Can a deacon peform EF baptism?

[Lapey]

See that? once again, we agree.

I’ll join in for the round of applause for you three…:clapping:

But I do not join in the agreement.

 

[FrDavid96]

For comparison, here’s the blessing of salt in the Ordinary Form (Book of Blessings #1795), which is really intended for anything edible.

Blessed are you, Lord God,
who have showered all creatures with your blessings.
Hear the prayers of these your servants:
what whenever they eat this food (bread)
(in honor of the blessed Virgin Mary or Saint N.)
(in the celebration of this festival)
they may be blessed with your heavenly blessing;
that striving always for what is holy,
they may continually grow in charity.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

If anyone can explain to me how that blessing meets the requirement of the Roman Ritual that the salt used at baptism must be salt blessed for the purpose of baptism, I would like to read it.

I can’t even find any words that bless the salt, much less anything to meet the standard of the Roman Ritual:
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.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ll join in for the round of applause for you three…:clapping:

But I do not join in the agreement.

All right. Then let me ask something, please:

First, how do you read this rubric?:

1. 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.

Secondly, how do you read this?
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.

Would you agree or disagree that we cannot take rubrics from the 1989 Book of Blessings (specifically that a deacon can bless salt as an edible), and apply them to the use of the 1962 Roman Ritual?

 

[FAB]

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.

you did answer my question that with allowing the EF of the mass, the old rites for the other sacraments were also allowed.

As far as agreeing with my brother deacon, which I do, his post on allowing the deacon to bless the salt and water for the EF in my understanding can form a cannon layer in which I believe I would trust that opinion.

I think what my brother deacon and I have issues with is the attempt to diminish the role of the permanent deacon in using the EF. Since we are long past the 1962 rite and well established as ordinary ministers for the sacrament of baptism, it is that form of the rite which is extraordinary and not the ordinary minister who administers it.
It is more reasoned to think that the documents that established the permanent deacon as an ordinary minister supersede the 1962 documents, if not there are a lot of pre second Vatican II practices tha t could come out of the woodwork.
Since a valid baptism is with water and the Trinitaian form it would certainly be valid and licit no matter what extra mineral is in the water.

 

[ProVobis]

I think what my brother deacon and I have issues with is the attempt to diminish the role of the permanent deacon in using the EF.

If that is your concern, you may wish to contact the SJC also as they have had permanent deacons serving in the EF, presumably in all applicable sacraments.

 

[malphono]

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.

It seems to me that Fr David’s analogy is pretty good. I say that because of the specifics of the rubrics in the 1962 Rituale Romanum. The salt for baptism is to be blessed the purpose of baptism. IOW, the blessing of salt according to the formula in Title XI of the Rituale Romanum would be the equivalent of the formula in the “Book of Blessings” (if that’s the name), which means it is NOT specifically for baptism and ergo, is not to be used for Baptism according to the Usus Antiquior… Likewise, and perhaps even more so, the blessing of the water, which has Oil of Catechumens as well as Holy Chrism mixed into it. It’s not regular Holy Water; this water is specifically and uniquely for Baptism, and even so, may be blessed only within the parameters defined in the Rituale Romanum (Title II Chapter 8), which Fr David has already outlined.

One other thing that I will mention here is that none of this has anything to do with diminishing the role of a deacon. Far from it. There is no question that a deacon can be an ordinary minister of Baptism in the Latin Church, whether Usus Antiquior or Novus Ordo. But according to the UA rubrics, whereas a deacon may Baptize, he is not empowered to bless either the water or salt for Baptism. It’s all simply a matter of fidelity to liturgical law.

 

[FAB]

If that is your concern, you may wish to contact the SJC also as they have had permanent deacons serving in the EF, presumably in all applicable sacraments.

Perhaps if it were every to become more widespread than perhaps one EF parish in a diocese. If I were to have a couple make this same request to me, that is were I would send them, otherwise they can expect the current rite.

