Can a deacon peform EF baptism?

[FrDavid96]

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

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.

To help understand this:

Summorum Pontificum
Art. 9, §1 The parish priest, after careful consideration, can also grant permission to use the older ritual in the administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance and Anointing of the Sick, if advantageous for the good of souls.

The Instruction from Ecclesia Dei, personally approved by HH Benedict XVI
28. 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.
In other words; only the rubrics from 1962 apply.

The 1962 Roman Ritual (from the Rite of Baptism)
27. The rite described above must be observed also by a deacon who administers solemn baptism; however, he uses salt and water blessed previously for this purpose by a priest.

I understand the logic that your friend is using (and in a different context, regarding the OF only, I’d likely be in agreement), but what he’s doing is trying to combine the 2 forms, OF and EF. We can’t do that.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

I didn’t catch your update before.

Good point.
It might be a little difficult (or at least expensive) to buy the 1962 Roman Ritual for just one baptism, but there’s a good chance that the OP might find someone with a hand missal—or might even have one.

HoneyBea: Are you still reading? Do you have a hand Missal for the Extraordinary Form, and if so, why not check there for the Rite of Baptism.

 

[Lapey]

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 blessed six boxes of salt and six gallons of water today for a parishioner…are these items blessed or not?

Let me ask this question since it seems everyone here, me and FAB in the minority, are speaking of blessings within a EF baptism. Lets say there is no Easter water, nor any salt; I choose to use the water and salt which I have blessed today for the parishioner, in the EF baptism, would the child be validly baptized?

It’s ok, you all can say the answer…yes, the child would be validly baptized and the salt and water are validly blessed.

End of story.

 

[HoneyBea]

I didn’t catch your update before.

Good point.
It might be a little difficult (or at least expensive) to buy the 1962 Roman Ritual for just one baptism, but there’s a good chance that the OP might find someone with a hand missal—or might even have one.

HoneyBea: Are you still reading? Do you have a hand Missal for the Extraordinary Form, and if so, why not check there for the Rite of Baptism.

Yes, but I thought I could get the hand Missal for EF online (I havent looked).

I dont have access to one I am over seas in Japan and perhaps Im presuming here but I dont think the military Chapel carries them.

The church we are using for the baptism is back home in the Houston, Texas so I think there are more resources there.

 

[Lapey]

From Rituale Romanum about the preparation and introductory rites to the blessing of baptismal water: “Tum Sacerdos cum suis Clericis, vel etiam aliis Presbyteris (…)”

Throughout the rite, there is only (and very specific) mention of priests. Remember that while the faculties of a deacon to baptize under ordinary circumstances is given through law, who can bless what is stated in De Benedictionibus for the newer blessings. In the same way, it is reasonable to believe that instructions regarding blessings in the Rituale are still in place, unless specifically said otherwise by Rome.

There’s more commentary here (I don’t exactly like this blog, but it has sound liturgical commentary, for the most part): wdtprs.com/blog/2011/03/quaeritur-deacons-and-blessings-with-the-traditional-roman-ritual/

Still there were deacons, and they were allowed to baptize on specific occasions, but could not bless and exorcize water and salt.

In addition, remember that there were permanent deacons up until sometime in the 20th century, albeit very rare. The EF is older than that.

I have no good answer for that, but I’m sure there is one, since the baptismal exorcism only required the Minor Order of Exorcist, while the exorcism of water and salt is reserved to priests, even when deacons baptized.

A blessing does what it proclaims to do in the text. The two rituals say different things. Holy Water is not a sacrament, so there is no heresy in saying there is a difference between Holy Water blessed in the new rite and the old. Neither is it absurd.

For that reason, there is also nothing wrong about refusing to use Holy Water blessed in the new form when baptizing in the older form. It wouldn’t even be to disapprove of the “new” water; they are both blessed, but differently. And the Roman Ritual describes what blessing to use very specifically, so using baptismal water blessed in the new form would actually be violation of the rubrics. However, refusing to mix Hosts from the two forms when distributing Communion during EF Mass would be heretical; there is no difference between the two, since the Sacrament is the same.

Seeing blessings that say completely different things as different simply can’t be compared to saying the Sacrament as such is different or invalid due to the different form. In addition, changing the formula of Baptism would invalidate it. On the other hand, changing the content of a blessing (as long as it still constitutes a blessing) would not invalidate it, the item (or water) would still be blessed, but differently. There is a reason we use different blessings for different things.

