Can a deacon peform EF baptism?

[FrDavid96]

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.

I’m sorry that this has become so complicated.

If you ask them to save about a quart, that should be enough. Given that it’s a huge font, that’s probably not a problem.

My suggestion to you is to just keep things simple. As simple as possible.

You can print the Rite of Baptism from the online source (the links are posted here enough times already). For the sake of propriety, it’s better to use an actual book instead of a printout. Worse case scenario: get a 3-ring binder from a dollar store. Buy the book if you want, or see if the deacon or another priest has one to borrow. If it’s unavailable, don’t put too much into it, just print it.

I strongly suggest that you direct the deacon to the ritual well ahead of time. He will need to look it over because if he’s not familiar with the rite (and if he were, you wouldn’t have started this thread), it can surprise him. Give him enough time.

Have a priest bless some salt. Simple table salt is fine. I like to use a course salt because the grains are easy to pick up. It only takes a few grains, so you don’t need a lot. Just be sure to ask the priest to use the specific form of blessing the salt from the Baptism ritual—not just any blessing of salt. It does matter.

I wish you the best! Again, just keep things simple.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.
…

Yes, exactly. The short form was not there in the 1962 Ritual as Saint John XXIII approved it. The change was made in 1963 (by the Council itself) after the Ritual was approved. The U.S. English language printing dates from 1964, so it has the addition of the short form, but as a sort of appendix to the Baptism section. The online version gives one a very good idea of exactly how the 1964 printing appeared.

 

[FAB]

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.

Since I am going by what my brother deacon had posted on an opinion he received from a cannon layer, I am only adding my two cents worth based on that opinion.

For me this is all academic, I am 30 mile from the closes EF mass or parish and I would not perform the old rite for two reasons. One I am not trained in it and second I see no reason for performing a sacrament in it. Using the rite will not give the child any more sanctifying grace and will not cause then to be anymore part of the body of Christ.

As a side I was considering why salt would have been added to baptismal water. I suspect that since it is a preservative, it kept algae from growing in the baptismal font and eventually a sanctifying meaning was added, it had to be blessed and the priest at the time was the minister to do so.

A resent story I heard makes the point.
It seems that a the rabbi had a pet cat that he would bring to services. the keep it form running around, he would tie it to a leg of the altar. Well that cat died and he got another one and would do the same. The rabbi died, but they still kept a cat tied to the altar in his memory. Time past and eventually the reason for the cat being tied to altar was forgotten and theologians began to discuss theological meaning for a cat to be tied to the altar.

A new rite was given to us because it was found that the parts of the old rite had no significance as a sign relating to the sacrament.

 

[FAB]

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.

The reason for canon layers are to resolve questions like this.
It is a valid question. Since the Permanent Diaconate did not exist in 1962, when this rite was promulgated, and that he is now considered an ordinary ministers, with faculties to perform baptism and to give blessings, can he be held to standards that have since been rewritten. It would not be the first time that a clarification of a document was needed not will it be the last. But since it effects such a small number of the faithful, it is only important as a discussion here on CA.

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.

To be clear, deacons are ordinary ministers of baptism. It is important to those of us who are deacons since we are well aware of the 48 year history to establish our work as more than just big altar boys. In some circles that is still happening.
Requesting permission to perform baptism and being considered extraordinary is a problem. Even in the ceremony for ordination it speaks a man being elevated to the position of the deaconate as part of the three clerical levels.

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.

Even in liturgy there is room for translation and clarification. It is not as cut and dry as many want to promote.

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?

Everything from women roles in the church, to the mass, to our relations with other faiths.
If you want to see why we aren’t going back, just look at the beatification of Pope John XXIII, a certain sign of what he started will continue.

 

[Rin]

For me this is all academic

It certainly is academic. But then the question is: Does academic equal bad?

One I am not trained in it and second I see no reason for performing a sacrament in it. Using the rite will not give the child any more sanctifying grace and will not cause then to be anymore part of the body of Christ.

This is indeed a rather common line of thought, and technically right. However:

“One I am not trained in the Ordinary Form, and second I see no reason for performing a sacrament in it. Using the Ordinary Form will not give the child any more sanctifying grace and will not cause them to be anymore part of the body of Christ.”