Personally I think the resurrection of the EF is like Jurassic park, interesting at first, but in the end doing more harm than good. It was suppose to unit the Church, it seems to me through discussions like this and request like this one it is very much causing deeper divisions.

 

[FrDavid96]

you did answer my question that with allowing the EF of the mass, the old rites for the other sacraments were also allowed.

As far as agreeing with my brother deacon, which I do, his post on allowing the deacon to bless the salt and water for the EF in my understanding can form a cannon layer in which I believe I would trust that opinion.

I think what my brother deacon and I have issues with is the attempt to diminish the role of the permanent deacon in using the EF. Since we are long past the 1962 rite and well established as ordinary ministers for the sacrament of baptism, it is that form of the rite which is extraordinary and not the ordinary minister who administers it.
It is more reasoned to think that the documents that established the permanent deacon as an ordinary minister supersede the 1962 documents, if not there are a lot of pre second Vatican II practices tha t could come out of the woodwork.
Since a valid baptism is with water and the Trinitaian form it would certainly be valid and licit no matter what extra mineral is in the water.

What you’re saying is that your personal views on how things “should be” over-rule Pope Benedict’s own motu proprio. It doesn’t work that way.

The norms for Summorum Pontificum are clearly stated
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.
That’s the exact opposite of what you say above. Since (then) Pope Benedict himself personally approved this particular law, I rather think he was in a better position to interpret what it says.

In the Extraordinary Form, a deacon can be an extraordinary minister of baptism—whether you like this or not, doesn’t change things. It is what it is. The law says what the law says.

A deacon may use the Extraordinary Form for baptism—there’s no question about that, but only under the conditions specified in Summorum Pontificum and the complementary norms approved by Pope Benedict. That means he does so as an extraordinary minister, he must follow the 1962 Rite of Baptism exactly as it was approved in 1962, and he must have the permission of the pastor (both Summorum Pontificum and the 1983 Code require this).

Any attempts to combine the Ordinary Form into the Extraordinary Form are, by that very fact, illicit.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps if it were every to become more widespread than perhaps one EF parish in a diocese. If I were to have a couple make this same request to me, that is were I would send them, otherwise they can expect the current rite.

Personally I think the resurrection of the EF is like Jurassic park, interesting at first, but in the end doing more harm than good. It was suppose to unit the Church, it seems to me through discussions like this and request like this one it is very much causing deeper divisions.

Beg to differ. Quite frankly, I’ve learned more about my faith from this thread alone. And I’m sure a few others (especially the ones who were actually baptized in the old rite) did as well. Whether they choose to baptize their own in the OF is another story. I feel it should be part of the Catholic educational process to learn about the 23 or so rites that exist today. Are those people curious about these things causing deeper divisions? Really?

 

[Rin]

Sure is. It’s available from Preserving Christian Publications (…) These are exact photostatic copies of the older books.

Thanks! I’ve seen the three-volume edition before, but I haven’t been able to find the one-volume one.

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.

Mixing of rites doesn’t have to be mixing of words, it can just as well be the mixing of rubrics.

When it comes to the water (and salt) in baptism, the rubrics are very specific on how it should be prepared. Similarly, in Mass, the rubrics are very specific on how the bread should be prepared, and which type is to be used. This bread is not prepared in the liturgy, but the rubrics are still specific on how this preparation should be done.

But in the Eastern rites, a completely different form of bread is used than in the Latin rite. Now let’s say someone “creative” decided to start using leavened bread prepared like in the Byzantine Rite in a Latin mass. Or the other way around.

Now that Mass (or Divine Liturgy) would still most definitely be valid, since the matter used is still bread. However the Mass (or Divine Liturgy) would definitely not be licit - on the other hand, it would be serious liturgical abuse.

