to be a troll. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

I was under the impression that lay people are only authorized to baptize in extreme cases – such as borderline death?

    Whether the baptism is _authorized_ is a separate question from whether it is _valid_.  An _unauthorized_ and grossly illegal baptism can still be valid according to Catholics.  Some publicity in Boston a couple of years ago followed from an illicit baptism by a Catholic nun.  I don’t recall the newspapers saying the infant was or was not rebaptized, but I suspect they would have reported such a rebaptism if it had happened.  I’m guessing the church did NOT have the infant rebaptized because they considered the first baptism valid even though illicit.  Maybe someone in this newsgroup knows what actually happened in that case?   — Mike Hardy

Response:

I was under the impression that lay people are only authorized to baptize in extreme cases – such as borderline death?

Yep.  That is true. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

but the infants actual parents (not the actors playing the roles of parents) think it would be cool to get their child baptized in that strange way, It wouldn’t matter – there is no valid reason for the baptism to occur outside normal procedures.    If I understand correctly, that would make it illegal according to Catholic church laws, but that is a separate question from whether it is valid.

Actually it would make it invalid.  Not illegal according to the Church. In Boston a couple of years ago, a Catholic nun baptized an infant with the parents looking on, all three intending the infant to be baptized. The nun knew that baptism by a nun was illegal except in emergencies, and this was not an emergency; she was deliberately breaking the rules.

And the priest was present.  Nonetheless, I think the Catholic church would recognize the validity of

the baptism and forbid any rebaptism, because the illegality of the baptism doesn’t make it invalid.

But that is not the wild scenario you have brought up.  You keep going back to where it is a completely ficticious baptism. Furthermore, since the parents THEMSELVES are not actually speaking for the child at the stage baptism, then once again, it would not be valid.    I said it wasn’t the actors playing the parents, but the actual parents, who intend the actual baptism to coincide with the stage baptism.

And since the actual parents wouldn’t be actually involved in this silly scenario, since the actors portraying parents would be… then it is STILL not a valid baptism. OK, let’s says the person being baptized is old enough to intend to get baptized. She’s a professional actor, and the script calls for the character she’s playing to be baptized.  (Seeing this happen in the movie _White_Oleander_ is what inspired my question.)

Nothing of the sort happened in _White_Oleander_  Because the professional actor was playing a part, there was no intent to be baptized. Now suppose that secretly in her own mind, the actor has decided to become a Christian, and wishes the staged baptism to coincide with her actual baptism and intends

it to be a valid baptism. Still not valid. The actor playing the minister of the sacrament intents to immerse her in water and utter the same words used in actual baptism: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

Still not valid. He does not know the secret intentions of the person being baptized.

Then it is still not valid. Catholics say that his intent to utter those words and bring her into contact with water are necessary,

No.. Catholics do not say that.  You are just making up wild silly scenarios.  Simple fact… Baptism isn’t a game…  What you are making it is a game. and that her own intent is necessary (both of those are present in this

case) Except the other intent necessary on the baptizer’s part is not there.  The intent of (in the case of a non-Christian doing the Baptism) actually baptizing someone.  Whether they believe it is of merit or not.  The actor playing a priest has no intent except to follow the script.  Now you’re going to go even more ridiculous and ask about what if they BOTH had this secret intent.  STILL doesn’t work… secret intent doesn’t count. and that it is _not_ necessary for him to intend the supernatural effects of baptism,

_NOT_ necessary for him to believe the supernatural effects.  But if the non-Christian’s intent is to do as his/her friend wishes and baptize them, then the proper intent is there.  In your scenario the intent is not present on both sides… therefore it is not a valid baptism. since he may be a non-Christian without that fact’s invalidating the

baptism. But in your scenario it is invalidating the baptism. You’re saying that would not be a valid baptism.

