§ 2. On the Form of Baptism

1458. I. The valid and legitimate FORM of Baptism in the Latin Church is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.¹³

Thus the Council of Trent defined according to the words of the Lord Himself (Matthew 28:19): "Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Among the Greeks it is equivalently said: The servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father, etc. This form is valid from the Instruction of Eugene IV to the Armenians; but it is licit only in the Greek Church.¹⁴

1459. II. That, in a variation of the form, the validity of Baptism may be discerned from invalidity, attention must be paid to whether the substance of the sense remains or not. Now, the substance requires that there be expressed: 1. the person baptizing, at least in the act exercised; 2. the person baptized; 3. the action of the one baptizing; 4. the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity expressing both the unity of the divine nature and the distinction of the Persons, and more probably with the proper words.¹⁵

Hence it follows: 1. The form is VALID per se, although illicit at least venially, if a Latin uses the words of the Greeks; if the language is changed, although it is better for lay persons, especially women, to use the vernacular tongue, to avoid the danger of erring; if synonymous words are substituted, for example "I bathe thee, wash, dip, etc."; if the words are corrupted at the end, because Pope Zacharias declared valid this form employed from ignorance of the Latin tongue: "I baptize thee in the name of the Fatherland, and Daughter, and Holy Spirita"; likewise, if the word I is omitted, because the sense is still rendered sufficiently, though otherwise in a vernacular tongue, for example in French, English, German; or the conjunction and, provided it is set before the third Person; likewise if one says "with the name of the Father, etc.," from the decision of the S. C. C., May 24, 1823.¹⁶ The form is also valid if words not corrupting the sense are added, for example if someone should say: "In the name of the almighty Father" or "who created thee, etc."; or if transpositions are made: "In the name of the Son and of the Father, etc."; because the name of Father of itself sounds as being the principle of the Son, and therefore there the confession of the Most Holy Trinity is still right substantially; nor does it obstruct that the minister errs internally concerning the faith, because internal error does not prejudice the value of the Sacrament.¹⁷ We have said per se; because, as St. Thomas notices, if someone, by so changing the form, intended to introduce another rite, he would no longer intend to do what the Church does, and thus the Sacrament would be invalid.¹⁸

2. INVALID is this form: "I anoint thee in the name, etc.," or "I baptize in the name, etc."; because the word thee, or an equivalent, is of the essence.¹⁹ Likewise, if someone should say: "I baptize thee in Father and Son, etc.," or "with Father and Son, etc."; or "in the name of the Father through the Son"; or "in the names of the Father, etc."; because these and similar things either signify diversity of divine nature, or do not express its unity sufficiently. Likewise, if he should say: "In the name of the greater Father and of the lesser Son"; for thus the truth of the Sacrament would openly be taken away. Likewise, if someone were to use these words: "I baptize thee in the name of God," or "in the name of Christ." Nor do the things which are read in Acts 8:12 obstruct; because, according to the more probable opinion, there by the name of Christ is understood Baptism instituted by Christ, in distinction from the baptism of John.²⁰

3. DOUBTFUL is the form of Baptism: "In the name of the Most Holy Trinity," or "in the name of God one and triune," or "in the name of the three Persons"; indeed, according to several, it would certainly be invalid. Likewise Baptism conferred "In the name of the Begetter and of the Begotten and of the One Proceeding from both" must be held doubtful, from St. Thomas, because the common names must more probably be used. Likewise, if someone says: "In the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, etc."; because, although this repetition more probably does not change the sense, nevertheless the opposite opinion is not altogether improbable.²¹ Likewise, the omission of the word in introduces some doubt concerning value; and much more the total omission of the word and, if namely one says: In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

But if someone should add the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the names of the three Persons, St. Thomas says²² that, if he did this with a heretical mind, intending to confer Baptism in the name of the Virgin as in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, it would be invalid; because the true confession of Divinity would be perverted. Otherwise, if some rustic should add the name of the Virgin only from intrusive devotion.

Note. The pastor must take care, says the ROMAN RITUAL, that the faithful, especially midwives, know and observe well the right rite of baptizing.²³