In the same way, Baptism in the two forms has very specific requirements when it comes to the materials used. Just because those preparations aren’t “part of the baptism” doesn’t mean you can choose to prepare them differently, by using water blessed for the newer rite or unblessed salt. It also doesn’t mean the rubrics of those “preparations” can be ignored, by having a deacon do them.

As far as agreeing with my brother deacon, which I do, his post on allowing the deacon to bless the salt and water for the EF in my understanding can form a cannon layer in which I believe I would trust that opinion.

When the statements from Rome are as clear as they are, I personally would actually not trust a canon lawyer who apparently contradicts them. I would at least get a second opinion. Perhaps I’m too much of a sceptic, but still, second opinions never hurt.

I think what my brother deacon and I have issues with is the attempt to diminish the role of the permanent deacon in using the EF.

Just to make myself clear, I understand this sentiment. Some traditionalist groups are for some reason hostile to permanent deacons, forgetting that married clergy and permanent deacons is part of the tradition of the Church, just confined to the East for a period.

However, I think thinking like that is misguided. First of all there is no diminishing of the role of the deacon in using the EF in and of itself. In many ways, the deacon is even more prominent there - for one he doesn’t drown in concelebrants during Solemn Mass.

In addition, while some traditionalists may be against the reintroduction of permanent deacons, the majority of traditional-minded Catholics are not. I have yet to speak to anyone in real life who is against having permanent deacons.

Lastly, the Church had deacons before VII, even permanent - the complete lack of permanent deacons only lasted for a century. They were important in the Church, liturgically and otherwise. Actually they were liturgically so important that for High Mass, if there was not one available, a priest had to “dress down” to exercise the role of Deacon liturgically. I know few priests who would do this today, because “it’s not like we can’t celebrate sung Mass without a deacon anyways”. So in a sense, deacons were more important back then.

By speaking as if permanent deacons are a completely other thing than transitory deacons, you are actually fuelling those who have a beef against the reintroduction. A deacon is, no matter the permanency or civil state, a deacon. No more, no less. Any deacon (and priest) can fill the roles of Deacon in the liturgy, in both forms. Wanting the EF has nothing to do with diminishing the role of permanent deacons.

Since we are long past the 1962 rite and well established as ordinary ministers for the sacrament of baptism, it is that form of the rite which is extraordinary and not the ordinary minister who administers it.

Yes, the form is extraordinary (but then so are EMHCs ), but (I actually thought otherwise when this thread started) in that form, deacons are extraordinary ministers of baptism.

But where’s the problem with that? Even an assistant priest has to ask his pastor for permission if he wants to baptize (or celebrate Mass publicly) in the EF, according to Summorum Pontificum. In that regard, a deacon and a non-pastor priest are in the same situation.

It is more reasoned to think that the documents that established the permanent deacon as an ordinary minister supersede the 1962 documents, if not there are a lot of pre second Vatican II practices tha t could come out of the woodwork.

The most reasoned thing is to follow the letter of the rubrics and law. Once I see people start “thinking” in relation to liturgy, it tends to end in disaster.

What “pre-VII” practices are you so afraid would come out of the “woodwork”? And if we saw a return to some practices from before the reforms, why would that be bad?

Since a valid baptism is with water and the Trinitaian form it would certainly be valid and licit no matter what extra mineral is in the water.

It would certainly be valid but illicit.

 

[HoneyBea]

Wow I opened a can of worms with my question! I too am learning so much this is a great discussion. Thank you everyone who has participated.

That being said all I want is to have my baby baptized and for it to be done correctly. Yes, I prefer EF form just as I prefer the EF mass, but both the ordinary and EF are equally sacred. I would not be disappointed or upset with either one, but can’t a mother have her preference. I meant no disrespect to anyone. Yes, I also prefer a priest, but a Deacon is just as valid, again it’s just a preference.

So the deacon needs to have the salt blessed by a priest that much I know for sure. And the water can be used from the Easter vigil mass but what if there is no water left?