As a deacon, you are obviously in the clear as long as your Judicial Vicar and Bishop give permission, but to be honest, when dealing with the EF, I would, despite being a mere lay person (however with a degree in Theology, but still), recommend following the liturgical books to the letter except where Rome has specified something different (like the fact that all deacons can baptize as ordinary ministers). All come all, they liturgical books and Rome are the authority here, and the older liturgy doesn’t have as many openings for “local custom” and “pastoral considerations” as the newer one does.

(Lastly, I’m sorry if this seems arrogant - it is not my intention. I’m simply stating my view, which has been formed especially through seeing how important it is for any priest or deacon to stick to the books when it comes to the EF, or OF for that matter.)

I understand “sticking to the books”, but some of these items you site just make no sense. Let’s forget that I compared “old” baptism to “new” in the same sentence as “old” blessing to “new” just for a second; are you really saying and you really believe that there is a difference in holy water today blessed in the ordinary form compared to the holy water of yesterday blessed in the EF? I’d like to see that document where Rome made that proclamation.

I think where we are missing the boat is in the fact that in your thinking, not mixing the Rites means I do not have the authority to bless the items if I am performing the baptism in the EF. Since the rubrics point out that, within the Rite of baptism, the water and salt are not to be blessed but should already be blessed, then there are two separate rituals, one for blessing of water and salt, the other is the baptism. How can a deacon blessing salt and water not be able to use that blessed water and salt for the baptism afterwards?

We are in a circular discussion and we will not agree. I’ll have to bow out as I am not an EF expert by any stretch of the imagination. In my opinion of this OP’s situation, yes the deacon can validly baptize the child. If there is no blessed salt or water, then he can simply take care of that before the ritual of baptism begins. The baptism will be valid and licit with the permission/delegation of the pastor, as is required in any baptism except the parish in which the deacon is assigned.

 

[ProVobis]

I blessed six boxes of salt and six gallons of water today for a parishioner…are these items blessed or not?

Let me ask this question since it seems everyone here, me and FAB in the minority, are speaking of blessings within a EF baptism. Lets say there is no Easter water, nor any salt; I choose to use the water and salt which I have blessed today for the parishioner, in the EF baptism, would the child be validly baptized?

It’s ok, you all can say the answer…yes, the child would be validly baptized and the salt and water are validly blessed.

End of story.

Okay, this is what the 62 handmissal says:

In administering Baptism, it is necessary to 1) To use natural water fresh of salt, hot or cold, mineral or otherwise. Salt water should only be used when necessary, but should be used then, and the same applies to melted ice or snow. Artificial water, as for example eau de colgne, cannot be used. In solemn Baptism it is necessary to used baptismal water which has been blessed on the Vigil of Easter, the ceremonies then be used helping us greatly to understand the dignity of the Sacrament. …

Added note:

When baptism is administered by someone who is not a priest, there should be, as far as possible, one or two witnesses present who can testify that the Sacrament has really been conferred.

 

[Lapey]

I’m sorry about the double post; I hit the reply button too fast…

If the question is simply whether you can baptize a child in the Extraordinary Form, it would not only not be offensive, it would be their right to ask for it. And it would be your duty to at the very least forward the request.

That’s not what I meant to be offensive, it was the line of questioning.

 

[Lapey]

Okay, this is what the 62 handmissal says:

This is the part where we lose each other. If the Easter water, and previously blessed salt, by a priest, is NOT available are you saying the EF baptism cannot take place? Not so.

 

[ProVobis]

This is the part where we lose each other. If the Easter water, and previously blessed salt, by a priest, is NOT available are you saying the EF baptism cannot take place? Not so.

That I believe is solemn baptism, has nothing to do with validity. I’m not quite sure why you’re upset. I’m just stating what’s written in the 62 handmissal. As the deacon is the extraordinary minister, he can perform all the same steps as the priest, given the permission, as far as I can tell.

 

[Lapey]

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.

I mean no disrespect but what exactly are you saying???

“should be okay”…“don’t mix the forms”…“it won’t be strictly EF”…“the baptism probably will still be valid”…“I doubt the Baptismal certificate will include the form”…

you do realize that the OP could use plain water in the bathtub on their own and the baptism WOULD BE VALID! You know this, right?

Please go back and read the “advice” you are giving the OP and imagine it is you who are receiving this information without the knowledge of what is true or false. Would your statements make you feel more or less confident?

This thread is crazy.

