The Matter and Form of Baptism

58. The valid remote matter of baptism is only natural water, which is such both in itself and in the common estimation of men. This is clear from the words of Sacred Scripture: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit," etc.¹ We know from the definition of the Church that these words are to be understood of true and natural water.² Therefore what water is to be held as valid matter must be taken not so much from the analysis of chemists as from the use and estimation of men; for when Christ determined the matter of the sacraments, he spoke according to the notions of the people and common sense.

Matter certainly valid is: a. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; b. rainwater, distilled water, water produced by chemical art, water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail; c. sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; d. muddy water mixed with another substance, provided water is truly and certainly the predominant matter, even if it has been altered as to color, odor, or taste. Nor does it matter whether the water is cold or warm.

Matter certainly invalid is: a. milk, blood, spittle; b. wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; c. mud, ink; d. juice expressed from fruits, e.g., apples, pears, etc.; for all these are neither in fact nor in name water; e. tears, sweat, saliva; for these are indeed water in fact, but not in name nor in the common estimation of men.

Matter doubtful is: a. very thin broth, lye, very thin beer, a drink made from the coffee bean or from tea leaves, water from dissolved salt; b. the fluid flowing from a vine and other plants; c. rose-water or other liquids expressed from plants; d. snow or ice not yet dissolved. For although in this state they are not natural water, nevertheless, since they are dissolved by contact, and thus some washing can be had, they are admitted by some as doubtful matter.

¹ John 3, 5. Cf. Acts 8, 36.

² Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, De bapt.

59. The licit remote matter. Having made the distinction between solemn baptism, private baptism, and baptism of necessity (n. 55), let this be by way of rule: in any baptism whatever consecrated water is to be preferred, but it is not prescribed in every baptism; rather, lustral water (blessed water), or even natural water (not blessed), can be used, even if consecrated water is present. Therefore:

1. In solemn baptism the licit matter is only consecrated and clean water without admixture of foreign matter.

2. In private baptism it is suitable that consecrated water be used, if it is present, or at least lustral or blessed water; nevertheless neither a priest nor a layman sins who uses natural water, even if consecrated or blessed water is present, unless this is prescribed by diocesan statute (as in England).

3. In baptism of necessity, i.e., in danger of death, any matter whatever can and ought to be used, provided it is not certainly invalid, under this condition: if this matter is valid. But if he who has been baptized with matter of this kind survives, and there is certainly valid matter available, he must again be baptized under this condition: if he has not been baptized. Just as for conferring baptism under the first condition a slight probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices, so for rebaptizing under the other condition a slight probability concerning the invalidity of the baptism suffices: for it is a question of a sacrament most necessary.

a. Although a slight admixture of a foreign substance does not render the water of baptism invalid matter, nevertheless that water, whether it is consecrated or not consecrated, must, out of reverence for the sacrament, be clean from foreign substance, unless there is an excusing cause. Therefore, if in a case of necessity infants are to be baptized in the mother's womb, it is permitted to use water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (one part of mercuric chloride with a thousand parts of water) (Quecksilberchlorid, Sublimat), when from pure water a true danger of disease in the mother is to be feared; but it is not permitted to use it when there is no danger of disease in the mother.¹

b. He sins gravely who, outside a case of necessity, uses turbid, muddy, or miry water, even if it is valid matter, because he gravely injures the reverence due to the sacrament.

c. Water simply blessed, not consecrated, although it is valid matter, is nevertheless gravely illicit in solemn baptism outside a case of necessity. If in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water must be used (made according to the shorter formula, if this can be done; otherwise natural water must be used).²

d. If the consecrated water itself, which is kept in the baptismal font, appears full of dregs and foul-smelling, in a case of necessity pure unconsecrated water must be taken, or, if it is present, lustral or blessed water, even if the foul water is valid matter. Outside a case of necessity new water must be blessed according to the formula prescribed in the Roman Ritual.³

e. If the water of baptism is too cold, it can be warmed by being brought to the fire or furnace, or even a little warmed natural water can be mixed with it, lest the cold water harm the little child. If the parents ask that the infant be baptized with Jordan water which they have procured for themselves, a small quantity of that water can be mixed with the consecrated water.

f. In baptisms which in some regions are held at home against the prescription of the Church, consecrated water must be used; for baptisms of this kind, which are performed by priests outside a case of necessity with all the sacred ceremonies, have the character of solemn baptism.

¹ Holy Office, 21 Aug. 1901.

² Holy Office, 22 June 1883.

³ Holy Office, 17 Apr. 1839.

60. On the consecration of baptismal water. 1. From the prescription of the Church, the water of baptism must be consecrated on the vigil of Easter and on the vigil of Pentecost.¹ This obligation is judged grave, because it is of great importance that in solemn baptism water consecrated by a special blessing for this end, and mixed with the oil of catechumens and sacred chrism, be used.

Therefore, according to the mind of the Church, it must be judged an abuse to be entirely eliminated if the consecration of the baptismal font is omitted on the Saturday of Pentecost.² Missionaries are commanded to consecrate water or to carry consecrated water with them whenever they can do this without grave inconvenience.³ Lest baptismal water ever be lacking, it can be prepared at any time when necessity demands it, but according to the formula which is found in the Roman Ritual.⁴ Even if the water consecrated at the prescribed time seems likely to run short, other unblessed water can be mixed with it, though in a smaller quantity.⁵

2. In the consecration of baptismal water: a. oils blessed by the bishop in the very same year on the Lord's Supper must be used. b. If a priest cannot obtain recent oils for himself, let him bless the font without the infusion of the sacred oils, which afterward, reciting privately the omitted prayers, he is to pour into the blessed water. c. But if, before he can receive the oils, he must baptize someone, in the solemn blessing itself let him pour in the old oils of the preceding year.⁶

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.

² S. C. R., 7 Dec. 1844, n. 2878; 13 Apr. 1874, n. 3331.

³ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 8 Sept. 1869.

⁴ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 6, and c. 7.

⁵ Ibid., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 5. Cn. 757, 2.

⁶ S. C. R., 31 Jan. 1896, n. 3879.

61. The proximate matter of baptism is the washing of the body, which must be done by the minister himself in such a way that the baptized person, by the moral judgment of men, is considered truly washed; otherwise the words of the form would not be verified.

1. The washing can be done in three ways: by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring; nevertheless, according to the present practice of the Roman Church, baptism must be conferred by a threefold washing or pouring. And although one pouring suffices for validity, nevertheless a threefold pouring, at least where solemn baptism is concerned, is prescribed under grave obligation in the Roman Ritual.¹

2. Therefore, in order that the person to be baptized be considered truly washed, and thus that the baptism be certainly valid, it is required:

a. That the water flow; hence, if one or another drop of water only is used, which adheres to the skin without flowing, baptism is doubtful and licit only in a case of necessity.

alpha. Therefore he who applies a wet finger or hand, or a wet cloth, to the forehead merely by touching it, does not baptize validly, because he does not wash the infant. If someone baptizes by way of anointing on the forehead with the thumb moistened in baptismal water, the baptism is doubtful, because there is no true washing.² But he who successively touches the forehead of the person to be baptized with a wet hand or cloth, according to the common opinion of authors, certainly baptizes validly, because there is true washing.³

beta. No determinate quantity of water is required for valid baptism; consequently there does not seem to be a reason for doubting the value of a baptism in which only one or another drop is used, provided the drops truly flow. Nevertheless, since several authors doubt concerning this baptism, it should be repeated under condition.

b. That it immediately touch the person to be baptized; hence, if the water touches the garments only, baptism is certainly invalid; and if it touches the hair only, baptism is in some degree doubtful.

alpha. Some used to say that baptism conferred upon the hair is valid, because, since the hair is part of the infant, the infant is washed whose hair is washed; others, on the contrary, affirmed that it was invalid, because the hairs are not part of the infant, and therefore the infant is not washed whose hairs are washed. But now it can scarcely be denied that the hairs truly are part of a man, just as nails truly are a part of a man, although they are not informed by the soul. Hairs in a man are situated as wool is in sheep or feathers in birds; but we say that a sheep or a bird is washed when its wool or feathers are washed. Therefore, although the value of this baptism is almost certain, nevertheless, since several and great authors, after considering the internal reasons, doubt concerning its value, it can and must be repeated under condition.⁴ But if the head of the infant is covered with hair, the priest, baptizing upon the hair, must, while with the right hand he pours water upon the crown of the head, part the hair with the left hand, or take care that the water flow down over the temples of the head.

beta. Baptism conferred upon the afterbirth is invalid. - Until birth the infant is enveloped in a covering composed of three membranes entirely distinct. The outer membrane, which is called the decidua, is formed from the interior part of the uterus, and therefore by no reckoning can it be held as part of the infant. And upon this, indeed, water is poured if the infant is baptized upon the afterbirth. The two inner membranes, of which one is called the amnion and the other the chorion, but which are commonly called the afterbirth, arise from the egg and therefore in some way can be called part of the infant; but they constitute by no means an integral part of the infant, but his covering to be cast off in birth. Therefore baptism can validly be conferred neither upon the decidua nor upon the afterbirth.⁵

gamma. Baptism conferred upon a head covered with an ulcerous crust is valid; for the crust upon which the water is poured is nothing other than the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease. Therefore he is said to wash the infant who washes his head covered with a crust; otherwise a man whose whole head is covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor validly baptized.

delta. Baptism conferred on an infant upon a head still covered with filth before washing is valid; for by the fact that water is poured upon the filth, the head of the infant is said to be washed, which indeed is washed precisely in order that it may be cleansed from filth.

c. That it be poured upon the head; for in order that the person to be baptized be considered washed, it is not necessary that the whole body be washed, but it suffices and is required that the head be washed. Therefore if water is poured upon a less principal part (hand, foot, arm, etc.), the baptism is more probably invalid; and if it is poured upon a more principal part (breast, neck, shoulders), it is most probably valid, yet always at least somewhat doubtful. Therefore, if it can be done, it must or at least can be repeated under condition.

alpha. There are some who say that baptismal water must be poured upon the crown of the person to be baptized, but this is prescribed nowhere. On the contrary, in order to exclude doubts concerning the value of a baptism which is conferred on the crown of an infant whose head is covered with hair, it is better to baptize on the forehead.

beta. Baptism conferred on a more principal part (neck, breast, shoulders), according to the very common opinion of doctors of great name (Busenbaum, Suarez, Holzmann, Tanner, Lacroix, etc.), is valid; nor does St. Alphonsus seriously doubt concerning its validity, since he does not say that baptism conferred in this way must be repeated, but only that it can licitly be repeated for greater caution (n. 107, q. 4). And indeed, a man washed on such a part is said simply to be washed, just as one wounded there is said simply to be wounded. From this it follows that repetition of baptism conferred on the neck or on the breast can safely be omitted where it cannot be performed without difficulty.

gamma. If someone pronounces the form while an infant slips into water, the baptism is invalid, because he who baptizes does not himself wash the infant.

delta. If someone places a child under water flowing by nature, e.g., falling rain, he baptizes validly, because he truly washes the person to be baptized, and indeed he does it himself. But if he places the child under water poured out by another man, a distinction must be made: if for baptizing he uses water which another pours out either for another end or only so that by pouring out water he may help the one baptizing, the baptism is valid, because there is one who baptizes; but if he knowingly uses water which another pours out for this end, that he may help the one baptizing by applying the matter, the baptism is invalid, because one applies the matter and another pronounces the form.

epsilon. Whether baptism is valid if someone throws an infant into water and at the same time pronounces the form. - It is valid, and in a case of extreme necessity, namely when otherwise the infant is going to die without baptism, it seems even licit. And it is valid indeed, because there is washing equally as in baptism conferred by immersion, and there is no necessity that emergence follow immersion. But it is licit because there is not a direct killing of the infant, but a direct immersion for conferring baptism, from which by accident the death of the infant follows; for he who submerges an infant, not with the will of killing but of baptizing, is not said directly to kill the infant, even if from the same action, beyond the intention, the death of the infant follows.⁶

eta. Concerning baptism conferred in the mother's womb there are some who doubt whether it is valid, both because he cannot be reborn who has not yet been born, and because an infant in the womb cannot be washed, since, being enveloped in the afterbirth, he cannot be immediately touched by water. Ballerini (ad n. 239) indeed judges such baptism certainly valid, both because an infant existing in the mother's womb is already a man in the wayfaring state and in some sense is already said to be truly born, and because he himself can be touched immediately by means of an instrument more recently invented. Nevertheless the value of this baptism is not so certain that the infant, if he is afterward born, ought not to be rebaptized under condition.⁷ But if the infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, he is to be baptized on the head, and afterward, if he has escaped alive, he will not have to be baptized again.⁸

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.

² Holy Office, 14 Dec. 1898.

³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107.

⁴ Cf. Lugo, Responsa moralia, l. 1, dub. 1.

⁵ Cf. Capellmann, Medicina pastoralis, p. 106.

⁶ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 720; Lehmkuhl II, 62 (n. 86).

⁷ S. C. C., 12 July 1794. As recently as 16 Mar. 1897 the same congregation commanded that baptism be repeated in this case.

⁸ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16.

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 remote and valid matter of Baptism is natural water in a suitable state for washing one’s self. It is quite immaterial whether the water be spring water, rain water, sea water, or water from a river or pond; but frozen water is doubtful matter until it is melted, because it is not suitable for washing one’s self; while mud is invalid matter (Can. 737).

For solemn Baptism the Church prescribes the use of water specially consecrated for the purpose, and the same may be used for private Baptism, as also may holy water and common water. For the private Baptism of adults who have been converted from heresy and require to be baptized conditionally, the First Synod of Westminster prescribes the use of holy water.

The proximate matter of the sacrament is its use or application in the act of baptizing. This may validly be done either by infusion, or immersion, or sprinkling, provided that the water touches the head of the person to be baptized and flows so as to express the action of washing. In the Western Church, however, a triple pouring of water on the head of the person to be baptized, or a triple immersion, if such be the custom, is prescribed by the rubrics of the Ritual. Care should be taken that the water touch the skin, as the Baptism would be of doubtful validity if it merely touched the hair. Merely to lay the wet hand or finger on the skin would not be valid Baptism, and even if the wet finger were moved over the skin the validity would still be doubtful (Can. 758).

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.

I. The remote matter of Baptism required for validity is true and natural water. This is of faith from the Council of Trent,¹ and is declared by canon 737, § 1. By true and natural water is understood that which according to common estimation comes under the name of natural water; for attention must be paid to this more than to the assertions of chemists. Water remains valid matter even if a diverse element has been mixed in, provided the quantity mixed in is small and does not change the water substantially. Thus, for example, valid matter is water into which a thousandth part of corrosive bichloride of mercury has been mixed;² with which water many physicians in a case of necessity baptize infants, especially in the womb of the mother, namely lest the mother's uterus be affected by disease.³

Water composed by chemical art from the elements which constitute water, that is, from oxygen and hydrogen, is doubtful matter. In the case there is true water; likewise water natural according to intrinsic causes, but artificial according to the extrinsic cause. Further, it is doubted whether water of this kind is valid matter.

Corollary I. Matter certainly valid is: 1. water drawn from wells, spring water, sea water, rain water; 2. water melted from ice, snow, or hail; likewise water condensed from vapor; likewise water purified from foreign elements by distillation; 3. sulphurous, ferruginous, or mineral water, provided that according to common estimation it is still called water.

Corollary II. Matter certainly invalid is: 1. blood, milk, wine; 2. fluids of the body, such as sweat, urine, saliva; 3. ice, snow, and hail, so long as they have not yet melted; 4. the sap of plants is almost certainly invalid matter. Amniotic fluid, that is, the fluid by which the fetus enclosed in the afterbirth is surrounded, seems to be invalid matter. For it is constituted by secretions from the body of the mother and of the infant, and therefore seems to have to be equated with other secretions, such as sweat, etc. Since, however, the matter is not so certain, in a case of necessity, if Baptism cannot be conferred in a more certain way, it can be ministered with amniotic fluid.⁴

Corollary III. Doubtful matter, besides water composed by chemical art, concerning which above, is: 1. moisture flowing from a vine or other trees; 2. liquid from dissolved salt; 3. water drawn by chemical art from plants, flowers, roots, such as rose water; 4. finally, broth, beer, coffee, tea, ink, mud, lye, and artificial waters are more or less doubtfully valid, according as they are thicker or thinner, or contain a greater or lesser quantity of foreign elements (St. Alphonsus, VI, 103, 104).

