Article III: On the Form of Baptism

St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5 and 6.

126. Principle. The form of Baptism is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or another equivalent form (can. 737). - It is certain.

It is proved: 1. From the words of Christ, Mt. XXVIII, 19, as they were understood in the constant and perpetual tradition of the Church.

2. From the practice of the Church from the beginning, as is established from the testimonies of the Didache VII; Justin, Apol. I, 61; Tertullian, de Bapt. 13; adv. Prax. 26; Cyprian, ep. 73; Ambrose, de Myst. IV, 20; Augustine, c. Don. VI, 25; Const. Apost. VII, 22; Can. Ap. can. 49; Can. Hipp., can. 133; and of the Greek and Latin rituals; likewise Lateran Council IV, c. 1 Firmiter; Council of Vienne, const. de fide cath.; Florence, for the Armenians; and Trent, sess. 7, de Bapt., can. 4, although this is not directly the object of the definition.

3. By reason of fittingness: "It is necessary that in the form of Baptism the cause of Baptism be expressed. Now its cause is twofold: one indeed principal, from which it has power, which is the Holy Trinity; but the other instrumental, namely the minister, who hands on the sacrament exteriorly. And therefore in the form of Baptism mention must be made of both. The minister, however, is touched upon when it is said: I baptize you; the principal cause, when it is said: in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Whence this is the fitting form of Baptism" (a. 5). This certainly befits the sacrament of the initiation of faith, whose chief mystery is the Most Holy Trinity.

127. For the validity of Baptism, five things must be expressed in the form: the person baptizing, - the act of baptizing exercised upon another, - the person baptized, - the unity of the divine essence, - the trinity of persons under distinct and, probably, proper names.¹

¹ De Smet, o. c., n. 233, departs from the received mode of speaking, saying that for the validity of the form two things suffice, namely, mention of the baptismal action and the distinct invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: mention of the person ministering (I) is not required, since the minister is sufficiently designated by the sacramental operation itself; nor mention of the person of the subject (you), 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: My hand baptizes (or: let it baptize) now in the name... - We answer, with St. Thomas, a. 5, ad 2, that at least implicit equivalent 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 "now, my hand" sufficiently indicate the subject whom the hand here and now washes.

1. The person baptizing must be expressed either explicitly, as in the Latin form, or at least implicitly, as in the Greek form: N., the servant of Christ, is baptized in the name..., in which the word "is baptized,"² from the circumstances, has the same force as "is baptized by me," "is baptized by this my ministry," as St. Thomas explains, a. 5, ad 1.

² Not: "let him be baptized," as several have said, but this arose from confusion because of the likeness with βαπτίζεται.

Hence the omission of the pronoun I would not invalidate Baptism in the Latin language; but in modern languages one must see whether there is an 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.³

³ Thus the S.C.C., February 11, 1797, declared valid, from the sufficiently clear intention of the one uttering it, the form: "Enfant, je te baptise en nom..." (Aertnijs, Th. M., II, n. 49, 2).

2. The act of baptizing also must be expressed; otherwise the form would not determine the matter, since the pouring of water could be done for various ends, as St. Thomas observes, ad 2, and as is certainly established from the condemnation of proposition 27 by Alexander VIII;⁴ - and indeed an act exercised in the present, otherwise the present tense "I baptize" would not be verified.

⁴ "Baptism conferred at some time under this form was valid: In the name of the Father..., with these words omitted: I baptize you." - Likewise Alexander III, c. 1, III, 42: "If someone has immersed a child in water in the name of the F... and has not said: I baptize you in the name..., the child is not baptized."

Baptism is valid if someone uses a synonymous word: I wash you, lave you, immerse you, dip you, plunge you; - it is not valid if only the will of baptizing is expressed: I wish to minister to you the sacrament of Baptism (Holy Office, June 23, 1840), or if the present action is not expressed: he has been baptized in the name (S.C.P.F., March 27, 1631), or if the mode of washing is not signified but another mode or the effect alone: I cleanse you, purge you, anoint you, I minister to you the sacrament of the remission of sins, etc.; - it is doubtful if this is doubted: I place upon you (over you) the water of God (Holy Office, February 17, 1897), I Christianize you, or make you a Christian.⁵

⁵ Of itself it signifies the effect of Baptism, but by usage of speech in certain languages the word signifies the sacramental action, namely, sacramental washing: I baptize. Thus for the Slavonic language, as we know from the approval of the Slavonic ritual (in the year 1894).

3. The person baptized must be expressed, because the form must be concerned with a certain person.

It is expressed by the word "you" or another equivalent (S.C.P.F., July 5, 1631), as: Paul is baptized, this my servant, or such a servant (N.) of Christ, I baptize your lordship or your majesty, or: I baptize you, if there are several.