I’m saying your ridiculous scenario would not be a valid baptism.  Plain and simple – if the baptism is part of a show, play, musical, drama, movie, etc. Then the underlying intent required for it to be valid is non existent. Because they both are playing roles…  To me that sounds sensible, but I still do not know how to state the _rule_ that distinguishes that combination of intentions and actions from a valid baptism by a non-Christian who does not intend any supernatural effects.

Common sense and reality.    Another poster suggested that intent to make his Christian friend feel better is what made the difference.  Could it be intent to cause his Christian friend to believe that a valid baptism had taken place is necessary?     — Mike Hardy

Now we’re getting somewhere… the intent of the non-Christian is to help his Christian friend… he may not believe in the necessity/meaningfulness/supernatural aspect of Baptism, himself… but he knows it is of importance and value to his friend and his friend wants to genuinely experience it. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

but the infants actual parents (not the actors playing the roles of parents) think it would be cool to get their child baptized in that strange way, It wouldn’t matter – there is no valid reason for the baptism to occur outside normal procedures.

   If I understand correctly, that would make it illegal according to Catholic church laws, but that is a separate question from whether it is valid.  In Boston a couple of years ago, a Catholic nun baptized an infant with the parents looking on, all three intending the infant to be baptized.  The nun knew that baptism by a nun was illegal except in emergencies, and this was not an emergency; she was deliberately breaking the rules.  Nonetheless, I think the Catholic church would recognize the validity of the baptism and forbid any rebaptism, because the illegality of the baptism doesn’t make it invalid. Furthermore, since the parents THEMSELVES are not actually speaking for the child at the stage baptism, then once again, it would not be valid.

   I said it wasn’t the actors playing the parents, but the actual parents, who intend the actual baptism to coincide with the stage baptism.  OK, let’s says the person being baptized is old enough to intend to get baptized.  She’s a professional actor, and the script calls for the character she’s playing to be baptized.  (Seeing this happen in the movie _White_Oleander_ is what inspired my question.)  Now suppose that secretly in her own mind, the actor has decided to become a Christian, and wishes the staged baptism to coincide with her actual baptism and intends it to be a valid baptism.  The actor playing the minister of the sacrament intents to immerse her in water and utter the same words used in actual baptism: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". He does not know the secret intentions of the person being baptized.  Catholics say that his intent to utter those words and bring her into contact with water are necessary, and that her own intent is necessary (both of those are present in this case) and that it is _not_ necessary for him to intend the supernatural effects of baptism, since he may be a non-Christian without that fact’s invalidating the baptism.  You’re saying that would not be a valid baptism.  To me that sounds sensible, but I still do not know how to state the _rule_ that distinguishes that combination of intentions and actions from a valid baptism by a non-Christian who does not intend any supernatural effects.    Another poster suggested that intent to make his Christian friend feel better is what made the difference.  Could it be intent to cause his Christian friend to believe that a valid baptism had taken place is necessary?     — Mike Hardy

Response:

I was under the impression that lay people are only authorized to baptize in extreme cases – such as borderline death? BAM

Response:

Persons in this newsgroup have said that would _not_ be a valid baptism, since he does not _intend_to_baptize_. Actually, persons in this newsgroup (you claimed that nobody responded before… now make up your mind… did we or didn’t we),

    I didn’t say no one responded to my posting — only that there was one point in it that no one answered.  And you have now answered it, and your answer contradicts something someone said last time. It is defined quite clearly as the intent of the person BEING baptized or the responsible parties speaking on behalf of the person BEING baptized.

    This is the part that contradicts what someone said before. Someone said the intent of the baptizer to baptize was necessary. So I wondered: What is the difference between the intent of a non-Christian to baptize, when he doesn’t believe in the supernatural effects of baptism, and the intent of the actor in a movie to go through certain motions, including saying certain words? If the baptism isn’t gone into willingly either by the person being baptized or those custodially responsible to speak on the person’s behalf, then it is not a baptism. It is simply getting wet and saying words.