¹ Session 7, On Baptism, canon 2.

² In French: chloride de mercure.

³ Holy Office, 21 August 1901, in Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1901, p. 289.

⁴ Cf. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia moralis, vol. II, n. 47.

II. The remote matter required for liceity is water certainly valid, pure, and, if there is question of solemn Baptism, that is, Baptism which is administered with all the rites and ceremonies (can. 732, § 2), baptismal water, that is, water blessed for baptizing (can. 757, § 1). It is said:

1. Certainly valid; nevertheless, in extreme necessity only matter certainly invalid is excluded. If the matter is doubtful, Baptism should be conferred under condition: if the matter is valid; and afterwards it should be repeated under condition (St. Alphonsus, VI, 103).

2. Pure, that is, neither mixed¹ nor filthy. To use very impure water without necessity is a grave sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 102).

3. Baptismal for solemn Baptism (can. 757, § 1); and this obligation is grave (St. Alphonsus, VI, 102). The consecration, however, must be done twice in the year, namely on Holy Saturday and on the Vigil of Pentecost, the old water having been poured into the sacrarium;² the precept of consecrating the water at the aforesaid times is grave. If lack is feared, common water can be mixed with it, even repeatedly, but in a smaller quantity (can. 757, § 2); if, however, it has become corrupted, or has flowed out, or has failed in any way whatsoever, the pastor is to pour fresh water into the font, well cleaned and neat, and bless it by the proper rite prescribed in his liturgical books (can. 757, § 3). Moreover, if the baptismal water is too cold, it can licitly be warmed or mixed with warmed common water.

With regard to the water to be used in private Baptism, it is better, if it can be done, to use baptismal water, but there is no obligation (cf. can. 757, § 3). Hence a priest called to confer private Baptism will laudably carry with him a sufficient quantity of baptismal water. "If baptismal water is not had and danger threatens, let the priest use simple water,"³ whether holy water or common water, as it is permissible to interpret this word.⁴

¹ The Holy Office, on 21 August 1901, responded that the mixture of corrosive bichloride of mercury, concerning which in the text under I, is licit only where a true danger of disease is present.

² Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 2, n. 5; Sacred Congregation of Rites, nn. 2878, 3331.

³ Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 2, n. 29.

⁴ The Holy Office, 20 June 1883, prefers holy water.

I. The proximate matter required for validity is the washing of the one to be baptized, done by the baptizer himself. This is clear from Sacred Scripture, which declares that man through Baptism is born again of water,¹ and is washed.² Canon 737, § 1, declares the same.

It is said:

1. Washing; and this indeed can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, pouring, and sprinkling. As regards validity, however, it makes no difference in what way it is done (can. 758). Nevertheless, true washing wholly requires:

a) That the water physically or immediately touch the one to be baptized. Hence: 1. Baptism is doubtful if the water has touched only the hair, scab, or birth matter still adhering in notable quantity. To birth matter there also seems to be numbered the vernix caseosa, which is accustomed to adhere to the fetus before cleansing. Hence surgeons and midwives, having removed scab and filth if need be, should either part the hair with the left hand while baptizing, or rather effect that the water flow over the temples of the head. Likewise, the sacred minister can, while pouring the water, divide the hair, or rather proceed in such a way that the water flows somewhat over the forehead (St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, q. 3).

2. With regard to Baptism conferred on the afterbirth, some teach absolutely that it is invalid, in whatever afterbirth the conferral may be done; namely, they judge that no afterbirth is a part of the fetus. Others hold Baptism conferred on the external afterbirth, or decidua, as certainly invalid, but Baptism on the inner afterbirths as doubtfully invalid. The reason is that they judge the decidua certainly, but the other afterbirths only probably, not to be parts of the fetus. According to others, Baptism conferred on whatever afterbirth is doubtfully valid. Many allege as the reason that the afterbirths are united with, or constitute as it were one continuum with, the umbilical cord, which probably belongs to the fetus; and thus Baptism conferred on the afterbirths would not be certainly invalid. There is added, they say, with regard to the inner afterbirths, that it is not yet wholly established that they do not belong to the fetus.³ In what way, all things considered, the fetus must be baptized will be explained in n. 93.

3. Baptism on the umbilical cord is more probably valid than on the afterbirths, because the cord is united immediately with the infant, while the afterbirths are united with the infant by means of the cord.⁴

b) That the water touch the one to be baptized with successive motion, unless several parts of water touch several parts of the body at the same instant, as happens, for example, in Baptism by sprinkling. For the rest, successive motion can occur in two ways, namely both by moving the body to the water, as in immersion, and by moving the water to the body, as in pouring and in sprinkling.

Moreover, a small quantity of water suffices, provided nevertheless that it flows over a sufficient part of the body; hence only one or another little drop, even if it flows, will leave Baptism practically doubtful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, q. 6). It also suffices that the baptizer, by the motion of a finger or of a moistened cloth, wash a part of the body (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). Note, however, that according to the Holy Office, Baptism conferred "by way of anointing on the forehead, with the thumb moistened in baptismal water," had to be repeated.⁵

2. Of the one to be baptized; namely, in such a way that the man can morally be said to have been washed. Further, Baptism is certainly valid if the washing is done on the whole body or on the head, whether on the forehead, cheek, or crown; most probably if on another more principal part, as on the shoulder-blades, shoulders, or chest; it is more doubtful if on a less principal part, as on the hand, finger, or foot. The reason why Baptism conferred otherwise than on the whole body or on the head remains doubtful is "because ... in none of the exterior parts does the integrity of life consist as in the head" (St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 11, ad 4; St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, qq. 3 and 4). Hence canon 746, §§ 2 and 3: If the infant has put forth the head and danger of death threatens, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterwards, if he comes forth alive, is he to be baptized again under condition. If he has put forth another member, let him be baptized on it under condition if danger threatens; but then, if he is born alive, he is again to be baptized under condition.

3. Done by the baptizer himself. Therefore it does not suffice that the washing be done by the one to be baptized, or by a third party, or by a natural cause alone. Therefore:

a) Baptism would certainly be invalid: 1. if someone, seeing another washing himself or falling into a river, were to pronounce the form; 2. if someone were to utter the form while a third party poured the water (n. 20).

b) It would be doubtfully invalid if the baptizer himself were to place the one to be baptized under water poured by a third party, provided that the third party is not employed as applying the matter.

c) Baptism would be almost certainly valid if the baptizer himself moved the one to be baptized to water falling from a roof or from the sky, or springing from a fountain (St. Alphonsus, VI, 106).

Corollary I. If Baptism is conferred by immersion, it does not suffice that someone be held motionless in motionless water, because the baptizer cannot be said to wash the one to be baptized. Besides, according to some authors it is also required that the one to be baptized be drawn out of the water, according to that saying of Paul: Do you not know that all we who have been baptized in Christ Jesus have been baptized in His death? For we have been buried together with Him through Baptism into death, so that, as Christ rose from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life; for if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in that of His resurrection.⁶

Corollary II. They also ask about the throwing of the one to be baptized, for example an infant, into a river. Now Baptism of this kind is doubtfully valid, for example because there is not had, as we suppose, emergence. Moreover, a manner of acting of this kind seems absolutely illicit, because the said throwing of itself tends only to killing. "Nevertheless it is licit to baptize a child soon to die with even icy water, if other water cannot be had, even if it were feared that death would be hastened by this ... because then death would not occur of itself, but accidentally; since such an action of itself does not tend to killing, but to washing" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 100). The same, with the same circumstances supposed, holds concerning poisoned or boiling water from which the infant would be killed.

¹ John 3:5.

² Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; Acts 22:16; Heb. 10:22.

³ The fetus is enveloped in three membranes or afterbirths, which are: 1. the exterior afterbirth, which is called the decidua; 2. the inner afterbirths, namely the chorion and amnion. Cf. Cavellmann-Bergmann, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 242; Nouvelle Revue Theologique 1912, p. 581.

⁴ Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1927, p. 146.

⁵ 14 December 1898 (Collectanea, n. 2028); cf. Holy Office, 8 November 1770; 9 July 1779 (Collectanea, nn. 486, 530).

⁶ Rom. 6:3-5.

II. The proximate matter required for liceity in solemn Baptism is gathered from canon 758 and the Roman Ritual. The cited canon declares: "Although Baptism can be conferred validly either by pouring, by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second mode, or one mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the diverse Churches." Therefore the third mode, by sprinkling, is no longer to be used. The Roman Ritual defines the mode of baptizing more by these words: "The priest takes baptismal water in a small vessel or pitcher and pours it three times over the head of the infant in the form of a cross ... But where there is a custom of baptizing by immersion, the priest takes the infant and, taking care that he not be harmed, cautiously immerses him and baptizes by a triple immersion."¹ The triple pouring or immersion in solemn Baptism obliges under grave obligation (St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, q. 5); in private Baptism it is recommended insofar as it can be done.

¹ Title II, chapter 2, nn. 19, 20. In almost all Churches which use the Latin rite, Baptism is conferred by pouring.

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.

"1. Whether one is validly baptized with water which, although it wholly keeps its liquidity, nevertheless gives forth a great and very unpleasant stench? 2. Whether, with the validity of Baptism with such water posited, and another good water enriched with sacred Chrism not being had, it is better to use that putrid water than pure and natural water not enriched with Chrism? Resp. That Baptisms conferred with corrupt water were valid, although illicit outside the case of necessity; and in the case of necessity natural water is to be preferred, but provision is to be made by renewal of the water of the Baptismal Font, according to the Roman ritual." S. O. 17 Apr. 1839.

“You asked whether those infants are to be regarded as Christians who, being at the point of death, because of a lack of water and the absence of a priest, were smeared by the simplicity of certain persons upon the head, breast, and between the shoulders by sprinkling saliva as Baptism. We respond that, since in Baptism two things are always necessarily required, namely, the word and the element, according as the Truth says concerning the word, ‘Going into the world,’ etc., and says likewise concerning the element, ‘Unless a man,’ etc., you ought not to doubt that those do not have true Baptism in whom not only both of the aforesaid things but even one of them is omitted.” Innocent III, year 1250, chapter Non ut, 5, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“The Sacrament of Baptism, which is consecrated in water at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, when rightly conferred upon both infants and adults by anyone in the form of the Church, avails unto salvation.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, chapter 1, Definition against the Albigensians and other heretics.

“1. Is one validly baptized with water which, although it wholly retains its liquidity, nevertheless exhales a great and very unpleasant stench?—2. Given the validity of Baptism with such water, and when other good water enriched with sacred chrism is not available, is it better to use this putrid water than pure and natural water not enriched with chrism?

“Response. Baptisms conferred with corrupted water were valid, although illicit outside a case of necessity; and in a case of necessity natural water is to be preferred, but provision must be made for the renewal of the water of the baptismal font according to the Roman Ritual.” Holy Office, 17 April 1839.

“Many physicians in hospitals or elsewhere, in a case of necessity, are accustomed to baptize infants, especially in the womb of the mother, with water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (in French, chloride de mercure). This water is generally composed by a solution of one part of this mercuric chloride in one thousand parts of water, and a draught of this aqueous solution is poisonous. The reason why they use this mixture is lest the mother’s womb be affected by disease.

“1. Is Baptism administered with water of this kind certainly or doubtfully valid?—2. Is it lawful, in order to avoid every danger of disease, to administer the Sacrament of Baptism with water of this kind?—3. Is it lawful to use this water even when pure water can be employed without any danger of disease?

“Response. To the first: Provision will be made in the second.—To the second: It is lawful where a true danger of disease is present.—To the third: Negative.” Holy Office, 21 August 1901.

“A certain infant was baptized at home. The layman baptizing pronounced the form thus: ‘En te baptismo en nome do Padre e do Filho e do Spirito Sancto’ [I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit]. Must such a Baptism be repeated conditionally because of the defect of pronunciation in en te baptismo?—Response. The Baptism in question is valid and therefore is not to be repeated even conditionally.” Holy Office, 13 May 1817.

“Concerning Baptism, from omission of the pronoun te in its conferral, which you report to have happened often because of the ignorance of the Koreans, it is evident that the Sacrament was invalid and therefore is to be renewed.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 September 1841.

“A certain woman bore four children, whom she herself baptized, saying in the vernacular language: ‘I will to minister to you the Sacrament of the Baptism of sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.’ I therefore ask whether Baptism thus conferred is valid, or whether it must be repeated conditionally as doubtful, or finally whether it is null and therefore to be conferred again absolutely?—Response. The Baptism was invalid and therefore Baptism is to be conferred absolutely.” Holy Office, 23 June 1840.

“Is Baptism conferred upon infants with this condition valid: ‘If you wish to be baptized, I baptize you,’ etc.; and what is to be done toward those who, with such a condition appended, were baptized by certain women—namely, are they to be baptized again absolutely or conditionally? “Response. Baptism conferred under the stated condition is valid; nevertheless, that condition is to be wholly omitted henceforth.” Holy Office, 12 June 1850.

What is the remote matter of baptism? - The valid matter of baptism is only true and natural water, fit for washing. This is clear from the words of Christ, John 3:5, and from the Councils, especially from Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent sess. 7, c. 2; Roman Catechism 2 ff.;

L. 153; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 3, 4. - The licit matter of baptism, outside the case of necessity, is only blessed or consecrated water, mixed with the sacred oil of catechumens and chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn baptism. This is clear from the Roman Ritual and the practice of the Church. - But he certainly sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege who, without grave necessity, uses impure, turbid, or muddy water, although this matter is valid. L. 102; E. M.

Note: In danger of death, if certainly valid matter cannot be had, doubtful matter can and must be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient. But then even the lowest degree of probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices, because in necessity one's neighbor must be aided in the best manner in which it can be done. But if the one baptized in this way survives, once there is supply of certainly valid matter, he must again be baptized conditionally: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc. C. De quibus 2, de Bapt. etc. - L. 103.

You will resolve: Valid matter is: water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it has been accidentally changed as regards color, taste, or odor; sulphurous or mineral water; water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in rainy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; turbid water mixed with another substance, provided water is the truly and certainly predominant matter, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water. - Valid and licit matter, where there is a true danger of disease, is water with corrosive bichloride of mercury, in one thousand parts of water. Holy Office, Aug. 21, 1901. - Invalid matter is milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; mud, ink. - Doubtful matter is very thin broth, lye, weak beer, water from dissolved salt, humor flowing from a vine and other plants. L. 103, 104; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 4; C. Non ut 5, de Bapt. etc.; E. M.

Is water produced by chemical art, distilled, poisoned, suitable matter for baptism? - Resp. In the affirmative. For it is true water. - L. 104, 106.

Is ice or snow, not dissolved, suitable matter? - Resp. Some deny it, others doubt, "therefore they say that in necessity it can be used conditionally." L. 104.

What is the proximate matter of baptism? - The proximate matter of baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the diverse Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and the perpetual practice of the Church, and also from Paul to the Ephesians 5:26: Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life. Roman Ritual, de Forma Bapt.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 7, 8.

Can an infant in danger of death be baptized in the womb of the mother? - "If the infant," says the Roman Ritual, "has put forth the head, and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he comes out alive, is he to be baptized again." - If, on the contrary, he is wholly enclosed in the womb and is baptized by washing the body of the mother, "it is certain that the baptism is not valid, because the infant is a person distinct from the mother." - If the womb can in some way be penetrated, and the child wrapped in the afterbirth is reached by means of some instrument, he is probably validly baptized, because that is held as part of the infant.

But because many hold it simply as part of the mother, therefore it also probably is not valid. - The same variety of opinions exists concerning baptism to be conferred on a fetus who has been brought forth wrapped in its own membrane; namely whether it suffices to confer baptism upon the membrane itself, or rather whether this should be broken, so that the ovular matter may be immersed in water, while the form is pronounced at the same time, and then the fetus is drawn out from the water. - If by means of some instrument the afterbirth is cut and the body itself of the infant is reached by the water, it is still more true that baptism is conferred validly. The reason is that such an infant, since he already exists as a man wayfarer, can well receive baptism. But since the matter is not certain, if afterward the living infant is brought into the light, he will have to be baptized again conditionally. L. 107, 123; Pignatelli Consult. 153, tom. 1; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 11; E. M.

Is baptism valid if someone casts an infant into a well or river and pronounces the form? - The first opinion denies it; the second opinion affirms it. "Each is probable." L. 106; La Croix 265. Yet such baptism is truly doubtful; for since there is not immersion and emergence, washing or cleansing is lacking.

