Priest validly baptism when not saying the word “of “ before the son and Holy Spirit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jshy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jshy

Guest
Can a priest still validly baptize when saying I baptized ( name of person ) in the name of the father , and the son and the Holy Spirit . But They didn’t say “ and OF the son , and OF the Holy Spirit . He left the OF out for the last two persons … and water wasn’t poured directly on The forehead but on the side of there head as they were laying down side ways in my arms as I held them horizontally. It was still poured over there head though each time i he said the person of the trinity ( Triple infusion ) It’s just that they were not facing the ceiling but the side of the wall looking away from the water , so the water got the side of there directly and not directly on the Front of the forehead . I’m sure I’m just being to OCD lol .
 
Last edited:
Yes. The difference between licit and invalid are night and day. An oversight might be licit, but it does not impact validity.
 
The common evangelical and fundamentalist manner of baptism consists of dunking in water three times and saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)” — to retrofit Latin grammar onto English, it is using the nominative case in place of the genitive case.

Matthew 28:19 clearly says “…and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (KJV). Strange that fundamentalists would omit “of”. Yet if I am understanding correctly, the Catholic Church does not see this omission as affecting validity.
 
It was a catholic priest who did it. I was just wondering if it’s fine that he said “ in the name of the father , and the son, and the Holy Spirit … he didn’t use “OF” before each And every persons of the trinity .
 
Last edited:
The importance is in the trinitarian invocation using the correct names for the 3 persons of the trinity. Dropping the preposition, “of", from in front of the 2nd and 3rd persons does not change the intent or meaning of the invocation in English so does not invalidate the sacrament.

Yes, ideally it is spoken exactly as the rite says, but try not to get troubled over things like this.

One good that will come out of it is that I am now hyper aware of it as I prepare to perform my first baptism, so thank you for that gift.😄
 
Thanks , this is good information for me to know also. I Was just questioning if it changed the formula since “of” was not used for all members of the trinity. But so far everyone says the baptism is still valid so that’s great . Where would I look for Similar questions like this in the future , the code of canon law ? I have that , the old Roman ( council of Trent) Catechism And the Denzinger .
 
Last edited:
I would advise you to get help for your OCD and probably not entertain such questions, as they will probably be a trigger for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top