Section — Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology
Section III. On the Form
The legitimate form of Baptism is:
For the Latin Church: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is clear from the Fourth Lateran, Florentine, and Tridentine Councils,1 and likewise from the Roman Ritual.2 That Amen is not to be added at the end is clear both from the cited documents and from the response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 9 June 1853.
For the Greek Church: The servant of Christ, N., is baptized (here the name of the one to be baptized is placed) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is established from the Council of Florence and from the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians.
1 Session 7, canon 4, On Baptism.
2 Title II, chapter 2, n. 8.
I. For validity, so that it be certain, it is required that there be expressed in the form: 1. the person baptizing (I); 2. the person to be baptized (you); 3. the act of baptizing (baptize); 4. the unity of the divine nature (in the name); 5. the express distinction of the three Persons, and indeed by proper names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That the act of baptizing and the distinct invocation of the three Persons must be expressed, all concede. Concerning the rest there is dispute. Therefore let there be expressed:
- The person baptizing. Whether the expression of this in the form of the sacrament is required for validity can be disputed. For the rest, it certainly suffices that it be expressed implicitly, as is done in the form of the Greeks, where they say that is baptized has the same force as is baptized by me (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5; St. Alphonsus, VI, 108).
Corollary. The word I is not essential in the Latin and Greek languages, because the first person, as it is said, is expressed through the word baptize; the same cannot be said of several more recent languages.1
The person to be baptized indeed seems to have to be expressed, "because, just as the washing, so also the form must be concerned with a certain person" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 108). Yet it seems to suffice that it be expressed implicitly; this can be done even if the word you is omitted. Hence the Holy Office on 8 September 1633 declared valid the form of the Armenians: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.2 But the declaration of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, dated 11 September 1841, that Baptism is rendered invalid through omission of the word you, was omitted in the new edition.
The act of baptizing, and indeed the present act or act now being placed, must be expressed, as is clear: 1. from the Council of Florence;3 2. from proposition 27 condemned by Alexander VII: "Baptism conferred under this form was at some time valid: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, these words being omitted: I baptize you";4 3. from the Decretal of Alexander III;5 4. from this reason of St. Thomas: "Because the washing of a man in water can be for many things, it is necessary that it be determined in the words of the form for what it is done; and this indeed is not done by the fact that it is said: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because we ought to do all things in such a name, as is had in Colossians 3. And therefore, if the act of Baptism is not expressed either according to our mode or according to the mode of the Greeks, the sacrament is not perfected" (III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 108). But the present act of baptizing, or the act now being placed, must be expressed; otherwise, considering the form, nothing would be effected now.
Corollary I. The word baptize, or another equivalent, such as wash or lave, is essential; but not anoint, because it does not involve the signification of washing. But in order that a certainly valid word be used, it is better in the vernacular language to use a word derived from the Latin baptizare, such as baptiser, to baptize, unless there is had a word which by usage has been consecrated for signifying sacramental washing, such as doopen, taufen.
Corollary II. There is doubt concerning the form: I christianize you, or concerning the English formula: I christen thee, because it expresses rather the effect of the sacramental action than the action itself. Yet if that or a similar formula somewhere by common acceptance signifies the action of baptizing, it is certainly valid. Hence it is valid among the Yugoslavs, as is clear from the Slavic Ritual, which was approved by the Holy See in 1894 and contains for the Greek rite the form: krescaetsja (= is christianized), for the Latin rite: Ia te krstim (= I christianize you).
1 The Sacred Congregation of the Council on 11 February 1797 declared valid Baptism conferred thus, provided that a bad or heretical mind is set aside: Enfante, te baptize en nom de Pere, de Fils et de Saint-Esprit.
2 Collectanea, n. 74.
3 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 696.
4 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1317.
5 Chapter 1, X 3, 42.
4. The unity of the divine nature likewise seems to have to be expressed, considering the words of Christ: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Corollary I. In the name is essential, at least insofar as it signifies unity; hence it would be invalid: 1. with the words in the name omitted, to say in the Father, etc.; 2. in place of in the name, to use the words in the names (St. Alphonsus, VI, 111).
