Article Second. On the Form of Baptism

62. The form of baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

In order that the form be valid, five things must be enunciated: a. the person who baptizes (at least implicitly); b. the person who is baptized; c. the act of baptizing with its essential effect; d. the unity of the divine nature, which is signified by the phrase in the name; e. the distinction of the persons, which are to be expressed by their proper names, and this distinction is signified by the particle and.

The form by which the Greeks baptize is valid: The servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because the person of the minister is implicitly contained in the word is baptized, which, since it assertively pronounces the sacramental action, has the same force as is baptized by me.

a. No one can validly baptize himself, because the person baptizing must be entirely distinct from the person to be baptized; for Christ, instituting baptism, manifestly distinguishes between the minister and the subject of baptism (baptizing them). Moreover, by saying I baptize myself the form would be substantially changed; finally, baptism is spiritual regeneration; therefore, just as no one can generate himself, so also no one can regenerate himself.¹

b. The word Amen, the omission of which St. Alphonsus had thought to be a venial sin, is not to be added to the form.²

c. In the form nothing can be omitted without its ceasing to be certainly valid, except the pronoun I, if baptism is conferred in a language in which, as in Latin, the verb without the pronoun determines the person of the minister; the particle and before the invocation of the Son;³ and the adjective Holy. All the rest is essential; therefore, if any of these were omitted, the form would be substantially changed.

d. Whether the words of the form in the name signify by the authority or under invocation or under profession is not certainly clear. From the fact that S. C. C. declared that this form, I baptize thee with the name of the Father, etc., used without evil intention, is valid, it seems to follow that in the name is the same as by the authority of the Father, etc.⁴

e. Whether several can be baptized at once with this form: I baptize you, etc. The baptism is indeed valid if the one baptizing himself pours or sprinkles the water at the same time and each one is truly washed; but it is illicit outside a case of necessity, namely where time is not sufficient for baptizing them individually.

¹ Cf. c. Debitum 4, De baptismo et eius effectu (III, 42).

² S. C. R., 9 June 1853, n. 3014.

³ S. C. C., 12 Sept. 1801, prohibited that baptism conferred with this form, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be repeated, even under condition.

⁴ Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 735.

63. Diverse forms of baptism. Forms of baptism which differ more or less from that which Christ instituted can be reduced to four classes: valid, invalid, doubtful, and ambiguous.

1. Valid are those in which certainly only an accidental change has place. He who uses a form of this kind baptizes validly and afterward must supply nothing; nevertheless he sins, but ordinarily only venially, because the change, as being accidental, is not grave, unless it is notable.

a. Valid are: I baptize your lordship in the name of the Father, etc. - I wash, I cleanse thee in the name, etc. - I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Spirit and of the Father and of the Son, because this transposition of words does not change the substantial sense of the form. - I baptize thee in the name of the unbegotten Father and of the only-begotten Son and of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both, because this addition does not corrupt the sense of the form, since of itself it is not apt to express an erroneous or heretical sense. - I baptize thee into the name (Greek: eis to onoma) of the Father, etc., both because this form renders word for word the Greek form of Sacred Scripture, and because it does not pour out an essentially different sense. - I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit: for the omission of the word Holy does not change the sense of the form, since also in Sacred Scripture the third person of the most holy Trinity is called simply Spirit.¹

b. The Slavic peoples, who administer solemn baptism in the Slavic rite, use the word te krstim, and the English, who baptize in the vernacular language, use the word I christen, which words etymologically signify: I Christianize thee or make thee a Christian. Therefore, because these words of the form signify not the sacramental action but the effect of the sacrament, the form could seem invalid. Nevertheless there is no reason to doubt concerning the value of baptism conferred with this form; for from common use those words are employed in the conferral of baptism to signify the sacramental action itself, namely the sacred washing, which others express by the word I baptize.²

2. Invalid are forms in which either those things are not contained which must necessarily be expressed, or something false or heretical is contained. Baptism conferred with a form of this kind, as being certainly invalid, must be repeated absolutely.