Is it licit to throw an infant into a river in order to baptize him?

Resp. In the negative, "although he is soon about to die without baptism, because it is never licit for any cause whatever directly to kill the innocent... But although it is not licit to cast the child into a river, nevertheless it is licit to baptize with water even cold as ice, if no other can be had, a child soon to die, even if it were feared that from this death would be hastened." L. 106. For the action is of itself indifferent, having a twofold effect, and in order to obtain eternal life a small loss of temporal life can well be neglected. - Elbel 13, 14.

Is baptism conferred by application of a moistened hand valid? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that washing is not had, which is the proximate matter of baptism.

Is baptism valid if the baptizer were to wash a part of the body of the one to be baptized by the motion of a moistened finger? - Many affirm; because washing is sufficiently had. - But there are not lacking those who judge the baptism doubtful, because that washing is very imperfect. It is rather an anointing than a washing. Hence baptism is also doubtful if someone is baptized with two or three drops of water. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; Dec. 1, 1898; L. 103 IV, 107, q. 6; Elbel 16; E. M.

Is baptism valid by applying cotton wet with water to the forehead? - Resp. In the affirmative, if water successively flows over the forehead, as can easily be done by pressing the cotton somewhat; for then true washing is had. In the negative, if there is mere contact of water upon the forehead; for then washing is in no way had. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; Suarez de Sacr. d. 20, s. 2; E. M.

Is baptism valid if the pastor or another minister places the infant under falling rain? - Resp. In the affirmative, for in that way he truly washes the infant. Yet it would be better to collect water in the palm of the hand and wash the infant's head with it. On the contrary, baptism would be invalid if conferred by snow, frost, or hail applied to the head and dissolved by natural heat; for washing would not be had from the action of the minister himself. L. 106.

Is triple washing required for baptism? - Certainly it is not required for validity; for one washing suffices so that someone is judged truly washed. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 8. - But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this triple pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual. Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn baptism.

Is baptism valid if the water touches the clothes or hair of the one to be baptized? - If the water touches only the clothes, baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that the man is washed. - But more probably it is valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part is to be followed.

Hence if the one to be baptized is hairy, either let the priest part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while pouring water with the right, or let him baptize him on the forehead. And this also seems to be done if the infant's head abounds in an oily crust which prevents washing on the skin. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 1; L. 107, q. 3; Collectanea of S. C. de P. F. n. 642; E. M.

Is baptism conferred on another part than the head valid? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative, especially if baptism is conferred on some more principal part, e.g., on the breast, shoulders, neck. According as the part is less or more principal, baptism is more or less doubtful. But there will always be some doubt if it is not conferred on the head, since the integrity of life fully consists in the head; "because washing of the man absolutely and simply is of the substance of the sacrament." Suarez de Bapt. d. 20, s. 2, par. Quare; Roman Ritual, de Bapt. parv., par. Nemo. Hence "by precept the head is to be washed, which the practice of the Church has." L. 105. And if necessity has compelled baptism to be conferred on another part than the head, afterward, if it can be done, baptism would have to be repeated conditionally. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 7 ad 3; L. 107, q. 4.

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.

1. “Sempronius, in wintertime, is accustomed to baptize infants with water somewhat warmed, or tepid.” — Is this licit?

R. “Sempronius did not sin from the fact that in wintertime he baptized in water somewhat warmed. Thus Illsung, Babenstuber, and many others. The reason is that the sacrament ought not to harm the life of man, which was instituted for the restoration of life lost by the sin of Adam.” Elbel, 15.

2. Dominic, in a case of necessity, baptizes a boy with a drink of tea. — Is the boy to be baptized again, if this can be done?

R. In the affirmative. For the matter is doubtful. Although that drink is made with a great quantity of water and a small quantity of the herb tea, nevertheless according to the moral estimation of men, a drink of this kind is not held to be, nor is it, natural water. Nevertheless, because only an accidental change of the water is had, the matter seems at least doubtfully sufficient, and therefore it is to be used in a case of necessity. — I. M. 397, 398.

3. A doubt was proposed by the Missionaries: “Whether in those kingdoms in which parents oppose the baptism of their children because of the opinion, in which idolaters sometimes are, that baptism makes them die, they can be baptized in danger of death by using water in which there have been placed some quintessences or strong odors, or else some drugs, such as saffron, or powder of some other kind, to induce a change in the natural color without altering its substance, and by making use of it as if it were a remedy, either in the manner of a shower by pouring the water over a part or over the head, or in the manner of a bath, or to wash or clean the child, or to refresh his eyes, or cleanse his wounds, or even by giving it to him to drink, or in some other manner by way of remedy, as if this actually were so; but above all principally to baptize him, pronouncing in a low voice the form of the sacrament.”

The Holy Office, 8 November 1770, responded: “In the case of extreme and true necessity, in which the death of the child is imminent, and no other and more convenient occasion of visiting him can be given to the missionaries, and the parents are hostile to baptism ... in such a case the missionaries can, indeed must, use proximate and remote matter, although doubtful, since the help, although uncertain, toward the spiritual generation of the child must prevail over the danger of the invalidity of the sacrament. Hence, excepting the manner of giving baptism by way of drink ... which is certainly illicit, and baptism so conferred would be invalid; and excepting also the use of aromatic waters or essences, in which the substance of the water would be altered, all the other manners expressed ... can and must be employed in the case of the alleged extreme necessity, and not otherwise ... warning that in these cases they always take care that some portion of water flow over the head if possible, and, if in no way it can flow over the head, that it flow at least over some principal part of the body of the child. Furthermore, they make certain that in the case in which these children, thus baptized with doubt about the validity of the sacrament, should recover health, the missionaries seek every better way to baptize them again sub conditione and to instruct them.”

4. Anna, a midwife, is often in the necessity of baptizing newly born infants who are in danger of life. But because she fears lest she use a doubtful or less certain form of baptism, for greater security she takes care to utter it now in one way, now in another, and, as she thinks, in a better way, according as in various cases the fear of erring first suggests to her that it must be done. Hence, 1. sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Spirit. 2. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the almighty Father, and of the only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete. 3. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of our Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 4. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. 5. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit.

Question. What is to be said about the validity of the various forms which Anna used?

R. Concerning the first form, Father Gury, 191, says: “The form is doubtful, because the unity of the divine essence does not seem to be sufficiently expressed. Yet more probably it is valid, because the sense of the form is not essentially changed. But because of the controversy, the baptism is to be repeated.” Elbel, 34, speaking of this same form, says: “It seems sufficiently certain that baptism conferred in this manner is valid, since both the Trinity of Persons is sufficiently expressed, and the unity of the divine essence by the little word in the name. Hence Gobat, tract 2, no. 721, says: I would not order one who had been washed thus to be dipped again, because neither authority nor reason permits calling it into doubt. Nevertheless all confess that this manner of baptizing is gravely illicit, since it is against the practice and prescription of the Church.” Certainly St. Alphonsus in no. 108, cited by Father Gury, has nothing about this form. But in no. 111 he says absolutely: “Baptism is valid if words are added to the form which do not corrupt the sense; for example ... if someone were to say: I baptize thee in the name of God the Father, who created thee, etc.” Now it is evident and certain that that addition God does not corrupt the form, and that it is understood in the expression of each Person. But the mystery of the unity of the divine nature, signified by the word in the name, remains altogether intact. Nor indeed from that repetition of the name of God does there follow a plurality of Gods, “because one and the same name can be named and invoked again and again without plurality; as it is truly said, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet they cannot be called Gods.” Suarez, d. 21, s. 3, par. Sed quid; La Croix, book 6, part 1, no. 34.

The second form, as the same St. Alphonsus has in the cited place, is valid. For nothing is added in it whence a substantial alteration is had. And St. Thomas, part 3, question 60, article 8, explicitly says: “If someone says: I baptize thee in the name of God the almighty Father, and of his only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, it will be true baptism.” Cf. Lugo, d. 2, nos. 117, 125.

The third form seems doubtful. For the word our seems to take away the true sense of the form. For the word Father in the form of baptism is determined to signify only the Person of the Father, who is Father with respect to his only-begotten Son. But the added word our now determines another sense, namely it causes God the Creator to be signified without distinction of Persons. This also seems to be drawn from the Response of the Holy Office, 27 January 1892. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F., no. 2160.

The fourth form seems valid. For the changing of the word Son into the word Word does not take away the true sense of the form. D’Annibale, no. 272, note 26, has it as valid, and Suarez, d. 21, s. 4, par. Secunda sententia, also has it as valid.

Finally, the fifth form is also valid. For the omission of that word Holy does not take away the sense of the form. For the word Spirit, which is imposed to signify the property of the third Person, namely passive spiration, which it signifies formally, sufficiently signifies the third Person. And thus also in Sacred Scripture the third Person is simply called Spirit, John 7:39. Suarez, d. 21, s. 4, par. In hac re; D’Annibale, no. 272, note 26; Liguori, 109, at the end.

5. Metrodorus, a parish priest, wishing to impose the name of a girl in the baptism itself and to dedicate her to the Blessed Virgin Mary, baptized her thus: I baptize thee, Mary, in the name, etc. — Licitly and validly?

R. Illicitly, because it is against the Ritual; validly, because the form is in no way substantially changed. The same is to be said if, from the same intention, the name is added in the vocative case after the word Father, if namely it is said: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Mary, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the form even in this Case is not substantially changed, neither from the nature of the thing, as is clear, nor from the intention of the agent. Indeed Cardinal De Lugo, d. 2, no. 107, says: “The form of baptism will be valid if, in place of those words, I baptize thee, it is said, I baptize Peter, although that word, Peter, is of itself equivocal for signifying this or that Peter.”

6. Daniel, a secular man, baptizing a boy in necessity, although he used the customary form of baptism, nevertheless did not intend to baptize in the name of the divine Father, in the name of the divine Son, in the name of the divine Holy Spirit; but in the name of the father of that same boy, in the name of the firstborn son of the aforesaid father, in the name of the created spirit, namely the soul itself of the boy to be baptized.

Question. Did Daniel validly baptize?

R. “The baptism is null. The reason ... because for the valid confecting of the sacrament there is necessary a legitimate intention of the minister, namely of doing the sacrament, or at least of doing what the Church does, or what Christ instituted ... And although he used the legitimate form of baptism, nevertheless, because he did not use those words in the legitimate sense, but in a foreign sense, hence he effected nothing, just as a priest would effect nothing ... if, uttering these words, This is my body, he understood not the Body of Christ, but his own, proper to himself.” Elbel, 35.

Appositely Lugo, d. 2, nos. 113–118, speaking of the form of baptism, says: “If the minister sins in the due intention of signifying, not wishing to signify the wise Father, but a Father who is not wise, then he would do nothing, not from defect of the words, but from defect of intention, just as if one consecrating did not have the intention of signifying the true presence of the Body of Christ by that word is, but only an improper presence and according to figure, he would not consecrate.” When, however, on the part of intention there is present the intention of doing what Christ commanded, and there is at the same time an error in the mind, an error of this kind in no way stands in the way of the validity of the sacrament. For the error remains only in the mind; neither do the words signify it according to themselves, nor do they signify it from the intention of the one uttering them. For by the very fact that someone has a sincere intention of doing what the Church does, he now wills by those words to signify that which Christ and the Church wish to signify. Wherefore it is required for the validity of the form “both that it signify that which Christ willed, as far as concerns the words, that is, that they be of themselves apt for signifying, and that they also signify that same thing on the part of the one uttering, who intends to signify this very thing; for without this there is no speech. For a parrot also utters words which of themselves signify something, and yet it does not speak, because it does not intend to signify that thing by the words. Similarly, therefore, in that case that form would not be a speech signifying, in the notion of speech, that which Christ willed, since the minister does not utter the words to signify that, but something else.”

236. Principles. - I. The valid matter of Baptism is natural water alone, or elemental water, suitable for washing. It is of Faith. This is clear: 1. from the words of Christ, John 3.5: Unless a man be born again of water, etc. - It is clear: 2. from the Councils, especially from the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, on Baptism: If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall twist to some metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema.

II. The licit matter of Baptism, outside a case of necessity, is only blessed or consecrated water, and mixed with chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn Baptism. This is clear from Canon Law. See below, on the ceremonies of Baptism. But he certainly sins gravely by a sin of sacrilege who, without grave necessity, uses impure, turbid, or feculent water, although this matter is valid. - St. Ligorius, n. 102, etc.

III. In danger of death, if matter certainly valid cannot be had, doubtful matter must be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient... Then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices, because in necessity one must come to the aid of the neighbor in the best way in which it can be done. But if one so baptized survives, when there is an abundance of matter certainly valid, he must again be baptized under this condition: If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc. - Common.

237. Resolves. - 1. Valid matter is: 1. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; 2. water resolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although accidentally it has been changed as to color, taste, or smell; 3. sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4. turbid water, mixed with another substance, provided that water is the matter truly and certainly predominating, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water. - St. Ligorius, n. 103. - Elbel, n. 8, and others commonly.

2. Invalid matter is: 1. milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2. wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; 3. mud, ink; 4. snow, ice, hoarfrost, and other similar things not yet resolved, because in this state they are not natural water ¹.

¹ ** Better, as the VV. observe (p. 929, n. 87), St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 104): It is doubted, 4. whether ice or snow not melted is suitable matter. Concina and Croix likewise deny it (lib. 6, p. 1, n. 262) with Tanner; but Aversa, cited by Croix, and Hurtado, Praepositus, and Puteanus, cited by Renzi, doubt; therefore they say that in necessity it can be used under condition.

3. Doubtful matter is: 1. very thin broth, lye, weak beer, water from dissolved salt; thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 103; 2. humor flowing from a vine and from other plants. - St. Ligorius, n. 104.

238. • The proximate matter of Baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the different Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and from the perpetual practice of the Church, as well as from Paul, Eph. 5.26: Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life.

239. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether a child can be validly baptized in the mother's womb?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, more probably, if the child in the womb is reached by water through some intervening instrument; because, since the infant already exists as a wayfarer man, he can be validly baptized. Nor is it an obstacle that the child is still wrapped in the secundina, because this is considered as a kind of part of the infant. Nevertheless, he must be baptized under condition, because it is not certainly established whether Baptism conferred in this way is valid. Therefore, if the child is born, he must again be baptized under condition. - St. Ligorius, n. 107. More recently, however, the skill of physicians has introduced another method by which a child not yet brought forth into the light can be baptized more certainly. Namely, an instrument has been invented by which the secundina is cut; and thus water, by another instrument being applied, can arrive so as immediately to touch the very body of the fetus ¹.

¹ Compare the things said in Vol. I, in the note to n. 401, where abortion is treated.

** Yet here the doubt must be satisfied which the VV. raise at this place (p. 929, in note): Since St. Alphonsus, they say, calls the validity of Baptism conferred on a child existing in the mother's womb only sufficiently probable, Father Ballerini certainly errs in the note to n. 401, tom. 1, when he says: According to those things which St. Alphonsus discusses in lib. 6, n. 107, after Benedict XIV, we can be altogether certain concerning the validity of Baptism thus conferred on infants enclosed in the womb.

Resp. This remained: that the VV. should give the reason for that word, ERRS. Indeed they would rightly have written so if in Father B.'s note it were said that the validity of Baptism thus conferred is handed down as certain both by St. Alphonsus and by Benedict XIV. But no such assertion is seen there; rather it is merely said that we can be certain according to those things which St. Alphonsus discusses after Benedict XIV. Now behold the easy and obvious reason for this affirmation. For, to prevent us from being able to be certain concerning the validity of this Baptism, two things especially stood in the way: one, that he who has not yet been born cannot be reborn; the other, that an infant in the womb cannot be washed, as St. Thomas objected. But the first difficulty St. Doctor Alphonsus has now solved so lucidly that he has utterly destroyed it. To this response it will be useful to have added this other reason (in Comitolius, lib. 1, q. 3, n. 1): If it is not a Sacrament, it is not one because birth from the womb is necessary; but that this is not necessary by essential necessity is clear from this: because a child enclosed in the womb of a dead mother is baptized after the mother has been cut open; which child cannot properly be called born. And an illustrious example stands forth in St. Raymond, to whom for this reason the surname NON-BORN was given. But as to the other difficulty, even if the matter could have seemed less certain to the St. Doctor, who merely intimates that the child can duly be washed in the womb, citing only the testimony of Benedict XIV after Comitolius, yet concerning that matter there can now be no further doubt. Hence, indeed, the argument which Comitolius (l.c.) also reports thus: Where nothing essential is lacking to Baptism, there it is necessary that there be true Baptism, since four essentials are considered in Baptism: matter, form, the minister with the intention of the Church, and the human supposit receiving the Sacrament. Here those four are found; therefore there can be no doubt concerning Baptism.

