Article II. On the Form of Baptism

I say. The form of Baptism is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Council of Trent defined, according to that saying of Matthew xxviii, 19: "Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." - Nor is the addition of the word Amen required, the omission of which St. Alphonsus, with others, had thought to be a venial sin; for, when a doubt had been proposed, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 June 1853, responded: "Strictly in the case let the Roman Ritual be observed," where certainly that word is not found.

Question 1. Do all and each of the words of the aforesaid form pertain to the essence of the sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, for the omission of the pronoun "ego," at least if the Latin language is employed, is not essential, nor would it exceed venial sin. The same seems more probably to have to be said concerning the omission of the conjunction "et," especially if only once, namely before the second Person, it is omitted. The same also is more probably to be held concerning the preposition "in," although several grave theologians contradict. But the other words are altogether required for validity. - I said if the Latin language is employed; for otherwise it would have to be said if the English, French, or German language were employed, because then, the pronoun having been omitted, the verb by itself alone does not determine the person of the Minister. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 111. - Kenrick, tract. 15, n. 9. - Analecta Jur. Pont., ser. 8, col. 1608. - Lehmkuhl, n. 64.

Question 2. Must the form be judged valid if in place of the word "baptize" there is said in the vernacular language "I christen"?

Resp. Negatively, probably, because by saying "I christen" there is indeed expressed the effect of baptism, which is that someone is aggregated to Christ, but the mode or action by force of which such aggregation is obtained is not expressed; and this indeed seems necessary. - Cf. Lehmkuhl, n. 63. - Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 1, p. 137 and seq.

Question 3. Is the form of Baptism valid if it is said: "I baptize you in the name of the Most Holy Trinity"?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because in such a form the individual persons of the Holy Trinity are not expressed distinctly enough; since the word Trinity signifies the persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be expressed distinctly. - But a fortiori the form would be invalid if it were said "in the name of Christ," because then the Trinity of persons would in no way be expressed. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 66, art. 6. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 111 and seq.

Question 4. Is Baptism valid if to the accustomed form there is added: "and in the name of the blessed Virgin Mary"?

Resp. A distinction must be made: it is not valid if someone doing this intends to confer Baptism in the name of the blessed Virgin, namely by attributing to such a name true efficacy for the validity of Baptism. But otherwise, if he does it from importunate devotion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 111.