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.

The form of Baptism is: “‘ I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Any change in this form which altered the sense would also invalidate the Baptism, as if one should say, “ I baptize thee in the name of Christ,” or “ of the Blessed Trinity.”” The form should be pronounced by the minister while he pours the water, and it is clear that if one pronounced the words while another poured the water, or if one baptized one’s self, the Baptism would be invalid.

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:

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

“Can the Baptism which is administered by Chaldean priests to males with the word eemdat, placed in their Ritual, which has the signification of the present imperative, namely, ‘Let such a one be baptized,’ and the signification of the past, namely, ‘Such a one has been baptized,’ be sustained, presupposing in the one baptizing an understanding of the said word in the past tense?

“Response. 1. Baptism conferred through a verb of the past tense to signify a past action, and not also the action which is exercised by the minister at the time when he baptizes with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and the ablution, immersion, or sprinkling of natural water, is not true Baptism.

“2. Nevertheless, Baptism conferred through a verb indifferent to the past indicative and the present imperative would be true if the one baptizing used it for the present imperative, provided that the other things are right, namely, the intention, immersion in water, ablution, or sprinkling, with the express invocation of the Most Holy Trinity.

“3. The same is to be said when the minister, using a verb indifferent as above, thinking nothing about the past or the present, would nevertheless have the virtual intention of using that word in the best manner in which he can, even if he believed the word signifying or expressing the act which is exercised by the minister to be of the past tense, provided that he retained the intention of doing what Christ instituted or the Church observes and the Christian people observe, and of not binding the signification of the form to his private belief.

“4. If the one baptizing used a verb of the past tense to signify the act which is exercised by the minister himself while he baptizes, and the other required things were present, it would be Baptism if among that nation or clergy there were a usage of taking that past-tense word to signify a present action.

“5. It is also Baptism if anyone, from ignorance of the language, in mangling the words without the intention of introducing error or heresy, should pronounce the past word for the present, if there is so great a similarity between the past and present words that a lapse from one word into the other is easy, and prudent men commonly judge that the one baptizing supposed the past word to have been corruptly pronounced for the present and, from the word pronounced, conceive the present action to be sufficiently signified.

“6. Nevertheless, in order to remove every ambiguity or occasion of error in the administration of so necessary a Sacrament, the Chaldeans are to be admonished henceforth, when they baptize, to use a verb of the present indicative or at least of the imperative; or, if they wish to use a verb indifferent to the past and the present, let them take it in the signification of the present.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 27 March 1631.

What is the form of baptism? - The form of baptism is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But among the Greeks it is said: Such a servant of Christ is baptized in the name, etc.; CC. Si quis 1, Non ut 5, de Bapt.; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent sess. 7, c. 4. "Several theologians, among whom is St. Alphonsus, think that it is venial to omit the word Amen at the end of the form of baptism, which word however is not found in the Roman Ritual. Hence it is asked whether it is to be used or omitted? Resp. Strictly in the case, let the Roman Ritual be observed." S. R. C., June 9, 1853, Cochinchina, ad 2, n. 3014. - Ferraris v. Baptismus n. 1 ff.; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 3; E. M.

Note: There are five things which are signified in the pronouncing of the form, according to which its validity must be weighed: 1. The person baptizing, at least implicitly, which is not neglected in the form of the Greeks, since "is baptized" has the same value as "is baptized by me." - 2. The act of baptizing, because otherwise the form would not have connection with the matter, nor determine it, since washing can be referred to various ends. - 3. The person to be baptized, because as the washing, so also the form must turn upon a certain person. S. C. de P. F., Sept. 11, 1841. - 4. The unity of the divine nature, which is done through the phrase "in the name." - 5. The Trinity of persons: and this explicitly and distinctly in common words, L. 108, namely the expressed invocation of the three divine persons.

S. C. de P. F., June 23, 1830; Florence, De variis formis dubiis. Cf. L. 108-112, 119, 120, and C. Debitum 4, de Bapt. - "And therefore no one can baptize himself." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4 ad 2. - It is expedient that midwives baptize in the common and vernacular tongue. But they say that these forms are valid: Io ti abbattezzo... S. C. C., May 12, 1753; Ego te baptismo... S. U. I., May 22, 1871; Io ti battesimo... Io ti battezzo nome di Padre..., with in omitted, and di for del, the same Sacred Congregation, Sept. 12, 1801, or del nome del Padre..., or in domine Patris..., in nom. (abbreviated) Patris..., L. 110. Mi te abbattezzo in nome del Padre, e del Figliuolo, dello Spirito Santo, with et omitted before the Holy Spirit, S. C. C., May 12, 1753. - The form is invalid if someone were to say: I will the sacrament of baptism of sins to be ministered to you, in the name... Holy Office, June 23, 1840. If someone for baptizo says mergo or tingo, St. Alphonsus 109 thinks that it is valid, because the words are synonymous. But mergo does not seem to signify the sacramental action of washing, but only the material action of immersing, if baptism is ministered by immersion. But tingo properly signifies to imbue something with color.

Is baptism valid if in the form the pronoun ego, the particle in, or the particle et before only the invocation of the Son, or also before the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is omitted? - Resp. To the first: In the affirmative; for it is implicitly contained in the verb, but it is venial. - To the second: there are not lacking those who deny that it is valid, because when the preposition in is omitted, the meaning is varied; for then the sense is not that one is baptized in the invocation of the Trinity, but that one is baptized by the authority, power, and command of the Trinity. But more probably it must be affirmed that it is valid according to the character of the Latin language, in which the preposition in can be omitted; so much the more because, even with the preposition in still expressed, that phrase "in the name" remains equivocal and can signify both in invocation and in power, as Christ signified when he said: In my name they shall cast out demons, etc., Luke 16:17. But it is determined by the intention of the minister. And it is held valid from the Holy Office, May 22, 1871. - To the third: It is valid, because the distinction of the Persons is sufficiently explained. S. C. C., Sept. 12, 1801; Holy Office, Aug. 3, 1889. - To the fourth: Many say that it is valid, because again the distinction of the persons is sufficiently explained. For on the one hand the character of the Latin language altogether admits that omission, and on the other the names Father, Son, Holy Spirit, as relatively opposed among themselves, already signify the distinction of the persons.

But many others say that it is not valid; for since the name Holy Spirit of itself is not notional, but belongs both to the Father and to the Son, unless the particle and is expressed at least before the last name, the distinction of the three Persons is not sufficiently expressed. For the first opinion there is also brought S. C. C., May 12, 1753; Sept. 12, 1801; May 12, 1823, by which baptism was declared valid although the particle and, pronounced before the Son, had been omitted before the Holy Spirit. - L. 111, 112. Cf. here the preceding number.