Invalid are: I baptize thee in the name of the most holy Trinity - in the name of God one and triune - in the name of Jesus Christ, because the individual persons of the Trinity are not expressed.³ - I baptize thee in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because the divine essence is multiplied. - I baptize thee in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, with in the name omitted, because this form multiplies the divine essence or at least does not clearly signify its unity. - I will to minister to thee the sacrament of baptism in the name, etc., because there is not expressed the present act of baptizing, but the will of baptizing.⁴

3. Doubtful are forms concerning which it is not certainly clear either that they exhibit all the things which must necessarily be expressed, or that they contain something false or heretical. Baptism conferred with a form of this kind must be repeated under condition, because its value is doubtful.

Doubtful are: I baptize thee in the power, in the majesty of the Father, etc., because it indeed signifies baptism to be conferred by the authority of the Father, etc., but does not signify clearly enough baptism to be conferred under invocation of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. - I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit (with and omitted), because the last words of themselves seem rather to signify a property of the Son than a distinct person, especially if and is inserted before the name of the Son. - I baptize thee in the name of the begetter and of the begotten and of the breathed (or proceeding), because the persons of the Trinity are indeed exhibited by proper names, but not by those by which they are commonly wont to be signified; yet from the institution of Christ these names probably must be used.⁵ - I baptize thee in the name of our Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because the word Father in the form of baptism signifies the person of the Father, who is Father with respect to the Son; the added word our causes it to signify the creator of all without respect to the Son, and consequently without distinction of persons.⁶

4. Ambiguous are forms which necessarily are neither invalid nor doubtful, and which therefore of themselves can be taken both in a fitting sense and also in a false or heretical sense. The value of baptism conferred with a form of this kind depends on the intention of the one baptizing; therefore it is not to be repeated if the one baptizing subjected nothing false or heretical to the words of the form; but it must be repeated absolutely if the one baptizing took the words of the form in a false or heretical sense.

Ambiguous are: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit, because the repetition of the term in the name does not necessarily signify a multiplication of the divine essence, although in the name, namely of the most holy Trinity, is repeated twice.⁷ - I baptize thee in the name of God the Father and of God the Son and of God the Holy Spirit, because this repetition no more signifies a multiplication of the divine essence than the repetition of the term in the name, especially since the unity of the essence is sufficiently expressed by the term in the name.⁸ - I baptize thee by name or with the name of the Father and of the Son, etc.⁹

Note. In order that the sacramental form be valid, it is required that the words of themselves be apt to signify that which Christ instituted, and that the minister intend to signify this very thing. If the minister intends to signify something else, the sacrament is invalid, even if the words are the very same words which Christ instituted. Hence a private error of the minister does not impede the value of the sacrament, provided the words both of themselves and from the intention (at least prevailing) of the minister signify that which Christ intended (n. 15). From these things it is deduced that he baptizes invalidly who uses the legitimate form, yet intends to use it in another sense, if, e.g., by the word Father he did not will to signify the eternal Father, but a Father who is not eternal.¹⁰

¹ John 7, 39.

² Cf. Lugo, Responsa moralia, l. 1, dub. 3; Pesch, Praelect. dogm., VI, n. 396.

³ Nor should it be said that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: for where Sacred Scripture speaks of baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8, 12; 19, 5), it does not signify the form by which baptism was conferred, but baptism itself of the Holy Spirit instituted by Christ, as it is distinguished from the baptism of penance of St. John. Indeed it is almost certain that the apostles baptized with the same form which Christ instituted, namely in the name of the most holy Trinity. Cf. Scherer, Uber die Taufe im Namen Jesu (Passauer Monatsschrift XII, 262 ff.).

⁴ Holy Office, 23 May 1840.

⁵ St. Thomas III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 7.

⁶ Cf. nevertheless Genicot, Casus, II, p. 143; Holy Office, 27 Jan. 1892.

⁷ Bonacina holds this form invalid, because through it there is signified not unity, but plurality of the divine essence; St. Alphonsus holds it as doubtful, because it is not clear that through it the divine essence is multiplied; the Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1882, declared it to be valid in itself, because of itself it does not necessarily signify plurality of the divine essence.

⁸ Cf. Bucceroni, Casus conscientiae^5, n. 111, 4.

⁹ S. C. C., several times (lastly 16 Aug. 1828), declared that this form, used without evil intention, is valid.

¹⁰ Cf. Lugo, disp. 2, n. 113 ff.