Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article I. On The Matter Of Baptism
98. 1. The valid remote matter of baptism is all and only natural water.
Thus teaches Catholic dogma.27 The Council of Trent28 defines: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore twists into some metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 'Unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit,' let him be anathema."
St. Thomas29 shows by several reasons how fittingly Christ willed water to be employed in baptism:
a) Water washes and cools; thus baptism washes from the stains of sin and mitigates the ardor of concupiscence.
b) Baptism is a sacrament than which no other is given that is more necessary. Therefore, its matter must be easily found everywhere on earth. Now, no matter is as common as water.30
A few heretics, such as certain Gnostics, Manichaeans, Albigensians, and Cathars, denied that water is the matter of baptism. Luther and Beza, however, taught that in a case of necessity baptism can also be conferred in another fluid matter.
Note. In practice, what constitutes the valid matter of baptism is to be taken not so much from chemical analysis as from the common estimation of men. Hence:
a) Certainly valid matter is water from a spring, well, river, sea, or rain; water melted from ice, snow, or hail; distilled water; sulfurous water and other mineral water; water to which a small quantity of another matter is admixed, although its color, odor, or taste is thereby altered, provided, however, that water always remains the predominant matter. Thus on August 21, 1901, the Holy Office declared that one-thousandth part of sublimated mercuric bichloride (Sublimat) can be admixed with water to forestall the danger of infecting the mother if an infant is to be baptized in the maternal womb.
b) Doubtful matter is broth, coffee, tea, beer, liquids expressed from plants,31 etc. The reason is that in all these and similar liquids water indeed greatly predominates and is not chemically transmuted, but according to the common estimation of men it is no longer called water. Therefore, outside a case of extreme necessity it is not lawful to use doubtful matter of this kind.
c) Certainly invalid matter is milk, blood, saliva, wine, oil, and the humors of the human body, such as sweat, urine, etc.32 The reason is that although a great part of water is contained in these matters, nevertheless that water has been changed either chemically or at least according to the common estimation of men.
27 Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1 (Denz., n. 430); Eugene IV, Decree for the Armenians (Denz., n. 696).
28 Sess. 7, can. 2 on baptism (Denz., n. 858).
29 S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 3.
30 Cf. Cat. Rom. P. 2, c. 2, q. 8.
31 Thus according to St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 103); St. Thomas seems to hold liquids from plants to be invalid matter, S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 4 ad 5.
32 Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 103.
99. 2. The licit remote matter in solemn baptism is consecrated baptismal water that is becomingly clean. Thus it is from the Roman Ritual.33 Solemn baptism is considered to be that which is performed with all the ceremonies, whether in a church or in another place, even in a private house, as was already said. In baptism of necessity, that is, when death is imminent, "if baptismal water is not available and danger threatens, let the priest use plain water." Thus the old Roman Ritual.34 Nevertheless, holy or blessed water seems to be preferred to plain water. In private baptism, that is, in one which is administered outside the moment of death without the ceremonies, baptismal water is likewise to be employed if it can easily be had; otherwise blessed or holy water is to be employed. Such private baptism sometimes occurs in the reception of a heretic returning to the bosom of the Church if baptism is repeated under condition.35
In extreme necessity, if pure water is lacking, it is lawful to baptize with any matter, even doubtful matter, but not with matter that is certainly invalid.
He sins gravely who, outside a case of necessity, solemnly baptizes with unconsecrated water; likewise, he who baptizes with muddy or foul-smelling water, or water mixed with other matters, because this is a grave irreverence against the sacrament. If consecrated baptismal water has become foul-smelling or impure and no other pure water can be had, then plain pure water is to be employed in baptism rather than that foul baptismal water. If, however, there is no danger in delay, new baptismal water must be consecrated according to the special formula prescribed in the Roman Ritual.3637
In the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of September 8, 1869 (n. 42),38 missionaries are commanded to preserve consecrated baptismal water in some becoming place and vessel and to carry it with them when they must make a journey to administer baptism, if, however, this can easily be done; otherwise - if, namely, baptismal water cannot be had without notable inconvenience - it is lawful in solemn baptism "to use common water, especially if it has been blessed."39
When baptismal water seems likely to run short, it is lawful to admix natural water, and this even more than once, provided, however, that each time the quantity of natural water to be poured in is less than the baptismal water already present.40 Even in baptisms which in some regions, with the permission of the bishop, are performed outside the church in private houses, consecrated baptismal water is to be employed. For it is solemn baptism.
If the baptismal water is too cold, it can be warmed by bringing it near a fire, or even, as the Roman Ritual permits, by pouring in a little very hot natural water. Likewise, nothing prevents a small quantity of water from the Jordan from being admixed with the baptismal water41 if the parents request and procure it.