Is baptism conferred with these forms valid: I baptize you in Father; with Father; from the part of the Father; in the power of the Father, etc.; In the name of the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit? - The baptism is not valid, or at least is doubtful; because in these forms there is not had the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and the unity of the divine nature, although the distinction of the Persons is had. Scavini, Milan 1874, v. 3, n. 59, reports that it was answered by the Sacred Penitentiary and by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, indeed by Benedict XIV himself, Dec. 7, 1741, that the form cum nomine Patris, Filii etc. is valid; but D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 3, n. 272, observes that as long as these things are not authentically clear, one ought not recede from the common opinion. But Lehmkuhl, ed. 11, n. 89, also says that it has several times been decided by S. C. C. and by the Holy Office that cum nomine does not impede validity.

Is baptism valid with this form: I baptize you in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Spirit; or in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit; or 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? - Resp. In the affirmative, far more probably; because the locutions are altogether equivalent, if they are considered grammatically. But since the unity of the divine essence is less correctly expressed, if the theological signification and the mystery are attended to, they could seem at least doubtful, although all those locutions are theologically true and contain Catholic truth. Cf. Roman Ritual, Ord. Comm. Anim. Nevertheless S. C. C., May 4, 1641, declared the second form valid; Holy Office, Jan. 11, 1882, declared the third proposed form valid. Whence it follows that the first also is to be held valid. - L. 111; Suarez d. 21, s. 3, par. Sed quid; E. M.

Is the form of baptism valid if you say: In the name of the Begetter and of the Begotten and of the Spirated or Proceeding? - St. Thomas 2.2, q. 16, a. 5 ad 7 denies it, because "just as water is taken for baptism because its use for washing is more common, so for signifying the three Persons in the form of baptism those names are assumed by which the Persons have more commonly been accustomed to be named in that language." Yet baptism is valid in the name of the Father and of the Word and of the Paraclete Spirit, or Spirit.

Is the form of baptism valid if it is said: I baptize you in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, at least more probably, because in such a form the individual persons of the Holy Trinity are not expressed sufficiently distinctly, since the word Trinity signifies the Persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be expressed distinctly, as is clear from Matthew, the last chapter. - To the second: In the negative also a fortiori, because the Trinity is in no way expressed by the phrase "in the name of Christ." Thus all, at least now after St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 6, and it is clear from C. Si revera 80, de Consecrat., Dist. 4. - L. 111, 112.

241. • The form of Baptism is: I baptize thee 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, Matt. 28.19: Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Among the Greeks, however, it is said: Let the servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, etc. Or: The servant of Christ is baptized, etc. This form is valid from the instruction of Eugene IV to the Armenians; but it is licit only in the Greek Church.

Several Theologians, among whom is St. Alphonsus, judge that the omission of the word Amen at the end of the form of Baptism is venial, which word, however, is not found in the Roman Ritual. Therefore it is asked whether it is to be used or omitted? Resp. The Sacred Congregation of Rites: In the case the Roman Ritual is to be strictly observed (June 9, 1853, Cochinchina).

This form can be vitiated in many ways, either accidentally or substantially, as was said above in the Treatise on the Sacraments in general, n. 198.

The omission of the word I does not pertain to the essence of the form, nor would it exceed a venial sin. - St. Ligorius, n. 111. The same seems to have to be said, at least more probably, concerning the omission of the conjunction and, especially if it is omitted only once and is placed before the third person. The same also more probably concerning the word in, although several grave Theologians contradict. But the other words are altogether required for validity.

242. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the form of Baptism is valid if it is said: I baptize thee in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ?

Resp. to the first: No, at least more probably, because in such a form the several persons of the Holy Trinity are not sufficiently distinctly expressed; since the word Trinity signifies the persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be distinctly expressed, as is clear from Matt., last chapter. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, n. 111.

Resp. to the second: No, at least a fortiori, because the Trinity is in no way expressed through the phrase in the name of Christ. - Thus all, at least now after St. Thomas, 3 part, q. 66, art. 6; and it is clear from Canon Law in c. Si revera, 30, De Consecrat., dist. 4. - St. Ligorius, n. 112.

QUESTION 2. Whether Baptism is valid if there is added to the accustomed form: 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 names true efficacy in the value of Baptism. - But otherwise, if he does this from importunate devotion. - St. Ligorius, n. 111.

I. The form of Baptism is: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (without Amen, as the S. R. C. decreed, 9 Jun. 1853). This is established from Mt. XXVIII, 19 [the original incorrectly prints Mt. XXVI, 28]; from the Liturgies; and from the Fourth Lateran Council, Florence, and Trent, sess. 7, can. 4.

For its validity five things must be expressed:

1. the person of the one baptizing;

2. the act of baptizing exercised upon another;

3. the person of the one baptized;

4. the unity of the divine essence;

5. the trinity of persons under distinct and, probably, proper names.¹

¹ The distinguished De Smet departs from the received manner of speaking (De Sacr., n. 233), saying that two things suffice for the validity of the form, namely mention of the baptismal action and distinct invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: mention of the person of the minister (ego) is not required, since the minister is sufficiently designated by the sacramental operation itself; nor mention of the person of the subject (te), because in the very action of baptizing, affecting a certain person, the subject is sufficiently determined; whence the Holy Office decreed valid the form of the Armenians in which such mention is lacking: Baptizat (or: baptizet), nunc manus mea in nomine... We respond, with Saint Thomas (III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 1), that at least an equivalent implicit mention is required, not only on the part of the matter but also on the part of the form; whence also in the aforesaid form of the Armenians, the words nunc, manu mea sufficiently indicate the subject whom the hand here and now washes.

II. First of all, the person of the one baptizing must be expressed, either explicitly, as in the Latin form, or at least implicitly, as in the Greek form: Baptizatur N. servus Christi, in nomine..., in which the word baptizatur, from the circumstances, has the same value as "is baptized by me," "is baptized by this ministry of mine" (Saint Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5, and ad 1). Hence omission of the pronoun ego would not invalidate Baptism in the Latin language; but in modern languages one must see whether there is the intention of rightly pronouncing the form and whether the action of the minister is sufficiently indicated from the circumstances; whence in practice Baptism will often be invalid or doubtful.²

² Thus S. C. C., 11 Feb. 1797, declared valid, from the sufficiently clear intention of the one uttering it, the form: "Enfante, te baptise en nom..." (Aertnijs, Th. M., II, n. 33, 2°).

III. The act of baptizing also must be expressed; otherwise the form would not determine the matter, since infusion of water could be done for various ends (Saint Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 2; cf. prop. 27 condemned by Alexander VIII);³ and indeed the act exercised in the present, otherwise the present tense, baptizo, would not be verified.