What would you say if you heard a diocesan priest or deacon say that? I’m not speaking about someone connected to an order dedicated to one form or the other, but a diocesan priest or deacon.

Would you say, as I’ve heard many say before, that such priest would not be in communion with the Church? Or would you say at the very least that he is denying the faithful the Sacrament in the form they feel attached to?

It goes both ways. Rome has clearly stated that any pastor (okay, so deacons and assistant priests are in the clear, technically) is obliged to do his best to fulfill the request for Mass or other sacraments in the Extraordinary Form, or at least forward the request to their bishop. Sadly, people who request this are still in many places met with snide remarks or outright condemnation. While I would never choose the SSPX myself (I’m perfectly fine with going to the OF most of the time, though I choose the EF or Byzantine Rite when available and offered by priests in good standing with Rome), I very well understand why people do.

As a side I was considering why salt would have been added to baptismal water. I suspect that since it is a preservative, it kept algae from growing in the baptismal font and eventually a sanctifying meaning was added, it had to be blessed and the priest at the time was the minister to do so.

A resent story I heard makes the point.
It seems that a the rabbi had a pet cat that he would bring to services. the keep it form running around, he would tie it to a leg of the altar. Well that cat died and he got another one and would do the same. The rabbi died, but they still kept a cat tied to the altar in his memory. Time past and eventually the reason for the cat being tied to altar was forgotten and theologians began to discuss theological meaning for a cat to be tied to the altar.

Obviously many liturgical customs had practical rather than theological reasons. But that does not mean they are are ours do do away with as we please or that they’re without significance. The Church has expressly stated the opposite on several occasions. This is one of the reasons for why I find the liturgical reform deeply problematic.

A new rite was given to us because it was found that the parts of the old rite had no significance as a sign relating to the sacrament.

That’s another can of worms, and let’s just say I disagree. Strongly. They had great significance, and their removal is a tragedy. “Still valid” doesn’t equal “better”.

 

[Rin]

The reason for canon layers are to resolve questions like this.

Indeed, but when a canon lawyer seemingly contradicts very clear statements from Rome, I would, as I say, not trust it without at least a second opinion.

It is a valid question. Since the Permanent Diaconate did not exist in 1962, when this rite was promulgated

You keep speaking as if a permanent deacon and a transitory deacon somehow are two completely different things. They aren’t - a deacon is a deacon. The Church had deacons in 1962, and as I’ve pointed out before, they were important.

Important enough that the Council decided to reintroduce the permanent diaconate, actually.

and that he is now considered an ordinary ministers, with faculties to perform baptism and to give blessings, can he be held to standards that have since been rewritten.

Indeed, he can, just as priests are in relation to the EF. Rome has specifically said that later changes to this form are not in force. This is very clear without much room for interpretation.

It would not be the first time that a clarification of a document was needed not will it be the last. But since it effects such a small number of the faithful, it is only important as a discussion here on CA.

Obviously it would not be the first clarification needed, but it has already been clarified. The rubrics are still in force, later changes do not apply.

It’s interesting how something is seen as not important because of the small number when it comes to this. On virtually every other matter, minorities are seen as very important…

To be clear, deacons are ordinary ministers of baptism. It is important to those of us who are deacons since we are well aware of the 48 year history to establish our work as more than just big altar boys. In some circles that is still happening.
Requesting permission to perform baptism and being considered extraordinary is a problem. Even in the ceremony for ordination it speaks a man being elevated to the position of the deaconate as part of the three clerical levels.

First, I do understand that permanent deacons sometimes have felt marginalized. I do.

However, in this case, this has nothing to do with being a deacon, it has to do with not being a pastor. Whether the deacon is the ordinary or extraordinary minister for baptism in the EF, is in this case academical ( ).

The need for permission is because the deacon is not a pastor. As I mentioned, an assistant priest would also need to ask their pastor for permission. Should that be a problem for them? They’re ordinary ministers of baptism too, after all.

Even in liturgy there is room for translation and clarification. It is not as cut and dry as many want to promote.