33 Tit. 2, c. 1, n. 5; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 757, § 1.
34 Tit. 2, c. 2, n. 29. These words are not found in the new Ritual.
35 Thus, for example, it is found in the acts of the First Council of Westminster, c. 16, n. 8. Baptism of this kind is not to be performed publicly, but altogether privately with holy water and without ceremonies.
36 Tit. 2, c. 8; Code of Canon Law, c. 757, § 3.
37 Cf. Holy Office, April 17, 1839.
38 Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1346.
39 On April 6, 1741, the Holy Office (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 325) determined that, when baptismal water is lacking, natural water should be employed rather than blessed water; but on June 20, 1883 (ibid., n. 1598), it decreed generally: "When baptismal water is not available, blessed water according to the formula in the new editions and in the appendix of the Roman Ritual is to be employed, insofar as this can be done; otherwise natural water is to be employed." The sense of this response seems to be: When baptismal water blessed on Holy Saturday or on the Saturday before Pentecost is not available, baptismal water blessed according to the short formulas found in the Roman Ritual is to be employed.
40 Rit. Rom., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 6, and Code of Canon Law, c. 757, § 2.
41 Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 58.
100. Scholion. On the consecration of baptismal water. In churches in which a baptismal font exists, the baptismal water must be blessed twice, and not only once, during the year, that is, on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost, notwithstanding any contrary custom, which is altogether to be eliminated.42 The old baptismal water present on those days is to be poured into the sacrarium.43 It was already said above that in a case of necessity baptismal water can be blessed on other days also. The consecration of the baptismal font is to be performed with oils recently consecrated, that is, on Holy Thursday of the same year. But if on Holy Saturday the new oils could not yet be obtained, then a twofold mode of acting is lawful: 1. to bless the font without the infusion of the sacred oils, which the priest is afterward to pour in privately at a suitable time while reciting the omitted prayers; 2. to bless the baptismal font with the old oils if, namely, baptism must be administered before the arrival of the new oils.44
42 Sacred Congregation of Rites, April 13, 1874 (Decr. auth., n. 3331); Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 10, 1922 (Acta Ap. Sed. XV, 227).
43 Rit. Rom., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 5. In the Eastern Church the priest consecrates the baptismal water whenever he administers baptism.
44 Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 31, 1896 (Decr. auth., n. 3879).
101. 3. The proximate matter of baptism is the application of water performed by the minister in such a way that, according to common judgment, a true washing is present. This washing can be performed in three ways: by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring. According to the discipline now in force in the Roman Church, solemn baptism must be administered not by one but by a threefold pouring or immersion.
During the first twelve centuries baptism was more commonly administered by immersion, both in the Latin Church and in the Greek Church. Even St. Thomas45 calls immersion the more common and more praiseworthy usage. Nevertheless, baptism by pouring or sprinkling was always in force also. For it is not likely that the Apostles, who baptized 3,000 men on one day of Pentecost, employed immersion. Likewise, the so-called clinics, or the sick lying in bed, were often baptized in bed; for them baptism by immersion was scarcely possible. Moreover, St. Paul is narrated to have baptized the jailer with his household in prison,46 which does not seem to have been performed by immersion. Furthermore, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. 7, St. Cyprian,47 Eusebius,48 and others testify that baptism by pouring was employed from the most ancient times.
Therefore the Greeks and others err who teach that baptism by immersion alone is valid. The reason is that the essence of baptism consists in washing. Now, a true washing can also be had through pouring. From the thirteenth century onward baptism by pouring became more common in the Latin Church because baptism by immersion is accustomed to introduce grave inconveniences.
Nevertheless, even in present times baptism could be performed by immersion; for the Roman Ritual49 says: "Although baptism can be validly conferred either by the pouring of water, by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second mode, or a mode mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained according to the custom of the Churches, so that by a threefold washing the head of the one to be baptized is poured over or immersed"; and the same Ritual describes how immersion is to be performed in the baptism of adults. In practice, it is not lawful to depart from the custom in force in each Church.
45 S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 7.
46 Acts 16:33.
47 Ep. 69, n. 12.
48 Hist. eccl. 6, 43 (Migne, Patr. lat. 20, 623).
49 Tit. 2, c. 1, de form. bapt., n. 10; the Code of Canon Law, c. 758, says nearly the same.
102. Mode of baptizing. The pouring of water must be a) threefold; b) upon the head of the one to be baptized; c) the water must flow and not merely touch; d) the water must flow immediately upon the skin of the one to be baptized; e) the same minister must pronounce the form and perform the washing. Thus it is from the precept of the Ritual, which seems to oblige gravely unless, because of necessity, another mode of baptizing must be employed.
a) The pouring must be threefold, and is to be performed in this manner: The priest, saying the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father," pours the water the first time; saying, "and of the Son," the second time; saying, "and of the Holy Spirit," the third time.
b) It must be upon the head of the one to be baptized.