³ "Baptism conferred under this form was at one time valid: In nomine Patris..., the words Ego te baptizo having been omitted." Likewise Alexander III, c. 1, III, 42: "If someone has immersed a child in water in the name of the Father... and has not said: ego te baptizo in nomine..., the child has not been baptized."

Baptism is valid if someone uses a wholly synonymous word: ego te abluo, lavo, mergo, tingo, intingo; it is not valid if the will alone of baptizing is expressed: ego volo tibi ministrare sacramentum Baptismi (S. Off., 23 Jun. 1840), or if the present action is not expressed: baptizatus est in nomine (S. C. de Prop. F., 27 Mar. 1631), or if the mode of ablution is not signified but another mode or the effect alone: ego te mundo, purgo, ungo, tibi ministro sacramentum remissionis peccatorum, etc. It is doubtful if there is doubt concerning this: ego te christianizo or "I make thee Christian" (kerstenen in Flemish, christen in English, karstin, krstin in Slavonic, krstiti in Slavonic).⁴

⁴ Of itself it signifies the effect of Baptism, but from the use of speech the word in certain languages signifies the sacramental action, namely sacramental ablution: "I baptize." Thus for the Slavonic language, as we know from the approval of the Slavonic ritual in the year 1894.

IV. The person of the one baptized must also be expressed, because the form must be concerned with a certain person: it is expressed through the word te or another equivalent (S. C. de Prop. F., 5 Jul. 1631), as: baptizatur Paulus, "this one of mine," or "such a one (N.), servant of Christ"; "I baptize your lordship (majesty)"; "I baptize you," if there are several.

V. The unity of the divine essence is expressed by the words in nomine; hence Baptism would be invalid if someone said: in nominibus, or simply in... or cum Patre..., or ex parte Patris...; or: in nomine Patris et Filii, et gratia Spiritus Sancti; or: in nomine Patris per Filium in Spiritu sancto. It is doubtful if: in virtute, maiestate, auctoritate Patris..., or: in uno Deo Patre, Filio Spiritu sancto, or nomine without in.⁵ In these cases either the essence of God or its unity is not sufficiently expressed, or at least this is uncertain.

⁵ Some would call this last ambiguous, because of the decree of S. C. C., 12 Sept. 1801, alleged in N. Revue Theol. XX (1868), p. 113. But Lehmkuhl observes (Th. M., II, n. 64, note I) that this is so from the use of the Italian or Etruscan language, by which they have been accustomed often to suppress the letter i before m and n, so that n'nome is wholly in nome; wherefore it is by no means established that this also holds in Latin or another language.

Ambiguous are the forms: cum nomine; in nomen (op den naam); Patris maioris, Filius minoris; in nomine Patris, in nomine Filii, in nomine Spiritus sancti; or: ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, ego te baptizo in nomine Filii, ego te baptizo in nomine Spiritus sancti. Whence their validity depends on the intention of the one uttering them, and thus the Roman decrees which speak of the first and last case are to be understood (S. Off., 23 May 1720; 24 May 1823: cum nomine; S. C. C., 4 May 1641; S. Off., 11 Jan. 1882: in nomine repeated three times). Likewise somewhat corrupted locutions, such as in nomine Patris et Filiae, in nomine Patrias et Filias, and the form: in nomine Dei Patris, et Dei Filii et Dei Spiritus sancti, which nevertheless some hold as doubtful. Similarly a form to which is added: et B. M. V., or: in nomine B. M. V., because it depends on the intention whether the same name is attributed to the Blessed Virgin herself as to God; but if someone were to say: in nomine B. M. V. et Patris..., it would be at least doubtful, if not invalid.

VI. The trinity of persons is to be expressed a) under distinct names; hence Baptism conferred in the name of Jesus, of God, of God one and triune, of the Most Holy Trinity, of the three persons, in the name of Paternity, Filiation, and Spiration, in the name of mother, son..., is invalid. Omission of the prior word et does not render the form invalid (S. C. C., 12 Sept. 1801); omission of the twofold et, the word in nomine not being repeated, renders it doubtful; omission of the second word et renders it ambiguous, whence validity depends on the intention of the one uttering it (S. C. C., 12 May 1753), but according to others then it is doubtful;⁶

⁶ Concerning the sense of the last decree they do not wholly agree; cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c., note 2.

b) probably also under proper names, whence Baptism conferred in the name of the begetter or unbegotten, begotten and proceeding, spirated or gift; creator, redeemer and sanctifier; almighty, wise and good; Father, Christ Jesus and Holy Spirit; first, second, third person of the Most Holy Trinity; Father and Son and Spirit, omitting "Holy," will be doubtful.

VII. Observations. 1. The form is to be pronounced together with the infusion of water, not only almost or morally, but also probably physically together; this must altogether be held in practice because, in doubt about the validity of a sacrament, that which is safer must be done (cf. tractate de Sacramentis in genere).

2. For liceity it is required that the form be employed as in the ritual. A small change, transposition, addition, or omission which leaves the sense is of itself a venial sin; a notable change even leaving the sense is a grave sin, e.g., if a Latin priest were to use the Greek form (Rit. Rom., n. 9).

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.

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.

1458. I. The valid and legitimate FORM of Baptism in the Latin Church is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.¹³

Thus the Council of Trent defined according to the words of the Lord Himself (Matthew 28:19): "Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Among the Greeks it is equivalently said: The servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father, etc. This form is valid from the Instruction of Eugene IV to the Armenians; but it is licit only in the Greek Church.¹⁴

1459. II. That, in a variation of the form, the validity of Baptism may be discerned from invalidity, attention must be paid to whether the substance of the sense remains or not. Now, the substance requires that there be expressed: 1. the person baptizing, at least in the act exercised; 2. the person baptized; 3. the action of the one baptizing; 4. the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity expressing both the unity of the divine nature and the distinction of the Persons, and more probably with the proper words.¹⁵

Hence it follows: 1. The form is VALID per se, although illicit at least venially, if a Latin uses the words of the Greeks; if the language is changed, although it is better for lay persons, especially women, to use the vernacular tongue, to avoid the danger of erring; if synonymous words are substituted, for example "I bathe thee, wash, dip, etc."; if the words are corrupted at the end, because Pope Zacharias declared valid this form employed from ignorance of the Latin tongue: "I baptize thee in the name of the Fatherland, and Daughter, and Holy Spirita"; likewise, if the word I is omitted, because the sense is still rendered sufficiently, though otherwise in a vernacular tongue, for example in French, English, German; or the conjunction and, provided it is set before the third Person; likewise if one says "with the name of the Father, etc.," from the decision of the S. C. C., May 24, 1823.¹⁶ The form is also valid if words not corrupting the sense are added, for example if someone should say: "In the name of the almighty Father" or "who created thee, etc."; or if transpositions are made: "In the name of the Son and of the Father, etc."; because the name of Father of itself sounds as being the principle of the Son, and therefore there the confession of the Most Holy Trinity is still right substantially; nor does it obstruct that the minister errs internally concerning the faith, because internal error does not prejudice the value of the Sacrament.¹⁷ We have said per se; because, as St. Thomas notices, if someone, by so changing the form, intended to introduce another rite, he would no longer intend to do what the Church does, and thus the Sacrament would be invalid.¹⁸

