From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I’m going to entirely recast this question in my own words because I need to address the answer to priests, rather than to the laymen who sent the original query.
It seems that a priest recently baptized using Latin for the form.
Nothing wrong with that! As a matter of fact, I often recommend the use of Latin so that people don’t have to wonder about the validity of translations, etc.
HOWEVER… FATHERS… If you are going to use Latin, GET IT RIGHT.
Fathers, you may have noticed that in Latin, the endings of words change, depending on their function in the sentence. If you change those endings you change the meaning into a) something else that can be understood, b) something wrong but whose meaning we can guess at fairly confidently c) something incoherent which makes you look dumb as we stare at you without comprehension about what you were trying to say.
In the case brought to me, a priest goofed up on the endings of a couple of the names of the Trinity in form of baptism.
Serious? YOU BET!
Did that invalidate the baptism? Probably not, at least in this case.
Being an Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist I checked the manual by Prümmer about invalid forms (Tract II, Art II “De forma baptismi“). I found something that put me at ease about the case presented to me.
According to Prümmer what is essential in the form is that there must be expressed the act of baptizing made by the minister (taken care of with the word(s) “(ego) … baptizo“), the subject of the baptism whom he intends to baptize (“you… te“), the unity of the divine nature (expressed in the phrase “in the name… in nomine“), and the distinction of the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity (“(of the) Father (and of the) Son (and of the) Holy Spirit… Patris (et) Filii (et) Spiritus Sancti).
If over in the Diocese of Black Duck at the SSPX Chapel St. Joseph Terror of Demons, Fr. Rocco Firm were perhaps to be momentarily distracted by, say, an aardvark running across the floor during the pronunciation of the baptismal form, prompting Father in his astonishment at the aardvarkial epiphany to say, “in nomine Patris et [ENTER AARDVARK] FiliO et Spiritus SanctOOO!” [EXIT AARDVARK] instead of “Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti”, nevertheless the form of baptism would be VALID. He would have expressed his intent to baptize the person present in the name of the TRIUNE God.*
Fathers… make a review of the forms of the sacraments you administer, in whatever languages you may need to use. REVIEW. MEMORIZE and REVIEW.
GET IT RIGHT. There’s NO EXCUSE.
*It is likely that Fr. Firm would, ad cautelam, repeat the form prefaced by “Si non es baptizatus (-a), ego te baptizo…” etc. Of the things that could warrant such a repetition, I imagine an aardvark would be at the top of the list.
Loading ...
Interestingly enough, this very issue arose in the 8th century, in connection with the evangelization of Germany by St. Boniface and others. The Holy Father wrote to St. Boniface as follows:
“Zacharias, servant of the servants of God, to his very reverend and holy brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface.
“We have heard from Virgilius and Sedonius, men of religious life in Bavaria, that you have ordered them to confer Baptism for a second time on certain Christians. This report has caused us some anxiety and, if the facts are true, has greatly surprised us. They told us that there was a certain priest in that province who knew no Latin at all, and who at the ceremony of Baptism, through ignorance of Latin grammar, made the mistake of saying: ‘Baptizo te in nomine patria, et filia et spiritus Sancti’, and for this reason you considered a second Baptism to be necessary. But, very reverend brother, if the minister intended no error or heresy, but simply through ignorance made a slip in Latin, we cannot agree to a repetition of the baptismal rite. For, as you are well aware, even a person who has been baptized by a heretic in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, does not need to be baptized over again, but is merely absolved by the laying on of hands. If, then, the case is really such as the report makes out, you must no longer issue instructions to this effect. You must endeavour to conform to the teaching and preaching of the Fathers of the Church.
“May God keep you safe, most reverend brother.
“Given on the kalends of July in the twenty-sixth year of our pious and august emperor, Lord Constantine, crowned by God, the fourth year of his consulship, the fourteenth indiction [i.e., July 1, 746].”
Source: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/boniface-letters.asp
This puts me so much at ease! My father, a deacon, baptized my sons using the old rite in Latin because there was not priest near where we lived at the time willing to do it. However…his Latin was abysmal despite weeks of practice. I have wondered many times whether or not the baptisms were valid. There was a lot of improvement the second time, but still I was uncertain.
Please note, I am extremely grateful to my deacon dad to be willing to do this. He actually starts a formal Latin course next week!
Question, Father. The Eastern Church baptizes in the passive voice: “The servant of Christ is baptized, etc.” And therefore, Pruemmer’s claim that “there must be expressed the act of baptizing made by the minister” would not be fulfilled. Nevertheless, these baptisms are certainly valid.
I mention this because I do not see how baptizing with “We baptize you…” would be invalid.
Help.
This chess puzzle stumped me. What’s the solution?
I love Fr. Z for the clarity and thoroughness he brings to these issues. Even “small” things can be very important, and the valid form of a sacrament surely fits the bill.
Philmont237: I might suggest that a priest or deacon can READ the words while someone else holds the book. There is no need to memorize if Latin remains a (mostly) foreign tongue to him, and attempt to rely on flawed memory for valid sacramental form.
Danteeewoo: Question, Father.
Waiting for the question.
@Danteewoo
Because, ‘intending what the Church intends’ involves not deliberately modifying the words of the rite. (The difference of words in another rite do not matter)
Because when you deliberately change something, you are not, in fact, doing it as intended by the one intending.
The most common omission I experience in liturgical matters is leaving out words from the Sign of the Cross. I’ve seen even our best clergy fall victim to this. It’s like those small, short words didn’t even matter and it’s OK to leave them out.
“In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Sometimes they’ll leave in the but it’s always of that’s the first to go.
I’m just kind of offended and insulted. Are you in that much of a hurry? Lazy? Just doesn’t matter? Unaware of the official formula?
If Latin declensions make a difference, then I propose that of matters just as much!