For since a washing of the whole body is not required, it suffices, and is commanded, that the head be washed as the principal part of the body in which all human senses, both exterior and interior, meet.50 In a case of necessity, which can occur especially in the baptism of an infant in the maternal womb, it is lawful to perform the washing on other parts of the body also, for example, on the foot, arm, or breast. For greater security, however, baptism is afterward to be repeated under condition if this is possible.
c) The water must flow.
For the proximate matter of baptism is a washing. Now, it cannot rightly be called a washing unless the water is carried from one part of the skin to another. Hence, if only one or another drop touches the skin and adheres immovably to it, there is no washing, and therefore the baptism is invalid. For this reason, not a few baptisms conferred by Protestant ministers are invalid, because they were performed with an aspergillum or with so small a quantity of water that it could not flow. If someone washes the head of the one to be baptized with a cloth or sponge moistened with water, the baptism is considered valid because a true washing is present.51 But if he merely touches and, as it were, anoints the forehead of the one to be baptized with a moistened thumb, the baptism is invalid or certainly doubtful.52
d) The water must flow immediately upon the skin of the one to be baptized.
Hence baptism is certainly invalid if the water touches only the clothing; but it is doubtfully valid if the water touches only the hair of the person to be baptized. Therefore, in practice the baptizing priest must take care to part the hair somewhat with his left hand so that the skin appears when he pours the water with his right hand. Likewise, it is good if the baptismal water also flows over part of the forehead, so that every doubt concerning validity is removed.
When an infant is baptized in the maternal womb while still enveloped in the so-called "secondines," baptism is invalid because these afterbirth membranes are, as it were, an extraneous covering of the infant, and therefore in this case the water does not touch the infant himself. Just as baptism conferred upon clothing is invalid, so the same must be said of baptism conferred upon any other extraneous covering. A fortiori, baptism is invalid if the water is poured not upon the infant but upon the skin of the mother.
But it can scarcely be called into doubt whether baptism conferred upon an infant still existing in the maternal womb is valid if it is morally certain that the water, after the "secondines" have been perforated, touched the skin of the infant. For the reason adduced against the validity of such baptism is specious rather than solid, namely, that this infant, not yet born naturally, cannot be reborn spiritually. The response is that an infant living in the maternal womb is a true man in the wayfaring state, having an immortal soul. But there is no reason why a true man cannot be baptized. Moreover, it is false that such an infant has in no way been born. For he is a true man, as all must now concede, and nothing is lacking to him except separation from his mother, which seems to be something merely accidental.
Nevertheless, in practice, both because the minister is ordinarily a layman and not so skilled in baptizing, and because of the difficulty of truly washing an infant in the maternal womb, the Church commands baptism conferred upon an infant in the maternal womb to be repeated under condition.53 Moreover, below, n. 129, it will again be discussed how infants in the maternal womb are to be baptized.
e) The same minister must apply the form and perform the washing.
Hence baptism would be invalid if someone, seeing an infant falling into water, willed to baptize him by saying, "I baptize you, etc."; or if one person pronounces the form and another performs the pouring or immersion, as occurred in the case in which the one to be baptized descended into a pool and a minister standing at the edge pronounced the form.54 But baptism is valid if someone, taking an infant, places him beneath falling rain or water flowing from a channel while at the same time pronouncing the form,55 or even if he were to throw the infant into water. The reason is that it seems indifferent whether the water is brought to the infant or the infant to the water. Nevertheless, if in the latter case the infant is certainly going to die, such a mode of acting seems illicit, since it would be a direct killing.56 Noldin,57 Lehmkuhl,58 and Ballerini-Palmieri59 teach that this mode of acting is lawful. Moreover, with St. Alphonsus I say: "Since such a question is scarcely reduced to practice, I consider it superfluous to linger over it."60
50 S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 7 ad 3.
51 Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 60.
52 The response of the Holy Office of December 14, 1898, seems worthy of note: "After the recent death of the pastor of the place N., it was discovered by certain testimonies that for many years he had conferred baptism upon children not by a washing, but by way of an anointing on the forehead with his thumb moistened in baptismal water. It is impossible to say how many children and from what time were thus baptized: many are now adults and have departed for other regions; many have already died. What is to be thought concerning the validity of this baptism, and what is to be done in practice with those thus baptized? Response: Care is to be taken that they be baptized again privately under condition, with the matter and form alone employed without ceremonies, and according to the mind. The mind is that the bishop investigate in a special manner whether any of those thus baptized were promoted to sacred orders."
53 Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, March 16, 1897.
54 Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, November 17, 1916 (Acta Ap. Sed. VIII, 480).
55 Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 106.
56 Cf. Billuart, De bapt., diss. 1, a. 3, § 3.
57 Sum. Theol. mor. III, n. 60.
58 Theol. mor. II, n. 86.
59 Opus theol. IV, n. 729.
60 L.c.