 

[Rin]

So the deacon needs to have the salt blessed by a priest that much I know for sure. And the water can be used from the Easter vigil mass but what if there is no water left?

Have the priest bless water according to Rituale Romanum when he blesses the salt. There is a rite for blessing water outside the Easter vigil, but I think it was mentioned that this can’t be done in Eastertide (correct me if I misunderstood, someone).

Question for those more qualified than me: Is it most important that the water is from the Easter vigil, or is the form of blessing of the water the most important? Basically, should Easter vigil water be used no matter which form it is from?

 

[malphono]

Have the priest bless water according to Rituale Romanum when he blesses the salt. There is a rite for blessing water outside the Easter vigil, but I think it was mentioned that this can’t be done in Eastertide (correct me if I misunderstood, someone).

That’s right. The blessing of water is in the Rituale Romanum (Title II, Cap 8) but is not for use within Eastertide. (vid Title II, Cap 1, item 6)

Question for those more qualified than me: Is it most important that the water is from the Easter vigil, or is the form of blessing of the water the most important? Basically, should Easter vigil water be used no matter which form it is from?

According to the Rituale (Title II Cap 1, items 5 & 6), Easter vigil water is to be be used.

 

[FrDavid96]

Wow I opened a can of worms with my question! I too am learning so much this is a great discussion. Thank you everyone who has participated.

That being said all I want is to have my baby baptized and for it to be done correctly. Yes, I prefer EF form just as I prefer the EF mass, but both the ordinary and EF are equally sacred. I would not be disappointed or upset with either one, but can’t a mother have her preference. I meant no disrespect to anyone. Yes, I also prefer a priest, but a Deacon is just as valid, again it’s just a preference.

So the deacon needs to have the salt blessed by a priest that much I know for sure. And the water can be used from the Easter vigil mass but what if there is no water left?

That’s why I suggest that you obtain some of the Easter Vigil water now, while it’s still (probably) available. I recall that there’s a distance issue. I might suggest that you contact the deacon who’s going to do the Baptism, and make him aware that the EF requires that the Easter Vigil water be used during the Easter Season OR outside the Easter Season, it must still be used if it’s available. If not available, it must be blessed in a special rite. I say that because most clerics do not know the rubrics of the EF, unless they’re already regularly practicing it. Saving some of the Vigil water now will avoid that whole issue. Keep it simple.

A simple call or email to the deacon, asking him to set aside enough Vigil water for baptism would be highly recommended.

 

[FrDavid96]

Have the priest bless water according to Rituale Romanum when he blesses the salt. There is a rite for blessing water outside the Easter vigil, but I think it was mentioned that this can’t be done in Eastertide (correct me if I misunderstood, someone).

Question for those more qualified than me: Is it most important that the water is from the Easter vigil, or is the form of blessing of the water the most important? Basically, should Easter vigil water be used no matter which form it is from?

In the Extraordinary Form, the Easter Vigil water MUST be used, so long as it’s available.

The blessing of the water can only be done outside the Easter season.
Note: that’s within the rite of baptism itself.
If the Vigil water runs out and it’s the 3rd Sunday of Easter, the water can still be blessed, but the solemn form must be used. This is rather long, and frankly impractical in the circumstances of this thread. It doesn’t happen during the Baptism, but immediately precedes it. Complicated.

In the Extraordinary Form the concern is that the water be blessed by a priest specifically for the purpose of baptism, and the preference is always to use the Vigil water.

The same holds in the Ordinary Form with regard to the preference that the water be blessed for the purpose of baptism, except that a deacon can bless the water during the baptism rite itself, and there is no preference for Vigil water.

No matter what form, it must be water blessed for baptism (except in emergencies, of course).

The rubrics here get rather confusing (as we’ve all seen).

The best thing to do here is just keep it simple.
Use the salt blessed by a priest for the purpose of baptism (not any blessed salt)
Use the Easter Vigil water.