It’s absolutely not always cut and dry, I’m sorry if it seemed like I meant that.

There’s plenty of things to translate and clarify. But what we discuss now is very clearly written, with very little room for interpretation.

Everything from women roles in the church, to the mass, to our relations with other faiths.

Well. We probably see the pre-VII Church differently. Obviously women should have (and have, and always had) an important place in the Church, but if by that you mean liturgical roles, then no. It is the universal Christian tradition that only men be present in the sanctuary during Eucharist. The sudden need to make sure “everyone” has some quasi-priestly role (lay lectors, EMHCs, etc etc) is really a form of clericalism, and of the worst kind: That you’re somehow lesser if you’re not a priest.

I think I’ve made my view on the Mass clear.

I can see your point regarding our relations with other faiths, our triumphalist attitude really wasn’t useful, and it is one of the thing I dislike in some traditionalist circles.

If you want to see why we aren’t going back, just look at the beatification of Pope John XXIII, a certain sign of what he started will continue.

A canonization is primarily because of the saint’s personal holiness, not a blanket approval of their every single action.

That said, I have nothing against V2. But I have a lot against the liturgical reform, which completely ignored the very Council people use to justify it. If we followed the Council, we would still be celebrating the traditional Mass, with some small modifications, limited (with emphasis on limited) use of the vernacular, Gregorian chant and Latin polyphony, etc. etc. The “temporary” Missal used in Anglophone countries in the late sixties is closer, but even that probably goes further than the Council intended.

So I have nothing against the Council. I have nothing against either recently canonized Pope. But I do have a lot against using adherence to a reform, which itself ignored the Council, as a measurement of people’s adherence to said Council.

 

[ProVobis]

A new rite was given to us because it was found that the parts of the old rite had no significance as a sign relating to the sacrament.

Can’t be the reason. I believe Trent anathematized any pastor of the church who were to contemn any received and approved rite of the church. See Session 22.

 

[FrDavid96]

The reason for canon layers are to resolve questions like this.
It is a valid question. Since the Permanent Diaconate did not exist in 1962, when this rite was promulgated, and that he is now considered an ordinary ministers, with faculties to perform baptism and to give blessings, can he be held to standards that have since been rewritten. It would not be the first time that a clarification of a document was needed not will it be the last. But since it effects such a small number of the faithful, it is only important as a discussion here on CA.

You keep bringing up the issue of the permanent diaconate. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Nothing. There are 3 orders in the Church, bishop, priest, and deacon. The permanent diaconate is not some kind of 4th order. A deacon is a deacon.

The norms for Summorum Pontificum are clear: the rubrics that date from after 1962 cannot be used in the Extraordinary Form. After 7 years now, there is not even the slightest doubt on that. Your references (direct or indirect) to the 1989 Book of Blessings have nothing to do with what happens in the Extraordinary Form. The two forms cannot be mixed, and the rubrics from the 2 forms cannot be mixed. Why, oh why, do you keep insisting that they can be???

There is no clarification needed beyond what Ecclesia Dei published as the law of the Church, and with the personal approval of (then) Pope Benedict.

This is what the Church says:
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.

What you keep posting is the exact, polar opposite of what the Church says in the law itself. Go ahead and ask your canon lawyer friend what happens when someone’s personal opinion contradicts the plain meaning of the law.

To be clear, deacons are ordinary ministers of baptism. It is important to those of us who are deacons since we are well aware of the 48 year history to establish our work as more than just big altar boys. In some circles that is still happening.
Requesting permission to perform baptism and being considered extraordinary is a problem. Even in the ceremony for ordination it speaks a man being elevated to the position of the deaconate as part of the three clerical levels.

No. To be clear, deacons are the ordinary ministers of baptism in the Ordinary Form.
Deacons are the extraordinary ministers of Baptism in the Extraordinary Form.

And when a baptism happens in the Extraordinary Form, the deacon, as extraordinary minister cannot bless either the salt or the water because the rubrics are clear that he cannot do so (#27). The salt and water must be those that were blessed by a priest specifically for use in the rite of Baptism. Not any blessed salt, and not any blessed water.

