Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article II. On The Form Of Baptism
103. In the Latin Church the form of baptism is: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But in the Eastern Church: "Let N., the servant of Christ, be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Certain Rituals of the Eastern Rite have not "let him be baptized," but "he is baptized." Which mode is better is not so established.61 This entire doctrine is found in the Decree for the Armenians in the Bull Exsultate Deo of Eugene IV:
"The form [of baptism] is: 'I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' Nevertheless, we do not deny that true baptism is also perfected through these words: 'Such a servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' or: 'Such a one is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'; for since the principal cause from which baptism has its power is the Holy Trinity, but the instrumental cause is the minister who outwardly delivers the sacrament, if the act which is exercised through the minister himself is expressed with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected."62
From these words it follows that at least two things must necessarily be expressed in the baptismal form, namely: a) the act of baptizing performed by the minister; b) the unity of the divine nature, which is signified by the word name, and the distinction of the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, by whom baptism is conferred.
a) The expression of the act of baptizing includes three things, namely, the minister, the subject, and the action itself.
Therefore it is required, first, that the minister himself be signified in some way in the formula.
"It is necessary that the cause of baptism be expressed in the form of baptism. Now, the cause is twofold: one is principal, from which it has its power, which is the Most Holy Trinity; but the other is instrumental, namely, the minister who outwardly delivers the sacrament. And therefore it is necessary that mention of both be made in the form of baptism." Thus St. Thomas,63 whom Suarez64 contradicts: "It is not of the essence of this form that the person of the minister be expressed in it. This is a certain conclusion." So far is the conclusion of Suarez from being certain that, on the contrary, it is not lawful to follow it in practice.
For it is required that the person of the minister be expressed at least in an indirect manner. Hence, for example, in the French language the form "te baptise au nom du Père, etc." ("baptize you in the name of the Father"), with the word Je ("I") omitted, would be certainly doubtful, not to say invalid. In the Latin, Greek, and certain other languages, the person of the minister is sufficiently signified by the verb baptizo, etc., itself; hence the form "I baptize you," etc., with the word Ego omitted, would be certainly valid, although illicit. But in very many languages, for example, French, German, English, Dutch, etc., it is necessarily required that the word "I" be expressed.
The person of the minister is also expressed in the form employed by the Greeks, although not so clearly and perfectly as among the Latins. For in the word "he is baptized" or "let him be baptized" there is understood: by me, just as Arcudius and Goar expressly note in their Greek Euchologies.65
Furthermore, it is necessary, second, that the subject be signified in the baptismal form.
Therefore, if someone were to omit the word "you" and not substitute anything equivalent, for example, "your lordship," he would baptize invalidly. According to the Roman Ritual, not only the word "you" but also the name of the one to be baptized is to be expressed, for example, "Peter, I baptize you in the name," etc.
Finally, it is required, third, that the act of baptizing be expressed either by the verb "to baptize" or by another synonymous verb, for example, "I wash," "I dip."66
Therefore, if the act of baptizing were in no way expressed in words, the baptism is null, as is evident from the Decretal of Alexander III67 and from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII: "At one time baptism conferred under this form was valid: 'In the name of the Father' ... with those words, 'I baptize you,' omitted."68 St. Thomas69 gives the reason: "Because the washing of a man in water can be performed for many purposes, it is necessary that it be determined in the words of the form for what purpose it is performed. This is not done by saying: 'In the name of the Father,' ... because we ought to do all things in such a name, as is found in Colossians, c. 3. And therefore, if the act of baptism is not expressed either in our manner or in the manner of the Greeks, the sacrament is not perfected."
b) The explicit expression of the three Persons of the Trinity is altogether necessary, while at the same time indicating the unity of the divine essence.
Theologians indeed dispute whether the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, since in several places of the New Testament the Apostles are narrated to have baptized in this manner,70 and since St. Ambrose71 and Nicholas I72 seem to teach thus. Billuart73 rightly says that both opinions, the negative as well as the affirmative, are probable, and that authors of great name stand for each opinion. For the affirmative opinion are cited the Master of the Sentences, Albert the Great, St. Thomas,74 St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Durandus, Valentia, Toletus, and others; for the negative are adduced Suarez, Estius, Sylvius, Natalis Alexander, Christian Pesch, Schanz, Gihr, and others.
If one regards the texts of Sacred Scripture, the affirmative opinion indeed seems more probable; but if it is considered how incongruous it would have been a) that the Apostles themselves acted against the precept of Christ saying, "Going ... baptizing them in the name of the Father," etc.; b) that the form of baptism, which is the most necessary sacrament, would have been one thing in the time of the Apostles and another in subsequent times, then the negative opinion seems more probable. Whatever may be the case, all modern theologians teach that today baptism cannot be validly conferred in the name of Jesus, but that express mention of the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity is required.
61 Cf. Billuart, l.c., a. 4, § 1. According to the Εὐχολόγιον τὸ μέγα (Rome 1873), p. 156, the Greek text reads thus: "Βαπτίζεται ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ (ὁ δεῖνα) εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Ἀμήν· νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν." ("The servant of God [so-and-so] is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen; now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen.")