2. INVALID is this form: "I anoint thee in the name, etc.," or "I baptize in the name, etc."; because the word thee, or an equivalent, is of the essence.¹⁹ Likewise, if someone should say: "I baptize thee in Father and Son, etc.," or "with Father and Son, etc."; or "in the name of the Father through the Son"; or "in the names of the Father, etc."; because these and similar things either signify diversity of divine nature, or do not express its unity sufficiently. Likewise, if he should say: "In the name of the greater Father and of the lesser Son"; for thus the truth of the Sacrament would openly be taken away. Likewise, if someone were to use these words: "I baptize thee in the name of God," or "in the name of Christ." Nor do the things which are read in Acts 8:12 obstruct; because, according to the more probable opinion, there by the name of Christ is understood Baptism instituted by Christ, in distinction from the baptism of John.²⁰

3. DOUBTFUL is the form of Baptism: "In the name of the Most Holy Trinity," or "in the name of God one and triune," or "in the name of the three Persons"; indeed, according to several, it would certainly be invalid. Likewise Baptism conferred "In the name of the Begetter and of the Begotten and of the One Proceeding from both" must be held doubtful, from St. Thomas, because the common names must more probably be used. Likewise, if someone says: "In the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, etc."; because, although this repetition more probably does not change the sense, nevertheless the opposite opinion is not altogether improbable.²¹ Likewise, the omission of the word in introduces some doubt concerning value; and much more the total omission of the word and, if namely one says: In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

But if someone should add the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the names of the three Persons, St. Thomas says²² that, if he did this with a heretical mind, intending to confer Baptism in the name of the Virgin as in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, it would be invalid; because the true confession of Divinity would be perverted. Otherwise, if some rustic should add the name of the Virgin only from intrusive devotion.

Note. The pastor must take care, says the ROMAN RITUAL, that the faithful, especially midwives, know and observe well the right rite of baptizing.²³

1255. - The form of Baptism is: I baptize thee 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:¹ Go therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But among the Greeks it is said: Let the servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, etc.; or: The servant of Christ is baptized, etc. This form is valid from the instruction of Eugene IV to the Armenians; but it is licit only in the Greek Church.

Several theologians, among whom is St. Alphonsus (who nevertheless in the little work Instr. al popolo, P. II. C. II. n. 6, does not mention that word), judge that the omission of the word Amen at the end of the form of Baptism is venial; yet that word is not found in the Roman Ritual. Therefore it is asked whether it is to be used or omitted? Resp. S. C. Rit.: Let the Roman Ritual be strictly observed in the case (9 June 1853, Cochinchina, n. 5188).

This form can be vitiated in many ways, either accidentally or substantially, as was said above, n. 1212.

The omission of the word I in the form uttered in Latin, Italian, Spanish, but not in English, German, or French (since it would have the sense of the imperative), does not vitiate the essence of the form, nor would it exceed venial sin.² - The same seems to be said, at least probably, concerning the omission of the conjunction and, especially if it is omitted only once, and is placed before the third person. - The same also probably concerning the word in, although several grave theologians contradict this. Nevertheless the S. C. C. declared valid the form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son, Holy Spirit." Likewise it has often declared valid the form: "I baptize thee with the name, etc.," uttered in good faith and with right intention.³ But the other words are altogether required for validity. - But it would be valid even if, in the plural number, the English you, the German Sie or Euch, the French vous, the Italian vi, were used, since by usage they also have the force of the singular number.

1256. Questions. - Query 1° Is the form of Baptism valid if it is said: I baptize thee in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ?

Resp. to the first: Negatively, at least probably, because in such a form the individual persons of the Holy Trinity are not expressed sufficiently distinctly; since the word Trinity signifies the persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be expressed distinctly, as is clear from Matthew, the last chapter.⁴ - Thus commonly.⁵

Resp. to the second: Negatively, at least a fortiori, because the Trinity is in no way expressed by the words in the name of Christ. - Thus all, at least now after St. Thomas,⁶ and it is clear from Canon Law.⁷ St. Alphonsus proves this from Acts 19. 2.⁸

Query 2° Is Baptism valid if to the customary 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 names true efficacy for the value of Baptism. - But otherwise, if he does it from importunate devotion.⁹

St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5 and 6.

126. Principle. The form of Baptism is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or another equivalent form (can. 737). - It is certain.

It is proved: 1. From the words of Christ, Mt. XXVIII, 19, as they were understood in the constant and perpetual tradition of the Church.

2. From the practice of the Church from the beginning, as is established from the testimonies of the Didache VII; Justin, Apol. I, 61; Tertullian, de Bapt. 13; adv. Prax. 26; Cyprian, ep. 73; Ambrose, de Myst. IV, 20; Augustine, c. Don. VI, 25; Const. Apost. VII, 22; Can. Ap. can. 49; Can. Hipp., can. 133; and of the Greek and Latin rituals; likewise Lateran Council IV, c. 1 Firmiter; Council of Vienne, const. de fide cath.; Florence, for the Armenians; and Trent, sess. 7, de Bapt., can. 4, although this is not directly the object of the definition.

3. By reason of fittingness: "It is necessary that in the form of Baptism the cause of Baptism be expressed. Now its cause is twofold: one indeed principal, from which it has power, which is the Holy Trinity; but the other instrumental, namely the minister, who hands on the sacrament exteriorly. And therefore in the form of Baptism mention must be made of both. The minister, however, is touched upon when it is said: I baptize you; the principal cause, when it is said: in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Whence this is the fitting form of Baptism" (a. 5). This certainly befits the sacrament of the initiation of faith, whose chief mystery is the Most Holy Trinity.

127. For the validity of Baptism, five things must be expressed in the form: the person baptizing, - the act of baptizing exercised upon another, - the person baptized, - the unity of the divine essence, - the trinity of persons under distinct and, probably, proper names.¹

¹ De Smet, o. c., n. 233, departs from the received mode of speaking, saying that for the validity of the form two things suffice, namely, mention of the baptismal action and the distinct invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: mention of the person ministering (I) is not required, since the minister is sufficiently designated by the sacramental operation itself; nor mention of the person of the subject (you), because in the very action of baptizing affecting a certain person, the subject is sufficiently determined; whence the Holy Office decreed valid the form of the Armenians in which such mention is lacking: My hand baptizes (or: let it baptize) now in the name... - We answer, with St. Thomas, a. 5, ad 2, that at least implicit equivalent mention is required, not only on the part of the matter but also on the part of the form; whence also in the aforesaid form of the Armenians the words "now, my hand" sufficiently indicate the subject whom the hand here and now washes.