Again, OP, have the deacon/priest/bishop baptize your child in whichever form you like and the minister will validly and licitly baptize your child. The minister, whether he is familiar with the Rite or not, will get proper instruction and permissions to properly, and validly perform the ritual; this is what is required. After reading and trying to participate in this thread, I’m not sure I’m not as confused as you mentioned you were several pages ago.

 

[ProVobis]

This is the part where we lose each other. If the Easter water, and previously blessed salt, by a priest, is NOT available are you saying the EF baptism cannot take place? Not so.

That I believe is solemn baptism, has nothing to do with validity. I’m not quite sure why you’re upset. I’m just stating what’s written in the 62 handmissal. I’m presuming that’s what the OP means by EF. As the deacon is the extraordinary minister, he can perform all the same steps as the priest, given the permission, as far as I can tell.

 

[Lapey]

That I believe is solemn baptism, has nothing to do with validity. I’m not quite sure why you’re upset. I’m just stating what’s written in the 62 handmissal.

I’m not upset, I’m baffled. This thread is not helping anyone to understand anything.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not upset, I’m baffled. This thread is not helping anyone to understand anything.

I don’t think I’ve witnessed a baptism done in the old rite since my brother’s and that was back in the early 50’s. Baptisms back then tended to be more or less private, from my recollection. I wouldn’t mind witnessing one again, though, to refresh my memory.

 

[Lapey]

I don’t think I’ve witnessed a baptism done in the old rite since my brother’s and that was back in the early 50’s. Baptisms back then tended to be more or less private, from my recollection. I wouldn’t mind witnessing one again, though, to refresh my memory.

I would agree with you here. Another thought, many baptisms were done in the first couple of days after birth, I was 6 days old and both me and my mother were still in the hospital when I was baptized. Did the priest use the Easter water and salt previously blessed by a priest? Did he pour one, two, or three ounces of water on my head? I do not know and I could not care less, I am baptized…end of story a second time.

 

[FrDavid96]

I blessed six boxes of salt and six gallons of water today for a parishioner…are these items blessed or not?

Let me ask this question since it seems everyone here, me and FAB in the minority, are speaking of blessings within a EF baptism. Lets say there is no Easter water, nor any salt; I choose to use the water and salt which I have blessed today for the parishioner, in the EF baptism, would the child be validly baptized?

It’s ok, you all can say the answer…yes, the child would be validly baptized and the salt and water are validly blessed.

End of story.

No. It is not the end of story.

Valid? Yes. Licit? No.

The Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form cannot be mixed.

Let me give you a similar situation, if I, as validly ordained priest, were to take Eucharistic Prayer II from the 3rd typical edition of the Roman Missal and insert it into the Missal of 1962, would it be a valid Mass? Yes. Would it be licit? No. Would I be in the wrong? YES. End of story.

The OP is asking about a baptism in the Extraordinary Form. When that occurs, only the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form apply (in this case, the Roman Ritual of 1962). Those rubrics state that a deacon may be the celebrant for Baptism, but must use salt and water blessed by a priest. Even a priest must use the Easter Vigil water, and may only bless new water outside the Easter Season if there’s a need for it.

Do I really need to provide references to Church documents to “prove” that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms cannot be mixed? Is that truly necessary? It’s been nearly 7 years now since Summorum Pontificum. There’s no longer any doubt that the 2 forms cannot be mixed.

 

[FrDavid96]

The issue with the blessing of the salt is that the salt used at baptism has its own special and unique blessing. It is not just “any blessed salt” but salt that has been specifically blessed for the purpose of baptism.

Here’s the text from the 1962 Roman Ritual

The emphasis is my own.

The Blessing of Salt

{Salt is a condiment meant to flavor foods and also preserve them. Among some peoples it is given to a newly arrived guest in sign of hospitality and friendship. Among the Hebrews it was eaten to symbolize the binding nature of a compact. Christ told the Apostles: “You are the salt of the earth” (Mt 5.13). As salt acts on food to preserve it and keep it from spoiling, Christ’s followers are to influence the world for good and to preserve from corruption the truths He taught them. In the rite of baptism salt is especially a symbol of wisdom–that the subject be given a relish for heavenly doctrine; and a symbol of a blessed immortality–that he be preserved from final corruption. In the ancient rite the first stage, enrolling of catechumens, terminated with the giving of blessed salt.}

1. The priest blesses salt, which once blessed may serve for future baptisms;* (unless he is to use salt that already has been blessed).

