Arial Baptism?

[Mor Ephrem]

Mor Ephrem:

There are times when it is expediant and necessary for arial baptisms. My brother-in-law works as a nurse in a neo-natal critial care ward. Often the babies he cares for have no one. Their mothers are drug addicts and so on. My brother-in-law is often the only solace and love that these children have in their last moments. As an Orthodox Christian he cannot send them to their deaths without baptism. So he carries Holy Water in his case and baptises these poor souls before they die. For those who are very ill, but may make it ...he places an icon of the Guardian Angel in their cribs. There have been many a parent who have been grateful for this act of kindness.

Tell me is that child baptised or is the act a futile and foolish one on the part of an Orthodox Christian?

I don't think so.....

Milla

Dear Milla,

I think your brother-in-law should be commended for his actions. But no where in this do I see aero-baptism. You yourself say he carries holy water with him. I think the use of water is important, and if the choice is baptism by infusion or aspersion, I'd rather that than aero-baptism. Using George's principle, it is at least less removed from the ideal. I just don't see the justification for using aero-baptism unless there is absolutely no water around, and even then, I have my doubts. My understanding is that your brother-in-law uses water, and I have no doubt he is doing God's work in this respect.

George, I'll have to wait till later to answer your post, I'm going to be late for class.

[George Australia]

Dear in Christ, Mor Ephrem,

Using George's principle,

"George's principle"? Since when did aerobaptism become my principle? Firstly, just because a holy Tradition is not translated into english and an english article posted about it on the internet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things can exist without you being able to do a google search on them. In fact, I even remember the (much happier) days when the internet did not exist .....

if the choice is baptism by infusion or aspersion, I'd rather that than aero-baptism

And so does the Church. If we can't perform the "symbol" (immersion), we perform the "symbol of the symbol" (aspersion), and if we can't do that, then we perform "the symbol of the symbol of the symbol" (aerobaptism).
Why should the Church not be permitted to dispense her economia as freely and wisely as she wishes? The Church is the icon of the Holy Trinity, and Christ, Who founded the Church, said:

"Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." (Luke 6:36)

. Do you somehow find it too merciful that the Holy Church welcomes infants into herself who are unable to be baptised with water?
George

[Ekaterina]

I would think that there are times when Milla's brother-in-law does not have the time to get the Holy Water and so must perform an arial baptism out of expediency.

I would rather think that those children were going to heaven in the arms of an angel, thanks to the arial baptism.

Katya

[Schultz]

While I think baptism is of the utmost importance, I do wonder, what does the Orthodox Church teach, from the traditionalist perspective, about babies that don't have the opportunity of an "arial baptism"? Considering Katya's final comment, would God not send an angel to carry the soul of an unbaptised infant who did not have the luxury of an Orthodox Christian in the delivery room to heaven?

[TomS]

..would God not send an angel to carry the soul of an unbaptised infant who did not have the luxury of an Orthodox Christian in the delivery room to heaven?

I agree with you.

Since Orthodox reject the concept of inherited guilt and since infants are not at the point where they could sin voluntarily, it follows that their souls are still pure.

[Mor Ephrem]

And so does the Church. If we can't perform the "symbol" (immersion), we perform the "symbol of the symbol" (aspersion), and if we can't do that, then we perform "the symbol of the symbol of the symbol" (aerobaptism).
Why should the Church not be permitted to dispense her economia as freely and wisely as she wishes? The Church is the icon of the Holy Trinity, and Christ, Who founded the Church, said:

"Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." (Luke 6:36)

. Do you somehow find it too merciful that the Holy Church welcomes infants into herself who are unable to be baptised with water?
George

Dear George,

Forgive me if I offended you by my phrase "George's principle". I realise you didn't come up with this practice, but for the purposes of our discussion, I thought it would be understood.

I think the question raised by Schultz regarding the EO teaching on children who die without baptism is a valid one. Do unbaptised babies go to hell? Is there an Orthodox version of "baptism of desire"?

With regard to what you wrote above, I don't have any problem with accepting that the Church, in Her mercy, can exercise economy in how She receives people. What I do wonder about is the limits of that economy. What exactly is allowable and what is absolutely prohibited? One's own arm can only move so far, after all.

From my limited reading in the history of our Church, baptism by immersion, infusion (pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling) were practiced in various places for various reasons, immersion being normative. If the Church has the authority to allow aero-baptism (the symbol of the symbol of the symbol), then what else can be allowed? If a parish doesn't have leavened bread for the Eucharist, and doesn't have unleavened bread (the symbol of the symbol) can it use brownies (a symbol of the symbol of the symbol)? If they have no wine, can they use milk, or even Coke? If one of the ingredients in Holy Chrism can potentially set off an allergic reaction in someone, even in little amounts, is it OK to use Crisco? These are somewhat silly examples, you may think, but even a practical, real life case can be considered: what happens to a person with celiac disease? Do you get to make prosphora out of rice flour instead of wheat (Catholics have had to deal with this question in recent days regarding their Communion wafers)? If aero-baptism can be allowed, why not these? And if they can be allowed, then why all the fuss over calendars when, apparently, the Church can use pizza and beer in the Eucharist?

I personally feel that the Church has limits in what it can do with regard to the Sacraments. For instance, I think bread and wine are essential to the Eucharist. I think water is essential to Baptism. I am not sure if I can agree right now with aero-baptism, especially when "baptism of desire" seems to "do the same thing", without the seeming innovation of changing the method of baptising. What is the earliest known reference to aero-baptism? Where is its basis (that is, the ability to use substances other than water for baptising) in Scripture, the Liturgy, or the Holy Fathers? What are the practical circumstances under which it has been practiced? And what really happens if a person receiving such a baptism survives?

Forgive me if my questions offend you even more. I don't intend to, but I'm struggling to understand this.

[George Australia]

While I think baptism is of the utmost importance, I do wonder, what does the Orthodox Church teach, from the traditionalist perspective, about babies that don't have the opportunity of an "arial baptism"? Considering Katya's final comment, would God not send an angel to carry the soul of an unbaptised infant who did not have the luxury of an Orthodox Christian in the delivery room to heaven?

Dear in Christ Shultz,
I don't think he reason Katya's Brother in Law baptises these infants is because he thinks they will certainly go to hell if he doesn't do so. But if we who are Orthodox Christians are present in these situations, and can do anything to help- shouldn't we do so? Is it not an act of love to do so?
George