But, you will say, why did St. Alphonsus call this opinion merely sufficiently probable? Resp. Let it be permitted to conjecture that the St. Doctor thus moderated his judgment because what was being maintained concerning the necessary washing did not seem sufficiently certain to him. Hence (l.c.) he also has recourse to the doctrine of Sylvester and Vasquez, who say that an infant wrapped in the secundina is validly baptized; and he adds that this is judged probable by Laymann. And from these things it is clear how the state of the controversy, treated so clearly by St. Alphonsus, paved the way for us, so that what could seem to him only probable can now already be certainly established.

And from these things it is concluded that certainly in the state of the controversy as St. Alphonsus handles it, room is left for other questions concerning the dangers which would seem to have to be undergone by the mother, in order that the eternal salvation of the offspring may be provided for. But from this it cannot likewise be inferred that the same thing has place when the condition of the controversy has become different.

QUESTION 2. Whether Baptism is valid if the water touches only the clothes or the hair of the person to be baptized?

Resp. 1. If the water touches only the clothes, Baptism is certainly invalid, because thus no one would say that the man is washed; 2. however, it is more probably valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part must be followed. - St. Ligorius, n. 107, q. 3. - Hence, if the person to be baptized has hair, the Priest should either part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while he pours the water with the right, or baptize him on the forehead. - Scov.

QUESTION 3. Whether Baptism conferred on another part than on the head is valid?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, more probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless, if necessity compelled this, afterwards, if it can be done, Baptism should be repeated under condition. - St. Ligorius, ibid., q. 4.

240. • QUESTION 4. Whether one or another drop of water suffices for baptizing?

Resp. The answer is negative, more probably, especially if the water does not flow, because that cannot be called washing, which is altogether required for Baptism. - Thus commonly. Nevertheless it seems to be doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity should be used. - St. Ligorius, n. 107, q. 6. - Elbel, n. 16. But they commonly say that the matter is then certain if the one baptizing, by movement of a moistened finger, washed a part of the body. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 5. Whether triple washing is required for Baptism?

Resp. 1. It is certainly not required for validity; for one washing suffices, so that someone is judged truly washed. - Thus all with St. Thomas, part 3, q. 66, art. 8.

Resp. 2. But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this triple pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual. Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn Baptism.

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. Three things are required for the validity of Baptism: 1) the intention of the minister, at least virtual, of doing what the Church does; 2) valid matter and form posited together; 3) a capable subject, for which in an adult there is required the intention, at least habitual, of receiving the sacrament. But if one of these is doubtfully present or has been present, Baptism, just as in a case of necessity it is to be conferred, so also is to be renewed: conditionally.

Concerning these, no special difficulty occurs, in relation to the present questions about embryology, except nevertheless for the matter of the sacrament, about which, therefore, we shall speak especially. But so that the exposition may be more complete and more perfect from every part, and the whole synthesis of theological doctrine may be seen, and at the same time the solution of cases may be manifest in all things, we also add the principles to be held concerning the form of the sacrament.

II. The remote matter required for validity is natural or elementary water in a liquid state, as is established from Jn. III, 5, and Acts of the Apostles VIII, 36; from the rituals; from the Fourth Lateran, Florence, and Trent defining it, sess. 7, can. 2; i.e., everything which comes under the use and name of water among men. Such is water of rivers, rain, a well, a spring, ponds, cisterns, a bath, marshes, lakes, the sea, whether bitter or poisoned or sweet, whether warm and boiling or cold and icy, whether blessed or not. Likewise water dissolved from snow, ice, hail, dew, mists, condensed vapors, or flowing from stones (sweat of pavement), leaves, or walls in rainy or winter time; likewise water obtained by chemical art or by distillation of another element, if it is pure from foreign elements; likewise water mixed with foreign matter in a small quantity, provided that not only chemically but also according to common estimation water is certainly predominant and it is still called water, e.g., turbid or somewhat muddy water, mineral, sulphurous, ferruginous water, etc.

Hence:

1. invalid matter is: wine, oil, broth of flesh or fat, fluids of an animal or human body: milk, blood, urine, saliva, tears, sweat, mucus, amniotic fluid, spittle, phlegms, etc.; sap pressed from trees, fruits (apples, pears, cherries), flowers, herbs, roots, grains; snow, ice, hail, hoarfrost, vapor, and other things not dissolved because they are not suitable for ablution; water very much mixed, so that it has more of a foreign substance than of water, or is no longer suitable for ablution, e.g., mud, ink, very good beer, good coffee, good tea, good broth, lye. For all these things are not water; or if they are, according to common estimation they do not have the use or name of water.

2. doubtful matter is thin broth, lye not too thick, small beer, ordinary tea-water or coffee-water, slight ink, water dissolved from salt, artificial water extracted by distillation from flowers or herbs, e.g., rose-water, violet-water, etc., or flowing from a vine or trees.

III. The proximate valid matter is the ablution of the one to be baptized by the one baptizing; otherwise the sense of the form would not be verified, and besides this is held by universal tradition. It is said:

1. Ablution, for which it is required that water immediately and physically touch the body and successively flow and run over some part of it, so that it is judged washed or cleansed. For this, however, a small quantity suffices; nor is it necessary that bodily filth be wiped away: for the ablution of Baptism is ordered to spiritual cleansing alone. It can be done either a) by movement of the one to be baptized in the water, or b) by movement of the water upon the one to be baptized; namely:

a) by immersion, for which it is required that someone be moved in or under the water; whence Baptism would be invalid if someone were held unmoved in unmoved water; and probably, according to certain authors, also that he be drawn out from the water. Hence an ablution which kills, by which someone would throw an infant into a river, is doubtfully valid; besides, it is gravely illicit because evils are not to be done that goods may come about. But the very throwing is already evil of itself, as tending directly only to killing, nor does it immediately have a good effect, as ablution, but only mediately and by accident, because in fact it is terminated rather to water and ablution than to something else. Namely, the ablution in the case is an effect of the throwing, which, even if it were not done into water, would nevertheless cause death.¹ Nevertheless, it is licit to wash with icy water, if no other is available, even if death were feared as about to be hastened somewhat, because this action of itself and immediately tends to ablution and sanctification, not to killing; whence death would happen by accident and would be compensated by the more excellent good of eternal life;

¹ Cf. Billuart, de Bapt., art. 3, § III.

b) also by infusion and by sprinkling, although this last mode is dangerous in practice; for these some movement of water is required. Whence invalid matter is the mere touch of water without flow, a drop or wet cloth remaining on the forehead; ablution performed by one or another drop, or in the manner of an anointing, is easily doubtful (S. Off., 14 Dec. 1898); it is valid if someone by movement of a finger or moistened cloth would wash a part of the body.

2. Ablution of the one to be baptized, i.e., a) of the whole body or of a principal part, namely the head, "in which all the interior and exterior senses flourish" (S. Th., III, q. 66, a. 7, ad 3). Baptism is valid if it is done upon the head covered with an ulcerous crust, because the crust is nothing but the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease, and otherwise a man whose whole head were covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor baptized. Baptism is doubtful if the ablution is done on other members than the head, because in none is the integrity of life as in the head; and it is the more doubtful the more it is done on a member less notable and more remote from the head; whence it is more probably valid if it is done on the heart, breast, neck, shoulder-blades, shoulders; more doubtful on the arms or legs; very doubtful on the foot, hand, finger;

b) of the body itself, which must be physically and immediately touched. Hence there is doubt concerning the value of Baptism conferred on hairs, even of the head, because they are not certainly parts of the body;² it is more doubtful if on beard or nails; very doubtful if on the umbilical cord or on one of the two membranes which immediately envelop the infant in the mother's uterus and which are born from the ovum, for although they are of fetal origin, nevertheless they are not a permanent part of the infant but rather a covering or transitory instrument; almost certainly invalid if on the third, exterior membrane enveloping the fetus, because this arises from the substance of the mother; invalid if it is done on the clothing or body of the mother (S. Off., 21 May 1671).

² But if the head is covered with hair, the priest must, while with the right hand he pours water upon the crown of the head, with the left separate the hairs, or take care that the water run over the temples of the head, or, what is easier in practice, confer Baptism on the forehead, because that it must be washed on the crown is nowhere prescribed. Cf. Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 60. Certain authors, such as Lugo and Genicot, judge Baptism conferred on the hairs to be as certain as on the skin, for if the hairs of an animal are washed, the animal is said to be washed. Nevertheless it can be answered that this is true of an animal which cannot be washed otherwise, not of a man who by his nature does not have hairs everywhere, and therefore can be washed immediately.

3. Ablution by the one baptizing: for if it were done by the baptized person, or by a third person, or by a natural cause alone, e.g., while a child falls into water, the words would be false: I baptize thee. Baptism is valid if someone holds an infant under falling water without the help of another, or under water already poured out by another, because the one holding is the sole cause of the ablution; but if another intends or knows that he is pouring water upon the infant, Baptism is doubtful because it is doubted whether the one who holds or the one by whose help the water descends is the cause of the ablution.

IV. For liceity there is required pure and specially consecrated water; and in the Latin Church the ablution is to be done by triple infusion, in the manner of a cross. He sins mortally against reverence toward the sacrament who without necessity employs impure, dirty, turbid water, or who in solemn Baptism does not use consecrated water, or changes the usual manner of ablution, or does not make the triple infusion. But if in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water is to be employed; otherwise natural water (S. Off., 22 Jun. 1883). Outside a case of necessity new water is to be blessed (17 Apr. 1839).

In merely private Baptism, even by a deacon not commissioned, it is better to use blessed water, or, if the one baptizing is a priest, even consecrated water.

Since every sacrament is constituted essentially from matter and form, we must treat 1. the matter and 2. the form of baptism.

98. 1. The valid remote matter of baptism is all and only natural water.

Thus teaches Catholic dogma.²⁷ The Council of Trent²⁸ defines: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore twists into some metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 'Unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit,' let him be anathema."

St. Thomas²⁹ shows by several reasons how fittingly Christ willed water to be employed in baptism:

a) Water washes and cools; thus baptism washes from the stains of sin and mitigates the ardor of concupiscence.

b) Baptism is a sacrament than which no other is given that is more necessary. Therefore, its matter must be easily found everywhere on earth. Now, no matter is as common as water.³⁰

A few heretics, such as certain Gnostics, Manichaeans, Albigensians, and Cathars, denied that water is the matter of baptism. Luther and Beza, however, taught that in a case of necessity baptism can also be conferred in another fluid matter.

Note. In practice, what constitutes the valid matter of baptism is to be taken not so much from chemical analysis as from the common estimation of men. Hence:

a) Certainly valid matter is water from a spring, well, river, sea, or rain; water melted from ice, snow, or hail; distilled water; sulfurous water and other mineral water; water to which a small quantity of another matter is admixed, although its color, odor, or taste is thereby altered, provided, however, that water always remains the predominant matter. Thus on August 21, 1901, the Holy Office declared that one-thousandth part of sublimated mercuric bichloride (Sublimat) can be admixed with water to forestall the danger of infecting the mother if an infant is to be baptized in the maternal womb.

b) Doubtful matter is broth, coffee, tea, beer, liquids expressed from plants,³¹ etc. The reason is that in all these and similar liquids water indeed greatly predominates and is not chemically transmuted, but according to the common estimation of men it is no longer called water. Therefore, outside a case of extreme necessity it is not lawful to use doubtful matter of this kind.

c) Certainly invalid matter is milk, blood, saliva, wine, oil, and the humors of the human body, such as sweat, urine, etc.³² The reason is that although a great part of water is contained in these matters, nevertheless that water has been changed either chemically or at least according to the common estimation of men.

²⁷ Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1 (Denz., n. 430); Eugene IV, Decree for the Armenians (Denz., n. 696).

²⁸ Sess. 7, can. 2 on baptism (Denz., n. 858).

²⁹ S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 3.

³⁰ Cf. Cat. Rom. P. 2, c. 2, q. 8.

³¹ Thus according to St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 103); St. Thomas seems to hold liquids from plants to be invalid matter, S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 4 ad 5.

³² Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 103.

99. 2. The licit remote matter in solemn baptism is consecrated baptismal water that is becomingly clean. Thus it is from the Roman Ritual.³³ Solemn baptism is considered to be that which is performed with all the ceremonies, whether in a church or in another place, even in a private house, as was already said. In baptism of necessity, that is, when death is imminent, "if baptismal water is not available and danger threatens, let the priest use plain water." Thus the old Roman Ritual.³⁴ Nevertheless, holy or blessed water seems to be preferred to plain water. In private baptism, that is, in one which is administered outside the moment of death without the ceremonies, baptismal water is likewise to be employed if it can easily be had; otherwise blessed or holy water is to be employed. Such private baptism sometimes occurs in the reception of a heretic returning to the bosom of the Church if baptism is repeated under condition.³⁵

In extreme necessity, if pure water is lacking, it is lawful to baptize with any matter, even doubtful matter, but not with matter that is certainly invalid.

He sins gravely who, outside a case of necessity, solemnly baptizes with unconsecrated water; likewise, he who baptizes with muddy or foul-smelling water, or water mixed with other matters, because this is a grave irreverence against the sacrament. If consecrated baptismal water has become foul-smelling or impure and no other pure water can be had, then plain pure water is to be employed in baptism rather than that foul baptismal water. If, however, there is no danger in delay, new baptismal water must be consecrated according to the special formula prescribed in the Roman Ritual.³⁶³⁷

In the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of September 8, 1869 (n. 42),³⁸ missionaries are commanded to preserve consecrated baptismal water in some becoming place and vessel and to carry it with them when they must make a journey to administer baptism, if, however, this can easily be done; otherwise - if, namely, baptismal water cannot be had without notable inconvenience - it is lawful in solemn baptism "to use common water, especially if it has been blessed."³⁹

When baptismal water seems likely to run short, it is lawful to admix natural water, and this even more than once, provided, however, that each time the quantity of natural water to be poured in is less than the baptismal water already present.⁴⁰ Even in baptisms which in some regions, with the permission of the bishop, are performed outside the church in private houses, consecrated baptismal water is to be employed. For it is solemn baptism.

If the baptismal water is too cold, it can be warmed by bringing it near a fire, or even, as the Roman Ritual permits, by pouring in a little very hot natural water. Likewise, nothing prevents a small quantity of water from the Jordan from being admixed with the baptismal water⁴¹ if the parents request and procure it.

³³ Tit. 2, c. 1, n. 5; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 757, § 1.

³⁴ Tit. 2, c. 2, n. 29. These words are not found in the new Ritual.

³⁵ Thus, for example, it is found in the acts of the First Council of Westminster, c. 16, n. 8. Baptism of this kind is not to be performed publicly, but altogether privately with holy water and without ceremonies.

³⁶ Tit. 2, c. 8; Code of Canon Law, c. 757, § 3.

³⁷ Cf. Holy Office, April 17, 1839.

³⁸ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1346.

³⁹ On April 6, 1741, the Holy Office (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 325) determined that, when baptismal water is lacking, natural water should be employed rather than blessed water; but on June 20, 1883 (ibid., n. 1598), it decreed generally: "When baptismal water is not available, blessed water according to the formula in the new editions and in the appendix of the Roman Ritual is to be employed, insofar as this can be done; otherwise natural water is to be employed." The sense of this response seems to be: When baptismal water blessed on Holy Saturday or on the Saturday before Pentecost is not available, baptismal water blessed according to the short formulas found in the Roman Ritual is to be employed.

⁴⁰ Rit. Rom., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 6, and Code of Canon Law, c. 757, § 2.

⁴¹ Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 58.

100. Scholion. On the consecration of baptismal water. In churches in which a baptismal font exists, the baptismal water must be blessed twice, and not only once, during the year, that is, on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost, notwithstanding any contrary custom, which is altogether to be eliminated.⁴² The old baptismal water present on those days is to be poured into the sacrarium.⁴³ It was already said above that in a case of necessity baptismal water can be blessed on other days also. The consecration of the baptismal font is to be performed with oils recently consecrated, that is, on Holy Thursday of the same year. But if on Holy Saturday the new oils could not yet be obtained, then a twofold mode of acting is lawful: 1. to bless the font without the infusion of the sacred oils, which the priest is afterward to pour in privately at a suitable time while reciting the omitted prayers; 2. to bless the baptismal font with the old oils if, namely, baptism must be administered before the arrival of the new oils.⁴⁴

⁴² Sacred Congregation of Rites, April 13, 1874 (Decr. auth., n. 3331); Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 10, 1922 (Acta Ap. Sed. XV, 227).