    So am I right to say that Catholics still say it’s not valid unless the baptizer, although he may be a non-Christian, _intends_ to follow the procedure used by the church?  If so, then at least some _intent_ of the baptizer is necessary.     Let’s say a non-Christian actor playing a priest on TV has no intent to do anything except follow the procedure used by the church, including the utterance of the words, but the infants actual parents (not the actors playing the roles of parents) think it would be cool to get their child baptized in that strange way, and intend it to be an actual baptism, even though the actors don’t suspect this.  Is the actor’s intent to follow the same motions and words that the church uses, sufficient intent on his part?        Mike Hardy

Response:

    This is the part that contradicts what someone said before. Someone said the intent of the baptizer to baptize was necessary. So I wondered: What is the difference between the intent of a non-Christian to baptize, when he doesn’t believe in the supernatural effects of baptism, and the intent of the actor in a movie to go through certain motions, including saying certain words?

Consider this.  The non-believer is friends with a Catholic family.  The wife is pregnant. They are on a trip together.  There is a horrible accident, the couple are unconscious, the wife goes into labor.  A baby is born, but is obviously not going to make it. The friend is somewhat mobile, and know how much faith means to this family. Does he sprinkle the kid with some of the bottled water, mumbles what he hopes are the "right words", and hopes that this comforts the parents after the tragedy-knowing that their child was baptized before it died…..or does he say, "Well *I* don’t believe, so why bother?" IMHO, this situation is they type that is described by "intent"–even if the words are not technically correct….after all, if going through the right actions/words without the right intent was all that was needed–isn’t that superstition and/or incantation? — — Buny be normal." ~ Albert Camus

Response:

Persons in this newsgroup have said that would _not_ be a valid baptism, since he does not _intend_to_baptize_. Actually, persons in this newsgroup (you claimed that nobody responded before… now make up your mind… did we or didn’t we),     I didn’t say no one responded to my posting — only that there was one point in it that no one answered.  And you have now answered it, and your answer contradicts something someone said last time.

Sorry – I misread, read it to be that no one responded last time. It is defined quite clearly as the intent of the person BEING baptized or the responsible parties speaking on behalf of the person BEING baptized.     This is the part that contradicts what someone said before.

No… just emphasizes that the intent is necessary not just on the part of the person doing the baptism. Someone said the intent of the baptizer to baptize was necessary.

The intent of both is necessary.  But the primary necessity is for the baptizee or those speaking on behalf of the baptizee.  Which is why a non-Christian, while not believing anything special is happening can baptize someone in emergency. So I wondered: What is the difference between the intent of a non-Christian to baptize, when he doesn’t believe in the supernatural effects of baptism, and the intent of the actor in a movie to go through certain motions, including saying certain words?

The intent of the actor is to pretend.  The intent of the non-Christian is to help their friend be at peace.  Which once again also brings us back to the intent of the person BEING baptized (or those who speak on behalf of them). If the baptism isn’t gone into willingly either by the person being baptized or those custodially responsible to speak on the person’s behalf, then it is not a baptism. It is simply getting wet and saying words.     So am I right to say that Catholics still say it’s not valid unless the baptizer, although he may be a non-Christian, _intends_ to follow the procedure used by the church?  If so, then at least some _intent_ of the baptizer is necessary.

Intent is necessary by both.  But, just because someone intends to follow the norms doesn’t mean they intend to baptize.     Let’s say a non-Christian actor playing a priest on TV has no intent to do anything except follow the procedure used by the church, including the utterance of the words,

Then no baptism occurs. but the infants actual parents (not the actors playing the roles of parents) think it would be cool to get their child baptized in that strange way,

It wouldn’t matter – there is no valid reason for the baptism to occur outside normal procedures. and intend it to be an actual baptism, even though the actors don’t

suspect this. Then no baptism has occurred… since the necessity of a baptism outside church norm wasn’t there.  Since the intent of all but the parents who were spectating was simply to pretend, play a part in a play… no baptism has occurred.  Is the actor’s intent to follow the same motions and words that the church uses, sufficient intent on his part?