1. The person baptizing must be expressed either explicitly, as in the Latin form, or at least implicitly, as in the Greek form: N., the servant of Christ, is baptized in the name..., in which the word "is baptized,"² from the circumstances, has the same force as "is baptized by me," "is baptized by this my ministry," as St. Thomas explains, a. 5, ad 1.

² Not: "let him be baptized," as several have said, but this arose from confusion because of the likeness with βαπτίζεται.

Hence the omission of the pronoun I would not invalidate Baptism in the Latin language; but in modern languages one must see whether there is an intention of rightly pronouncing the form and whether the action of the minister is sufficiently indicated from the circumstances; whence in practice Baptism will often be invalid.³

³ Thus the S.C.C., February 11, 1797, declared valid, from the sufficiently clear intention of the one uttering it, the form: "Enfant, je te baptise en nom..." (Aertnijs, Th. M., II, n. 49, 2).

2. The act of baptizing also must be expressed; otherwise the form would not determine the matter, since the pouring of water could be done for various ends, as St. Thomas observes, ad 2, and as is certainly established from the condemnation of proposition 27 by Alexander VIII;⁴ - and indeed an act exercised in the present, otherwise the present tense "I baptize" would not be verified.

⁴ "Baptism conferred at some time under this form was valid: In the name of the Father..., with these words omitted: I baptize you." - Likewise Alexander III, c. 1, III, 42: "If someone has immersed a child in water in the name of the F... and has not said: I baptize you in the name..., the child is not baptized."

Baptism is valid if someone uses a synonymous word: I wash you, lave you, immerse you, dip you, plunge you; - it is not valid if only the will of baptizing is expressed: I wish to minister to you the sacrament of Baptism (Holy Office, June 23, 1840), or if the present action is not expressed: he has been baptized in the name (S.C.P.F., March 27, 1631), or if the mode of washing is not signified but another mode or the effect alone: I cleanse you, purge you, anoint you, I minister to you the sacrament of the remission of sins, etc.; - it is doubtful if this is doubted: I place upon you (over you) the water of God (Holy Office, February 17, 1897), I Christianize you, or make you a Christian.⁵

⁵ Of itself it signifies the effect of Baptism, but by usage of speech in certain languages the word signifies the sacramental action, namely, sacramental washing: I baptize. Thus for the Slavonic language, as we know from the approval of the Slavonic ritual (in the year 1894).

3. The person baptized must be expressed, because the form must be concerned with a certain person.

It is expressed by the word "you" or another equivalent (S.C.P.F., July 5, 1631), as: Paul is baptized, this my servant, or such a servant (N.) of Christ, I baptize your lordship or your majesty, or: I baptize you, if there are several.

4. The unity of the divine essence is expressed by the words: in the name.

Hence Baptism would be invalid if someone said: in the names, or simply: in... or with the Father..., or on the part of the Father...; - or: in the name of the Father and of the Son, and the grace of the Holy Spirit; - or: in the name of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit; - doubtful if: in the power, majesty, authority of the Father..., or: in the one God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit; - or: name, without "in."⁶ In these cases, either the essence of God or His unity is not sufficiently expressed, or at least this is uncertain.

⁶ Some have said this last form ambiguous, because of the decree of the S.C.C., September 12, 1801, alleged by N. Revue Théol., XX (1868), p. 113. But Lehmkuhl observes (Th. M., II, n. 89, note 1) that this is so from the usage of the Italian or Etruscan language, by which they were accustomed to suppress the letter i before m and n, so that n' nome is entirely in nome; wherefore it is by no means established that this also has force in the Latin language or another language.

Ambiguous are the forms: with the name, into the name (op den naam); of the greater Father, the lesser Son; in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Spirit; or: 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; whence their validity depends on the intention of the one uttering them, and thus the Roman decrees which speak of the first and last case are to be understood.⁷ Likewise locutions somewhat corrupted, such as in the name of the Father and of the Daughter, in the name of the Fatherlands and Daughters, and the form: in the name of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Spirit, which nevertheless some hold as doubtful. Similarly a form to which there is added: and the Blessed Virgin Mary, or: in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, because it depends on the intention whether the same name is attributed to the Blessed Virgin herself as to God; but if someone were to say: in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Father..., it would be at least doubtful, if not invalid.

⁷ Concerning the sense of the last decree they do not entirely agree. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c., note 3.

5. The trinity of persons must be expressed

a) under distinct names.

Hence Baptism conferred in the name of Jesus, of God, of the one and triune God, of the Most Holy Trinity, of three persons, in the name of Paternity, Filiation, and Spiration, in the name of mother, son... is invalid. Omission of the first word "and" does not render the form invalid (S.C.C., September 12, 1801); omission of the double "and," with the word "in the name" not repeated, renders it doubtful; omission of the second word "and" renders it ambiguous, whence validity depends on the intention of the one uttering it (S.C.C., May 12, 1753), but according to others it is then doubtful.⁷

b) probably also under proper names.

Whence Baptism conferred in the name of the begetter or unbegotten, of the begotten and of the proceeding, of the spirated or of the gift; - of the creator, redeemer, and sanctifier; - of the almighty, wise, and good; - of the Father, Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit; - of the first, second, third person of the Most Holy Trinity; - of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit, omitting "Holy," will be doubtful.

128. For liceity it is required that the form be used as it is indicated in the ritual of one's own Church; for each one must follow his own rite (can. 733, § 2; Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 9).

According to the Roman ritual the form is: N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the Amen being omitted (so the S.C.R., June 9, 1853), with which word formerly the people or clergy present responded to the ministering priest. The Greeks, on the contrary, say: N., the servant of Christ, is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A small change, transposition, addition, or omission, which leaves the sense, is of itself a venial sin; a notable change, even one leaving the sense, is a grave sin, for example, if a Latin priest were to use the Greek form, or conversely.

129. Observations. - 1. The form must be pronounced simultaneously with the pouring of water, not only morally, so that one immediately succeeds the other, but also physically. Thus not only for liceity, but also probably for validity, so that the form is at least partially pronounced during the washing. This must be held absolutely in practice, because in doubt concerning the value of a sacrament that which is safer is to be done (n. 14).

2. Formerly there was dispute concerning the validity of Baptism conferred in the name of Jesus or of Christ, because of certain locutions of Scripture (Rom. VI, 3; Acts II, 38; VIII, 12, 16; X, 48; XIX, 5). Several, such as Peter Lombard and Cajetan, thought this valid in all times;⁸ others, however, such as St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, and Scotus, said that by special dispensation or from the prompting of the Holy Spirit it was done so that only in apostolic times could it be validly conferred in this way.