⁴³ Rit. Rom., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 5. In the Eastern Church the priest consecrates the baptismal water whenever he administers baptism.

⁴⁴ Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 31, 1896 (Decr. auth., n. 3879).

101. 3. The proximate matter of baptism is the application of water performed by the minister in such a way that, according to common judgment, a true washing is present. This washing can be performed in three ways: by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring. According to the discipline now in force in the Roman Church, solemn baptism must be administered not by one but by a threefold pouring or immersion.

During the first twelve centuries baptism was more commonly administered by immersion, both in the Latin Church and in the Greek Church. Even St. Thomas⁴⁵ calls immersion the more common and more praiseworthy usage. Nevertheless, baptism by pouring or sprinkling was always in force also. For it is not likely that the Apostles, who baptized 3,000 men on one day of Pentecost, employed immersion. Likewise, the so-called clinics, or the sick lying in bed, were often baptized in bed; for them baptism by immersion was scarcely possible. Moreover, St. Paul is narrated to have baptized the jailer with his household in prison,⁴⁶ which does not seem to have been performed by immersion. Furthermore, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. 7, St. Cyprian,⁴⁷ Eusebius,⁴⁸ and others testify that baptism by pouring was employed from the most ancient times.

Therefore the Greeks and others err who teach that baptism by immersion alone is valid. The reason is that the essence of baptism consists in washing. Now, a true washing can also be had through pouring. From the thirteenth century onward baptism by pouring became more common in the Latin Church because baptism by immersion is accustomed to introduce grave inconveniences.

Nevertheless, even in present times baptism could be performed by immersion; for the Roman Ritual⁴⁹ says: "Although baptism can be validly conferred either by the pouring of water, by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second mode, or a mode mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained according to the custom of the Churches, so that by a threefold washing the head of the one to be baptized is poured over or immersed"; and the same Ritual describes how immersion is to be performed in the baptism of adults. In practice, it is not lawful to depart from the custom in force in each Church.

⁴⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 7.

⁴⁶ Acts 16:33.

⁴⁷ Ep. 69, n. 12.

⁴⁸ Hist. eccl. 6, 43 (Migne, Patr. lat. 20, 623).

⁴⁹ Tit. 2, c. 1, de form. bapt., n. 10; the Code of Canon Law, c. 758, says nearly the same.

102. Mode of baptizing. The pouring of water must be a) threefold; b) upon the head of the one to be baptized; c) the water must flow and not merely touch; d) the water must flow immediately upon the skin of the one to be baptized; e) the same minister must pronounce the form and perform the washing. Thus it is from the precept of the Ritual, which seems to oblige gravely unless, because of necessity, another mode of baptizing must be employed.

a) The pouring must be threefold, and is to be performed in this manner: The priest, saying the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father," pours the water the first time; saying, "and of the Son," the second time; saying, "and of the Holy Spirit," the third time.

b) It must be upon the head of the one to be baptized.

For since a washing of the whole body is not required, it suffices, and is commanded, that the head be washed as the principal part of the body in which all human senses, both exterior and interior, meet.⁵⁰ In a case of necessity, which can occur especially in the baptism of an infant in the maternal womb, it is lawful to perform the washing on other parts of the body also, for example, on the foot, arm, or breast. For greater security, however, baptism is afterward to be repeated under condition if this is possible.

c) The water must flow.

For the proximate matter of baptism is a washing. Now, it cannot rightly be called a washing unless the water is carried from one part of the skin to another. Hence, if only one or another drop touches the skin and adheres immovably to it, there is no washing, and therefore the baptism is invalid. For this reason, not a few baptisms conferred by Protestant ministers are invalid, because they were performed with an aspergillum or with so small a quantity of water that it could not flow. If someone washes the head of the one to be baptized with a cloth or sponge moistened with water, the baptism is considered valid because a true washing is present.⁵¹ But if he merely touches and, as it were, anoints the forehead of the one to be baptized with a moistened thumb, the baptism is invalid or certainly doubtful.⁵²

d) The water must flow immediately upon the skin of the one to be baptized.

Hence baptism is certainly invalid if the water touches only the clothing; but it is doubtfully valid if the water touches only the hair of the person to be baptized. Therefore, in practice the baptizing priest must take care to part the hair somewhat with his left hand so that the skin appears when he pours the water with his right hand. Likewise, it is good if the baptismal water also flows over part of the forehead, so that every doubt concerning validity is removed.

When an infant is baptized in the maternal womb while still enveloped in the so-called "secondines," baptism is invalid because these afterbirth membranes are, as it were, an extraneous covering of the infant, and therefore in this case the water does not touch the infant himself. Just as baptism conferred upon clothing is invalid, so the same must be said of baptism conferred upon any other extraneous covering. A fortiori, baptism is invalid if the water is poured not upon the infant but upon the skin of the mother.

But it can scarcely be called into doubt whether baptism conferred upon an infant still existing in the maternal womb is valid if it is morally certain that the water, after the "secondines" have been perforated, touched the skin of the infant. For the reason adduced against the validity of such baptism is specious rather than solid, namely, that this infant, not yet born naturally, cannot be reborn spiritually. The response is that an infant living in the maternal womb is a true man in the wayfaring state, having an immortal soul. But there is no reason why a true man cannot be baptized. Moreover, it is false that such an infant has in no way been born. For he is a true man, as all must now concede, and nothing is lacking to him except separation from his mother, which seems to be something merely accidental.

Nevertheless, in practice, both because the minister is ordinarily a layman and not so skilled in baptizing, and because of the difficulty of truly washing an infant in the maternal womb, the Church commands baptism conferred upon an infant in the maternal womb to be repeated under condition.⁵³ Moreover, below, n. 129, it will again be discussed how infants in the maternal womb are to be baptized.

e) The same minister must apply the form and perform the washing.

Hence baptism would be invalid if someone, seeing an infant falling into water, willed to baptize him by saying, "I baptize you, etc."; or if one person pronounces the form and another performs the pouring or immersion, as occurred in the case in which the one to be baptized descended into a pool and a minister standing at the edge pronounced the form.⁵⁴ But baptism is valid if someone, taking an infant, places him beneath falling rain or water flowing from a channel while at the same time pronouncing the form,⁵⁵ or even if he were to throw the infant into water. The reason is that it seems indifferent whether the water is brought to the infant or the infant to the water. Nevertheless, if in the latter case the infant is certainly going to die, such a mode of acting seems illicit, since it would be a direct killing.⁵⁶ Noldin,⁵⁷ Lehmkuhl,⁵⁸ and Ballerini-Palmieri⁵⁹ teach that this mode of acting is lawful. Moreover, with St. Alphonsus I say: "Since such a question is scarcely reduced to practice, I consider it superfluous to linger over it."⁶⁰

⁵⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 7 ad 3.

⁵¹ Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 60.

⁵² The response of the Holy Office of December 14, 1898, seems worthy of note: "After the recent death of the pastor of the place N., it was discovered by certain testimonies that for many years he had conferred baptism upon children not by a washing, but by way of an anointing on the forehead with his thumb moistened in baptismal water. It is impossible to say how many children and from what time were thus baptized: many are now adults and have departed for other regions; many have already died. What is to be thought concerning the validity of this baptism, and what is to be done in practice with those thus baptized? Response: Care is to be taken that they be baptized again privately under condition, with the matter and form alone employed without ceremonies, and according to the mind. The mind is that the bishop investigate in a special manner whether any of those thus baptized were promoted to sacred orders."

⁵³ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, March 16, 1897.

⁵⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, November 17, 1916 (Acta Ap. Sed. VIII, 480).

⁵⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 106.

⁵⁶ Cf. Billuart, De bapt., diss. 1, a. 3, § 3.

⁵⁷ Sum. Theol. mor. III, n. 60.

⁵⁸ Theol. mor. II, n. 86.

⁵⁹ Opus theol. IV, n. 729.

⁶⁰ L.c.

103. In the Latin Church the form of baptism is: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But in the Eastern Church: "Let N., the servant of Christ, be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Certain Rituals of the Eastern Rite have not "let him be baptized," but "he is baptized." Which mode is better is not so established.⁶¹ This entire doctrine is found in the Decree for the Armenians in the Bull Exsultate Deo of Eugene IV:

"The form [of baptism] is: 'I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' Nevertheless, we do not deny that true baptism is also perfected through these words: 'Such a servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' or: 'Such a one is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'; for since the principal cause from which baptism has its power is the Holy Trinity, but the instrumental cause is the minister who outwardly delivers the sacrament, if the act which is exercised through the minister himself is expressed with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected."⁶²

From these words it follows that at least two things must necessarily be expressed in the baptismal form, namely: a) the act of baptizing performed by the minister; b) the unity of the divine nature, which is signified by the word name, and the distinction of the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, by whom baptism is conferred.

a) The expression of the act of baptizing includes three things, namely, the minister, the subject, and the action itself.

Therefore it is required, first, that the minister himself be signified in some way in the formula.

"It is necessary that the cause of baptism be expressed in the form of baptism. Now, the cause is twofold: one is principal, from which it has its power, which is the Most Holy Trinity; but the other is instrumental, namely, the minister who outwardly delivers the sacrament. And therefore it is necessary that mention of both be made in the form of baptism." Thus St. Thomas,⁶³ whom Suarez⁶⁴ contradicts: "It is not of the essence of this form that the person of the minister be expressed in it. This is a certain conclusion." So far is the conclusion of Suarez from being certain that, on the contrary, it is not lawful to follow it in practice.

For it is required that the person of the minister be expressed at least in an indirect manner. Hence, for example, in the French language the form "te baptise au nom du Père, etc." ("baptize you in the name of the Father"), with the word Je ("I") omitted, would be certainly doubtful, not to say invalid. In the Latin, Greek, and certain other languages, the person of the minister is sufficiently signified by the verb baptizo, etc., itself; hence the form "I baptize you," etc., with the word Ego omitted, would be certainly valid, although illicit. But in very many languages, for example, French, German, English, Dutch, etc., it is necessarily required that the word "I" be expressed.

The person of the minister is also expressed in the form employed by the Greeks, although not so clearly and perfectly as among the Latins. For in the word "he is baptized" or "let him be baptized" there is understood: by me, just as Arcudius and Goar expressly note in their Greek Euchologies.⁶⁵

Furthermore, it is necessary, second, that the subject be signified in the baptismal form.

Therefore, if someone were to omit the word "you" and not substitute anything equivalent, for example, "your lordship," he would baptize invalidly. According to the Roman Ritual, not only the word "you" but also the name of the one to be baptized is to be expressed, for example, "Peter, I baptize you in the name," etc.

Finally, it is required, third, that the act of baptizing be expressed either by the verb "to baptize" or by another synonymous verb, for example, "I wash," "I dip."⁶⁶

Therefore, if the act of baptizing were in no way expressed in words, the baptism is null, as is evident from the Decretal of Alexander III⁶⁷ and from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII: "At one time baptism conferred under this form was valid: 'In the name of the Father' ... with those words, 'I baptize you,' omitted."⁶⁸ St. Thomas⁶⁹ gives the reason: "Because the washing of a man in water can be performed for many purposes, it is necessary that it be determined in the words of the form for what purpose it is performed. This is not done by saying: 'In the name of the Father,' ... because we ought to do all things in such a name, as is found in Colossians, c. 3. And therefore, if the act of baptism is not expressed either in our manner or in the manner of the Greeks, the sacrament is not perfected."

b) The explicit expression of the three Persons of the Trinity is altogether necessary, while at the same time indicating the unity of the divine essence.

Theologians indeed dispute whether the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, since in several places of the New Testament the Apostles are narrated to have baptized in this manner,⁷⁰ and since St. Ambrose⁷¹ and Nicholas I⁷² seem to teach thus. Billuart⁷³ rightly says that both opinions, the negative as well as the affirmative, are probable, and that authors of great name stand for each opinion. For the affirmative opinion are cited the Master of the Sentences, Albert the Great, St. Thomas,⁷⁴ St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Durandus, Valentia, Toletus, and others; for the negative are adduced Suarez, Estius, Sylvius, Natalis Alexander, Christian Pesch, Schanz, Gihr, and others.

If one regards the texts of Sacred Scripture, the affirmative opinion indeed seems more probable; but if it is considered how incongruous it would have been a) that the Apostles themselves acted against the precept of Christ saying, "Going ... baptizing them in the name of the Father," etc.; b) that the form of baptism, which is the most necessary sacrament, would have been one thing in the time of the Apostles and another in subsequent times, then the negative opinion seems more probable. Whatever may be the case, all modern theologians teach that today baptism cannot be validly conferred in the name of Jesus, but that express mention of the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity is required.

⁶¹ Cf. Billuart, l.c., a. 4, § 1. According to the Εὐχολόγιον τὸ μέγα (Rome 1873), p. 156, the Greek text reads thus: "Βαπτίζεται ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ (ὁ δεῖνα) εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Ἀμήν· νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν." ("The servant of God [so-and-so] is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen; now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen.")

⁶² Denz., n. 696.

⁶³ S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 5.

⁶⁴ De sacr., disp. 21, sect. 4, n. 4.

⁶⁵ Cf. Billuart, De bapt., diss. 1, a. 1.

⁶⁶ In the English language the formula "I christen thee" is sometimes employed; among the Slavic peoples, for example, Poles, Bohemians, Moravians, etc., and also in Dalmatia (cf. concerning this matter Lugo, Respons. Mor., l. 1, dub. 3), the expression "krstim te" is found. Baptism conferred under these and similar formulas seems to be valid.

⁶⁷ C. 1, X 3, 42.

⁶⁸ Denz., n. 1317.

⁶⁹ L.c., ad 2.

⁷⁰ For example, Acts 2:38: "Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus"; Acts 8:12 and 16; 10:48; Rom. 6:3.

⁷¹ De Spir. S., l. 1, c. 3, n. 42 (Migne, Patr. lat. 16, 714).

⁷² Responsa ad Bulgar., c. 104 (Denz., n. 335).

⁷³ L.c., § 3.

⁷⁴ S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 6 ad 1 and 2.

104. The following resolutions can be deduced from what has been said:

The following formulas are invalid: "I baptize you in the name of the Most Holy Trinity," because the individual Persons of the Trinity are not expressed; "I baptize you in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," because the divine essence seems to be multiplied;⁷⁵ "I baptize you in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," with "in the name" omitted, because this form does not state the unity of the divine essence clearly enough; "I will to minister to you the sacrament of the baptism of sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," because it does not suffice to express the will to baptize, but it must be said: "I baptize you." On June 23, 1840, the Holy Office declared baptisms conferred under these four forms null.⁷⁶ Likewise invalid is the formula, "I baptize in the name of the Father," etc., with the word "you" omitted, because then the subject of baptism is not signified.

The following forms are doubtful: "I baptize you name of the Father," etc., with the word "in" omitted. Lehmkuhl,⁷⁷ however, adduces from the treasury of the Resolutions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (83, 136) several decisions of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Congregation of the Council in which the form "I baptize you with the name," etc., was declared valid, if it was said without a bad intention. The form "I baptize you into the name" also seems valid, because the Greek text of the Gospel has: εἰς τὸ ὄνομα.

"I baptize you in the power, in the majesty of the Father," or: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit," with the word "and" omitted. Concerning this matter Lehmkuhl⁷⁸ writes: "If the word 'and' is omitted twice, some think that baptism is rendered doubtful; but if it is placed in the second position, before 'Holy Spirit,' it does not seem that the validity of the baptism is to be doubted, since more than once both the Sacred Congregation of the Council and the Holy Office have decided in such a case that 'the children in question were validly baptized, and therefore are not to be baptized, not even under condition.'"⁷⁹

St. Alphonsus⁸⁰ thinks the form is not safe if it is said: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son," etc.; but on January 11, 1882, the Holy Office declared: "Baptism conferred with the stated form is valid." The same had already been declared on September 8, 1633, by the Holy Office, which acknowledged as valid the form: "Let my hand now baptize in the name of the Father, let my hand now baptize in the name of the Son, let my hand now baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit."⁸¹

There are still many other doubtful forms which can be seen in St. Alphonsus⁸² or Billuart.⁸³ As a general rule it can be held: Since the sacrament of baptism is so necessary, and without it validly received no other sacrament can be validly received, almost any change of the form causes baptism to be permitted, and indeed often required, to be repeated under condition. Since, therefore, almost every word in the form of baptism is essential, laymen, and especially midwives, are to be diligently instructed by pastors in the due form to be employed, lest even the least change occur.

