Can a deacon peform EF baptism?

[Rin]

Why?

It’s an online re-print of the Roman Ritual in English. The physical book itself (printed in 1964) was in English, with no Latin, so I don’t see how it’s strange that the online version would be the same.

Do you know if the physical book is still on sale anywhere? All I can find is the Weller version, which is side-by-side (which I generally consider a plus, this is just out of interest) I think.

I suppose one might be able to find the Roman Ritual in Latin online—I’ve simply never looked.

liturgia.it/ritrom.pdf

I have no idea what kind of site this is on, by the way, I found it directly through Google. But the PDF seems to be in order, at least.

 

[FrDavid96]

There are printed versions (or at least a version) of the Rituale only in English I think - a priest friend of mine has one. He uses it mainly for blessings and such, since he (and “many” priests with him) dislikes the blessings in De Benedictionibus.

I have no idea if the English texts were approved for use for baptisms and other sacraments, though I suspect they may have been in the sixties (given the “temporary” vernacular Mass etc.). Does anyone know?

Yes, they were.

The online version is an electronic printing of the physical book that was actually printed in 1964.

I have 2 versions of the physical books that are identical photostatic copies of the 1964 versions (often called “Weller” after the translator). They came in either a one or three volume version.

The English language text was certainly approved for actual use, not just for reference.

Note: the version is actually the 1962 Roman Ritual, but the printing was 1964. It had some minor updates to reflect what was then the ongoing Council.

 

[FAB]

This issue is actually addressed in the rite itself.

In the Extraordinary Form, the deacon does not bless the salt for baptism, but instead uses the salt previously blessed by a priest. That’s not opinion, it’s simply what is stated in the rubrics.

Also, in the EF, the water used was the water from the Easter Vigil. There was no blessing of water in the Rite of Baptism (see further). Again, not opinion, but the actual rubrics.

Here are the general rules for baptism in the Extraordinary Form
sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html

And here is the actual rite of Baptism
sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/09-baptism-of-children.html

Note that there is no blessing of water—not by a deacon, and not by a priest either.

There is a blessing of Baptismal water in Chapter VIII but this is not within the printing of the rite itself. It does say that it can be done within the Rite.

Since a deacon is an extraordinary minister of baptism in the EF (with delegation from the pastor), as I see it, he can likewise bless the water because if he’s been delegated for the whole, he has delegation for every part of the whole.

The salt is an exception though, because the deacon specifically does not bless the salt in the EF.

I trend to follow what has been told to my fellow deacon

To say that the deacon cannot use the EF blessing of water and salt but he can in the new, all of which are taking place in the here and now with the authority granted now to the ordained, you are saying that the result of the two blessings are not equal. The result of the EF blessing is different than the result of the modern form of blessing of salt and water. That makes no more sense than the point made of a valid baptism or an invalid baptism dependent upon the form, EF or not, and whether a deacon or a priest performed the baptism

Since the EF was written before the reinstatement of the deaconate it cannot take into account that faculties of a permanent deacon. Since he has the faculties to bless most things and substances, (except oil for anointing of the sick an a couple if others) his facilities in this case to perform a baptism is the same for any other baptism.

I am curious however, that I was not aware that the permission to use the EF of the mass also included sacraments that have been revised. If the sacrament is in the context of an EF mass I can see the old form being used, but I don’t get the connection of performing a revised rite in any other context.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do you know if the physical book is still on sale anywhere? All I can find is the Weller version, which is side-by-side (which I generally consider a plus, this is just out of interest) I think.

liturgia.it/ritrom.pdf

I have no idea what kind of site this is on, by the way, I found it directly through Google. But the PDF seems to be in order, at least.

Sure is.

It’s available from Preserving Christian Publications direct on their website.
pcpbooks.net/prestashop/55635.html
that’s the 3 volume

It’s available on Amazon (do a search for “Weller Roman Ritual”)

The one volume is sold by Leaflet Missal, but they’re currently out of stock.
leafletonline.com/The-Roman-Ritual/productinfo/17387/

These are exact photostatic copies of the older books.

 

[ProVobis]

Why?

It’s an online re-print of the Roman Ritual in English. The physical book itself (printed in 1964) was in English, with no Latin, so I don’t see how it’s strange that the online version would be the same.

