II. On the Matter and Form of Baptism

What is the remote matter of baptism? - The valid matter of baptism is only true and natural water, fit for washing. This is clear from the words of Christ, John 3:5, and from the Councils, especially from Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent sess. 7, c. 2; Roman Catechism 2 ff.;

L. 153; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 3, 4. - The licit matter of baptism, outside the case of necessity, is only blessed or consecrated water, mixed with the sacred oil of catechumens and chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn baptism. This is clear from the Roman Ritual and the practice of the Church. - But he certainly sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege who, without grave necessity, uses impure, turbid, or muddy water, although this matter is valid. L. 102; E. M.

Note: In danger of death, if certainly valid matter cannot be had, doubtful matter can and must be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient. But then even the lowest degree of probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices, because in necessity one's neighbor must be aided in the best manner in which it can be done. But if the one baptized in this way survives, once there is supply of certainly valid matter, he must again be baptized conditionally: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc. C. De quibus 2, de Bapt. etc. - L. 103.

You will resolve: Valid matter is: water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it has been accidentally changed as regards color, taste, or odor; sulphurous or mineral water; water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in rainy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; turbid water mixed with another substance, provided water is the truly and certainly predominant matter, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water. - Valid and licit matter, where there is a true danger of disease, is water with corrosive bichloride of mercury, in one thousand parts of water. Holy Office, Aug. 21, 1901. - Invalid matter is milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; mud, ink. - Doubtful matter is very thin broth, lye, weak beer, water from dissolved salt, humor flowing from a vine and other plants. L. 103, 104; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 4; C. Non ut 5, de Bapt. etc.; E. M.

Is water produced by chemical art, distilled, poisoned, suitable matter for baptism? - Resp. In the affirmative. For it is true water. - L. 104, 106.

Is ice or snow, not dissolved, suitable matter? - Resp. Some deny it, others doubt, "therefore they say that in necessity it can be used conditionally." L. 104.

What is the proximate matter of baptism? - The proximate matter of baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the diverse Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and the perpetual practice of the Church, and also from Paul to the Ephesians 5:26: Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life. Roman Ritual, de Forma Bapt.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 7, 8.

Can an infant in danger of death be baptized in the womb of the mother? - "If the infant," says the Roman Ritual, "has put forth the head, and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he comes out alive, is he to be baptized again." - If, on the contrary, he is wholly enclosed in the womb and is baptized by washing the body of the mother, "it is certain that the baptism is not valid, because the infant is a person distinct from the mother." - If the womb can in some way be penetrated, and the child wrapped in the afterbirth is reached by means of some instrument, he is probably validly baptized, because that is held as part of the infant.

But because many hold it simply as part of the mother, therefore it also probably is not valid. - The same variety of opinions exists concerning baptism to be conferred on a fetus who has been brought forth wrapped in its own membrane; namely whether it suffices to confer baptism upon the membrane itself, or rather whether this should be broken, so that the ovular matter may be immersed in water, while the form is pronounced at the same time, and then the fetus is drawn out from the water. - If by means of some instrument the afterbirth is cut and the body itself of the infant is reached by the water, it is still more true that baptism is conferred validly. The reason is that such an infant, since he already exists as a man wayfarer, can well receive baptism. But since the matter is not certain, if afterward the living infant is brought into the light, he will have to be baptized again conditionally. L. 107, 123; Pignatelli Consult. 153, tom. 1; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 11; E. M.

Is baptism valid if someone casts an infant into a well or river and pronounces the form? - The first opinion denies it; the second opinion affirms it. "Each is probable." L. 106; La Croix 265. Yet such baptism is truly doubtful; for since there is not immersion and emergence, washing or cleansing is lacking.

Is it licit to throw an infant into a river in order to baptize him?

Resp. In the negative, "although he is soon about to die without baptism, because it is never licit for any cause whatever directly to kill the innocent... But although it is not licit to cast the child into a river, nevertheless it is licit to baptize with water even cold as ice, if no other can be had, a child soon to die, even if it were feared that from this death would be hastened." L. 106. For the action is of itself indifferent, having a twofold effect, and in order to obtain eternal life a small loss of temporal life can well be neglected. - Elbel 13, 14.

Is baptism conferred by application of a moistened hand valid? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that washing is not had, which is the proximate matter of baptism.

