Interpolation of words in baptismal formula. Unusual requests for baptisms

[EmilyAlexandra]

I’ve been seeing a lot of threads about valid and invalid baptismal formulas. I just have a question about baptismal formulas outside the Catholic Church and whether a particular form of words is considered valid. I understand that the Catholic Church recognises as valid all baptisms that are done with water and involve the use of the approved form of words. Thus, baptism in most mainstream Christian denominations is generally considered valid. I have been to a few baptisms (e.g. Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal) where the priest or other minister has used the formula, “N, on profession/confession of your faith, I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit/Ghost. Amen.” Is it okay, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, to interpolate a form of words referring to the profession or confession of faith, an oral testimony, etc, as long as the correct baptismal formula follows?

I also wonder what Catholics think about people who want unusual baptisms. Obviously in many Protestant churches it is normal for baptism to be by immersion, and they will usually have a pool for the purpose. However, when a friend of mine was baptised as an Anglican, she decided that she wanted to be baptised by immersion in a river. The hitch was that the nearest suitable river was about 70 miles away. Please remember that Britain is a small country where 70 miles is considered a long distance! So, a detachment from her parish, plus an assortment of friends, all met up in this remote spot, where they had an elaborate ceremony culminating in a full immersion in the river. I’m not complaining - it was a nice day out for those of us who could make it - but would Catholics normally allow something like this? Would there be an expectation that an adult baptism should be just a little water poured over the head using the font in the church, rather than doing something elaborate involving travelling to a river?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I also wonder what Catholics think about people who want unusual baptisms. Obviously in many Protestant churches it is normal for baptism to be by immersion, and they will usually have a pool for the purpose. However, when a friend of mine was baptised as an Anglican, she decided that she wanted to be baptised by immersion in a river. The hitch was that the nearest suitable river was about 70 miles away. Please remember that Britain is a small country where 70 miles is considered a long distance! So, a detachment from her parish, plus an assortment of friends, all met up in this remote spot, where they had an elaborate ceremony culminating in a full immersion in the river. I’m not complaining - it was a nice day out for those of us who could make it - but would Catholics normally allow something like this? Would there be an expectation that an adult baptism should be just a little water poured over the head using the font in the church, rather than doing something elaborate involving travelling to a river?

I think many Catholics would view that kind of thing as a little odd, but not invalid. But asking “what would Catholics think about x” is kind of a tough question. There are billions of Catholics, so it’s not like there is one collective hive mind about this kind of stuff.

 

[Angannas]

I’ve been seeing a lot of threads about valid and invalid baptismal formulas. I just have a question about baptismal formulas outside the Catholic Church and whether a particular form of words is considered valid. I understand that the Catholic Church recognises as valid all baptisms that are done with water and involve the use of the approved form of words. Thus, baptism in most mainstream Christian denominations is generally considered valid. I have been to a few baptisms (e.g. Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal) where the priest or other minister has used the formula, “N, on profession/confession of your faith, I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit/Ghost. Amen.” Is it okay, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, to interpolate a form of words referring to the profession or confession of faith, an oral testimony, etc, as long as the correct baptismal formula follows?

I also wonder what Catholics think about people who want unusual baptisms. Obviously in many Protestant churches it is normal for baptism to be by immersion, and they will usually have a pool for the purpose. However, when a friend of mine was baptised as an Anglican, she decided that she wanted to be baptised by immersion in a river. The hitch was that the nearest suitable river was about 70 miles away. Please remember that Britain is a small country where 70 miles is considered a long distance! So, a detachment from her parish, plus an assortment of friends, all met up in this remote spot, where they had an elaborate ceremony culminating in a full immersion in the river. I’m not complaining - it was a nice day out for those of us who could make it - but would Catholics normally allow something like this? Would there be an expectation that an adult baptism should be just a little water poured over the head using the font in the church, rather than doing something elaborate involving travelling to a river?

In the first question, there is nothing inserted into the baptismal formula, just a preamble, but the formula remains intact, so valid. The second would be unusual, but also perfectly valid. 70 miles is a long way though - no part of Britain is more than that from the sea, let alone a river!

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

But asking “what would Catholics think about x” is kind of a tough question.

True. I guess I mean Catholics living a major city in the western world. If you live in the Tatra Mountains, where there’s probably a crystal clear river that runs through your village, or if you live in India, where people use the river for washing themselves and their clothes, I guess being baptised in a river would be a fairly obvious choice. I was thinking more like your parish is on Staten Island and you take a trip out to Candlewood Lake, Connecticut for the baptism.

70 miles is a long way though - no part of Britain is more than that from the sea, let alone a river!

True, but one may be 70 miles from a really nice stretch of river that is clean enough and deep enough for immersion to be possible, but also doesn’t run too deep or too fast for safety. I believe the availability of a nearby tearoom was also a requirement.

 

[Phemie]

Canon Law dictates that Baptism is to be conferred in the parish church, so normally Baptism in a river would not happen.

Can. 857 §1. Apart from a case of necessity, the proper place of baptism is a church or oratory.

§2. As a rule an adult is to be baptized in his or her parish church and an infant in the parish church of the parents unless a just cause suggests otherwise.

 

[Anesti33]

One of our deacons was baptized in the Jordan River, so that may be a commonplace thing in the Holy Land.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I believe there are actually special pools and places along the Jordan set up for that kind of thing. One has to buy tickets or reserve the baptismal pool somehow.

It’s likely popular with Protestants. For Catholics, I would think unless your priest was coming along on a pilgrimage with you and you could come up with some kind of just cause exception to the canon law, they probably want you to get baptized in church. I would note that the Church in general is not very accommodating for any sacraments being offered outside a church other than confession (which priests can and do hear everywhere) and emergencies such as somebody is seriously ill in the hospital.

Catholics can certainly go wading in the River Jordan, just not get the sacrament there.