At the end of the baptismal form the word "Amen" is not to be added, as the Sacred Congregation of Rites declared on June 9, 1853, saying: "Let the Roman Ritual be strictly observed." But the word "Amen" is not found in that Ritual. Hence the opinion of certain older authors who thought that the omission of the word "Amen" was a light sin is to be corrected.⁸⁴ If baptism is repeated under condition, let the one baptizing say: "If you are not baptized, I baptize you," etc.⁸⁵

⁷⁵ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 5 ad 6.

⁷⁶ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 901.

⁷⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 89.

⁷⁸ Ibid.

⁷⁹ Cf. Resolut. S.C.C. 83, 136.

⁸⁰ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 111.

⁸¹ Collect. de Prop. Fide, nn. 74 and 1501.

⁸² L.c.

⁸³ De bapt., diss. 1, a. 1.

⁸⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 11, and the note added by Gandé.

⁸⁵ Rit. Rom., tit. II, c. 1, n. 6.

105. Scholion. On the errors of heretics concerning the form of baptism. Concerning the form of baptism several heretics erred, such as the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Paulianists, at least the later Arians, Eunomians, and others. The Pseudo-Reformers of the sixteenth century also erred. Thus, for example, Luther⁸⁶ writes: "In whatever manner baptism is delivered, provided that it is delivered not in the name of man but in the name of the Lord, it truly saves; indeed, I do not doubt that if anyone receives it in the name of the Lord, even if an impious minister does not give it in the name of the Lord, he is truly baptized in the name of the Lord." From these words it seems to follow that Protestant ministers are not bound to employ so great a care in pronouncing the correct form, and therefore baptisms conferred by them easily become invalid. Hence those priests act rightly who baptize again under condition persons returning from heresy if even a slight doubt concerning the prior baptism exists.

⁸⁶ De captiv. Babyl.

1251. Principles. - I. The valid matter of Baptism is natural water alone, or elementary water, apt for washing. It is of Faith. It is clear 1° from the words of Christ:¹ Unless a man has been born again of water, etc. - It is clear 2° from the Councils, especially from Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent.² - "But what true and natural water is, although with the help of chemical analysis, confirmed by synthesis, it is sufficiently known to those skilled in natural science, nevertheless for theologians (on account especially of the difficulties which occur everywhere in defining the nature of mixtures) it seems that in place of a principle the admonition of the illustrious Author De re Sacrament. Tom. I. must rather be held, that concerning true and natural water judgment must be made from the common use of men, not from the disputes of philosophers."³ (W) p. 416.

II. The licit matter of Baptism, outside the case of necessity, is blessed or consecrated water alone, and mixed with chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn Baptism. This is clear from Canon Law (see below concerning the Ceremonies of Baptism). But he certainly sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege who without grave necessity uses impure, turbid, or foul water, although this is valid matter.⁴ (co) p. 401.

It is said: 1° outside the case of necessity, which case sometimes occurs in Missions. Concerning this the S. C. de P. F. wrote in 1806 to the Apostolic Vicar of Tonkin: "Where to preserve water blessed according to the prescribed rite would be of grave inconvenience or danger, in that case it will be lawful for Missionaries or anyone else who, according to the opportunity of things, is apt for conferring this Sacrament, to use common water, especially if it has been blessed,"⁵ for water of the baptismal font, which cannot be had except with grave inconvenience or danger.⁶

It is said: 2° according to the rite of the Church. - Concerning this, note that although water, as our Councils admonish,⁷ is to be blessed by the form in the Roman Ritual, if water thus blessed, because of the absence of a baptismal font in places where Baptisms are rare, is lacking, or has failed, or has been corrupted, it can also be blessed by that shorter formula which was approved for the use of our Missionaries by Pius VIII, and is found in the little book Excerpta ex Rit.,⁸ etc.

It is said: 3° impure, turbid, or foul water. - On this matter note the response of the S. C. Ing., Feria IV, 17 April 1839: "Baptisms conferred with" blessed "corrupted water were valid, although illicit outside the case of necessity; and in a case of necessity natural water is to be preferred; but provision must be made for the renewal of the water of the baptismal font, according to the Roman Ritual."⁹

III. In danger of death, if certainly valid matter cannot be had, doubtful matter ought to be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient.... Then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices, because in necessity one must assist the neighbor in the best way in which it can be done. But if one baptized thus has survived, once there is availability of certainly valid matter, he ought to be baptized again under this condition: If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc. - Common.

1252. Resolves. - 1° Valid matter is: 1) water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, pools, marshes, lakes, cisterns; 2) water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it has been accidentally changed as regards color, taste, or odor; 3) sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4) water simply distilled with roses or other flowers, yet not licit per se; 5) turbid water mixed with another substance, provided water is the truly and certainly predominant matter, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water.¹⁰

2° Invalid matter is: 1) milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2) wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; 3) mud, ink. (2) p. 416.

3° Doubtful matter is: 1) very thin broth, lye, thin beer (water from dissolved salt?); 2) liquid flowing from a vine and other plants; 3) snow, ice, hoarfrost, and other similar things not yet dissolved,¹ coffee, tea.

1253. - The proximate matter of Baptism is ablution, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of diverse Churches (which practice, namely of pouring among us, must be observed under grave obligation), so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and from the perpetual practice of the Church, and also from Paul, Eph.:¹ Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life.

1254. Questions. - Query 1° Can a child in the womb of the mother validly be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, sufficiently probably, if the child in the womb is reached by water by means of some instrument; because, since the infant already exists as a wayfaring man, he can validly be baptized. It stands in the way that the child is still enveloped in the afterbirth, whose exterior membrane is part of the mother. But more recently an instrument has been invented by which the afterbirth is cut open; and thus water, another instrument being employed, can come to touch immediately the body itself of the fetus. Yet he is to be baptized under condition, because it is not certainly established whether Baptism conferred in this way is valid. Therefore, if the child "has put forth the head" from the womb "and danger of death is imminent," or if he is born, he is to be baptized again under condition. - "But if he has put forth another member which indicates vital motion, let him be baptized in that member if danger threatens; and then, if he is born alive, he will have to be baptized under condition."¹ - But the Baptism of one not yet perfectly born, for the sake of decency, is to be conferred by a lay person, and, unless others are lacking, not by a priest.

Query 2° Is Baptism valid if the water only touches the garments or hairs of the one to be baptized?

Resp. 1° If the water touches only the garments, Baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that the man is washed. 2° But it is probably valid if the water touches the hairs. But in practice the safer part is to be followed.¹ - Hence if the one to be baptized is covered with hair, let the priest either divide his hair with the fingers of the left hand while with the right he pours water, or let him baptize him on the forehead.

Query 3° Is Baptism valid when conferred in another part than on the head?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless, if necessity has compelled this, afterward, if it can be done, Baptism would have to be repeated under condition.² Cf. the things said in this number, Query 1°.

Query 4° Does one or another drop of water suffice for baptizing?

Resp. Negatively, probably, especially if the water does not flow, because it cannot be called ablution, which is altogether required for Baptism. - Thus commonly. Nevertheless it is probably doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity would have to be employed. But they commonly say that the matter is then certain if the one baptizing with the motion of a moistened finger should wash a part of the body.³ - But there is no doubt that it is certainly valid if water sprinkled in sufficient quantity truly flows down; since Baptism is validly conferred by sprinkling. (Q) p. 416.

Query 5° Is a threefold ablution required for Baptism?

Resp. 1° Certainly it is not required for validity; for one suffices, that someone be judged truly washed.

Resp. 2° But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this threefold pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual.⁴ Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn Baptism.

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. 3, 4, 7, 8.

119. Errors. - Concerning the matter of Baptism several have erred. Certain Gnostics and Manichaeans, with Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine as witnesses, excluded water from the conferral of Baptism, which they said had arisen from an evil principle; the followers of Marcus mixed oil with water; the disciples of Simon Magus and the Cathari, taking literally the words of Mt. III, 11, posited fire as the matter, and therefore they baptized in a dark place among lamps.

Luther and Beza contended that whatever can be in place of a bath, when water is lacking, is apt for Baptism. Calvin, although he acknowledged that water is required in Baptism, understood the word "water" in the text of John III, 5 metaphorically of living water, or the vivifying Spirit after the likeness of water. The Quakers repudiate Baptism of water as a Jewish rite, and acknowledge only spiritual Baptism, which is in the testimony of a good conscience and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Baptists and Anabaptists, as also many Greek schismatics with Mark of Ephesus, admit only Baptism by immersion; they hold the mode more commonly used in the Latin Church from the fourteenth century to be invalid, or even heretical.

120. Principle I. The remote matter of Baptism is every natural water, and only natural water (can. 737). - It is defined as of faith in the Council of Trent, sess. 7, de Bapt., can. 2: "If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism (against Luther), and therefore shall twist those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless someone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, to some metaphor (against Calvin), let him be anathema."

It is proved: 1. From the documents of revelation. Christ determined water (John III, 5 and 22-26); the Apostles baptize only in water (Acts VIII, 27-39; X, 44-48). Whence Paul calls Baptism the laver of water (Eph. V, 26), and Peter in I ep. III, 20: "The ark in which... souls were saved through water, which also of like form now saves you: Baptism." The primitive Church firmly holds this practice, as is established from the Didache VII; Ep. Barn. XI; Justin, Ap. I, 61; the Fathers refute the heretics who do not use water; all Liturgies from the beginning prescribe water; Innocent III declares water necessary for true Baptism. The Councils confess this: Lateran IV, c. 1; Vienne, const. de fide cath.; and Florence, for the Armenians.

2. From the fittingness of reason: "From divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and this fittingly... a) with regard to the effects of Baptism, to which there correspond the properties of water, which by its humidity washes, from which it is fitting for signifying and causing the washing away of sins; by its coldness it also tempers the excess of heat, and from this it is suited to mitigating the concupiscence of the fomes; by its transparency it is receptive of light, whence it is suited to Baptism insofar as it is the sacrament of faith...; - b) because by reason of its commonness and abundance it is the fitting matter for the necessity of this sacrament: for it can easily be had everywhere" (a. 3).

121. For the validity of Baptism there is required natural or elementary water in a liquid state, i.e., everything which among men comes under the use and name of water.

Such is water of rivers, rain, a well, a spring, ponds, cisterns, a bath, marshes, lakes, the sea, whether it be bitter or poisonous or sweet, whether warm and boiling or cold and icy, whether blessed or not blessed. Likewise water dissolved from snow, ice, hail, dew, mists, condensed vapors, or flowing from stones (which is called the sweat of pavement), leaves, or walls in rainy or winter time; likewise water obtained by chemical art or by distillation of another element, if it is pure from foreign elements; likewise water mixed with foreign matter in a small quantity, provided not only chemically but also according to common estimation water certainly predominates and it is still called water, for example, putrid water (Holy Office, April 17, 1839), turbid or somewhat muddy water, mineral, sulphurous, ferruginous water, etc.

Hence 1. invalid matter includes: wine, oil, juice of flesh or fat, humors of an animal or human body: milk, blood, urine, saliva, tears, sweat, phlegm, amniotic fluid, spittle, phlegmatic discharges, etc.; - juice expressed from trees, fruits (apples, pears, cherries), flowers, herbs, roots, grains; - snow, ice, hail, hoarfrost, vapor, and other things not dissolved, because they are not apt for washing; - water very much mixed, so that it has more of a foreign substance than of water, or is no longer apt for washing, for example, mud, ink, very good beer, good coffee, good tea, good broth, lye. For all these things are not water; or if they are, according to common estimation they do not have the use or name of water.

2. Doubtful matter includes thin broth, lye not too thick, small beer, ordinary tea-water or coffee-water, weak ink, water dissolved from salt, artificial water extracted by distillation from flowers or herbs, for example, rose-water, violet-water, etc., or water flowing from a vine or trees.

122. For liceity there is required pure and clean water; but in solemn Baptism, water specially consecrated for this. Solemn Baptism, however, is that which is ministered with all the ceremonies (can. 737, § 2), as, outside danger of death, it is regularly to be conferred (can. 759, § 2).

He sins gravely, against reverence for the sacrament, who without necessity uses impure, dirty, turbid water, - or who in solemn Baptism does not use consecrated water (can. 757, § 1): but if in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water is to be used; otherwise natural water (Holy Office, June 20, 1883); outside the case of necessity new water is to be blessed (April 17, 1839).

In merely private, or non-solemn, Baptism, it is better to use blessed water, - or, if the one baptizing is a priest or deacon, even consecrated water; others cannot use consecrated water.

123. Principle II. The proximate matter of Baptism is the exterior washing of the body, - which can be valid not only by immersion, but also by infusion or sprinkling. - The first pertains to the faith, as is established from the universal preaching and use of the Church, and from the very signification of the name: Baptism is indicated in many places of Scripture (Acts II, 38; XXII, 16; I Cor. VI, 11; Eph. V, 26; Tit. III, 5; Heb. X, 22), and is clear from the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Liturgies (can. 737).

The second is certain from the doctrine of the Church, which is established from the rituals and from the practice of the liturgy, and is reported in the Code of Law, can. 758; to this also can be referred the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 7, de Bapt., can. 3.

It is proved: 1. The name Baptism, although etymologically it signifies immersion, nevertheless by common use, also reported in the Scriptures, signifies every washing (n. 111).

2. To the essence of Baptism there pertains the washing of water by which the interior washing away of sins is signified; when this is preserved, the essence of the sacrament is preserved. But it is preserved not only by immersion, but also by infusion or sprinkling, which, provided the water flows, truly washes. Therefore not only by immersion, but also by infusion or sprinkling, the essence and consequently the validity of Baptism is preserved.

3. From the beginning, the mode of baptizing by infusion or sprinkling was sometimes used, as the Didache VII, 3, explicitly testifies. Besides, the Apostles themselves seem thus to have baptized at Pentecost three thousand men on one day, and on another five thousand men (Acts II, 41), since in these circumstances the rite of immersion would scarcely have been possible; likewise when St. Paul baptized the jailer in prison (XVI, 33). And in Baptism by immersion, which was the ordinary rite, immersion among adults was not customarily total, but the water rose up to the knees or the middle of the body and at the same time was poured over the head. Moreover the Baptism of the sick, who were baptized while lying in bed, was held as valid; and martyrs in prison or in the very place of execution were baptized by pouring.

4. "Sometimes a necessity can threaten (of baptizing otherwise than by immersion) on account of scarcity of water, or on account of weakness in the one to be baptized, to whom danger of death can threaten from immersion. And therefore it must be said that immersion is not of the necessity of Baptism" (a. 7).

Nor does it stand in the way that by immersion alone our being placed with Christ in the tomb is figured (Rom. VI, 3). - For "in immersion the figure of Christ's burial is represented more expressly..., but in the other modes of baptizing it is represented in some way, although not so expressly: for in whatever way the washing is done, the body of man, or some part of it, is placed under the water, just as the body of Christ was placed under the earth" (ad 2). Besides, this figurative signification in Baptism is merely secondary.

124. For the validity of Baptism there is required a washing of the one to be baptized by the one baptizing; otherwise the sense of the form would not be verified, and besides universal tradition so holds. It is said:

1. Washing, for which it is required that water immediately and physically touch the body and successively flow and run over some part of it, so that it is judged washed or cleansed. Yet for this a small quantity suffices; nor is it necessary that bodily filth be wiped away: for the washing of Baptism is ordered only to spiritual amendment. It can be done either a) by motion of the one to be baptized in the water, or b) by motion of the water upon the one to be baptized; namely:

a) By immersion, for which it is required 1. that someone be moved in or under the water; whence Baptism would be invalid if someone were held unmoved in unmoved water; 2. and probably, according to some, also that he be drawn out of the water.

