If the priest forgets to bless the water in the font is the baptism still valid?
I think so. Remember valid means done with correct intention, while licit means done with correct form. Valid is reliant on the receiver while licit is reliant on the Celebrant (priest). So if the person intended to be baptized and were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then they are done.
Blessing is included in the ritual only if the font doesn’t contain water that was previously blessed. At this time of year, water that was blessed at the Vigil is often used in the font, eliminating the blessing ritual that is normally used.
It was fresh water.
Yes. I have often wondered the opposite. Our Baptismal font re-circulates the water through a filter system. It was already blessed at Easter Vigil? Only when the water is changed would it need to be re-blessed?
Yes, it would still be valid. Only “water” is required for a valid baptism. Blessed water (or Holy Water) is better, and the priest should follow the rite of Baptism by blessing the water, but that doesn’t affect the validity of the Sacrament.
Interresting point. The rubrics have a very “odd” description of what is supposed to happen. The Rite of Baptism for Children n. 92 says:
During the Easter Season, if there is baptismal water which was consecrated at the Easter Vigil, the blessing and invocation of God over the water are nevertheless included, so that this theme of thanksgiving and petition may find a place in the baptism. The forms given of this blessing and invocation are those found in nos. 223-224…
Here’s the ending of n. 224
"Bless + this water in which they will be baptised"
I’m most curious about that because the document is saying that the priest starts with consecrated water and then blesses it, and the reason given is “so that the theme…may find a place in the baptism.” I find that a bit odd, to say the least.
I figured it was for the benefit of those present. Not that it hurts anything to re-bless anything, I’ll take all the blessings I can get!
Valid is reliant on the receiver while licit is reliant on the Celebrant (priest). <<
This is not the distinction between “valid” and “licit”.
For example, sedevacantist priests (deliberate) VALIDLY celebrate Mass, even if nobody receives, but they do so illicitly.
Someone in a state of mortal sin might validly receive Communion or Confirmation. But it’s precisely because these Sacraments are validly received that they may be to the recipient’s damnation.
VALIDITY affects matter, form, and intention.
LICIETY depends on other variables.
If something is licit, it is automaticaly valid.
If it is invalid, it’s automatically illicit.
“Valid but illicit” is in the middle.
“Licit” means “legal.” Basically, are the norms of the church being followed. Valid is very different. It’s pretty hard for a sacrament to not be valid in all but the most extreme circumstances.
Also, I’m not sure if invalid is necessarily illicit.
For instance, in marriage. I could think of some circumstances, where the church might give an annulment, which in my understanding says that the sacrament was not valid, however, it was still licit, in that they followed the norms of the church.