From a priest friend (summarized):
QUAERITUR:
At Gloria.TV there is a story about aberrations in Germany [Imagine my shock!]. One was a Baptism problem: the priest said the words while the godfather poured the water. Is this a valid Baptism?
No.
The matter (water) must be administered by the one and the same minister at the same time as the words (proper Trinitarian form) of Baptism is pronounced.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote (Summa Theologiae, III p., q. 67, a. 6 to 3):
[I]t must be stated that the integrity of baptism consists in the form of the words and the use of the matter. Consequently, he who only pronounces the words does not baptize, nor he who immerses. Wherefore if one pronounces the words and the other immerses, no form of the words can be fitting.”
In the Roman Ritual (Tit. 2, cap. 1, n. 10) we read:
[I]dem sit aquam adhibens et verba pronuntians…. [L]et the same man be the one applying the water and pronouncing the words.
The question was laid before the Sacred Congregation for Discipline of the Sacraments in 1916 (AAS 08 (1916), p. 478):
Doctrina catholica certissime tenet ab uno eodemque ministro poni debere materiam simulque formam baptismatis proferri … Catholic doctrine most certainly holds that the matter ought to be placed by one and the same minister at the same time as the form of the baptism is offered.
Since we are unreconstructed ossified manualists, we also include the issue of how the water is administered (whether by pouring, sprinkling or immersing): Does it have to be three times, corresponding to the names of the Trinity in the form?
No. Once is sufficient for validity, so long as it flows (moves) on the head of the one being baptized. However, the obligation of a threefold pouring (etc.) is grave, as is, in the tradition of the Church, to use Baptismal Water or at the very least Holy Water. In necessity, regular water can be used.
Heribert Jone says in his Moral Theology (trans. Adelman – 1962). This also addresses the question of two people dividing the action of pouring and speaking:
467. — 3. The proximate valid matter of Baptism consists in the actual washing of the person to be baptized by the one baptizing.
The washing may be done by immersion, aspersion or infusion.
A definite quantity of water is not required; it suffices Lat the water flow over the one being baptized. Several authors hold the flowing of one or two drops insufficient. — Baptism is doubtful and must be repeated conditionally if administered by rubbing wet fingers across the forehead or by merely making the sign of the cross thereon with a wet finger. The same holds for the use of a damp cloth, sponge or wet hand when the water does not actually flow. Likewise, if administered by aspersion as when sprinkling with holy water if the drops do not flow over the skin but remain when they fall.
The water must touch the one to be baptized. Baptism is invalid if the water merely comes in contact with the clothes, or the uterus or fetal membrane in case of uterine Baptism. It is likewise invalid if only a head scab or a mucuous excretion on the head is contacted. — If the hair alone and not the skin is touched the baptism is doubtful.
Baptism is certainly valid if administered on the head (if the hair is very thick it would be better to baptize on the forehead). Baptism is valid even if the head is entirely covered with sores. It is probably valid if one were to baptize on the breast, neck or shoulder; probably invalid if administered on the hand, arm or the foot.
Validity also requires that one and the same person apply the water and pronounce the words. The washing may be done by infusion or by holding the one to be baptized in standing or flowing water (e.g., in a spring or in the rain).
Loading ...
One of my Priest had the bottles to baptize in the womb. I thought it was amazing.
Germany… goodness, how much more is going to come out of Germany before the Holy See says anything!
In the seminary, I served as a deacon in a midwestern parish (not my diocese) in the mid 1990s. The first Sunday I was there, I sat in to observe the baptisms to see how they were done. The permanent deacon was from one of the earliest groups to be ordained in this diocese, probably the early 80s.
Right before the pouring of water he said that it would be very meaningful for everyone involved if they all said the words, “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” while he poured the water. And that is what he did. I was stunned.
After the baptisms, I thanked the deacon for letting me observe but said to him, as kindly as possible, “I think that your baptisms may have invalid.” His response was, “What does invalid mean?” He then went on to say that was how he was taught and he had been doing it this way for many years.
I then went to the pastor to bring it to his attention. He shut me down immediately. That was the last time I spoke with him, even though I served in the parish on Sundays for another two months.
Years later, when it was revealed that a man was invalidly ordained because the priest used an invalid formula at his baptism as an infant, I called that parish to tell the current pastor about what happened decades prior. He could not care less and told me not to worry about it.
To this day, it makes me sick to think about it.
[I recommend that you write a letter to your local bishop about this, explaining the facts as you recall them with copies of any correspondence. It is important to get things in writing. Also, perhaps people have persevered VIDEOS of baptisms.]
It is probably valid if one were to baptize on the breast, neck or shoulder; probably invalid if administered on the hand, arm or the foot.
I am not surprised that it is probably valid if on the breast, neck or shoulder. I am surprised that a “probably” is needed to express the situation, that it’s not a settled question.
I am slightly surprised that it is probably invalid if on the hand, arm, or foot. However, one can guess at some possible reason for that, e.g. a head and chest are necessary for life itself; a hand or foot are not. Therefore, the regeneration (to spiritual life) needs to be applied to the central “core” of the body, that part without which there isn’t even life. (Just a guess, I have no source that provides this as a reason.)
Since the words of baptize go “I baptize you…”, it seems only logical that the actions MUST conform to the words and vice versa. If I say “I baptize”, then I have to pour the water, not someone else. But I am a little puzzled how that works out for the one being baptized who is standing in flowing water.
I read an account of an exorcism on a Catholic who was not baptized properly.