I understood the 62 liturgical books were in Latin, especially after Saint John XXIII had written Veterum Sapientia. However, I can see allowance for confession as well as godparent and bride/groom responses in the vernacular. (My godparents’ responses would have been in Polish.)

I was not aware approval of the EF involved books written after 1962.

 

[FrDavid96]

I trend to follow what has been told to my fellow deacon

It’s not about “what a fellow deacon says” It’s about what the Church says.

The Roman Ritual of 1962 specifically says that a deacon is an extraordinary minister of Baptism and has rubrics for the deacon when he is the celebrant.

In the Extraordinary Form, the deacon does not bless the salt.
Someone’s opinion as to whether or not the deacon can bless the salt doesn’t change that.

Since the EF was written before the reinstatement of the deaconate it cannot take into account that faculties of a permanent deacon. Since he has the faculties to bless most things and substances, (except oil for anointing of the sick an a couple if others) his facilities in this case to perform a baptism is the same for any other baptism.

The timing of the permanent diaconate is irrelevant.
The Roman Ritual makes provision for what a deacon does when he baptizes.
A deacon using the Roman Ritual of 1962 follows the ritual as it was used in 1962.

Faculties are irrelevant here (with regard to the actual blessing of salt)
In 1962, a deacon was an extraordinary minister, so long as he had delegation from the bishop or pastor.
In 2014, the deacon is an ordinary minister of baptism, but he still needs the delegation of the pastor (just as a parochial vicar needs such delegation). It need not be anything formal. If the pastor says “Deacon Joe, do this baptism” that’s all that’s needed, whether 1962 or 2014.

Since the deacon blessing the salt was specifically excluded in the 1962 ritual, then it’s still excluded today because the Extraordinary Form follows the rubrics of '62. It’s rather straightforward.

I am curious however, that I was not aware that the permission to use the EF of the mass also included sacraments that have been revised. If the sacrament is in the context of an EF mass I can see the old form being used, but I don’t get the connection of performing a revised rite in any other context.

Here are the references:

1. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.
2. The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, as well as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same Instruction.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

Paragraph 28 makes it clear that anything incompatible with the 1962 Ritual is not permitted in the Extraordinary Form. Since the deacon could not be the minister of blessing salt in 1962, he cannot do it in 2014 when he uses the Extraordinary Form.

This is not just my opinion. It’s spelled out quite clearly by the Congregation.

Also, you have the idea of deacons blessing reversed. It isn’t that he can bless anything unless otherwise stated. He can perform only those blessings specifically permitted to him by law. (Canon 1169 §3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.)

There is nothing in the law allowing a deacon to bless the salt at baptism, because the Ordinary Form does not have the blessing of salt (I just checked to be sure) as part of the Rite of Baptism.

 

[ProVobis]

Since the EF was written before the reinstatement of the deaconate it cannot take into account that faculties of a permanent deacon.

My understanding is that the faculties of transitional deacons and permanent deacons are and always have been the same.

 

[FrDavid96]

I understood the 62 liturgical books were in Latin, especially after Saint John XXIII had written Veterum Sapientia. However, I can see allowance for confession as well as godparent and bride/groom responses in the vernacular. (My godparents’ responses would have been in Polish.)

I was not aware approval of the EF involved books written after 1962.

It does not.

That’s why I mentioned earlier that the 1964 version is merely a printing of the 1962 Roman Ritual. It’s not a different version, it’s just a publication date, with some minor editing notes.

I understand now, why you asked about the Latin.

 

[FrDavid96]

We are having our child baptized and a friend of our parents has so kindly offered to baptize our child. I haven’t asked him yet because I wanted to know if it was permissible first, but can a deacon baptize using the extradorinary form? From what I’ve read briefly it seems likely, so long as the salt and water is exercised and blessed by the priest beforehand.

Also, I’m not sure how to ask this delicately. Honestly I’d rather have the priest baptize my child and maybe I’m being scrupulously, but I just wish it could be this way. It seems my only other option is to have an ordinary baptism done at the mass by the priest.

And if a deacon can not excoriate the salt and water how can he carry out the exorcism at the baptism itself?

Another issue is I’m not even sure if this Deacon knows the extraordinary form but I suppose he could learn : )

To get back to your original question:

Yes, the deacon can baptize according to the Extraordinary Form. This is specifically allowed in the 1962 Roman Ritual.