Hence the killing ablution by which someone would throw an infant into a river is doubtfully valid; moreover it is gravely illicit, because evils are not to be done that goods may come: for the very throwing into a place from which the child cannot be rescued is already of itself evil, as tending directly to killing alone, nor does it immediately have a good effect, as washing does, but only mediately and per accidens, because in fact it terminates rather at water and washing than at something else. Namely, in the case, washing is the effect of the throwing, which, even if it were not done into water, would nevertheless cause death.¹ - Yet it is licit to wash with icy water, when another is lacking, even if death were feared to be somewhat accelerated, because this action per se and immediately tends to washing and sanctification, not to killing; whence death would come about per accidens and would be compensated by the more excellent good of eternal life.

¹ Billuart, de Baptismo, art. 3, § III.

b) Also by infusion and by sprinkling, although this last mode is dangerous in practice. For both, some motion of the water is required.

Whence invalid matter is the mere touch of water without flow, such as a drop or a wet cloth remaining on the forehead; washing performed by one or another drop, or after the manner of an anointing, is easily doubtful (Holy Office, December 14, 1898); it is valid if someone by the motion of a finger or wetted cloth washed a part of the body.

2. Washing of the one to be baptized, i.e., a) of the whole body or of a principal part, namely, of the head, in which all the interior and exterior senses flourish (a. 7, ad 3).

Baptism is valid if it is done upon a head covered with an ulcerous crust, because the crust is nothing but the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease, and otherwise a man whose whole head was covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor baptized; - Baptism is doubtful if the washing is done on other members than the head, because in none is there the integrity of life as in the head; and it is the more doubtful in proportion as it is done on a less notable member and one more remote from the head; whence it is more probably valid if it is done over the heart, chest, neck, shoulder blades, shoulders; more doubtful on the arm or leg; very doubtful on the foot, hand, finger (can. 746, § 2 and 3).

b) of the body itself, which must be touched physically and immediately.

Hence there is doubt concerning the value of Baptism conferred on the hair, even of the head, because it is not certain that hair is part of the body;² it is more doubtful if on the beard or nails; very doubtful if on the umbilical cord or on one of the two membranes which immediately envelop the infant in the mother's womb and which arise from the ovum: for although they are of fetal origin, nevertheless they are not a permanent part of the infant but rather a covering or transitory instrument; almost certainly invalid if it is done on the third exterior membrane enveloping the fetus, because this arises from the substance of the mother; invalid if on the clothes or body of the mother (Holy Office, May 21, 1671).

² But if the head is covered with hair, the priest, while with the right hand he pours water over the crown of the head, ought with the left to part the hair, or take care that the water runs over the temples of the head, or, what in practice is easier, confer Baptism on the forehead, because nowhere is it prescribed that washing must be done on the crown. (Cf. Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 60). - Some, such as Lugo and Génicot, think that Baptism conferred on the hair is as certain as on the skin, for if the hairs of an animal are washed, the animal is said to be washed. Yet it can be answered that this is true of an animal which cannot be washed otherwise, not of man, who by his nature does not have hair everywhere, and therefore is capable of being washed immediately.

3. Washing by the one baptizing: for if it were done by the one baptized, or by a third party, or by a natural cause alone, for example, while a child slips into water, the words would be false: I baptize you. Whence Baptism is invalid in which the form is pronounced, but not by the one who does the washing (S.C.S., November 17, 1916).

Baptism is valid if someone holds an infant under water falling without the help of another or already poured out by another, because the one holding is the sole cause of the washing; but if another intends or knows that he is pouring water upon the infant, Baptism is doubtful, because there is doubt whether the one who holds, or the one by whose aid the water descends, is the cause of the washing.

125. For liceity, that mode of washing is to be observed which is in use among the individual Churches (can. 758). - The Greeks baptize by threefold immersion, which they can also use while they are staying among Latins; but in the Latin Church generally the washing is to be done by threefold infusion performed in the manner of a cross.

He sins gravely who, in solemn Baptism, changes the usual mode of washing, or does not do the threefold infusion. Threefold washing in honor of the Most Holy Trinity was used from the beginning of the Church, as the Didache, VII, 4, testifies.

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.

The remote matter of Baptism is water; but the proximate matter is the washing itself.

1453. Principles. I. The VALID matter of Baptism is natural or elemental water. It is of faith, as is established from the Councils, especially from Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, on Baptism: "If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall twist to some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Unless anyone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit: let him be anathema."

Hence: 1. Matter certainly valid is: 1. water of springs, wells, the sea, rivers, lakes, ponds, cisterns, and rainwater; and thus any simple and pure water which retains the proper species of water; nor does it matter whether it is cold or warm, from the Roman Ritual; 2. water resolved from snow, ice, and hail; 3. sulphurous or mineral water; 4. water flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 5. turbid water mixed with another thing, provided water is the predominant matter; 6. dew, and water collected from condensed vapors, for example on the lid of a pot; 7. water simply distilled, roses or other leaves having been infused in the water.²⁶

2. Matter certainly invalid is: 1. blood, milk, wine, urine, phlegm, saliva, sweat, tears; 2. juice expressed from flowers, herbs, and roots.¹

3. Doubtful matter is: 1. broth and lye; 2. water from dissolved salt; 3. thin beer, thin ink, water flowing from a vine or other trees, and ice or snow not melted; 4. water drawn out by chemical art from flowers, plants, roots, wine, or oil; 5. one or another drop of water.²

1454. II. The LICIT matter of Baptism is clean water alone, and in solemn Baptism it must moreover be consecrated. The reason is that this is required both from the prescription of the Church and on account of reverence for the Sacrament.³

Hence: 1. He commits sacrilege who without necessity uses impure, turbid, or muddy water, although natural. 2. He sins gravely against the precept of the Church who does not use consecrated water in solemn Baptism. 3. If the consecrated water has been corrupted, natural water is to be preferred; but if time is sufficient, new water should be consecrated by the brief formula, as is contained in the Ritual. Thus from the Response of the Holy Office, April 17, 1839.⁴ 4. In private Baptism, unconsecrated water is probably licit; nevertheless care must be taken that at least blessed or lustral water be employed, for greater decency.⁵

1455. III. In cases OF NECESSITY, when certainly valid matter is lacking, doubtful matter is to be employed, but with this CONDITION added: "If this matter is sufficient"; for then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices (see nn. 82 and 1407). But if one so baptized survives, once a supply of matter certainly valid has been had, he must again be baptized under this condition: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc."⁶

1456. Principles. I. For the validity of Baptism there is required a true WASHING of the body through water: that is, such an application of water as, in moral estimation, is necessary that a man be said truly washed or bathed.⁷

Whence there is required: 1. That water immediately touch the body of the one to be baptized. Therefore Baptism is invalid if, the child not yet having been born, the body of the mother is washed; likewise, if the water touches only the garments of the one to be baptized; but doubtful, if only his hair, or the afterbirth. 2. That it be done on the head, as is becoming, because in it all the senses flourish, or at least, as is very commonly taught, on another notable part of the body, for example on the shoulders or on the breast. Whence, if from necessity Baptism has been conferred on a less notable part, for example on the hand, fingers, or foot, it must altogether be repeated under condition; nay more, the same seems to be done for caution, even if Baptism has been conferred on a notable part; "because, from St. Thomas,⁸ in none of the exterior parts does the integrity of life consist as in the head." 3. That the contact of water be successive, namely in such a way that either water is applied successively to the body, or the body to water. Hence Baptism would be doubtful if the one to be baptized were thrown into water from which he did not emerge. 4. That there be a quantity of water truly sufficient for washing: therefore he would validly baptize who would put the one to be baptized under water flowing from a roof and would pronounce the form; but, according to the common opinion, he would not validly baptize if he touched the body of the one to be baptized with only one or another drop. Baptism conferred thus, especially if the drop has not flowed, would be altogether doubtful. Yet if the one baptizing, by motion of a moistened finger, were to wash a part of the body of the one to be baptized, authors commonly hold such Baptism as certain, although not a few still doubt concerning its validity.⁹

For validity it makes no difference whether the washing is done by immersion, or by sprinkling, provided water flows; whether by threefold or single infusion.¹⁰

1457. II. With respect to LICEITY, the manner of washing which is used in individual Churches must be observed, and indeed generally under grave obligation. The Greeks indeed retain threefold immersion, which they can also employ while they stay among Latins, as is established from Benedict XIV's Constitution Etsi pastoralis. But the ROMAN RITUAL has these things: "The priest takes baptismal water with a small vessel or pitcher, and from it pours three times over the head of the infant in the manner of a cross, and at the same time pronouncing the words, says distinctly and attentively only once: N... I baptize thee in the name of the Father, he pours the first time; and of the Son, he pours the second time; and of the Holy Spirit, he pours the third time." But where there is the custom of baptizing by IMMERSION, for example in the Milanese Church, the priest receives the infant, and taking care lest he be injured, cautiously immerses his head, and baptizes by threefold immersion, saying only once: N... I baptize thee, etc.¹¹

The threefold washing, outside the case of necessity, from the truer opinion, is prescribed under grave obligation; because a rite of this kind is sufficiently grave matter: for in it the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is expressed. And it must be noticed that the form is not to be ended before the third washing.¹²

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

I say 1st. The valid remote matter of Baptism is only true and natural water; but the licit matter, outside the case of necessity, is only the same water, yet not turbid or foul, and moreover in solemn baptism water blessed for this must be employed. Cf. Can. 757, § 1. The first is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, de Baptismo, where these things are had: "If anyone shall have said that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall have twisted to some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless someone has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit,' let him be anathema." But the other is clear from the Roman Ritual and the unanimous consent of theologians. - I said outside the case of necessity, because in danger of death any matter whatever, provided that it is not certainly invalid, can and must be employed under this condition: If this matter is sufficient. - But if he who was baptized with such matter has survived, when an abundance of certainly valid matter is had, he must be baptized again under this condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc. - But just as, according to St. Alphonsus, even a slight probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices for baptizing under the first condition, so also a slight probability concerning its invalidity suffices for rebaptizing under the other condition. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102; and Hom. Ap., n. 8.

I say 2nd. The proximate matter of Baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the different Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form and the perpetual practice of the Church.

I say 3rd. Although baptism can be conferred validly either by pouring, or by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second manner, or one mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the different Churches (Can. 758); so that with a triple washing the head of the one to be baptized is poured over, or he is immersed in the manner of a cross at one and the same time at which the words are pronounced, and the same one is applying the water and pronouncing the words. - Cf. Roman Ritual, Tit. II, c. 1, n. 10.

Question 1. What is the rule for knowing true and natural water?

Resp. The best rule of all is to have recourse to the common use and estimation of God-fearing men, leaving aside those things which are discussed by naturalists. Hence:

1st. Valid matter is: 1st. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes; 2nd. water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it is accidentally changed as to color, taste, or odor; 3rd. sulfurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in rainy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4th. turbid water, mixed with another substance, provided that water is truly and certainly the predominant matter.

2nd. Invalid matter is: 1st. milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2nd. wine, oil, beer, thick juice from fat, etc.; 3rd. mud, ink; 4th. snow or ice not yet dissolved, because in this state it is not natural water, although some doubt concerning this, for ice is dissolved by contact, and thus some washing can be had.

3rd. Doubtful matter is: 1st. very thin broth, lye, thin beer, water from dissolved salt; 2nd. moisture flowing from a vine and other plants. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 103 and seq. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 58 and seq.

Question 2. What must be done in the case in which consecrated water, which is preserved in the baptismal font, appears diminished and foul?

Resp. It must be noted first of all that baptismal water often appears turbid and foul on account of chrism which perhaps has been mixed into it in too great a quantity, but in reality it is not so.

§ 2. If blessed water in the baptistery is so diminished that it seems less than sufficient, other non-blessed water is to be mixed in, even repeatedly, yet in lesser quantity.

§ 3. But if it has become corrupt, or has flowed out, or in any way has failed, the parish priest is to pour fresh water into the font, well cleaned and neat, and bless it by the proper rite prescribed in his liturgical books (Can. 757).

Among us the formula approved for our use is to be employed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 234. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Excerpts from the Roman Ritual, p. 238, edition 1878.

Question 3. Can a child in the womb of the mother be validly baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he is touched by water by means of some instrument, because an infant enclosed in the womb of the mother is already a wayfaring man. But since some doubt concerning the validity of this Baptism, because such an infant, since he cannot properly be said to have been born, cannot be reborn, therefore it would have to be repeated under condition, and a fortiori if the water does not touch the child immediately.

Concerning this matter the new Code establishes these things:

§ 1. No one enclosed in the womb of the mother is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, once duly brought forth, he can be baptized.

§ 2. If the infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, he is to be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he escapes alive, is he to be baptized again under condition.

§ 3. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized on it under condition, if danger is imminent; but then, if once born he lives, he is again to be baptized under condition.

§ 5. A fetus baptized in the womb, after birth, must be baptized again under condition (Can. 746).

Several physicians, in a case of necessity, are accustomed to baptize infants especially in the womb of the mother with water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (in English, Bichloride of Mercury). This water is composed by a solution of one part of this mercuric chloride in a thousand parts of water, and the mixture is employed lest the uterus be affected by disease. This use is licit where there is a true danger of disease. Thus from S. C. S. O., 21 Aug. 1901. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 61 and seq.

Question 4. Is Baptism valid if the water touches only the garments or hair of the one to be baptized?

Resp. If the water touches only the garments, Baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that a man is washed; but it is more probably valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part is to be followed. Hence if the one to be baptized has hair, let the priest either part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while he pours water with the right, or baptize him on the forehead. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 3.

Question 5. Is Baptism valid when conferred on another part than on the head?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example, on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless if necessity has compelled this, afterward, if it can be done, Baptism would have to be repeated under condition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 4.

Question 6. Does one or another drop of water suffice for baptizing?

Resp. Negatively, more probably, especially if the water does not flow, because it cannot be called washing, which is altogether required for Baptism; yet it is doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity would have to be employed. But theologians commonly say that it is certain matter if the one baptizing, by the movement of a wetted finger, were to wash a part of the body. Nevertheless, concerning certain persons baptized after the manner of an anointing on the forehead with the thumb wetted in baptismal water, the Holy Inquisition, 14 Dec. 1898, responded: "Care is to be taken that they be baptized again privately, under condition, with only the matter together with the form being employed, without ceremonies." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 6. - Elbel, n. 16.

Question 7. Is triple washing required for Baptism?

Resp. Certainly it is not required for validity; for a single washing suffices that one be judged truly washed. Thus all with St. Thomas, 3, q. 66, art. 8. But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, because it is prescribed in the Roman Ritual, although this prescription seems to be understood only of solemn Baptism.

Question 8. What are the causes on account of which conditional Baptism is customarily conferred?

Resp. "For nearly three causes we have found that it has prevailed by the custom of the Church that a condition be employed in conferring Baptism: when it is prudently doubted whether Baptism previously conferred is valid or not; when necessity compels doubtful matter to be employed; when it is doubted whether the subject is capable of Baptism, as in monstrous births, or as in a difficult birth when it is doubted whether the sacrament can be confected by washing that part which alone can be washed; in one word, according to the custom of the Church, a condition is employed in Baptism when there is place for doubting whether something has been lacking or is lacking which is required for the validity of the sacrament." S. C. d. P. Fide, 17 April 1777.

The conditions required for the licit reception of Baptism must be carefully distinguished from those which are necessary for valid reception. . . . "In doubt whether an adult near death has been sufficiently instructed concerning the mysteries of faith and has sufficiently believed them, and in doubt whether he sincerely repents of his past life, when the necessity of death urges, the sacrament must be ministered to him absolutely without any condition. In doubt whether he truly intends to receive baptism, if after a previous diligent examination there is still doubt concerning this intention, baptism must be conferred under condition, provided that he is capable of baptism." 3 Aug. 1860, Holy Office.

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.

I. QUESTION I. What is the Baptism of the new law? ANSWER. It is, says the Tridentine Catechism, part 1, chapter 1, § 5, the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word. This definition in few words sets forth the matter, the form, and the property of Baptism. That Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration is established from the Gospel. In the word is set the form of the sacrament. St. Thomas, III, q. 66, art. 1, hands down this description of Baptism: It is a sacrament by which a man is outwardly washed and spiritually regenerated through water under the form of words prescribed by Christ. Each definition comes back to the same thing.

II. QUESTION II. What is the matter of Baptism? ANSWER. Twofold: remote and proximate. Of the former now; of the latter below. Natural water alone is the remote matter of Baptism, as is had in John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Why Christ the Lord chose water rather than another liquor no true reason can be assigned beyond the divine will. Many congruences the Fathers assign — Ambrose and Jerome — which St. Thomas recounts, III, q. 66, art. 3.

