Baptism by single pouring?

[Andy_Corder]

Thanks for the reply. I admit that it is difficult to research this since nowhere does it explicitly say that this type of “asynchronous” baptism is invalid. Do you kow of any precedent in a Catholic Church in which a priest has said the words and then poured the water? All the videos that I’m finding on youtube have the priest reciting the formula while pouring. As a matter of fact, the only time I’ve seen anything like this before was in that “religions of the world” TV special a few months back, in which a Baptist pastor recited the Trinitarian formula and then immersed the young girl afterwards.

I have seen it done both ways. The Deacon in my parish who does most of the baptisms says the words as he pours (single pour) the water over the head. I have seen other Deacons (and Priests) who will say one part of the formula, pour the water, say the next part, pour, then the third part and pour.

I believe it is up to the individual minister conducting the baptism as to the timing of the words and single or triple pouring.

 

[Fuerza]

I have seen it done both ways. The Deacon in my parish who does most of the baptisms says the words as he pours (single pour) the water over the head. I have seen other Deacons (and Priests) who will say one part of the formula, pour the water, say the next part, pour, then the third part and pour.

I believe it is up to the individual minister conducting the baptism as to the timing of the words and single or triple pouring.

Neither of the scenarios that you describe really separate the words from the pouring of the water in the same way that I described. Even in the triple pouring with the pour being performed after each name of the Trinity the two acts are linked together. In my example, the entire formula is recited and completed before the pouring even begins, creating a slight disassociation between the two. The excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia that I just posted gives me a little pause as well.

 

[Andy_Corder]

In re-reading 1240 from the CCC, it simply states “…is accompanied by the minister’s words…”. This seems to leave interpretation room as to just what is “accompanied by”. It does not specifically state simultaneous actions, or one action followed by the other. When it discusses the practice of immersion, it says that “at the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate…”

However, 1284 in the CCC states"In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intentio nof doint that which the Chruch does and provided that he pous water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The Code of Canon Law does not address the timing issue at all (as far as I can find anyway).

“Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.”

As to your concern on the validity of the baptism, the Code of Caon Law states:

"Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents."

I believe the reference to “form of the words” in subsection 2 relate to the Trinitarian Formula, but I am not a Canon Lawyer. You may wish to call your diocesean Canon Lawyer and run this question past him. You can contact him through the Chancellor’s office most times.

 

[Andy_Corder]

I called a deacon in our parish who is very knowledgeable about the “right” and “wrong” way of doing things. He stated that it will most likely come to the intent of the priest doing the baptism.

In other words, if the priest separated the pouring and the spoken formula with the intent of not carrying out the sacrament as the Church set forth, then the baptism may well be invalid.

However, if there was no intent in separating the words and the actions, then the baptism would be valid.

 

[Fuerza]

I called a deacon in our parish who is very knowledgeable about the “right” and “wrong” way of doing things. He stated that it will most likely come to the intent of the priest doing the baptism.

In other words, if the priest separated the pouring and the spoken formula with the intent of not carrying out the sacrament as the Church set forth, then the baptism may well be invalid.

However, if there was no intent in separating the words and the actions, then the baptism would be valid.

Thanks for checking up. That’s good to hear. Just to be sure I’m going to ask my priest next week when I go for confession. I don’t want to make a big deal by writing the bishop if I don’t have to.