The salt must be previously blessed by a priest (that’s mentioned in the ritual).
The practice was to use already blessed salt anyway (even when a priest baptized), so it would be more in keeping with the practice of the time NOT to use fresh salt.

The water is a different issue because the 1962 Roman Ritual presumes that the water will not be blessed at Baptism, but instead the Easter Vigil water will be used. In the 1962 Ritual, not even the priest was supposed to bless the water, except in emergencies.

The deacon can perform exorcisms because either he was ordained an exorcist (before Pope Paul VI) or because the order of exorcist now subsists within the order of deacon.

If the deacon doesn’t know the Extraordinary Form, but is willing, all that’s needed really would be for him to look at it ahead of time to prepare himself.

You can print the online version or (if you’re willing to pay) buy the book. Of course, you can always borrow a copy if you can find one—chances are that any priest who uses the Extraordinary Form will have a copy. Libraries even have them.

 

[malphono]

Note that there is no blessing of water—not by a deacon, and not by a priest either.

There is a blessing of Baptismal water in Chapter VIII but this is not within the printing of the rite itself. It does say that it can be done within the Rite.

Since a deacon is an extraordinary minister of baptism in the EF (with delegation from the pastor), as I see it, he can likewise bless the water because if he’s been delegated for the whole, he has delegation for every part of the whole.

The salt is an exception though, because the deacon specifically does not bless the salt in the EF.

Again, I’m not sparring for an argument, Father, but I’m not so sure that a deacon may bless baptismal water. Whereas a deacon may be delegated for the whole, since the rite of blessing the water (in case of necessity) is not explicitly part of the Rite of Baptism itself, it seems to me that the specifics of the rubrics ought to be followed. That chapter begins:

Tum Sacerdos cum suis Clericis, vel etiam aliis Presbyteris …

Further, we have the mixture of OC and the Holy Chrism into the water, so it seems to me that the addition of the Chrism renders the “blessing” to be more of a consecration, and whereas a deacon may baptize, he may not administer Holy Chrism.

In short, my take is that a deacon may, as you rightly point out, administer baptism, but may not either bless the water or exorcise the salt. If the water and salt are prepared in advance by a priest or bishop, there’s no problem.

 

[HoneyBea]

Ok so after reading everyone’s posts I’m even more confused then ever. Can somewhere please dumb it all down for me a simple layman.

Does the water need to be blessed separately if using EF form and not use the water blessed at the Easter vigil.

What needs to be done or not done to have this be a valid baptism in EF form.

I thought I could trust the Deacon to figure it out but this discussion has me wondering…

The Deacon will be getting permission from Father T that much I do know.

Thanks everyone for the well explained replies even if they are over my head lol

 

[HoneyBea]

Again, I’m not sparring for an argument, Father, but I’m not so sure that a deacon may bless baptismal water. Whereas a deacon may be delegated for the whole, since the rite of blessing the water (in case of necessity) is not explicitly part of the Rite of Baptism itself, it seems to me that the specifics of the rubrics ought to be followed. That chapter begins:
Further, we have the mixture of OC and the Holy Chrism into the water, so it seems to me that the addition of the Chrism renders the “blessing” to be more of a consecration, and whereas a deacon may baptize, he may not administer Holy Chrism.

In short, my take is that a deacon may, as you rightly point out, administer baptism, but may not either bless the water or exorcise the salt. If the water and salt are prepared in advance by a priest or bishop, there’s no problem.

Oops ok I over looked this post.
I think you clarified the water salt issue thank you. The oil blessed at chrism mass is a non issue correct?

Just to be clear if we decide to use OF form the water blessed at the Easter Vigil mass is fine to use? And they don’t use salt in the OF form correct?

Anything else I need to know?

Thanks everyone!

 

[ProVobis]

Does the water need to be blessed separately if using EF form and not use the water blessed at the Easter vigil.

What needs to be done or not done to have this be a valid baptism in EF form.

I thought I could trust the Deacon to figure it out but this discussion has me wondering…

The Deacon will be getting permission from Father T that much I do know.

Thanks everyone for the well explained replies even if they are over my head lol

You (and the deacon) should be okay as long as you don’t mix the forms together. If you slip up (use Vigil water, no Latin, etc.) the baptism will probably still be valid, but it won’t be strictly in the EF form. But I doubt if the baptismal certificate will include the form used. Good luck and congratulations in advance.