62 Denz., n. 696.
63 S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 5.
64 De sacr., disp. 21, sect. 4, n. 4.
65 Cf. Billuart, De bapt., diss. 1, a. 1.
66 In the English language the formula "I christen thee" is sometimes employed; among the Slavic peoples, for example, Poles, Bohemians, Moravians, etc., and also in Dalmatia (cf. concerning this matter Lugo, Respons. Mor., l. 1, dub. 3), the expression "krstim te" is found. Baptism conferred under these and similar formulas seems to be valid.
67 C. 1, X 3, 42.
68 Denz., n. 1317.
69 L.c., ad 2.
70 For example, Acts 2:38: "Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus"; Acts 8:12 and 16; 10:48; Rom. 6:3.
71 De Spir. S., l. 1, c. 3, n. 42 (Migne, Patr. lat. 16, 714).
72 Responsa ad Bulgar., c. 104 (Denz., n. 335).
73 L.c., § 3.
74 S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 6 ad 1 and 2.
104. The following resolutions can be deduced from what has been said:
The following formulas are invalid: "I baptize you in the name of the Most Holy Trinity," because the individual Persons of the Trinity are not expressed; "I baptize you in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," because the divine essence seems to be multiplied;75 "I baptize you in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," with "in the name" omitted, because this form does not state the unity of the divine essence clearly enough; "I will to minister to you the sacrament of the baptism of sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," because it does not suffice to express the will to baptize, but it must be said: "I baptize you." On June 23, 1840, the Holy Office declared baptisms conferred under these four forms null.76 Likewise invalid is the formula, "I baptize in the name of the Father," etc., with the word "you" omitted, because then the subject of baptism is not signified.
The following forms are doubtful: "I baptize you name of the Father," etc., with the word "in" omitted. Lehmkuhl,77 however, adduces from the treasury of the Resolutions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (83, 136) several decisions of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Congregation of the Council in which the form "I baptize you with the name," etc., was declared valid, if it was said without a bad intention. The form "I baptize you into the name" also seems valid, because the Greek text of the Gospel has: εἰς τὸ ὄνομα.
"I baptize you in the power, in the majesty of the Father," or: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit," with the word "and" omitted. Concerning this matter Lehmkuhl78 writes: "If the word 'and' is omitted twice, some think that baptism is rendered doubtful; but if it is placed in the second position, before 'Holy Spirit,' it does not seem that the validity of the baptism is to be doubted, since more than once both the Sacred Congregation of the Council and the Holy Office have decided in such a case that 'the children in question were validly baptized, and therefore are not to be baptized, not even under condition.'"79
St. Alphonsus80 thinks the form is not safe if it is said: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son," etc.; but on January 11, 1882, the Holy Office declared: "Baptism conferred with the stated form is valid." The same had already been declared on September 8, 1633, by the Holy Office, which acknowledged as valid the form: "Let my hand now baptize in the name of the Father, let my hand now baptize in the name of the Son, let my hand now baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit."81
There are still many other doubtful forms which can be seen in St. Alphonsus82 or Billuart.83 As a general rule it can be held: Since the sacrament of baptism is so necessary, and without it validly received no other sacrament can be validly received, almost any change of the form causes baptism to be permitted, and indeed often required, to be repeated under condition. Since, therefore, almost every word in the form of baptism is essential, laymen, and especially midwives, are to be diligently instructed by pastors in the due form to be employed, lest even the least change occur.
At the end of the baptismal form the word "Amen" is not to be added, as the Sacred Congregation of Rites declared on June 9, 1853, saying: "Let the Roman Ritual be strictly observed." But the word "Amen" is not found in that Ritual. Hence the opinion of certain older authors who thought that the omission of the word "Amen" was a light sin is to be corrected.84 If baptism is repeated under condition, let the one baptizing say: "If you are not baptized, I baptize you," etc.85
75 Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 5 ad 6.
76 Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 901.
77 Theol. mor. II, n. 89.
78 Ibid.
79 Cf. Resolut. S.C.C. 83, 136.
80 Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 111.
81 Collect. de Prop. Fide, nn. 74 and 1501.
82 L.c.
83 De bapt., diss. 1, a. 1.
84 Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 11, and the note added by Gandé.
85 Rit. Rom., tit. II, c. 1, n. 6.
105. Scholion. On the errors of heretics concerning the form of baptism. Concerning the form of baptism several heretics erred, such as the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Paulianists, at least the later Arians, Eunomians, and others. The Pseudo-Reformers of the sixteenth century also erred. Thus, for example, Luther86 writes: "In whatever manner baptism is delivered, provided that it is delivered not in the name of man but in the name of the Lord, it truly saves; indeed, I do not doubt that if anyone receives it in the name of the Lord, even if an impious minister does not give it in the name of the Lord, he is truly baptized in the name of the Lord." From these words it seems to follow that Protestant ministers are not bound to employ so great a care in pronouncing the correct form, and therefore baptisms conferred by them easily become invalid. Hence those priests act rightly who baptize again under condition persons returning from heresy if even a slight doubt concerning the prior baptism exists.
86 De captiv. Babyl.