Is baptism valid if the baptizer were to wash a part of the body of the one to be baptized by the motion of a moistened finger? - Many affirm; because washing is sufficiently had. - But there are not lacking those who judge the baptism doubtful, because that washing is very imperfect. It is rather an anointing than a washing. Hence baptism is also doubtful if someone is baptized with two or three drops of water. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; Dec. 1, 1898; L. 103 IV, 107, q. 6; Elbel 16; E. M.

Is baptism valid by applying cotton wet with water to the forehead? - Resp. In the affirmative, if water successively flows over the forehead, as can easily be done by pressing the cotton somewhat; for then true washing is had. In the negative, if there is mere contact of water upon the forehead; for then washing is in no way had. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; Suarez de Sacr. d. 20, s. 2; E. M.

Is baptism valid if the pastor or another minister places the infant under falling rain? - Resp. In the affirmative, for in that way he truly washes the infant. Yet it would be better to collect water in the palm of the hand and wash the infant's head with it. On the contrary, baptism would be invalid if conferred by snow, frost, or hail applied to the head and dissolved by natural heat; for washing would not be had from the action of the minister himself. L. 106.

Is triple washing required for baptism? - Certainly it is not required for validity; for one washing suffices so that someone is judged truly washed. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 8. - But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this triple pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual. Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn baptism.

Is baptism valid if the water touches the clothes or hair of the one to be baptized? - If the water touches only the clothes, baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that the man is washed. - But more probably it is valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part is to be followed.

Hence if the one to be baptized is hairy, either let the priest part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while pouring water with the right, or let him baptize him on the forehead. And this also seems to be done if the infant's head abounds in an oily crust which prevents washing on the skin. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 1; L. 107, q. 3; Collectanea of S. C. de P. F. n. 642; E. M.

Is baptism conferred on another part than the head valid? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative, especially if baptism is conferred on some more principal part, e.g., on the breast, shoulders, neck. According as the part is less or more principal, baptism is more or less doubtful. But there will always be some doubt if it is not conferred on the head, since the integrity of life fully consists in the head; "because washing of the man absolutely and simply is of the substance of the sacrament." Suarez de Bapt. d. 20, s. 2, par. Quare; Roman Ritual, de Bapt. parv., par. Nemo. Hence "by precept the head is to be washed, which the practice of the Church has." L. 105. And if necessity has compelled baptism to be conferred on another part than the head, afterward, if it can be done, baptism would have to be repeated conditionally. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 7 ad 3; L. 107, q. 4.

What is the form of baptism? - The form of baptism is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But among the Greeks it is said: Such a servant of Christ is baptized in the name, etc.; CC. Si quis 1, Non ut 5, de Bapt.; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent sess. 7, c. 4. "Several theologians, among whom is St. Alphonsus, think that it is venial to omit the word Amen at the end of the form of baptism, which word however is not found in the Roman Ritual. Hence it is asked whether it is to be used or omitted? Resp. Strictly in the case, let the Roman Ritual be observed." S. R. C., June 9, 1853, Cochinchina, ad 2, n. 3014. - Ferraris v. Baptismus n. 1 ff.; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 3; E. M.

Note: There are five things which are signified in the pronouncing of the form, according to which its validity must be weighed: 1. The person baptizing, at least implicitly, which is not neglected in the form of the Greeks, since "is baptized" has the same value as "is baptized by me." - 2. The act of baptizing, because otherwise the form would not have connection with the matter, nor determine it, since washing can be referred to various ends. - 3. The person to be baptized, because as the washing, so also the form must turn upon a certain person. S. C. de P. F., Sept. 11, 1841. - 4. The unity of the divine nature, which is done through the phrase "in the name." - 5. The Trinity of persons: and this explicitly and distinctly in common words, L. 108, namely the expressed invocation of the three divine persons.

S. C. de P. F., June 23, 1830; Florence, De variis formis dubiis. Cf. L. 108-112, 119, 120, and C. Debitum 4, de Bapt. - "And therefore no one can baptize himself." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4 ad 2. - It is expedient that midwives baptize in the common and vernacular tongue. But they say that these forms are valid: Io ti abbattezzo... S. C. C., May 12, 1753; Ego te baptismo... S. U. I., May 22, 1871; Io ti battesimo... Io ti battezzo nome di Padre..., with in omitted, and di for del, the same Sacred Congregation, Sept. 12, 1801, or del nome del Padre..., or in domine Patris..., in nom. (abbreviated) Patris..., L. 110. Mi te abbattezzo in nome del Padre, e del Figliuolo, dello Spirito Santo, with et omitted before the Holy Spirit, S. C. C., May 12, 1753. - The form is invalid if someone were to say: I will the sacrament of baptism of sins to be ministered to you, in the name... Holy Office, June 23, 1840. If someone for baptizo says mergo or tingo, St. Alphonsus 109 thinks that it is valid, because the words are synonymous. But mergo does not seem to signify the sacramental action of washing, but only the material action of immersing, if baptism is ministered by immersion. But tingo properly signifies to imbue something with color.

