Question Two: Concerning the Form of Baptism — Theological Principles

I. The form of Baptism is: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (without Amen, as the S. R. C. decreed, 9 Jun. 1853). This is established from Mt. XXVIII, 19 [the original incorrectly prints Mt. XXVI, 28]; from the Liturgies; and from the Fourth Lateran Council, Florence, and Trent, sess. 7, can. 4.

For its validity five things must be expressed:

1. the person of the one baptizing;

2. the act of baptizing exercised upon another;

3. the person of the one baptized;

4. the unity of the divine essence;

5. the trinity of persons under distinct and, probably, proper names.¹

¹ The distinguished De Smet departs from the received manner of speaking (De Sacr., n. 233), saying that two things suffice for the validity of the form, namely mention of the baptismal action and distinct invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: mention of the person of the minister (ego) is not required, since the minister is sufficiently designated by the sacramental operation itself; nor mention of the person of the subject (te), because in the very action of baptizing, affecting a certain person, the subject is sufficiently determined; whence the Holy Office decreed valid the form of the Armenians in which such mention is lacking: Baptizat (or: baptizet), nunc manus mea in nomine... We respond, with Saint Thomas (III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 1), that at least an equivalent implicit mention is required, not only on the part of the matter but also on the part of the form; whence also in the aforesaid form of the Armenians, the words nunc, manu mea sufficiently indicate the subject whom the hand here and now washes.

II. First of all, the person of the one baptizing must be expressed, either explicitly, as in the Latin form, or at least implicitly, as in the Greek form: Baptizatur N. servus Christi, in nomine..., in which the word baptizatur, from the circumstances, has the same value as "is baptized by me," "is baptized by this ministry of mine" (Saint Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5, and ad 1). Hence omission of the pronoun ego would not invalidate Baptism in the Latin language; but in modern languages one must see whether there is the intention of rightly pronouncing the form and whether the action of the minister is sufficiently indicated from the circumstances; whence in practice Baptism will often be invalid or doubtful.²

² Thus S. C. C., 11 Feb. 1797, declared valid, from the sufficiently clear intention of the one uttering it, the form: "Enfante, te baptise en nom..." (Aertnijs, Th. M., II, n. 33, 2°).

III. The act of baptizing also must be expressed; otherwise the form would not determine the matter, since infusion of water could be done for various ends (Saint Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 2; cf. prop. 27 condemned by Alexander VIII);³ and indeed the act exercised in the present, otherwise the present tense, baptizo, would not be verified.

³ "Baptism conferred under this form was at one time valid: In nomine Patris..., the words Ego te baptizo having been omitted." Likewise Alexander III, c. 1, III, 42: "If someone has immersed a child in water in the name of the Father... and has not said: ego te baptizo in nomine..., the child has not been baptized."

Baptism is valid if someone uses a wholly synonymous word: ego te abluo, lavo, mergo, tingo, intingo; it is not valid if the will alone of baptizing is expressed: ego volo tibi ministrare sacramentum Baptismi (S. Off., 23 Jun. 1840), or if the present action is not expressed: baptizatus est in nomine (S. C. de Prop. F., 27 Mar. 1631), or if the mode of ablution is not signified but another mode or the effect alone: ego te mundo, purgo, ungo, tibi ministro sacramentum remissionis peccatorum, etc. It is doubtful if there is doubt concerning this: ego te christianizo or "I make thee Christian" (kerstenen in Flemish, christen in English, karstin, krstin in Slavonic, krstiti in Slavonic).⁴

⁴ Of itself it signifies the effect of Baptism, but from the use of speech the word in certain languages signifies the sacramental action, namely sacramental ablution: "I baptize." Thus for the Slavonic language, as we know from the approval of the Slavonic ritual in the year 1894.

IV. The person of the one baptized must also be expressed, because the form must be concerned with a certain person: it is expressed through the word te or another equivalent (S. C. de Prop. F., 5 Jul. 1631), as: baptizatur Paulus, "this one of mine," or "such a one (N.), servant of Christ"; "I baptize your lordship (majesty)"; "I baptize you," if there are several.

V. The unity of the divine essence is expressed by the words in nomine; hence Baptism would be invalid if someone said: in nominibus, or simply in... or cum Patre..., or ex parte Patris...; or: in nomine Patris et Filii, et gratia Spiritus Sancti; or: in nomine Patris per Filium in Spiritu sancto. It is doubtful if: in virtute, maiestate, auctoritate Patris..., or: in uno Deo Patre, Filio Spiritu sancto, or nomine without in.⁵ In these cases either the essence of God or its unity is not sufficiently expressed, or at least this is uncertain.

⁵ Some would call this last ambiguous, because of the decree of S. C. C., 12 Sept. 1801, alleged in N. Revue Theol. XX (1868), p. 113. But Lehmkuhl observes (Th. M., II, n. 64, note I) that this is so from the use of the Italian or Etruscan language, by which they have been accustomed often to suppress the letter i before m and n, so that n'nome is wholly in nome; wherefore it is by no means established that this also holds in Latin or another language.

Ambiguous are the forms: cum nomine; in nomen (op den naam); Patris maioris, Filius minoris; in nomine Patris, in nomine Filii, in nomine Spiritus sancti; or: ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, ego te baptizo in nomine Filii, ego te baptizo in nomine Spiritus sancti. Whence their validity depends on the intention of the one uttering them, and thus the Roman decrees which speak of the first and last case are to be understood (S. Off., 23 May 1720; 24 May 1823: cum nomine; S. C. C., 4 May 1641; S. Off., 11 Jan. 1882: in nomine repeated three times). Likewise somewhat corrupted locutions, such as in nomine Patris et Filiae, in nomine Patrias et Filias, and the form: in nomine Dei Patris, et Dei Filii et Dei Spiritus sancti, which nevertheless some hold as doubtful. Similarly a form to which is added: et B. M. V., or: in nomine B. M. V., because it depends on the intention whether the same name is attributed to the Blessed Virgin herself as to God; but if someone were to say: in nomine B. M. V. et Patris..., it would be at least doubtful, if not invalid.

VI. The trinity of persons is to be expressed a) under distinct names; hence Baptism conferred in the name of Jesus, of God, of God one and triune, of the Most Holy Trinity, of the three persons, in the name of Paternity, Filiation, and Spiration, in the name of mother, son..., is invalid. Omission of the prior word et does not render the form invalid (S. C. C., 12 Sept. 1801); omission of the twofold et, the word in nomine not being repeated, renders it doubtful; omission of the second word et renders it ambiguous, whence validity depends on the intention of the one uttering it (S. C. C., 12 May 1753), but according to others then it is doubtful;⁶

⁶ Concerning the sense of the last decree they do not wholly agree; cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c., note 2.

b) probably also under proper names, whence Baptism conferred in the name of the begetter or unbegotten, begotten and proceeding, spirated or gift; creator, redeemer and sanctifier; almighty, wise and good; Father, Christ Jesus and Holy Spirit; first, second, third person of the Most Holy Trinity; Father and Son and Spirit, omitting "Holy," will be doubtful.

VII. Observations. 1. The form is to be pronounced together with the infusion of water, not only almost or morally, but also probably physically together; this must altogether be held in practice because, in doubt about the validity of a sacrament, that which is safer must be done (cf. tractate de Sacramentis in genere).

2. For liceity it is required that the form be employed as in the ritual. A small change, transposition, addition, or omission which leaves the sense is of itself a venial sin; a notable change even leaving the sense is a grave sin, e.g., if a Latin priest were to use the Greek form (Rit. Rom., n. 9).