Now you’re just getting silly.  But, the answer is no.  Not a valid baptism. See above. Furthermore, since the parents THEMSELVES are not actually speaking for the child at the stage baptism, then once again, it would not be valid. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

   I’m going to try this again, since no one answered this point last time I posted on this subject.  Catholics hold that a baptism administered by a non-Christian can be valid.  If the person being baptized was born last week, and thus incapable of any intent to be baptized, the only intent or lack of intent that can be relevant to the baptism’s validity must be that of the baptizer. Catholics say that person must _intend_ to follow the procedure that the church uses for baptism.  A non-Christian generally would not believe in divince grace following from baptism, so it must be unnecessary for the baptizer to intend that result.  If an non-Christian _actor_, playing the role of a priest in a movie, goes through the motions so that a baptism can be portrayed in the movie, he likewise does not intend any divine grace to follow; it’s only acting.  But he _does_ intend to follow the procedure used by the church.  Persons in this newsgroup have said that would _not_ be a valid baptism, since he does not _intend_to_baptize_.  A non-Christian’s intent to baptize must therefore consist of something _more_ than intent to follow the right procedure, but _less_ than intent that divine grace should result.  It must be somewhere _between_ those two states of intent.  Specifically, where is it? How is it precisely defined?     — Mike Hardy

Response:

   I’m going to try this again, since no one answered this point last time I posted on this subject.

Actually, yes… a great many people did. Catholics hold that a baptism administered by a non-Christian can be valid.

Yep.  If the person being baptized was born last week, and thus incapable of any intent to be baptized, the only intent or lack of intent that can be relevant to the baptism’s validity must be that of the baptizer.

Actually, no.  the intent or lack of intent that can be relevant to the baptism’s validity must be that of the parents, or custodians of the infant. Catholics say that person must _intend_ to follow the procedure that the church uses for baptism.

Yep… A non-Christian generally would not believe in divince grace following from baptism, so it must be unnecessary for the baptizer to intend that result.

Right… the intent is the baptized, or those acting on behalf of the baptized, in the case of infancy. If an non-Christian _actor_, playing the role of a priest in a movie, goes through the motions so that a baptism can be portrayed in the movie, he likewise does not intend any divine grace to follow; it’s only acting.

And no actual baptism occurs. But he _does_ intend to follow the procedure used by the church.

Actually, he intends to PORTRAY the procedure. Persons in this newsgroup have said that would _not_ be a valid baptism, since he does not _intend_to_baptize_.

Actually, persons in this newsgroup (you claimed that nobody responded before… now make up your mind… did we or didn’t we), stated it would _NOT_ be a valid baptism because it was not the intent of any involved for it to be a valid baptism.  The actor portraying the priest did not intend for it to be valid… the actor portraying the individual to be baptized didn’t intend to be baptized, and if it is an infant baptism, the actors portraying the parents or custodians of the child didn’t A) intend for the child to be baptized or B) have the authority to make that decision on behalf of the child. A non-Christian’s intent to baptize must therefore consist of something

_more_ than intent to follow the right procedure, but _less_ than intent that divine grace

should result. You’re mistaken on where the intent lies… it’s not with the person doing the baptism… it’s with the person who is being baptized, or those speaking for the person being baptized. It must be somewhere _between_ those two states of intent.  Specifically, where is it? How is it precisely defined?     — Mike Hardy

It is defined quite clearly as the intent of the person BEING baptized or the responsible parties speaking on behalf of the person BEING baptized. Not the priest, not the actor who isn’t a priest but plays one on TV, not the non-Christian who is baptizing someone on their deathbed.  If the baptism isn’t gone into willingly either by the person being baptized or those custodially responsible to speak on the person’s behalf, then it is not a baptism.  It is simply getting wet and saying words. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply