111. On the Matter and Form of Baptism

1. “Sempronius, in wintertime, is accustomed to baptize infants with water somewhat warmed, or tepid.” — Is this licit?

R. “Sempronius did not sin from the fact that in wintertime he baptized in water somewhat warmed. Thus Illsung, Babenstuber, and many others. The reason is that the sacrament ought not to harm the life of man, which was instituted for the restoration of life lost by the sin of Adam.” Elbel, 15.

2. Dominic, in a case of necessity, baptizes a boy with a drink of tea. — Is the boy to be baptized again, if this can be done?

R. In the affirmative. For the matter is doubtful. Although that drink is made with a great quantity of water and a small quantity of the herb tea, nevertheless according to the moral estimation of men, a drink of this kind is not held to be, nor is it, natural water. Nevertheless, because only an accidental change of the water is had, the matter seems at least doubtfully sufficient, and therefore it is to be used in a case of necessity. — I. M. 397, 398.

3. A doubt was proposed by the Missionaries: “Whether in those kingdoms in which parents oppose the baptism of their children because of the opinion, in which idolaters sometimes are, that baptism makes them die, they can be baptized in danger of death by using water in which there have been placed some quintessences or strong odors, or else some drugs, such as saffron, or powder of some other kind, to induce a change in the natural color without altering its substance, and by making use of it as if it were a remedy, either in the manner of a shower by pouring the water over a part or over the head, or in the manner of a bath, or to wash or clean the child, or to refresh his eyes, or cleanse his wounds, or even by giving it to him to drink, or in some other manner by way of remedy, as if this actually were so; but above all principally to baptize him, pronouncing in a low voice the form of the sacrament.”

The Holy Office, 8 November 1770, responded: “In the case of extreme and true necessity, in which the death of the child is imminent, and no other and more convenient occasion of visiting him can be given to the missionaries, and the parents are hostile to baptism ... in such a case the missionaries can, indeed must, use proximate and remote matter, although doubtful, since the help, although uncertain, toward the spiritual generation of the child must prevail over the danger of the invalidity of the sacrament. Hence, excepting the manner of giving baptism by way of drink ... which is certainly illicit, and baptism so conferred would be invalid; and excepting also the use of aromatic waters or essences, in which the substance of the water would be altered, all the other manners expressed ... can and must be employed in the case of the alleged extreme necessity, and not otherwise ... warning that in these cases they always take care that some portion of water flow over the head if possible, and, if in no way it can flow over the head, that it flow at least over some principal part of the body of the child. Furthermore, they make certain that in the case in which these children, thus baptized with doubt about the validity of the sacrament, should recover health, the missionaries seek every better way to baptize them again sub conditione and to instruct them.”

4. Anna, a midwife, is often in the necessity of baptizing newly born infants who are in danger of life. But because she fears lest she use a doubtful or less certain form of baptism, for greater security she takes care to utter it now in one way, now in another, and, as she thinks, in a better way, according as in various cases the fear of erring first suggests to her that it must be done. Hence, 1. sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Spirit. 2. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the almighty Father, and of the only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete. 3. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of our Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 4. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. 5. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit.

Question. What is to be said about the validity of the various forms which Anna used?

R. Concerning the first form, Father Gury, 191, says: “The form is doubtful, because the unity of the divine essence does not seem to be sufficiently expressed. Yet more probably it is valid, because the sense of the form is not essentially changed. But because of the controversy, the baptism is to be repeated.” Elbel, 34, speaking of this same form, says: “It seems sufficiently certain that baptism conferred in this manner is valid, since both the Trinity of Persons is sufficiently expressed, and the unity of the divine essence by the little word in the name. Hence Gobat, tract 2, no. 721, says: I would not order one who had been washed thus to be dipped again, because neither authority nor reason permits calling it into doubt. Nevertheless all confess that this manner of baptizing is gravely illicit, since it is against the practice and prescription of the Church.” Certainly St. Alphonsus in no. 108, cited by Father Gury, has nothing about this form. But in no. 111 he says absolutely: “Baptism is valid if words are added to the form which do not corrupt the sense; for example ... if someone were to say: I baptize thee in the name of God the Father, who created thee, etc.” Now it is evident and certain that that addition God does not corrupt the form, and that it is understood in the expression of each Person. But the mystery of the unity of the divine nature, signified by the word in the name, remains altogether intact. Nor indeed from that repetition of the name of God does there follow a plurality of Gods, “because one and the same name can be named and invoked again and again without plurality; as it is truly said, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet they cannot be called Gods.” Suarez, d. 21, s. 3, par. Sed quid; La Croix, book 6, part 1, no. 34.

The second form, as the same St. Alphonsus has in the cited place, is valid. For nothing is added in it whence a substantial alteration is had. And St. Thomas, part 3, question 60, article 8, explicitly says: “If someone says: I baptize thee in the name of God the almighty Father, and of his only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, it will be true baptism.” Cf. Lugo, d. 2, nos. 117, 125.

The third form seems doubtful. For the word our seems to take away the true sense of the form. For the word Father in the form of baptism is determined to signify only the Person of the Father, who is Father with respect to his only-begotten Son. But the added word our now determines another sense, namely it causes God the Creator to be signified without distinction of Persons. This also seems to be drawn from the Response of the Holy Office, 27 January 1892. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F., no. 2160.

The fourth form seems valid. For the changing of the word Son into the word Word does not take away the true sense of the form. D’Annibale, no. 272, note 26, has it as valid, and Suarez, d. 21, s. 4, par. Secunda sententia, also has it as valid.

Finally, the fifth form is also valid. For the omission of that word Holy does not take away the sense of the form. For the word Spirit, which is imposed to signify the property of the third Person, namely passive spiration, which it signifies formally, sufficiently signifies the third Person. And thus also in Sacred Scripture the third Person is simply called Spirit, John 7:39. Suarez, d. 21, s. 4, par. In hac re; D’Annibale, no. 272, note 26; Liguori, 109, at the end.

5. Metrodorus, a parish priest, wishing to impose the name of a girl in the baptism itself and to dedicate her to the Blessed Virgin Mary, baptized her thus: I baptize thee, Mary, in the name, etc. — Licitly and validly?

R. Illicitly, because it is against the Ritual; validly, because the form is in no way substantially changed. The same is to be said if, from the same intention, the name is added in the vocative case after the word Father, if namely it is said: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Mary, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the form even in this Case is not substantially changed, neither from the nature of the thing, as is clear, nor from the intention of the agent. Indeed Cardinal De Lugo, d. 2, no. 107, says: “The form of baptism will be valid if, in place of those words, I baptize thee, it is said, I baptize Peter, although that word, Peter, is of itself equivocal for signifying this or that Peter.”

6. Daniel, a secular man, baptizing a boy in necessity, although he used the customary form of baptism, nevertheless did not intend to baptize in the name of the divine Father, in the name of the divine Son, in the name of the divine Holy Spirit; but in the name of the father of that same boy, in the name of the firstborn son of the aforesaid father, in the name of the created spirit, namely the soul itself of the boy to be baptized.

Question. Did Daniel validly baptize?

R. “The baptism is null. The reason ... because for the valid confecting of the sacrament there is necessary a legitimate intention of the minister, namely of doing the sacrament, or at least of doing what the Church does, or what Christ instituted ... And although he used the legitimate form of baptism, nevertheless, because he did not use those words in the legitimate sense, but in a foreign sense, hence he effected nothing, just as a priest would effect nothing ... if, uttering these words, This is my body, he understood not the Body of Christ, but his own, proper to himself.” Elbel, 35.

Appositely Lugo, d. 2, nos. 113–118, speaking of the form of baptism, says: “If the minister sins in the due intention of signifying, not wishing to signify the wise Father, but a Father who is not wise, then he would do nothing, not from defect of the words, but from defect of intention, just as if one consecrating did not have the intention of signifying the true presence of the Body of Christ by that word is, but only an improper presence and according to figure, he would not consecrate.” When, however, on the part of intention there is present the intention of doing what Christ commanded, and there is at the same time an error in the mind, an error of this kind in no way stands in the way of the validity of the sacrament. For the error remains only in the mind; neither do the words signify it according to themselves, nor do they signify it from the intention of the one uttering them. For by the very fact that someone has a sincere intention of doing what the Church does, he now wills by those words to signify that which Christ and the Church wish to signify. Wherefore it is required for the validity of the form “both that it signify that which Christ willed, as far as concerns the words, that is, that they be of themselves apt for signifying, and that they also signify that same thing on the part of the one uttering, who intends to signify this very thing; for without this there is no speech. For a parrot also utters words which of themselves signify something, and yet it does not speak, because it does not intend to signify that thing by the words. Similarly, therefore, in that case that form would not be a speech signifying, in the notion of speech, that which Christ willed, since the minister does not utter the words to signify that, but something else.”