Baptism: Was this Invalid Form?

[paterpetri]

In the course of my travels, I have attended Mass at a certain Church on two different occasions, when the priest has baptized a baby prior to Mass. On both occasions, the priest said: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit,” instead of the usual “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Am I splitting hairs by wondering if this was a violation of valid form? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the use of the singular “name” instead of the plural “names” has been used historically as a justification for the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[kell0618]

Splitting hairs.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Splitting hairs. Now, if the priest said, “…in the Name of the Creator, and Redeemer, and Sanctifyer” or “Dad, the Kid and the Spook” there would have been a problem.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

In the course of my travels, I have attended Mass at a certain Church on two different occasions, when the priest has baptized a baby prior to Mass. On both occasions, the priest said: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit,” instead of the usual “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Am I splitting hairs by wondering if this was a violation of valid form? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the use of the singular “name” instead of the plural “names” has been used historically as a justification for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The priest should not have modified the form, however I do not think the way he did would invalidate the Baptism.

 

[paterpetri]

Thanks all for your feedback. I

don’t want to be a liturgical policeman; I just become concerned when our priests start playing around with form. Sounds like the consensus is that this wouldn’t invalidate the sacrament, and I can rest assured that the babies were validly baptized.

 

[dylanschrader]

Thanks all for your feedback. I

don’t want to be a liturgical policeman; I just become concerned when our priests start playing around with form. Sounds like the consensus is that this wouldn’t invalidate the sacrament, and I can rest assured that the babies were validly baptized.

With something this serious (you are right about the singular ‘name’ as an important patristic argument about the Trinity), I would talk with the priest and also make some kind of inquiry to the diocese about the validity of these baptisms.

The repetition of ‘name’ could be significant because there has to be an invocation of the Trinity, which could be different from invoking the Father, invoking the Son, and invoking the Holy Spirit as three separate (not distinct (they are distinct) but separate) Persons.

The Decretum pro Armenis says:

If the act which the minister effects is expressed in words together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. (D 696)

 

[palmas85]

In the course of my travels, I have attended Mass at a certain Church on two different occasions, when the priest has baptized a baby prior to Mass. On both occasions, the priest said: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit,” instead of the usual “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Am I splitting hairs by wondering if this was a violation of valid form? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the use of the singular “name” instead of the plural “names” has been used historically as a justification for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The formula is good. The Baptism was fine. Now had the Priest said something along the lines of the Creator the Sanctifier and the Reedeemer or in the name of the Mother-Father God, or the Great Eternal Spirit which I’ve seen done, then it would have been invalid.

 

[Brendan]

The formula is good. The Baptism was fine.

The forumla was adequate and the Baptism was most likely valid, but it would require an examination by an ordinary minister of the Sacrament to make that determination.

The theological problem with the forumla used is that God has only one name. He is one Substance, One Existance, therefore has God one Name.

That is why both the Sign of the Cross and the Tritarian Baptismal Form reference “THE name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirt”

Note that it is in the Singular.

 

[dylanschrader]

The following is from Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis by Felix M. Cappello:

Nonulli ut dubias habent has formulas: ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et in nomine Filii et in nomine Spiritus Sancti; si vis baptizari ego te baptizo etc. Verum utraque forma a S. Officio valida fuit declarata; prior equidem per responsum diei 11 ian. 1882, alia vero per declarationem die 12 iun. 1850 datam.

Translation:

Some hold as doubtful these formulas: I baptize you in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit; if you wish to be baptized I baptize you etc. However both forms have been declared valid by the Holy Office; the former through a response of January 11 1882, the latter through a declaration given on June 12 1850.

I took a look in the Acta from 1882 but have not found the response yet. However, this shows clearly that this baptismal form is valid (although obviously illicit).

 

[paterpetri]

The following is from Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis by Felix M. Cappello:

Translation:

I took a look in the Acta from 1882 but have not found the response yet. However, this shows clearly that this baptismal form is valid (although obviously illicit).

Thank you for this. it’s good to know that I have not been the only one to split these hairs!

Where did you find the *Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis. *Is it available online? And does it contain other such dubia regarding the sacraments? Very interesting, indeed.

 

[dylanschrader]

Thank you for this. it’s good to know that I have not been the only one to split these hairs!

Where did you find the *Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis. *Is it available online? And does it contain other such dubia regarding the sacraments? Very interesting, indeed.

It’s not online as far as I know.

Yes, there are lists of “invalid,” “valid,” “doubtful,” and “ambiguous” form and matter for the sacraments. All kinds of examples that I never thought people could dream up. Apparently, people have had trouble sticking to the form given in the Gospel for a long time.

 

[MusicMan]

Splitting hairs. Now, if the priest said, “…in the Name of the Creator, and Redeemer, and Sanctifyer” or “Dad, the Kid and the Spook” there would have been a problem.

I misread this when I first read your post. I though you said, “Dad, the Kid, and SPOCK.” It reminded me of that Futurama episode where Star Trek had become a religion…

 

[otjm]

The following is from Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis by Felix M. Cappello:

Translation:

I took a look in the Acta from 1882 but have not found the response yet. However, this shows clearly that this baptismal form is valid (although obviously illicit).

Nothing in what you quote indicates that either of these are illicit. Did you leave something out, or was that just a personal opinion?

 

[dylanschrader]

Nothing in what you quote indicates that either of these are illicit. Did you leave something out, or was that just a personal opinion?

Um, the quotes are about validity, not liceity.

The form is not licit because only the form “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is given in the Rite of Baptism.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Splitting hairs. Now, if the priest said, “…in the Name of the Creator, and Redeemer, and Sanctifyer”

I still don’t get why people feel the need to use that version. Had a teacher at my Catholic High School teach it to us my Senior year. I told me mom, she flipped and called the school. He’s still there, and this was 2001. He’s been there since the 70s… anyway!

“Dad, the Kid and the Spook”

Have you actually heard this, or are you making it up?