As a deacon, you should know that no cleric can baptize without the consent of the pastor of the place. If you have a problem with this, write to the Holy Father and ask him to change canon law. There is no problem expecting deacons to have the pastor’s permission to baptize. The same applies to priests as well, if that priest is not the pastor of the place. You’re just being emotional and overly defensive.
It doesn’t matter if the priest is a Protonotary Apostolic and he wears a mitre and crozier. If he isn’t the pastor of the place, he needs the pastor’s permission. It’s that simple.

Quite frankly, if a Cardinal were to visit my parish and he wanted to do a baptism, he would need my permission (which of course, I would never hesitate), because he’s not the pastor of the place. This is not a problem, it’s simply the law.
Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.

You’re making a big deal out of nothing.

This is taken directly from the Holy Father’s motu proprio 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.
Note that the pastor’s (or rector of the place) permission is needed for a Baptism in the Extraordinary Form. You’ve repeatedly posted that a deacon doesn’t need any permission. How to you justify what you say in light of what the law itself says?

Even in liturgy there is room for translation and clarification. It is not as cut and dry as many want to promote.

Yes. It is cut and dry. Read the law. The only source of confusion is what you keep posting. Again, read…the…law.

I will admit that there is some confusion on the modifications to the 1962 Roman Ritual made while Vatican II was in session; but that’s very different from what you keep insisting on posting.

But there is no confusion when we simply understand that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms have their own rubrics, and the two cannot be combined.

Everything from women roles in the church, to the mass, to our relations with other faiths.
If you want to see why we aren’t going back, just look at the beatification of Pope John XXIII, a certain sign of what he started will continue.

Nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[dans0622]

It is…I don’t know, amusing or something, that this thread has gone on this far when the OP basically answered the question in the OP itself. If I had been a participant in the thread from the beginning, I might not be amused.

Anyway, I would point out that according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 741; and the Ritual corresponds) said that the deacon was the “extraordinary minister of *solemn *baptism” (my emphasis). This doesn’t make any difference in how the OP’s question is answered. It’s only a minor clarification.

And, as a canon lawyer, I agree that the deacon can’t carry out a 1962-style solemn baptism unless he has the salt and water blessed by a priest…and has the other, required permission(s).

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

It is…I don’t know, amusing or something, that this thread has gone on this far when the OP basically answered the question in the OP itself. If I had been a participant in the thread from the beginning, I might not be amused.

Anyway, I would point out that according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 741; and the Ritual corresponds) said that the deacon was the “extraordinary minister of *solemn *baptism” (my emphasis). This doesn’t make any difference in how the OP’s question is answered. It’s only a minor clarification.

And, as a canon lawyer, I agree that the deacon can’t carry out a 1962-style solemn baptism unless he has the salt and water blessed by a priest…and has the other, required permission(s).

Dan

I did think about that too—the “solemn” part. Not before, but once this thread got going.

In the 1962 Roman Ritual, the term “solemn” baptism simply means that it’s done in the usual circumstances; as opposed to an emergency situation, or perhaps some other form for mission territories.

The permission are really just a red herring here. When this thread was just starting, I thought it necessary to mention that the pastor’s permission is needed–simply pro forma. It wouldn’t do for me to suggest that someone go off and do this behind the pastor’s back.

The pastor’s permission is needed for any baptism by any other cleric (except the local bishop and the pope, who are both “pastors of the place” in their own right)—such permissions are given with such regularity with hardly any thought, that it’s basically a non-issue. The only reason I mentioned it is that, as a cleric myself, I have to be cautious sometimes and add things that otherwise might not need to be said.

The other issue with permission is that Summorum Pontificum does require the pastor’s permission to use the Extraordinary Form for baptisms–or at least says that he’s competent to give such permission, which is closer to the actual wording. Again, it was just a matter of form that I had to mention this, so that I’m not suggesting on an internet forum that Catholic laity go around doing things behind the pastor’s back. It’s a simple thing, really. The OP said that the pastor gave permission, so there was no need to take things any further.

 

[M-Dent]

I also wanted to note being appreciative for this thread. Thanks for the time invested by the main participants and the clarity offered on this issue.