 

[malphono]

That’s why I suggest that you obtain some of the Easter Vigil water now, while it’s still (probably) available. I recall that there’s a distance issue. I might suggest that you contact the deacon who’s going to do the Baptism, and make him aware that the EF requires that the Easter Vigil water be used during the Easter Season OR outside the Easter Season, it must still be used if it’s available. If not available, it must be blessed in a special rite. I say that because most clerics do not know the rubrics of the EF, unless they’re already regularly practicing it. Saving some of the Vigil water now will avoid that whole issue. Keep it simple.

A simple call or email to the deacon, asking him to set aside enough Vigil water for baptism would be highly recommended.

Saving some of the Vigil water is really a very good idea. Shame I didn’t think of it myself.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s right. The blessing of water is in the Rituale Romanum (Title II, Cap 8) but is not for use within Eastertide. (vid Title II, Cap 1, item 6)

According to the Rituale (Title II Cap 1, items 5 & 6), Easter vigil water is to be be used.

This is where it gets even more confusing.

During Easter season, if the water runs out, it may be blessed, but only using the solemn form; which is very long and complicated. That doesn’t happen during the baptism, but as a special rite immediately preceding the baptism.

Outside the Easter season: if the water runs out, the short form may be used, but not according to the 1962 Ritual Romanum strictly speaking. The long form is still required.

The difficulty here is in interpreting the rubrics because the permission to use the short form dates from 1963. Summorum Pontificum is very specific that any changes to the rubrics after 1962 do not apply.

Personally, I think that this minor change would be an exception. But that’s personal opinion. It would take a decision or clarification or some such from the Ecclesia Dei Commission to truly settle the matter (and in the absence of that, I would say the '63 change does not apply). I think that if asked, they would say that it does apply, but that’s mere speculation,

 

[FrDavid96]

Saving some of the Vigil water is really a very good idea. Shame I didn’t think of it myself.

It just keeps things so simple.

Trying to interpret the rubrics here is very confusing. Better not to even try. It’s still close enough to Easter that there will likely be some available.

 

[HoneyBea]

The baptism won’t be done until December 2014. So it will definitely be out of Easter season and I have no idea about any water being left.
They have a huge baptismal font I imagine that’s where I will get the water from. Can I just tell my parents to collect some and how much?

Being over seas and traveling home for this baptism
is the reason for such advance planning.

 

[malphono]

During Easter season, if the water runs out, it may be blessed, but only using the solemn form; which is very long and complicated. That doesn’t happen during the baptism, but as a special rite immediately preceding the baptism.

Outside the Easter season: if the water runs out, the short form may be used, but not according to the 1962 Ritual Romanum strictly speaking. The long form is still required.

The difficulty here is in interpreting the rubrics because the permission to use the short form dates from 1963. Summorum Pontificum is very specific that any changes to the rubrics after 1962 do not apply. …

It just keeps things so simple.

Trying to interpret the rubrics here is very confusing. Better not to even try. It’s still close enough to Easter that there will likely be some available.

FYI, my reference was a PDF of the actual 1962 Latin Rituale, and I see nothing there about a “short form” of blessing water. But it’s all very clear that while a deacon may solemnly baptize as an extraordinary minister, he may not bless either the salt or the water. And yes, I agree about Summorum Pontificum.

… but can’t a mother have her preference. I meant no disrespect to anyone. Yes, I also prefer a priest, but a Deacon is just as valid, again it’s just a preference.

So the deacon needs to have the salt blessed by a priest that much I know for sure. And the water can be used from the Easter vigil mass but what if there is no water left?

There’s a possibility that you might be able to have it both ways, so-to-speak, or nearly so at any rate.

Absent saving some Vigil water, if the priest is willing, he could do the long-form blessing of the water before the Baptism. It’s a separate rite, and the deacon could assist. Once the water is blessed, the deacon could then take over for the Baptism itself. Admittedly the entire thing would be a bit long, but it would be something to remember.