III. QUESTION III. Is the ancient usage to be approved by which the Roman Church consecrates the water serving for Baptism? ANSWER. That this sacred custom is ancient the Fathers prove — Basil, Cyril, Cyprian, and others. See the testimonies in Vol. VIII, Book 2, dissertation 1, chapter 2.

IV. QUESTION IV. What water is to be called natural? ANSWER. That natural water alone is the matter of Baptism all Catholics affirm. What is to be called natural water the Roman Ritual published by order of Gregory XIII answers: it is the water of springs, wells, the sea, rivers, lakes, ponds, and marshes, and rain-water; and let it be simple and pure of whatever kind, which retains the proper species of water: nor does it matter whether it be cold or hot: but it is not artificial water, such as is expressed or distilled from roses, flowers, herbs, or like things, nor any other liquor whatsoever. In how many ways natural water can be corrupted St. Thomas explains, III, q. 66, art. 4. For the rest, there is no need of philosophers' disputations; the common judgment of men suffices for discerning natural water.

V. They dispute whether one drop of water or another suffices for Baptism. But these disputations are vain. That quantity of water is necessary which suffices for washing. But one drop or another does not truly wash. Water melted from salt I should not reckon, outside the case of necessity, to be matter of Baptism; but well indeed water resolved from snow, ice, frost, or the dew of heaven, as the common opinion teaches. But snow itself, ice, and hail, since they are not a matter apt for washing, are not matter of Baptism. Nor is water which flows from the vine or from other trees an apt matter of Baptism, because it is not natural water. Lye and broth, if they be not thick but diluted, are water apt for baptizing, as St. Thomas teaches in the place cited.

VI. QUESTION V. What is the proximate matter of Baptism? ANSWER. It is the use of water, by which the body is washed. A threefold manner of washing has obtained: by immersion, by infusion, and by aspersion. Immersion was first threefold, afterwards simple obtained. In the early centuries of the Church the discipline of triple immersion flourished, and in the thirteenth century it still obtained. About the fourteenth century the usage obtained of baptizing by aspersion or infusion. In whatever manner Baptism be conferred — whether by immersion, or by infusion, or by aspersion — it is valid. Nevertheless the rite of one's own Church is to be observed; and he who without compelling necessity should change it would sin gravely. Such infusion or aspersion ought to be made so that the baptized may according to the common sense be truly said to be washed.

VII. QUESTION VI. Can an infant enclosed in the mother's womb be baptized, the mother's womb being washed? ANSWER. If no member of the infant appear, it can in no way be baptized, and the Baptism conferred would be null. See St. Thomas, III, q. 68, art. 2, reply 4, and the Roman Ritual. Wherefore false is the opinion of some, whom Leander cites, namely that Baptism is valid conferred upon an infant enclosed in the mother's womb by the art of a midwife who introduces water into it with her hand. For the validity of Baptism it is required that either the whole or some part of the body of the infant to be baptized appear from the woman's belly. An infant wrapped in the skin of the afterbirth, if danger of death threaten, is to be baptized, the membrane being broken; if no danger of death press, the infant, being stripped of this skin, is to be baptized. It does not suffice that the hair or the clothes be washed, but some part of his body ought to be washed.

VIII. If anyone, on account of scarcity of water, should cast a boy near to death into a well or a river that he may baptize him, and utter the form, the Baptism is valid. Since the word, the element, and the minister's intention are had. Valid also is Baptism administered with poisoned or with boiling water, and with the intention of killing the infant, provided there be present the intention of baptizing and the due form be observed. All these things nevertheless cannot lawfully be done: for evils are not to be done that goods may come.

IX. QUESTION VII. Is it lawful to cut open the womb of a woman despaired of as to health, that the infant may be baptized? ANSWER. Fr. Comitolus, Book 1, question 14, says that this can be done, because the eternal salvation of the infant is to be preferred to the bodily life of the pregnant mother. But St. Thomas, to whom theologians commonly subscribe, teaches the opposite, 3, question 68, article 11, reply 3, where he says: Evils are not to be done that goods may come: Romans 3. And therefore a man ought not to kill a mother that he may baptize the child. If nevertheless the mother shall have died, the offspring living in the womb, she ought to be opened, that he may be baptized. That saying — the eternal salvation is to be preferred to the life of the body — does not infer that anyone can inflict bodily death upon himself or upon others, but it pertains to this, that for another's eternal salvation death is sometimes to be sustained.

I. QUESTION I. Is the form of words which the Latin Church uses lawful? ANSWER. The form of the Latin Church is this: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That this form is very ancient many ancient documents prove — the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great, the Roman Ordo, and the Gothic-Gallican Missal in Thomasius, and the Gallican Liturgy edited and illustrated by the illustrious Mabillon, title 25.

II. Similarly valid is the form of the Greeks, which is of this kind: The servant (or handmaid) of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This form of the Greeks is not optative, as formerly many contended, but enunciative, namely is baptized, as Arcudius, Goar, and Martène prove.

III. QUESTION II. Is it required for the validity of Baptism that the act of the baptizer be expressed by the word "I baptize" or "is baptized"? ANSWER. All affirm it, and this Alexander III defined in Book 5 of the Decretals, title 42, chapter 1. Against this pontifical definition and the common doctrine of the Church some of the younger authors dared to scribble, whose error Alexander VIII condemned in this thesis 29: “Baptism was valid which was sometimes conferred under this form: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, those words being omitted, I baptize thee.” The Church drew her form from the evangelical words: Baptizing them in the name, and so forth. By the same reason by which all gather from these words the necessity of invoking the most holy Trinity, the same necessity of expressing the action of the baptizer is inferred.

IV. QUESTION III. Would one who should deliberately omit the particle "I" in the form of Baptism sin gravely? ANSWER. All affirm that the aforesaid particle does not pertain to the substance of baptism; but that he sins who should deliberately or through negligence omit it, all likewise affirm. They dispute only of the gravity of the fault. Some affirm it to be grave, others slight. I confess that I do not hold the degree of malice. A deliberate omission seems unable to be excused from contempt of the ecclesiastical rite: in which case the fault would be grave. Here the particle thee pertains to the essence of Baptism, because the person to be baptized must be designated. Baptizing them. He would sin who in the form of Baptism should express the name of the baptized, saying, I baptize thee, Peter, and so forth. Since nothing ought to be added to and nothing subtracted from the form of Baptism. Ratified and valid would the Baptism be if anyone, the word baptize being omitted, should say I plunge, I dip, I lave, I wash, provided he did not depart from the intention of the Church, which intends a sacramental and not a profane washing; the minister nevertheless would always sin who changed the words appointed by the Church. The particle in more probably pertains to the essence of baptism: it is therefore a heinous thing to omit it.

V. QUESTION IV. Would one who should baptize with this form — "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Ghost" — confer valid Baptism? ANSWER. Martin Bonacina with others denies it. Why is this Baptism not valid? The repetition of the noun in no way changes the sense of the form instituted by Christ. But if anyone should say: I baptize thee with the Father, with the Son, with the Holy Ghost, it is to me more probable that the Baptism is not valid, because in the aforesaid form the unity of essence is not clearly expressed.

VI. Would one who should omit in the name and substitute in the power confer valid Baptism? Some affirm, others deny. The matter therefore is doubtful. Therefore the negative opinion is the safer and the more probable. Similarly I judge invalid Baptism conferred in this manner: I baptize thee in the name of the most holy Trinity, or in the name of the One and Three, or in the name of the three persons. Since the three divine persons are not expressly uttered. Much more would Baptism be invalid conferred in this manner: I baptize thee under the name of Jesus Christ. The common and true opinion also denies that Baptism is valid conferred with this form: I baptize thee in the name of the Begetter, of the Begotten, and of the One proceeding from both: because in sacramental matters one must adhere to the more common and the safer opinion. But I should reckon valid Baptism conferred with this form: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; because Jesus Christ is truly the Son of the Father. Similarly I should hold as ratified Baptism conferred with this form: I baptize thee in the name of the Father almighty, and of the only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost the Paraclete. That one who should use this form — I baptize thee in the name of the Father; I baptize thee in the name of the Son; I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Ghost — does not confer valid Baptism, Fr. Paul Comitolus defends. But the more probable opinion affirms it, which theologians commonly defend. Valid also would the Baptism be if anyone should omit the particle and. All those nevertheless would sin who should add anything to or omit anything from the form prescribed by the Church and drawn from the Gospel itself. Baptism conferred by a stammerer, who at the end of a word should take away or change one letter, would be valid, as if he should say batizo for baptizo, or In the name of the Father [with a defective ending]. But these questions are arbitrary, and scarcely ever occur. Therefore they are to be passed over.

VII. QUESTION V. Of how many kinds is Baptism? ANSWER. Threefold: of water, of the Spirit, and of blood. The Baptism of water is the sacrament hitherto explained. That of the Spirit is perfect contrition with the desire of Baptism. That this baptism suffices for salvation, when the Baptism of water cannot be had, all teach. The Baptism of blood, or martyrdom, excels the Baptism of water and of the Spirit, not by reason of the sacrament, but by reason of charity and grace, since the Baptism of water alone is a sacrament. But the Baptism of blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. Wherefore all affirm that in adults martyrdom supplies for the Baptism of water. The same they affirm in respect of little ones. For of the little ones slaughtered by Herod the Church sings: Whose heralding the Innocents confessed as martyrs not by speaking but by dying.

VIII. Theologians dispute whether martyrdom supplies for the Baptism of water ex opere operato. Many deny it; but the common and true opinion defends that martyrdom justifies both adults and little ones ex opere operato. For the Baptism of blood is compared to the Baptism of water. Therefore if the latter justifies ex opere operato, why not the former? This opinion St. Thomas defends in Book 4, distinction 4, question 3, article 3, question 3, reply 1.

IX. QUESTION VI. What dispositions are required in adults for undergoing martyrdom? ANSWER. The following. First, a voluntary acceptance of death inflicted by a persecutor in hatred of the faith. For martyrdom is an act of fortitude and of charity. Therefore a deliberate choice is necessary. Second, that martyrdom be accepted for the faith of Christ, from a supernatural motive proposed through faith. Third, there is necessary charity at least initial and imperfect, which afterwards becomes perfect by force of the martyrdom itself. Adults who are conscious to themselves of some sin ought to purge their conscience, in that manner in which they would dispose themselves for the Baptism of water or for Penance. If he be a catechumen, and there be opportunity, he ought to send Baptism before; if he have been washed with Baptism, confession, if opportunity be at hand. All which things could be confirmed by the discipline of the Church: for, persecution raging or threatening, the bishops animated all to receive Baptism, to perform penance, and to partake of the Eucharist, that, strengthened by these safeguards, they might become more eager and stronger for sustaining the contest.

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.

Being about twenty-five miles from his church, my curate was called upon to administer the Sacrament of Baptism. He did so, using for the unctions the oleum infirmorum, the only oils he had with him. I need scarcely state the oil was oleum ab episcopo benedictum. Was he justified? Or, is it necessary now to repeat the unctions, et absolute, using the oils blessed for Baptism? I have read the case in the “Casuist” on Extreme Unction, studied the case carefully and came to the same conclusion as is given. But this seems to me an altogether different case, in which the oleum catechumenorum and the sacrum chrisma are absolutely necessary.

Answer.—The oils prescribed by the ritual to be used in the solemn administration of Baptism are the oleum salutis or oleum catechumenorum, and the sacrum chrisma. The oil of catechumens is also called oleum sanctum. It is oil of olives blessed with exorcisms by the bishop on Holy Thursday, and the catechumen or postulant for Baptism is to be anointed with it before he is baptized. Baruffaldi calls it: “Oil exorcised in order to make the person anointed with it a true athlete of Christ, so that he may be able to endure patiently in conflict and adversity.” (Comment. Rom. Rit. tit. x, n. 4.)

The holy chrism, wherewith the newly baptized is anointed immediately after being baptized, consists of oil of olives mixed with balsam, likewise blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday. This chrism is the same that the bishop uses in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation. In the early ages of the Church, the bishop was usually the minister of Baptism, and he anointed the neophytes on the forehead with chrism immediately after baptizing them, so that the chrism used by the bishop was in reality for the Sacrament of Confirmation. The unction on the top of the head by the priest was introduced to supply for the unction on the forehead by the bishop when the bishop was absent and when, consequently, Confirmation could not be immediately conferred as usual. Later on, even when the bishop was present and confirmed immediately after Baptism, if a priest baptized he also anointed with chrism, but not on the forehead, but on the top of the neophyte’s head.

Since, therefore, the oil of catechumens is blessed with special exorcism, and to serve for the anointing of those who are about to be baptized, and since the chrism used in Baptism must be the same as used for the Sacrament of Confirmation, it is evident that they may not be replaced by the oleum infirmorum without sin. Baruffaldi says that if by inadvertence one oil is substituted for another, it would be a venial sin; but if the substitution were the result of carelessness or negligence, it would be a mortal sin. “Does a priest sin if, when administering Baptism, he takes and uses one oil in place of another, for example, the oil of chrism in place of the oil of catechumens? To this I answer that, apart from inadvertence, which causes only a venial sin, he would sin gravely if he did this negligently.” And he maintains that the unctions are to be repeated, although they are not of the essence of baptism. “Because those oils are applied for distinct effects, and in the false administration the words would not agree with the effect of the oil, and thus the signification would be frustrated; for if changing a word in the administration is a sin and the Sacrament must be repeated, much more must this be done when the matter is changed. In this case, however, theologians are divided among various opinions. Someone will say: Oil is not the matter of Baptism, either proximate or remote, but something sacramental. I answer: the anointing with oil must be repeated, not the washing with water.” (Tit. x, 19-20.)

Baruffaldi admits at the same time that there are many theologians against him in this view of the matter.

It is evident that it is not so serious a matter to substitute one oil for another in administering Baptism, since there is no question of the validity of the Sacrament. But this is not so in Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Even in Baptism, says O’Kane (Rubrics, 260), the mistake is a serious one and ought to be corrected at the moment if the error is detected and can be at once repaired. If, however, the mistake is discovered only some time afterwards, O’Kane thinks that Baruffaldi’s opinion is too severe, and he inclines to the opinion of Falise, who does not insist on a repetition of the unctions in Baptism, because: 1. One oil is probably a valid substitute for another even when it is question of a Sacrament; with much more reason, therefore, may one be substituted for another where there is no question of a Sacrament, but only of a rite; 2 the omission of the rite does little or no injury; 3. the repetition of the rite would often be an occasion of murmur and scandal. If, by mistake, one oil has been substituted for another in Baptism, Falise agrees with Baruffaldi that the mistake ought to be corrected a moins toutefois que les circonstances n’indiquent la marche contraire. (Falise, Du Baptéme, ch. II. n. 8).

If a repetition of the unctions would cause scandal or adverse comment, they are not to be repeated.

In the case given here, it would scarcely be prudent to repeat the unctions given with the oleum infirmorum. Such repetition would arouse comment and adverse criticism very likely and lessen the people’s confidence in the curate. It would be better to let the matter remain as it is. Ante factum, however, it would have been better to have omitted the unctions altogether and to have advised the parents of the child to this effect, and then later on to have supplied them, data opportunitate, with the proper oils. Fr. Genicot, S.J., gives a case in his Casus Conscientiae (I. cap. 4, n. 1) similar to the one we are considering. A priest journeys about three miles to administer Baptism in a private chapel. Upon arriving at the chapel he discovers that he has forgotten the baptismal oils. He administers Baptism just the same, omitting the unctions, however. Later on he fails to supply the unctions. Genicot does not blame this priest, provided he carried out all the other ceremonies of Baptism. It would be asking too much, he says, to require this priest either to defer the baptism, or to make a journey of six miles (home and back again) to get the oils. And this seems to agree with an answer of the S. C. de P. F., Jan. 21, 1789, which says that a sufficient reason for omitting the solemnities of Baptism would be “any reasonable and grave cause which prevents the administration of those same solemnities.” But the unctions should have been supplied later on, the same author says, “When a suitable time and opportunity are available, in a church or oratory, as is added in the cited response.”

Of course, if the curate in our case did not think that there would be offered later on an opportunity of supplying the unctions with the proper oils, it was better to use doubtful matter to administer a rite than not to administer the rite at all. If, however, the unctions could have been supplied later on, the curate should have waited until he could procure the proper oils.

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).