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, I’m not sparring for an argument, Father, but I’m not so sure that a deacon may bless baptismal water. Whereas a deacon may be delegated for the whole, since the rite of blessing the water (in case of necessity) is not explicitly part of the Rite of Baptism itself, it seems to me that the specifics of the rubrics ought to be followed. That chapter begins:
Further, we have the mixture of OC and the Holy Chrism into the water, so it seems to me that the addition of the Chrism renders the “blessing” to be more of a consecration, and whereas a deacon may baptize, he may not administer Holy Chrism.

In short, my take is that a deacon may, as you rightly point out, administer baptism, but may not either bless the water or exorcise the salt. If the water and salt are prepared in advance by a priest or bishop, there’s no problem.

This is the part that I’m not entirely sure about either. However, for different reasons:

The documents from Rome that provide the laws/norms for the Extraordinary Form are clear in that the ritual in use in 1962 may be used. However, the addition of blessing the water within the rite itself did not exist in 1962—it was made just slightly later. The Roman Ritual presumes that the minister is using the Easter Vigil water. Now, I’m not saying that the blessing was completely prohibited, because it’s only natural that if there was no Vigil water available, the priest certainly had to bless it.

This isn’t about what a deacon can or cannot do; in other words, it’s not about whether a deacon can bless either the salt or water by virtue of his diaconal ordination.

In the Extraordinary Form, the deacon cannot bless the baptismal salt. That much is a given.

In the EF, can he bless the water? Strictly speaking, following the 1962 ritual he cannot, because the provision for blessing the water during the ritual itself was not made until Sacrosanctum Concilium in 1963. What makes this tricky to understand though, is that S.C. allowed for the short form of blessing to be incorporated into the Rite–not the more elaborate form.

A few points that need to be mentioned:

1. In the Extraordinary Form, the water used for Baptism must be the Easter Vigil Water if such is available.
2. The provision to bless the water only applies outside the Easter Season.
3. The ritual for blessing the baptismal water is a rite unto itself–it was/is not part of the Baptismal Rite in the EF, even though Baptism might or might not follow the blessing of the water.

All that is academic, though. I do think this particular topic is interesting because of the question: does Sacrosanctum Concilium from 1963 have any bearing on Baptisms performed according to the 1962 Roman Ritual?

Having said all that though, the relevant point that answers the OPs question is actually rather direct. The Church clearly says that the 2 forms, Extraordinary and Ordinary cannot be mixed. That’s made abundantly clear. For that reason, any attempt to answer to OPs question by asking “what can a deacon do today?” has no relevance for the OP. It’s not a matter of “what can he do today?” because that’s mixing the 2 forms, and that’s strictly forbidden. The question is “what could he do in 1962?” And the answer to that is rather easy to determine: simply pick up the 1962 Ritual and follow exactly what it says.
According to the 1962 Roman Ritual, the deacon can be the minister of Baptism, but he cannot bless either the salt or the water.

 

[malphono]

Oops ok I over looked this post.
I think you clarified the water salt issue thank you. The oil blessed at chrism mass is a non issue correct?

The oils (the Oil of the Cathechumens and, if water is to be blessed, Holy Chrism) are consecrated so yes, they are a non issue.

Just to be clear if we decide to use OF form the water blessed at the Easter Vigil mass is fine to use? And they don’t use salt in the OF form correct?

AFAIK, the salt was not included in the Novus Ordo form.

Does the water need to be blessed separately if using EF form and not use the water blessed at the Easter vigil.

Baptismal Water from the Easter Vigil may be used in the Usus Antiquior as well as the Novus Ordo. Water is blessed (or, from the Latin, consecrated) in the UA only, as Fr. David mentioned, when it is needed. It’s not an integral part of the Rite of Baptism.

 

[malphono]

This is the part that I’m not entirely sure about either. However, for different reasons: …

According to the 1962 Roman Ritual, the deacon can be the minister of Baptism, but he cannot bless either the salt or the water.

You mean for once we actually agree???

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok so after reading everyone’s posts I’m even more confused then ever. Can somewhere please dumb it all down for me a simple layman.

