Article II. On the Ceremonies of Baptism

It is mortal to omit all the ceremonies of Baptism, or some notable one from them, because thus a grave precept of the Church is violated.

253. Resolves. - 1. Necessity being excluded, it is mortal to baptize without the anointing of Chrism, because this has a special and grave signification. - St. Ligorius, n. 141.

2. Outside a case of necessity it is mortal to baptize solemnly with water not consecrated, because an omission of this sort in the ceremonies of Baptism is very grave. More probably also the same must be said if private Baptism is in question ¹, as the Salmanticenses, Roncaglia, and Diana judge. Nevertheless Lacroix, n. 263; Gobat; St. Ligorius, n. 102, and in Homo apostolicus, n. 8, hold the opposite opinion, and not improbably.

¹ It scarcely appears why this opinion is called by the Author more probable. Indeed the authors alleged by him are conveniently explained of solemn Baptism, as St. Alphonsus also interpreted them, and they do not make any word about private Baptism. Nay, in the Synod of Genoa held under His Eminence Cardinal Tadini (chap. 5, section 1, On Baptism) it was forbidden that anyone use consecrated water in Baptisms conferred privately. See Frassinetti, Comp. Theol. mor., note 90.

3. It is mortal to baptize without necessity outside the Church, unless proximate danger of death threatens, or there is some other great inconvenience. - St. Ligorius, n. 142.

4. It is mortal to omit the anointing with the oil of catechumens, or other similar things, because it is grave matter, at least from the end of the Church, just as the mixing of water with wine in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. - St. Ligorius, n. 144.

254. Questions. - QUESTION 1. If Baptism solemnly conferred is discovered to be invalid, whether the ceremonies also must be repeated?

Resp. It is controverted. There is a twofold probable opinion. Hence the ceremonies need not necessarily be repeated; nevertheless it is to be advised that they be repeated, if this can be done without scandal or infamy.

QUESTION 2. How is the prohibition of using old chrism, or chrism of another year, to be understood?

Resp. 1. It is to be taken rigorously when new chrism is had. Therefore a Priest would sin gravely who, disregarding recent chrism, used old.

Resp. 2. But in solemn Baptism it is permitted to use chrism of the preceding year until fresh consecrated chrism has been received. Therefore the anointing with chrism and oil must not be omitted for this reason, that oils recently blessed could not yet have been had, nor for that cause must Baptism be deferred to another time, however brief. - Thus against not a few, from the recent decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, given on September 19, 1859, in Cadurcensis.

But the blessing of the baptismal font on Holy Saturday must be done with chrism of the preceding year, unless the Parish Priest has been able to procure recent oils for himself; nor must the infusion of chrism and oil be omitted until another is received. - Thus from the decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites just cited.

255. • QUESTION 3. Whether the interrogations which, from the Rubric of the Roman Ritual, are to be made to the sponsors, can be made in the vernacular language?

Resp. No; but all things must be done as they lie in the Roman Ritual. Thus very recently the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on August 12, 1854, in Lucionensis. - Besides, nothing prevents those things which pertain to the Sacrament of Baptism itself from being explained in the vernacular language. - Thus from the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to the Vicar Apostolic of Siam, April 30, 1808.