God’s creature, salt, I cast out the demon from you, in the name of God + the Father almighty, in the love of our Lord Jesus + Christ, and in the strength of the Holy + Spirit. I purify you by the living God, the true God, the holy God, by God who created you to be a preservative for mankind, and ordered you to be sanctified by His ministers for the benefit of the people who are about to embrace the faith. In the name of the Blessed Trinity may you become a saving sign empowered to drive away the enemy. Therefore, we beg you, Lord, our God, to sanctify + and to bless + this creature, salt, thus providing a perfect remedy for all who receive it, one that will permeate their inmost being. We ask this in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire.

All: Amen.

• When a deacon administers baptism he uses salt already blessed by a priest.–Trans.

1. The priest puts a pinch of the blessed salt in the mouth of the child (to each one), saying as he does so:

N., take this salt in sign of wisdom. May it be for you likewise a token that foreshadows everlasting life.

There is also a rubric:
27. The rite described above must be observed also by a deacon who administers solemn baptism; however, he uses salt and water blessed previously for this purpose by a priest.

The salient (pun intended) words here are “for this purpose.” It’s not just any blessed water, or any blessed salt. It is specifically salt that has been blessed by a priest for the purpose of baptism. There are other blessings of salt for other purposes elsewhere in the Roman Ritual.

On the other hand, in the Ordinary Form, the 1989 Book of Blessings has no specific blessing of salt. The closest thing is a blessing of “Blessing of Food” or “Other Materials” (ie edibles) or “several things at once” (all in #1795). These blessings may be done by a deacon. There is no blessing of baptismal salt, only a blessing of foods and that can include salt. Clearly, this blessing of food does not meet the standard required by the Roman Ritual that the salt used at Baptism must be “salt…blessed previously for this purpose.”

 

[malphono]

No. It is not the end of story.

Valid? Yes. Licit? No.

The Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form cannot be mixed. …

Do I really need to provide references to Church documents to “prove” that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms cannot be mixed? Is that truly necessary? It’s been nearly 7 years now since Summorum Pontificum. There’s no longer any doubt that the 2 forms cannot be mixed.

The issue with the blessing of the salt is that the salt used at baptism has its own special and unique blessing. It is not just “any blessed salt” but salt that has been specifically blessed for the purpose of baptism. …

There is also a rubric:
27. The rite described above must be observed also by a deacon who administers solemn baptism; however, he uses salt and water blessed previously for this purpose by a priest. …
On the other hand, in the Ordinary Form, the 1989 Book of Blessings has no specific blessing of salt. The closest thing is a blessing of “Blessing of Food” or “Other Materials” (ie edibles) or “several things at once” (all in #1795). These blessings may be done by a deacon. There is no blessing of baptismal salt, only a blessing of foods and that can include salt. Clearly, this blessing of food does not meet the standard required by the Roman Ritual that the salt used at Baptism must be “salt…blessed previously for this purpose.”

Excellent posts, FrDavid.

 

[FrDavid96]

Excellent posts, FrDavid.

See that? once again, we agree.

 

[ProVobis]

See that? once again, we agree.

After reading the prayer of the blessing of the salt, make that three.

It begins with Exorcizo te (I exorcise thee), creatura salis, in nomine Dei Patris omnipotentis, et in caritate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et in virtute Spiritus Sancti….

 

[Lapey]

No. It is not the end of story.

Valid? Yes. Licit? No.

The Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form cannot be mixed.

Let me give you a similar situation, if I, as validly ordained priest, were to take Eucharistic Prayer II from the 3rd typical edition of the Roman Missal and insert it into the Missal of 1962, would it be a valid Mass? Yes. Would it be licit? No. Would I be in the wrong? YES. End of story.

The OP is asking about a baptism in the Extraordinary Form. When that occurs, only the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form apply (in this case, the Roman Ritual of 1962). Those rubrics state that a deacon may be the celebrant for Baptism, but must use salt and water blessed by a priest. Even a priest must use the Easter Vigil water, and may only bless new water outside the Easter Season if there’s a need for it.

Do I really need to provide references to Church documents to “prove” that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms cannot be mixed? Is that truly necessary? It’s been nearly 7 years now since Summorum Pontificum. There’s no longer any doubt that the 2 forms cannot be mixed.

How is it mixing the two, rather than two seperate rituals? One, the blessing of salt and/or water; two the EF baptism. There is no mixing.

The analogy you give is not equal. I am not saying bring the current day blessing formula into the EF baptism like you are comparing bringing the words of one missal to another in one single liturgy.