Does the water need to be blessed separately if using EF form and not use the water blessed at the Easter vigil.

On the contrary, the Easter Vigil water should always be used in the EF, unless it’s not available. During the Easter Season, it must be used. Outside the Easter Season, it must first be blessed by a priest.
To keep things simple, I would strongly suggest obtaining some of the Easter Vigil water now, while it’s still available, and setting it aside.

What needs to be done or not done to have this be a valid baptism in EF form.

Follow the 1962 Roman Ritual exactly as printed. No variations.
These are the rules sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html
This is the rite itself sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/09-baptism-of-children.html
Whether the source is a physical book or an online version, they will be the same.
Of course, the deacon needs the permission of the proper pastor of the place.

I thought I could trust the Deacon to figure it out but this discussion has me wondering…

I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting or not trusting. I wouldn’t expect the average priest or deacon to know this offhand anyway, unless he’s already familiar with the Extraordinary Form.

The Deacon will be getting permission from Father T that much I do know.

Good. That much is a given, no matter what else. Whether he uses the Extraordinary or Ordinary form, no cleric may baptize in any church without the pastor’s permission (except in danger of death).

Thanks everyone for the well explained replies even if they are over my head lol

**I know that this thread has become rather complicated. The solution though is very simple. Just make sure he has the Roman Ritual from 1962 (online or physical) and as long as he follows that exactly, there won’t be any issues.
**

Remember to have some salt blessed by a priest because that’s an important element in the EF Rite of Baptism.

 

[HoneyBea]

On the contrary, the Easter Vigil water should always be used in the EF, unless it’s not available. During the Easter Season, it must be used. Outside the Easter Season, it must first be blessed by a priest.
To keep things simple, I would strongly suggest obtaining some of the Easter Vigil water now, while it’s still available, and setting it aside.

Follow the 1962 Roman Ritual exactly as printed. No variations.
These are the rules sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html
This is the rite itself sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/09-baptism-of-children.html
Whether the source is a physical book or an online version, they will be the same.
Of course, the deacon needs the permission of the proper pastor of the place.

I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting or not trusting. I wouldn’t expect the average priest or deacon to know this offhand anyway, unless he’s already familiar with the Extraordinary Form.

Good. That much is a given, no matter what else. Whether he uses the Extraordinary or Ordinary form, no cleric may baptize in any church without the pastor’s permission (except in danger of death).

**I know that this thread has become rather complicated. The solution though is very simple. Just make sure he has the Roman Ritual from 1962 (online or physical) and as long as he follows that exactly, there won’t be any issues.
**

Remember to have some salt blessed by a priest because that’s an important element in the EF Rite of Baptism.

Thank you! I think I finally understand and “trust” was the wrong word to use. I meant to imply exactly what you said in response to my statement.

Thanks again!

 

[FrDavid96]

This long thread brings up an important point:

Every cleric should have a copy of the 1962 Roman Ritual in his personal library.

Every parish should have a copy of the 1962 Roman Ritual in the sacristy.

Since re-prints are readily available, there’s really no excuse not to have one.

Think about this the next time your pastor’s birthday comes 'round or if you’re wondering “what to get Father?” next Christmas.

 

[ProVobis]

This long thread brings up an important point:

Every cleric should have a copy of the 1962 Roman Ritual in his personal library.

Every parish should have a copy of the 1962 Roman Ritual in the sacristy.

Since re-prints are readily available, there’s really no excuse not to have one.

Think about this the next time your pastor’s birthday comes 'round or if you’re wondering “what to get Father?” next Christmas.

Good suggestion. Thanks, Fr.

BTW, I found the Ceremonies of Baptism in the 62 Angelus Press handmissal. (Latin-English)

Includes:

The Questioning
The Exsufflation
The Sign of the Cross
The Imposition of Hands
The Blessing of Salt
The Imposition of Salt
The Exorcism
The Sign of the Cross
The Imposition of Hands
The Admission into the Church
The Credo and the Pater
The Solemn Exorcism
The Ephphetha
The Renunciation of Satan
The Annointing
The Profession of Faith
Baptism
The Annointing with Chrism
The White Linen Cloth
The Lighted Candle
Last Words of Good Will

Oh yes, the priest is the ordinary minister; the deacon is the extraordinary minister, needs permission from the parish priest.