⁸ They allege the response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians. But there is no question of an infallible act, and besides there is dispute over its sense. Cf. Van Noort, o. c., n. 189.

The first opinion contradicts the universal and most ancient tradition, whence by command of Pius V it was expunged from the works of Cajetan. The other opinion seems improbable. For now the better interpreters of Scripture think that the words "in the name of Jesus" do not express the liturgical or ritual formula of Baptism, but are a juridical formula which indicates the character of Baptism: namely, that it was instituted by Christ and ministered by His authority and power, distinct from the other baptisms of the Jews and particularly from the baptism of John, by which men are incorporated into Christ and which they receive for the profession of the name of Jesus. The Scriptures themselves also intimate this interpretation (Acts XIX, 2-3): for when St. Paul found the Ephesian disciples in ignorance of the Holy Spirit, he asks them: "In what, then, were you baptized?", thus insinuating that mention is made of the Holy Spirit in the very conferral of Baptism.

3. Certain modern authors have thought that Baptism in antiquity was sometimes ministered without a form, because in several descriptions of Baptism the form is not mentioned. But the negative argument proves nothing, because there are sufficient and most ancient documents in which explicit mention is made of the words of the form.

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.

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: As to CASE XXXIV it may be remarked that the New Code in Canon 755 gives to all the bishops of the Church the faculty to allow the use of the infant baptism ceremonies in the baptism of adults for a grave and reasonable cause.

Cajus, a priest, received into the Church and baptized a woman convert. When asked by a brother-priest if he did not feel embarrassed by the number and frequency of the prostrations and signs of the cross "super oculos, os et pectus" contained in the form for adult baptism, he replied that he had not used the form for adults, but had baptized the person with the form prescribed for the baptism of infants, by virtue of a general indult granted by the Holy See to all the bishops of the United States. When his fellow-priest denied that there existed any such general permission for the whole of the United States, Cajus appealed to "The Priests' New Ritual," recently published by the John Murphy Company, of Baltimore, with the "Imprimatur" of his Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, and to the Prayer Book, published by order of the third PI. Council of Baltimore, and approved by the Apostolic Delegate of the Council, in both of which books it is expressly stated that "by special permission of the Holy See, this form (i. e., infant baptism) may be used in the United States for the baptism of adults."

On the other hand, Cajus' fellow-priest appealed to Konings (II. 1,264) and to Sabetti (n. 666), where it is expressly denied that all the bishops of the United States have a general faculty to use the short form in baptizing adults. In their perplexity, now, both Cajus and his friend ask: Have the bishops of the United States a general permission from the Holy See to use the form for infant baptism in the baptism of adults?

As there seems to exist considerable confusion on this point, we take the liberty of giving a somewhat extended answer.

On October 24, 1829, the bishops of the first Provincial Synod of Baltimore, i. e., the Archbishop of Baltimore, the Bishops of Bardstown, Charleston, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Boston, and the Vicar Apostolic of Philadelphia petitioned Pius VIII to grant permission to the bishops of the United States to use the form for infant baptism in the baptism of adults. The reasons given by the bishops for their petition to the Holy See were that the form for adult baptism could not well be used in this country, because “certain ceremonies, such as prostrations and signs of the cross over the eyes, mouth, and breast, could cause scandal, especially when girls or women are to be baptized.” This request of the bishops was granted by the Cong. de P. F. October 16, 1830, "ad viginti annos" (Coll. Lac. T. III. col. 34). Therefore, there was a general permission granted by the Holy See, up to the year 1850, to use, throughout the United States, the shorter form in the baptism of adults.

In the year 1852, the bishops of the first PI. Council of Baltimore again petitioned the Holy See that this privilege be renewed, either "in perpetuum," or at least for another twenty years. The bishops' petition was as follows: “Since the very grave reasons advanced by the Fathers of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore in the year of salvation 1829, when they asked the Holy Father that in these Provinces it be lawful to use for baptizing adults the form found in the Roman Ritual for the baptism of infants, still remain in force and indeed seem likely to become graver day by day, the Fathers decree that the Holy See is to be petitioned that the privilege then granted for twenty years in accordance with the Fathers’ prayers now be made perpetual, or at least be granted again for twenty years.” To this petition, the Cong. de P. F. answered, August 30, 1852, as follows: “These prayers having been reported by the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Raphael Cardinal Fornari at the general meeting of the Sacred Congregation held on August 30, 1852, the Most Eminent Fathers judged that His Holiness should be petitioned for an extension of the indult for five years, and in such a way that meanwhile the Bishops should endeavor gradually to approach the observance of the rite prescribed in the Roman Ritual for the baptism of adults.”

By this decree, the privilege of using the short form throughout the United States was extended to the year 1857.

In the year 1858, the second Provincial Council of St. Louis, there being present the Archbishop of St. Louis, the Bishops of Nashville, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, Alton, Dubuque, Chicago, and St. Paul, and the Vicar Apostolic of the Indian Territory, petitioned the Holy See, “that in the baptism of adults it be lawful to use the form employed in the baptism of infants until the Holy See shall decree otherwise.” To this the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith replied on February 6, 1859: “It graciously assented to the favor according to the prayers, and meanwhile let them take care to introduce the formula for adults prescribed by the Roman Ritual.”

By this decree there was granted to all the dioceses composing, in 1859, the Province of St. Louis, the privilege of using the short form in adult baptism, "usque dum S. Sedes aliter statuerit." As the Holy See, up to the present, has not decreed otherwise, all the territory comprised in 1859 by the dioceses of St. Louis, Nashville, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, Alton, Dubuque, Chicago, St. Paul, and the Indian Territory, still enjoy the privilege of using the form for infant baptism in the baptism of adults. “Such an indult was granted to the Province of St. Louis on February 6, 1859, and is still in force (until it is revoked) in all the dioceses which the Province of St. Louis comprised in that year 1859” (Wapelhorst, Comp. Liturg. p. 413).

In the meantime the general permission for the whole of the United States to use the short form in baptizing adults expired with the year 1857, and except in cases where it was renewed to individual bishops, as in the case of the St. Louis Province, the bishops of the United States were obliged to use the long form in adult baptism.