Is baptism valid if in the form the pronoun ego, the particle in, or the particle et before only the invocation of the Son, or also before the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is omitted? - Resp. To the first: In the affirmative; for it is implicitly contained in the verb, but it is venial. - To the second: there are not lacking those who deny that it is valid, because when the preposition in is omitted, the meaning is varied; for then the sense is not that one is baptized in the invocation of the Trinity, but that one is baptized by the authority, power, and command of the Trinity. But more probably it must be affirmed that it is valid according to the character of the Latin language, in which the preposition in can be omitted; so much the more because, even with the preposition in still expressed, that phrase "in the name" remains equivocal and can signify both in invocation and in power, as Christ signified when he said: In my name they shall cast out demons, etc., Luke 16:17. But it is determined by the intention of the minister. And it is held valid from the Holy Office, May 22, 1871. - To the third: It is valid, because the distinction of the Persons is sufficiently explained. S. C. C., Sept. 12, 1801; Holy Office, Aug. 3, 1889. - To the fourth: Many say that it is valid, because again the distinction of the persons is sufficiently explained. For on the one hand the character of the Latin language altogether admits that omission, and on the other the names Father, Son, Holy Spirit, as relatively opposed among themselves, already signify the distinction of the persons.

But many others say that it is not valid; for since the name Holy Spirit of itself is not notional, but belongs both to the Father and to the Son, unless the particle and is expressed at least before the last name, the distinction of the three Persons is not sufficiently expressed. For the first opinion there is also brought S. C. C., May 12, 1753; Sept. 12, 1801; May 12, 1823, by which baptism was declared valid although the particle and, pronounced before the Son, had been omitted before the Holy Spirit. - L. 111, 112. Cf. here the preceding number.

Is baptism conferred with these forms valid: I baptize you in Father; with Father; from the part of the Father; in the power of the Father, etc.; In the name of the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit? - The baptism is not valid, or at least is doubtful; because in these forms there is not had the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and the unity of the divine nature, although the distinction of the Persons is had. Scavini, Milan 1874, v. 3, n. 59, reports that it was answered by the Sacred Penitentiary and by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, indeed by Benedict XIV himself, Dec. 7, 1741, that the form cum nomine Patris, Filii etc. is valid; but D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 3, n. 272, observes that as long as these things are not authentically clear, one ought not recede from the common opinion. But Lehmkuhl, ed. 11, n. 89, also says that it has several times been decided by S. C. C. and by the Holy Office that cum nomine does not impede validity.

Is baptism valid with this form: I baptize you in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Spirit; or in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit; or I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit? - Resp. In the affirmative, far more probably; because the locutions are altogether equivalent, if they are considered grammatically. But since the unity of the divine essence is less correctly expressed, if the theological signification and the mystery are attended to, they could seem at least doubtful, although all those locutions are theologically true and contain Catholic truth. Cf. Roman Ritual, Ord. Comm. Anim. Nevertheless S. C. C., May 4, 1641, declared the second form valid; Holy Office, Jan. 11, 1882, declared the third proposed form valid. Whence it follows that the first also is to be held valid. - L. 111; Suarez d. 21, s. 3, par. Sed quid; E. M.

Is the form of baptism valid if you say: In the name of the Begetter and of the Begotten and of the Spirated or Proceeding? - St. Thomas 2.2, q. 16, a. 5 ad 7 denies it, because "just as water is taken for baptism because its use for washing is more common, so for signifying the three Persons in the form of baptism those names are assumed by which the Persons have more commonly been accustomed to be named in that language." Yet baptism is valid in the name of the Father and of the Word and of the Paraclete Spirit, or Spirit.

Is the form of baptism valid if it is said: I baptize you in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, at least more probably, because in such a form the individual persons of the Holy Trinity are not expressed sufficiently distinctly, since the word Trinity signifies the Persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be expressed distinctly, as is clear from Matthew, the last chapter. - To the second: In the negative also a fortiori, because the Trinity is in no way expressed by the phrase "in the name of Christ." Thus all, at least now after St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 6, and it is clear from C. Si revera 80, de Consecrat., Dist. 4. - L. 111, 112.