 

[Lapey]

I also wanted to note being appreciative for this thread. Thanks for the time invested by the main participants and the clarity offered on this issue.

Well M-Dent, there is one thing that is quite apparent, there is much research to do in order to “get it right”.

I am here this morning to concede.

I did much reading yesterday and recollection of my conversations with our JD and I must admit it seems my understanding of our conversation allowed my understanding to venture out a little farther than it should considering the material involved in the situation.

Let me try to explain. In the conversation with the canonist, he referred me back to the document from 1967, SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM, you see in the two sections I sited here is where he and I ended up. Pope Paul VI in this Moto Proprio authorizes and commissions the deacon to do exactly what I was arguing, that the deacon can in fact bless the salt and water and baptize.

1. To administer baptism solemnly and to supply the ceremonies which may have been omitted when conferring it on children or adults;
2. To administer sacramentals and to officiate at funeral and burial services;

With that said, we were not taking into consideration the fact that in cases of the EF liturgies, the rubrics take precedence to the other documents unless specifically stated in the latter documents. The case which the OP is asking about the rubrics of the solemn baptism are not abrogated so they are in fact what must be followed.

Father David’s siting of the B16 Moto Proprio made me go back and do much reading. The two concepts we were arguing could not be reconciled. Now there is reconciliation, my understanding of authority within the documents themselves was incorrect. I do not place that error on my judicial vicar but on me for taking his teaching out of context where it involves the EF liturgy. He is a very holy priest and a very well educated man where it comes to Canon Law and the governing Church documents.

To put it simply, yes a deacon can bless salt and water and baptize; but he cannot for use in the baptism of the extraordinary form. He in fact can perform these actions and result in a valid baptism, however would be a serious abuse and in fact be an illicit action.

Thanks to all who patiently, for several days, have tried to help me understand my error!

 

[malphono]

I am here this morning to concede. …

To put it simply, yes a deacon can bless salt and water and baptize; but he cannot for use in the baptism of the extraordinary form. He in fact can perform these actions and result in a valid baptism, however would be a serious abuse and in fact be an illicit action.

Thanks to all who patiently, for several days, have tried to help me understand my error!

Thank you, Deacon Gary. That was a very gracious post.

 

[HoneyBea]

Well M-Dent, there is one thing that is quite apparent, there is much research to do in order to “get it right”.

I am here this morning to concede.

I did much reading yesterday and recollection of my conversations with our JD and I must admit it seems my understanding of our conversation allowed my understanding to venture out a little farther than it should considering the material involved in the situation.

Let me try to explain. In the conversation with the canonist, he referred me back to the document from 1967, SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM, you see in the two sections I sited here is where he and I ended up. Pope Paul VI in this Moto Proprio authorizes and commissions the deacon to do exactly what I was arguing, that the deacon can in fact bless the salt and water and baptize.

1. To administer baptism solemnly and to supply the ceremonies which may have been omitted when conferring it on children or adults;
2. To administer sacramentals and to officiate at funeral and burial services;

With that said, we were not taking into consideration the fact that in cases of the EF liturgies, the rubrics take precedence to the other documents unless specifically stated in the latter documents. The case which the OP is asking about the rubrics of the solemn baptism are not abrogated so they are in fact what must be followed.

Father David’s siting of the B16 Moto Proprio made me go back and do much reading. The two concepts we were arguing could not be reconciled. Now there is reconciliation, my understanding of authority within the documents themselves was incorrect. I do not place that error on my judicial vicar but on me for taking his teaching out of context where it involves the EF liturgy. He is a very holy priest and a very well educated man where it comes to Canon Law and the governing Church documents.

To put it simply, yes a deacon can bless salt and water and baptize; but he cannot for use in the baptism of the extraordinary form. He in fact can perform these actions and result in a valid baptism, however would be a serious abuse and in fact be an illicit action.

Thanks to all who patiently, for several days, have tried to help me understand my error!

Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic and taking the time to respond to my post and your graciousness in seeking the correct answers.

I’m still confused lol but not about the part that is most important to me at the moment…the baptism…I’m all squared away now. Thanks everyone : )

 

[felsguy]

I am here this morning to concede.