In the year 1866, the bishops of the second PI. Council of Baltimore petitioned the Holy See “that the Supreme Pontiff might deign to extend to all, for ten or twenty years, the privilege formerly granted to certain dioceses of this region until the year 1870, by which it is lawful to employ for baptizing adults the shorter formula established for infants.” To this the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith replied on January 24, 1868: “Furthermore, the Sacred Congregation judged that the Bishops ought to have recourse to it when the period of the last concession had expired.” That is to say, that in 1866, when the bishops petitioned the Holy See for an extension of this privilege, there were some dioceses which were enjoying the privilege, and the same would continue to enjoy it up to the year 1870, not by virtue of any general indult granted to all the bishops of the United States, but by reason of a special extension made to some individual bishops. The bishops of the Province of St. Louis, of course, were at this time enjoying this privilege, not only until the year 1870, but until revoked.

O'Kane (Rubrics, n. 459) says: "In the United States of America until recently the ceremonies prescribed for infant baptism were used in the baptism of adults also, in virtue of faculties granted by the Holy See. In 1852 these faculties were renewed only for five years, with an intimation that they should not be again renewed; and accordingly since 1857, the American clergy are required to observe what is prescribed by the rubrics for adult baptism." What O'Kane says here is true, in this sense, that wherever, in the United States, since 1857, the form for infant baptism is used in the baptism of adults, it is used by virtue not of any general permission to all the bishops of the United States, but of a special indult obtained by individual bishops. Wherever no special permission has been obtained since 1857, the clergy are obliged to use the form for adults in the baptism of adults. However, as it has been renewed since then in particular cases, as in the case of the St. Louis Province and the tenth Provincial Council of Baltimore, what O'Kane says is not strictly correct.

O'Kane takes it for granted that after 1857, the permission would not be renewed to the American bishops, neither collectively nor individually, on account of the intimation given by the Cong. de P. F. to that effect. In this, however, he was mistaken. In 1869 the bishops of the tenth Provincial Council of Baltimore petitioned the Holy See for an extension of the privilege “earnestly and with one voice they judged that the Holy See should be petitioned to extend a concession of this kind, for at least ten years, to all the dioceses of the Province of Baltimore.”

The Cong. de P. F. granted this, but not for ten years, but only for five.

Outside the territory included, in 1859, by the Province of St. Louis, the solution of the question as to the privilege of using the short form for the baptism of adults depends on a question of fact. Have the respective bishops applied for and obtained an extension of this privilege? The question is not easily answered. Father Smith (notes on second PI. Con. Bait. n. 214) has this to say: "To this question we can not return a satisfactory answer. In the diocese of Newark nothing definite is known by the clergy. The bishop may possess such a privilege, but the fact has never been communicated to the priests, and they are left to guess whether or not the faculty has been prolonged. The same, we are informed, is the case in various other dioceses. Hence a diversity of practice in this regard is gradually becoming prevalent. Some priests take it for granted that these privileges have been renewed again; others, however, doubt this. The former, of course, use the ceremonies of infant baptism, even in the baptism of adults; the latter are not always consistent in the matter, some of them using the short form, others the long one. It would, therefore, seem desirable to have some positive measures adopted on this point by our prelates."

As regards the case of Cajus, we answer that if he is located within the territory comprised, in 1859, by the Province of St. Louis, that is to say, if he is located in the archdioceses of St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Dubuque, or Santa Fe, or in the dioceses of Nashville, Alton, or the Indian Territory, or in any diocese that, since 1859, has sprung from the aforesaid dioceses, then he did right in using the short form for baptizing an adult. If he is located outside that territory, he must inquire whether his bishop has obtained any special faculties in the matter. If his bishop has not obtained any special permission, or if Cajus can not establish the fact, he is obliged to observe the general law of the Church, which is to baptize adults with the rubrical form prescribed for the baptism of adults, unless he judge prudently that grave scandal might be given by its use, which may easily be, according to the Fathers of many American Councils, “especially when girls or women are to be baptized.”

The words of the Prayer Book, published by order of the third PI. Council of Baltimore, and of the "Priests' New Ritual," stating that the short form may be used throughout the United States, by general permission of the Holy See, should be changed, since they are not true.

Sempronia, a Protestant maid-servant, is brought to the hospital in a state of total unconsciousness, suffering from gas poisoning. Two experienced physicians examine the patient and agree in thinking that she will die shortly without recovering consciousness. The Protestant clergyman comes to see her and says that, as he can do nothing, he will not visit her again. The Catholic priest at the hospital learns where Sempronia was born, and remembers that not long ago a convert from the same town had to be conditionally baptized, because repeated inquiries had shown that the Protestant clergy in that town were often careless in the administration of baptism. The thought occurs to the priest that perhaps he ought to baptize Sempronia conditionally, doing so quite privately. She seems to have been in good faith regarding her religion, and, in case her first baptism was invalid, her eternal salvation can be secured if she has never committed any mortal sin, or if since her last sin she has made at least an act of imperfect contrition, or can make one still in a conscious moment before death. " Must I baptize her or not? " This is the question that the Catholic priest asks himself. How ought he to decide?

Let us first answer the following questions:

I. What are we to think of non-Catholic baptism in general?

II. Can and ought Sempronia to be baptized under the circumstances stated above?

III. If she is baptized, what ceremonies should be observed?

I. With regard to baptism by a non-Catholic, we must notice, first of all: (1) that it is undoubtedly valid, if the minister baptizes with the intention, matter, and form requisite for the validity of the Sacrament. De fide Conc. Trident., Sess. VIII. can. IV. (2) It is an absolute certainty that many non-Catholic ministers are by no means careful as to the intention, matter, and form, when they baptize, so that the validity of their baptisms is often very questionable. Hence the Catholic Church has repeatedly decided that, in the case of converts to the Catholic faith, the validity of their baptism, administered by a non-Catholic, must be examined in each individual case; and wherever there is any reasonable doubt regarding it, baptism must be readministered conditionally. The Manuale sacrum (Rituale) of the diocese of Brixen contains the following instructions: “Therefore, those baptized by heretics are not to be baptized conditionally without distinction when they convert to the Catholic religion. But according to the decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition of November 20, 1878, in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or whatever sect they come, inquiry must be made into the validity of the baptism received in heresy. But if, after an investigation appropriate to the circumstances of times or places, nothing in favor of validity is discovered, or if a probable doubt concerning the validity of the baptism still remains, let them be baptized secretly under condition.” Ibid. p. 20, 3. Lehmkuhl remarks with regard to this investigation (P. II. nota B, ad num. 19): “It is most truly said that in individual cases it must be inquired by a diligent examination whether the proper matter and form were observed. But not by my opinion alone, but by the judgment of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith itself, that ‘diligent examination’ is plainly understood according as the circumstances permit, and the supreme law must always be that the eternal salvation of the person be placed in safety.”

Regarding the usual result of this investigation Konings says (n. 1264, III. in fine): “After the examination has been carried out in whatever manner is possible, today a doubt will generally remain about baptism conferred by heretics. Therefore it is universally repeated conditionally, not only among us in America, but also in England, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and, according to the testimony of Perrone, even in Rome.

