I think it's worth reconsidering whether or not this is actually a specific counter-curse to sectumsempra. It's made up in the film and is never actually mentioned by name (or is that by incantation? ;) ) in the book. Bearing in mind the wording (and meaning of those words) of the spell, I think there's reason enough to believe that this is intended as a spell for curing general injuries, instead of it being a counter-curse specific to sectumsempra only.

I will edit this article to reflect this point of view - if anyone changes it back I'd appreciate them stating the reason here. Robhol 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just assumed whoever added it as a counter-curse originally to the counter-spell page had some evidence to back it up but apparently not. It definitely qualifies as a healing spell thoughGreen Zubat 23:49, July 18, 2011 (UTC)


What canon sources is it to confirm Vulnera Sanentur were invented by Snape? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1337star (talkcontribs).

Well, since it's a specific counter-curse exclusively for a spell he invented, and he was the only one seen to use it (Molly, Remus, Sirius, Peter and James, knowing Sectumsempra and Levicorpus, didn't know this) this seems likely. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:28, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but that is where you (and, at present, the article) appear to be incorrect. This is neither a specific counter-curse for Sectumsempra nor only known by Snape. Dumbledore also knows this spell, and uses it to heal a very non-magical cut in his arm. Half-Blood Prince, chapter 26. Some heavy changes need to be made to this article, in fact. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 05:46, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
"When Snape had performed his counter-curse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position." --Emphasis mine (Page 489, Paragraph 9, Lines 4&5 of Raincoast Hardcover of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
Thus, it is indeed a specific counter-curse; Dumbledore did not perform his cut-healing spell verbally and so we have no way of knowing whether it is the same spell or not. Of course the line "just as Snape had healed Malfoy's wounds" could refer to it being the same spell, but that could also simply refer to Dumbledore quickly and efficiently magically healing his own cuts nonverbally with a simple wave of his wand. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:49, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
But a counter-spell is merely a spell that negates the effects of another spell. The Shrinking Charm is the counter-charm for the Engorgement Charm, yet it has its own distinct effect when used on an uncharmed object. I really see no contradiction in calling a healing spell that repairs large wounds a "counter-curse" for a curse that makes large wounds. As for this being the same spell Dumbledore used, yes, I am indeed interpreting Harry noting it was "just as Snape had healed Malfoy's wounds" as a nod to this being the same spell. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:11, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
But there's no verifiable canon proof, really, except that one line and the fact that the effects are the same; and since we have multiple pages for spells of the same effect (Periculum, Vermillious and Red Sparks, for instance), that should be proof enough that there could theoretically be two spells of the same effect but different incantation and name. That therefore leaves only the one line comparing them as proof of their being the same, and meaning no disrespect, but I don't know if that would be enough to say for certain that they are.
Of course, it's probable that they are the same, but until canon proof says for sure that they are, I think they ought to remain separate.
As for what you've said about counter-curses, I didn't know that; perhaps Counter-curse for Leg-Locker Curse, Counter-curse for Broom-jinxing and Counter-curse for Petrification should be modified to acknowledge that their effects can be used independently (i. e. not just for reversing broom jinxes but for any sort of bucking broom, not just for Petrification but for any sort of immobilisation, etc.)? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:50, April 9, 2014 (UTC)


Most of the logic for both sides of the argument can be found above ("Huh?"). It is thought that Poppy Pomfrey's healing spell and Albus Dumbledore's healing spell should be merged into this page (at least, Dumbledore's spell; and since Pomfrey's spell was to be merged into Dumbledore's, I'm assuming that page was also to be brought into this. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:56, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Snape's invention or not?

The current setup for this article seems contradictory. How can this spell be both the specific counter curse to Sectumsempra and the general healing spell used by Dumbledore and Pomfrey for physical cuts? If it is the counter curse, then it is likely Snape's invention; if it's a general healing spell, then probably not. It was not listed as one of his invented spells on the recent Pottermore feature about Snape although Sectumsempra was of course, so no clear answer there. See previous discussion on this matter above. Current thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:29, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

For discussion here are the various book mentions:
  • GOF20 - Pomfrey healing Harry's injuries from the first task: "She cleaned the cut with a dab of some purple liquid that smoked and stung, but then poked his shoulder with her wand, and he felt it heal instantly."
  • HBP24 - Snape healing Malfoy's injuries from Sectumsempra: "Snape had burst into the room, his face livid. Pushing Harry roughly aside, he knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand, and traced it over the deep wounds Harry’s curse had made, muttering an incantation that sounded almost like song. The flow of blood seemed to ease; Snape wiped the residue from Malfoy’s face and repeated his spell. Now the wounds seemed to be knitting. Harry was still watching, horrified by what he had done, barely aware that he too was soaked in blood and water. Moaning Myrtle was still sobbing and wailing overhead. When Snape had performed his countercurse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position."
  • HBP26 - At the cave:" “You are very kind, Harry,” said Dumbledore, now passing the tip of his wand over the deep cut he had made in his own arm, so that it healed instantly, just as Snape had healed Malfoy’s wounds."
Any thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:04, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, the spell's name seems more like a movie-only invention. Sure, there have been people using instant healing spells in the book, as you quoted, but neither use has been named and they could have been other spells entirely. I think the way the page is currently written is fine, since it's based on a movie-only use and since only Snape was said to have used the incantation, it's probably his spell. The movie clears it up more distinctly, with neither Pomfrey or Dumbledore using healing spells, so this one is unique. The other instances are probably just generic healing spells that were never named. --Sajuuk 09:43, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the spell's name/incantation is definately only from the film (in the closed captions). However, if it is the specific counter-curse, then:
If it is a general healing spell then:
  • Snape needs to be removed here as the known inventor (or the language softened to "possibly" with a bts note).
  • Healing spell - uses by Pomfrey & Dumbledore are not unknown and the redirects should be removed.
I think a case can be made for either approach, but it seems odd for it to be both Snape's invented countercurse and the general healing spell, which is how the articles are sort of arranged currently (still would be some edits needed).
I'd like to leave the discussion open for a few days to see if anyone has any further thoughts before deciding on which changes to make. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 12:53, May 6, 2016 (UTC)