Corollary II. The following forms are valid: 1. I baptize you in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Spirit;1 2. 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;2 3. I baptize you in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit;3 4. I baptize you with the name of the Father, etc.4 Further, the four assigned forms, according to the mind of the Sacred Congregations, are valid if, a depraved or heretical mind being set aside, they are used. 5. I baptize you into the name of the Father, etc.; for this form plainly agrees with the form handed down in Sacred Scripture.5
Corollary III. Since it is somewhat doubtful whether the words in the name signify the name having been invoked or by the authority, the following forms are doubtful: 1. I baptize you by the authority of the Father, etc.; 2. I baptize you name of the Father, in being omitted (St. Alphonsus, VI, 112, dub. 2). In the case of Faesulae,6 Baptism conferred in Italian in this way, Io ti battezzo 'nnome del Padre, etc., is indeed judged valid; but the consultor argued from the usage in the Italian language, or in the Etruscan idiom, of omitting the letter i before m and n. Hence the declaration cannot be referred to another language.
1 Cf. Holy Office, 11 January 1882, and Sacred Congregation of the Council, 4 May 1641.
2 Holy Office, 11 January 1882.
3 Sacred Congregation of the Council, 4 May 1641.
4 Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 August 1828; 24 May 1823; Holy Office, 23 May 1720. See Thesaurus resolutionum, vol. 83, fol. 134 and following.
5 Cf. the Greek text, Matthew 28:19; Acts 19:5; 1 Cor. 1:13.
6 12 September 1801.
5. The express distinction of the three Persons. It is required that the three Persons be expressed explicitly, and, in order that every doubt about validity be excluded, by proper names, and those common or such as are accustomed to be used, and so joined that the distinction is sufficiently signified. This is clear from the words of Christ: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; likewise from Tradition1 (St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5 and ad 7; St. Alphonsus, VI, 108, 109). Therefore the three Persons:
a) Must be expressed. It is indeed disputed whether, by special dispensation in the time of the Apostles, Baptism conferred under the form in the name of Jesus was valid. But after the times of the Apostles all concede that Baptism conferred in this way is not valid. This is drawn from the words of Christ: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Likewise from Tradition.2 Hence the forms are invalid: in the name of God; in the name of Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 108).
b) Explicitly, as is proven by the arguments brought forward under a). Hence likewise the forms are invalid: "in the name of the Most Holy Trinity"; "in the name of the three Persons" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 111).3
c) By proper names. This is urged by the words of Christ and the ancient practice of the Church. The form is very doubtful: "in the name of the Omnipotent and the Wise and the Good."
d) And by common names. "As," says St. Thomas, "water is taken for Baptism because its use is more common for washing, so for signifying the three Persons in the form of Baptism those names are assumed by which the Persons have been more commonly accustomed to be named in that language; nor is the sacrament perfected in other names" (III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 7). Therefore in the Latin language it should be said: "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But the following forms are doubtful: "in the name of the Begetter and of the Begotten and of the One Proceeding from Both"; "in the name of the First and Second and Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity"; "in the name of the Father and of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 109). The form "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of Mary" is invalid if of Mary is said in the same sense as of the Father, etc.; but it is valid if the minister wills to invoke her as a helper in obtaining grace (St. Alphonsus, VI, 108).
e) And joined in such a way that the distinction is sufficiently signified. Now: 1. The form is certainly valid if the conjunction and is omitted only between Father and Son, and therefore it is said: "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The reason is that the very word Son designates a distinct Person. Then, the usage is sufficiently customary of denoting distinct members in this way. There is added the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council.4 2. The forms are somewhat doubtful: 1. if the conjunction is omitted twice: "in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit"; 2. if it is expressed only between Father and Son: "in the name of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit." The reason for both is that then Holy Spirit can seem to be an apposition of Son; for the name Holy Spirit belongs both to the Father and to the Son (St. Alphonsus, VI, 112). Responses are indeed reported which declared valid Baptism conferred in this way: Mi te abattezzo in nome del Padre e del Figliuolo, dello Spirito Sancto; but the matter is not sufficiently certain and clear to remove every doubt.5
1 Rath, De Baptismo, n. 287.
2 Cf. Rath, De Baptismo, n. 287.
3 Nicholas I in the year 876 to the Bulgarians holds as valid Baptism conferred in the name of the Most Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ, and argues from Acts; cf. Acts 2:38; 19:5 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 335).
4 12 September 1801.
5 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, II, n. 90, note 1.
II. For liceity it is required that Latins use the formula of the Roman Ritual, and Greeks the formula shown in their Rituals. Besides, observe that by any change a grave sin is easily committed; for some doubt about the validity of so necessary a sacrament will easily arise.
Corollary. From what has been said both in the present number and in the treatise on the Sacraments in general (n. 23), it is gathered that faulty pronunciation of the form is generally not substantial if it is made from haste, inadvertence, or because of stammering; more easily if it is made with a heretical mind.