4. The unity of the divine essence is expressed by the words: in the name.

Hence Baptism would be invalid if someone said: in the names, or simply: in... or with the Father..., or on the part of the Father...; - or: in the name of the Father and of the Son, and the grace of the Holy Spirit; - or: in the name of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit; - doubtful if: in the power, majesty, authority of the Father..., or: in the one God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit; - or: name, without "in."⁶ In these cases, either the essence of God or His unity is not sufficiently expressed, or at least this is uncertain.

⁶ Some have said this last form ambiguous, because of the decree of the S.C.C., September 12, 1801, alleged by N. Revue Théol., XX (1868), p. 113. But Lehmkuhl observes (Th. M., II, n. 89, note 1) that this is so from the usage of the Italian or Etruscan language, by which they were accustomed to suppress the letter i before m and n, so that n' nome is entirely in nome; wherefore it is by no means established that this also has force in the Latin language or another language.

Ambiguous are the forms: with the name, into the name (op den naam); of the greater Father, the lesser Son; in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, 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; 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.⁷ Likewise locutions somewhat corrupted, such as in the name of the Father and of the Daughter, in the name of the Fatherlands and Daughters, and the form: in the name of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Spirit, which nevertheless some hold as doubtful. Similarly a form to which there is added: and the Blessed Virgin Mary, or: in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 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 the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Father..., it would be at least doubtful, if not invalid.

⁷ Concerning the sense of the last decree they do not entirely agree. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c., note 3.

5. The trinity of persons must be expressed

a) under distinct names.

Hence Baptism conferred in the name of Jesus, of God, of the one and triune God, of the Most Holy Trinity, of three persons, in the name of Paternity, Filiation, and Spiration, in the name of mother, son... is invalid. Omission of the first word "and" does not render the form invalid (S.C.C., September 12, 1801); omission of the double "and," with the word "in the name" not repeated, renders it doubtful; omission of the second word "and" renders it ambiguous, whence validity depends on the intention of the one uttering it (S.C.C., May 12, 1753), but according to others it is then doubtful.⁷

b) probably also under proper names.

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

128. For liceity it is required that the form be used as it is indicated in the ritual of one's own Church; for each one must follow his own rite (can. 733, § 2; Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 9).

According to the Roman ritual the form is: N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the Amen being omitted (so the S.C.R., June 9, 1853), with which word formerly the people or clergy present responded to the ministering priest. The Greeks, on the contrary, say: N., the servant of Christ, is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A small change, transposition, addition, or omission, which leaves the sense, is of itself a venial sin; a notable change, even one leaving the sense, is a grave sin, for example, if a Latin priest were to use the Greek form, or conversely.

129. Observations. - 1. The form must be pronounced simultaneously with the pouring of water, not only morally, so that one immediately succeeds the other, but also physically. Thus not only for liceity, but also probably for validity, so that the form is at least partially pronounced during the washing. This must be held absolutely in practice, because in doubt concerning the value of a sacrament that which is safer is to be done (n. 14).

2. Formerly there was dispute concerning the validity of Baptism conferred in the name of Jesus or of Christ, because of certain locutions of Scripture (Rom. VI, 3; Acts II, 38; VIII, 12, 16; X, 48; XIX, 5). Several, such as Peter Lombard and Cajetan, thought this valid in all times;⁸ others, however, such as St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, and Scotus, said that by special dispensation or from the prompting of the Holy Spirit it was done so that only in apostolic times could it be validly conferred in this way.

⁸ They allege the response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians. But there is no question of an infallible act, and besides there is dispute over its sense. Cf. Van Noort, o. c., n. 189.

The first opinion contradicts the universal and most ancient tradition, whence by command of Pius V it was expunged from the works of Cajetan. The other opinion seems improbable. For now the better interpreters of Scripture think that the words "in the name of Jesus" do not express the liturgical or ritual formula of Baptism, but are a juridical formula which indicates the character of Baptism: namely, that it was instituted by Christ and ministered by His authority and power, distinct from the other baptisms of the Jews and particularly from the baptism of John, by which men are incorporated into Christ and which they receive for the profession of the name of Jesus. The Scriptures themselves also intimate this interpretation (Acts XIX, 2-3): for when St. Paul found the Ephesian disciples in ignorance of the Holy Spirit, he asks them: "In what, then, were you baptized?", thus insinuating that mention is made of the Holy Spirit in the very conferral of Baptism.

3. Certain modern authors have thought that Baptism in antiquity was sometimes ministered without a form, because in several descriptions of Baptism the form is not mentioned. But the negative argument proves nothing, because there are sufficient and most ancient documents in which explicit mention is made of the words of the form.