I did much reading yesterday and recollection of my conversations with our JD and I must admit it seems my understanding of our conversation allowed my understanding to venture out a little farther than it should considering the material involved in the situation.

:tiphat: Anyone can make a mistake…but not everyone is a big enough person to admit it when they do.

 

[G_S]

Deacons were authorized to solemnly confer baptism by SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM in 1967 – while the former rite was still in effect. Since the former rite is now allowed, deacons can perform the entire rite. Since SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM, the conditions under which deacons can confer blessings has been expanded but, even at that time, they could confer all blessings that were part of a rite that they were authorized to confer.

 

[FrDavid96]

Deacons were authorized to solemnly confer baptism by SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM in 1967 – while the former rite was still in effect. Since the former rite is now allowed, deacons can perform the entire rite. Since SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM, the conditions under which deacons can confer blessings has been expanded but, even at that time, they could confer all blessings that were part of a rite that they were authorized to confer.

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.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

1967 is five years after 1962.

Further, in the Extraordinary Form, the salt and the water are a special issue. The rubrics from 1962 state that:
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.

SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM 1967, never authorized a deacon to bless either the salt or the water. These blessings are special sacerdotal blessings that are uniquely ordered toward the specific purpose of baptism. The blessings are by their very nature, and by the words of the blessing, reserved to a priest. The word “salt” or “water” never even appear in S.D.O.

1. According to the above-mentioned Constitution of the Second Vatican Council it pertains to the deacon, to the extent that he has been authorized by the local Ordinary, to attend such functions: …

1. To administer baptism solemnly and to supply the ceremonies which may have been omitted when conferring it on children or adults;

Sacram Diaconatus Ordinem changed nothing with regard to baptism. The deacon was already an extraordinary minister of solemn baptism. The document merely repeated what was already the practice of the Church (in this particular regard).

When the new rite of Baptism was changed in 1969, then (and only then) did it become possible for the deacon to bless the baptismal water. The rubrics were completely changed. Also, the salt was completely eliminated from the rite of baptism.

In the Extraordinary Form of Baptism, only the rite as it existed in 1962 can be used. Anything the happened after 1962 is simply irrelevant.

The rubrics from the Ordinary Form cannot be combined into the Extraordinary Form.

I just cannot see why this is so difficult for people to understand. The dates are plain enough. 1967 is after 1962. 1969 is after 1962. 1989 is after 1962.
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.

 

[G_S]

Since Canon 1169 3, is interpreted as allowing deacons to give blessings at rites in which they preside, including baptism, there exists an unclear canonical point that can only be definitively interpreted by a higher authority than any of us possesses. The local ordinary could be consulted who might choose to confer with the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments or with the Commission Ecclesia Dei, which is part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Although I have not been asked to perform an EF baptism, as a deacon, because of the issues Father brings up, I would not attempt to bless the water and salt in the rite unless my ordinary was consulted and I received his permission.

Participants in this forum should remember that official interpretations of canonical and liturgical law are not within its competence.

 

[FrDavid96]

Since Canon 1169 3, is interpreted as allowing deacons to give blessings at rites in which they preside, including baptism, there exists an unclear canonical point that can only be definitively interpreted by a higher authority than any of us possesses. The local ordinary could be consulted who might choose to confer with the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments or with the Commission Ecclesia Dei, which is part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Although I have not been asked to perform an EF baptism, as a deacon, because of the issues Father brings up, I would not attempt to bless the water and salt in the rite unless my ordinary was consulted and I received his permission.

Participants in this forum should remember that official interpretations of canonical and liturgical law are not within its competence.

Pope Benedict was competent to interpret Summorum Pontificum.

He personally approved the official Interpretation given by Ecclesia Dei. It’s available to anyone who would like to read it.

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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

I’ve repeatedly posted Summorum Pontificum which states that the parish priest is competent to allow Baptisms in the Extraordinary Form. There is no need to go to the local bishop. Indeed, the tone of S.P. is clear that the bishop cannot be an obstacle to the Extraordinary Form.