It follows therefore that, in the case under discussion, it cannot be ascertained whether Sempronia has been validly baptized or not; and for this reason the Sacrament may be repeated conditionally.

In answer to question II., Ought Sempronia to be baptized? we are of opinion that she ought to be baptized conditionally, if the validity of her first baptism is doubtful, and her present capacity and disposition for a valid and fruitful reception of the Sacrament are at least probable, and if she requires this aid for the good of her soul, and it can be given her without detriment to religion and the public good.

(a) As to her capacity for a valid, and her disposition for a fruitful, reception of holy baptism, theologians are unanimous in requiring of adults at least an habitual intention (in order to render the Sacrament valid) and faith, hope, and the beginning of charity (in order to render its reception efficacious), with at least imperfect contrition for personal sins committed.

These requirements must be considered in detail:

(1) On the subject of the intention requisite in the recipient of the Sacraments, Lehmkuhl remarks: “The validity of sacraments which are effected in the recipient depends upon the person receiving them to the extent that a reception which can be called voluntary is required. This will must be personally present in an adult, that is, one using reason; but in those who have never attained the use of reason, the will of the minister, who acts in the name of Christ and the Church, suffices” (P. II. n. 47).— "The reason is, Marca writes, because God in His present providence over things does not will adults to be justified or sanctified without their own will and consent."—"Justification takes place through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts" (Conc. Trid., Sess. VI. cap. 7).

The intention differs, however, in the different Sacraments. For the valid reception of baptism, it must be at least habitual, i. e., there must be an act of the will tending towards the reception of baptism, and the recipient must not expressly have recalled this intention, although the act of will no longer exists. The reason why the interpretative intention is insufficient in this case is that it would be unfair to impose upon an adult the obligations which he incurs by baptism, without his express consent.

Several theologians think that supernatural attrition constitutes an intention sufficient for the valid reception of baptism, because contrition, coupled with a resolution to do all that is essential to salvation, includes the reception of baptism. Although the correctness of this view is by no means certain, it possesses enough probability to justify in case of necessity the administration of this Sacrament to a dying person.—Cf. St. Alph., Theolog. moral., 1. VI. n. 82; Lehmkuhl, P. II. n. 48, a 77 (2).

(2) Sempronia has given evidence of possessing this intention, for, to the best of her knowledge, she has led a Christian life and has shown that she desires to live and die as a baptized Christian, finding her eternal salvation through baptism and the Christian life. How could her reception of baptism fail to be voluntary? Quomodo susceptio Sacramenti non sit talis, quae dici possit voluntaria? She had not merely the desire to take upon herself the duties of a Christian, but for years she has conscientiously fulfilled them, as she knew them. If a marriage, invalidated because only one party to it really gave the required consent, whilst the other dissembled and merely feigned to give consent, is subsequently to be validated (juxta sent, communem et veriorem, S. Alph. 1. VI. n. 1 1 14) there is no need for the innocent party to renew the consent, because it continues to be revealed by living with the other. Just as here the intentio matrimonii virtually continues, so in Sempronia's case does the intentio baptismi continue habitually. If the one is enough to secure the validity of marriage, why should not the other suffice for baptism?

If one who through want of intention receives the Sacrament invalidly, Pope Innocent III says: "But one who never consents, but rather contradicts, receives neither the reality nor the character of the Sacrament" (Marc. 1434). It cannot be maintained of Sempronia that she never consents but rather contradicts. " But," some one may say, " if she were fully conscious, she would most likely object to the repetition of baptism by a Catholic priest." This supposition does not, however, exclude the intention required for a valid reception of the Sacrament, for she is baptized, not on the ground of any consent that she might give if she were conscious, but on that of her habitual intention, which we may fairly assume her to have formed unconditionally and never to have recalled.

Another objection which might be raised is this: St. Alphonsus teaches that, in dealing with a heretic who does not usually ask for sacramental absolution, we must not infer, because he displays some signs of contrition, that he has any intention to make a confession, and he cannot be given conditional absolution when he is in danger of death (1. VI. n. 483). Our answer to this objection is that the Saint is speaking of heretics who "have the greatest abhorrence of confession—but Sempronia does not abhor baptism; rather, she wills it; therefore..." The case would be different if she had expressly formed, and never withdrawn, a resolution never to accept the help of a Catholic priest. As, however, there is no evidence of such a resolution, we infer, from all that is reported of Sempronia, that there were good reasons for believing her to possess the intention necessary to a valid reception of baptism, and that she was a subjectum capax of this Sacrament.

(3) But does she possess the dispositions requisite for a fruitful reception of baptism?

This is a point that must certainly be taken into consideration, for, if we were sure that the baptismal grace could have no effect in Sempronia, because of her defective dispositions, the Sacrament could not be administered, as it would be useless and futile. On the subject of the dispositions required for baptism, St. Thomas writes (in IV. dist. 6, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5um): "For a person to prepare himself to receive grace in baptism, faith is required beforehand in adults, but not charity, because preceding attrition suffices even if it is not contrition." There is no mention here of hope and rudimentary love (amor initialis), which, with faith, are the dispositions necessary to justification (Trid., Sess. VI. cap. 6), because the attrition mentioned comprises both. In practise, a man who knows and believes the truths necessary to salvation (necessaria de necessitate medii) generally possesses contrition as well as faith. (Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor., 1. II. n. 8, and especially Hom. Apost., T. IV. n. 13.)

If therefore the person receiving baptism has ever made these acts of virtue, and has not nullified them by contrary acts, or made his act of contrition void by subsequent mortal sin, he no sooner is baptized than the grace given by the Sacrament begins to have its effects; otherwise it remains latent until the recipient, by an act of at least imperfect contrition, calls it into activity. (Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor., I. VI. n. 87, a 139.) If Sempronia was in good faith as a Protestant, we may fairly assume that she practised these virtues, and that on her part there was nothing to stand in the way of the conditional repetition of her baptism.

(b) We have, finally, to consider Sempronia's spiritual needs, and the possible hindrances of a higher nature, which may prevent any attempt to help her.

(1) There is no urgent reason for thinking that Sempronia is in a state of mortal sin, and therefore, in her unconscious condition, in extrema necessitate spirituali, "that the danger of damnation is so imminent that, morally speaking, she cannot escape it without the help of another" (Müller, 1. II. § 57, n. 8), yet, as she is now absolutely helpless, there is certainly some reason to fear for her eternal salvation.

Sacramenta sunt propter homines; and a Catholic priest can easily, and probably successfully, come to the aid of this wandering sheep in great, possibly extreme, danger of eternal damnation. Indeed, it would be difficult to find good grounds for not even thinking him bound to perform this charitable work, belonging to his official duty.