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.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_en.html

All that’s needed is to pick up a copy of the 1962 Roman Ritual and follow the rubrics and words as written.
Leave the 1969 Rite of Baptism on the shelf next to the 1989 Book of Blessings and act as if neither had ever been written.
It…is…that…simple.

It’s been nearly 7 years now. These are no longer open questions. They’ve been settled.

There is no “unclear canonical point.” None. Nothing.
Get the book and do what the book says. How hard is that to understand?

And quite frankly, according to Article 9 of Summorum Pontificum, I am myself competent to interpret it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Dear Friends,

I understand that the whole topic of the Extraordinary Form can be confusing, at least at first.

Sometimes we deal with Church documents that most people have never actually read, but which receive so much publicity it can sometimes seem as if we “know” what they say.

When (then) Pope Benedict first issued his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in July 2007 questions (and yes, confusion) immediately arose. In fact, on the very same date (7 July 2007) Pope Benedict issued an open letter to all the bishops of the world explaining Summorum Pontificum, since the media has already sown the seeds of confusion; in an attempt to clarify certain misunderstandings before they even arose. Here is that letter vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Admittedly, not everything in Summorum Pontificum was as clear and direct as many people would like (and need). Many inquiries were made to the Holy See after the letter was published. There were questions. Questions by people who were eminently qualified in canon law and liturgy. In order to clarify what had become the most common questions asked, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (whom the Holy Father has charged to be the authority in regulating the Extraordinary Form) issued an official Instruction, which was personally approved by the Holy Father and which has the force of law (that’s important: it has the force of law). That Instruction can be read here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

With regard to the topic at hand, there are very important points made in that Instruction. I’ll paste them now:

1. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.
2. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was accompanied by a letter … providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. … regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy. …

8 b. effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the … 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful …

1. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.
2. 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.
3. 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.

First, we have paragraph 2. The Church’s liturgy, as it existed in 1962 is now permitted by virtue of Summorum Pontificum. The same thing is said again in #7; twice, the year 1962 is used.

Then, we have paragraph 24. The liturgical books are to be used “as they are.” and the rubrics must be followed correctly. In other words, when using the Extraordinary Form, the only rubrics that matter, the only ones that may be used are the rubrics which are printed in those books.

So, what are those books? Ecclesia Dei answers that in #28 and again in #35. The Roman Ritual of 1962. That’s specific. 1962. There is no ambiguity there, no room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. 1962 means: the year after 1961 and before 1963. It’s as clear as can be. 1962.

Even if someone were to somehow overlook the year 1962 in paragraph #2, then again in #7, then again in #8, then again in #28, the Instruction says the same thing again in #35. In fact, reading the paragraphs together, the Instruction mentions the year 1962 twelve times. Quite frankly, nothing could be more clear. 1962 means 1962.

So, what do we do about rubrics that were changed in 1967? What about those issued in 1969 in the Rite of Baptism promulgated by Pope Paul VI? What about the Book of Blessings promulgated by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1989? The solution is simple: any changes to the rubrics which took effect after 1962 have no place in the Extraordinary Form. It’s simply a matter of looking at the dates. Since we all know that 1989 came 27 years after 1962, we likewise know that rubrics from the 1989 Book of Blessings have no bearing on sacraments celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Ritual.

Now, having said that, there are certain exceptions. For example, the Holy Father made provision for celebrating, in the Extraordinary Form, saints canonized after 1962. Summorum Pontificum is not some liturgical “time machine,” nor is it to be a museum of the past. However, these exceptions are specifically provided in S.P., and only the Holy See is competent to approve these changes to the 1962 Missal, or the 1962 Roman Ritual, or the Ceremonial for Bishops. In spite of these approved changes, there is no ambiguity with regard to the actual rubrics to be used.

In the Extraordinary Form of Baptism (the topic of this thread) the Rite of Baptism as published in the 1962 Roman Ritual are the only rubrics that apply. Any and all rubrical changes effected after the year 1962 simply have no relevance to the topic at hand. If there is a question, it’s simply a matter of looking at the dates. If the date of the document or book is 1967, 1969, 1989, or any other date after 1962, it has no bearing on the topic.