Question about adding substance to Baptismal water

[Alphonsus2005]

Hello everyone,

As most of you are aware, there have been several reports of invalid form of Baptism being used. In light of these events, it made me think of my son’s Baptism in 2018 and what seemed to me to be an irregularity. I would appreciate if someone could help put my mind at ease regarding this matter.

Before I begin, I want to state that I am certain the Deacon performing the Baptism did triple pouring of the water which clearly contacted my son, and recited the proper form of Baptism.

The irregularity is regarding the water itself. Before the Baptisms (there were several other children being Baptized), the Deacon stated that he was adding a “small quantity of [spikenard]” to the water. Since the vessel holding the water was opaque it was unclear to me what proportion the apikenard was to the water. I have no reason to believe it was greater than the amount of water present. My question is, does the mere addition of any amount of spikenard (or other substance other than the blessed salt) invalidate the matter and thus the Baptism?

Thank you for your replies.

 

[Anesti33]

The question would be if the substance used to baptize could still be called “water”.

If someone is baptized in milk or coffee, that is invalid, because a reasonable observer could not call the substance “water”.

Baptism in a river is valid, despite the presence of fish, algae, and tin cans. The water in the river is still obviously water.

It would boil down to the quantity of spikenard vs. the quantity of water used. If the spikenard did not have an appreciable effect on the substance of the water, and you could still reasonably call it “water”, albeit with something floating in it, then you’re fine.

Do you have a video recording of the ritual? Was it in a Catholic church?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Isn’t spikenard a type of aromatic oil? Oil and water cannot mix. The oil stays oil, and the water stays water.

I want to say that there is no problem here, but ultimately I would defer to someone with greater expertise than I have in sacramental theology.

But if I were the pastor or bishop, just to be on the safe side, I’d gently ask the deacon not to do something like that anymore.

 

[1ke]

This is really something you should speak to your pastor about.

Let him make inquiries to the bishop, and conditionally baptize your child if necessary and also speak to the deacon to correct him.

 

[Alphonsus2005]

Thank you for your replies. To answer your questions:

• Yes, this was in a Roman Catholic Church
• I have video of the Baptism itself but not of the adding of spikenard.

I will speak with the pastor and have the proper inquiries made to the bishop.

 

[Gorgias]

The irregularity is regarding the water itself. Before the Baptisms (there were several other children being Baptized), the Deacon stated that he was adding a “small quantity of [spikenard]” to the water.

OK… I’m racking my brain over why he would want to do this…?!?

Let me ask a silly question: following the baptismal formula, did he anoint the babies’ heads with sacred chrism, or did he omit the anointing?

 

[Alphonsus2005]

Gorgias,

Thanks for your reply.

The deacon did not omit the anointing with holy oil.

The deacon explained, prior to the adding of spikenard, that it was to symbolize the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene for his burial or something to that effect. He was expounding on how in Baptism we are buried with Christ so we can rise with Him to new life. Of course, the obvious rebuttal to this is that the person to be baptized is anointed with holy oil prior to Baptism anyway.

Now that I think about it, there was one more liturgical irregularity that I can recall: the deacon, at the end of the Litany of the Saints, invoked the names of those persons to be baptized as saints. I do believe that, while a liturgical abuse, this does not invalidate the sacrament.

I can only speculate as to why the deacon thinks these novelties (abuses, in my opinion) are of any benefit to the faithful.

 

[Dovekin]

The Roman Ritual of 1952(1964) has this as part of the blessing of Baptismal water:

After this he pours the oil of catechumens into the water in the form of a cross, saying:

May this font be sanctified and made fruitful by the oil that sanctifies for those who are born anew herein for everlasting life; in the name of the Father, + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit.

All: Amen.

1. Then he pours in chrism in the same manner, saying:

May this infusion of the chrism of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, the Consoler, be done in the name of the Holy Trinity.

All: Amen.

1. After this he takes the two phials of holy oils, and pours both together into the water in the form of a cross, saying:

May this mingling of the chrism that sanctifies with the oil of anointing and the water of baptism be done in the name of the Father, + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit.

All: Amen.

1. He mixes the oils and water with his hand, and sprinkles it over the font. Then he cleanses the oil from his hand with a piece of bread. If there are any to be baptized, he baptizes in the ordinary way. Otherwise he washes his hands, and the ablution is poured into the sacrarium.

There is a shorter form in the 1964 edition that I think is the same as in the current Book of Blessings, without any oils.

I am fascinated by the link your deacon made to Jesus being anointed for his burial!

 

[Alphonsus2005]

Dovekin,

Thank you for your citations of the Roman Ritual.

I wish the deacon had followed the ritual properly, and not used some arbitrary unblessed substance. I noticed in the Ritual, in section 9, the priest sprinkles the mixture into the font with his hands, certainly to ensure that the water of the font is the primary substance and thus valid matter.

My primary concern is that the water is valid matter. As conducted in the case of my son’s Baptism, it is not certain that it is valid.

 

[Pitcairn17]

Gorgias,

Thanks for your reply.

The deacon did not omit the anointing with holy oil.

The deacon explained, prior to the adding of spikenard, that it was to symbolize the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene for his burial or something to that effect. He was expounding on how in Baptism we are buried with Christ so we can rise with Him to new life. Of course, the obvious rebuttal to this is that the person to be baptized is anointed with holy oil prior to Baptism anyway.

Now that I think about it, there was one more liturgical irregularity that I can recall: the deacon, at the end of the Litany of the Saints, invoked the names of those persons to be baptized as saints. I do believe that, while a liturgical abuse, this does not invalidate the sacrament.

I can only speculate as to why the deacon thinks these novelties (abuses, in my opinion) are of any benefit to the faithful.

I have assisted at Baptisms in 3 parishes. When a child has a recognized Saint’s name, I have always heard that saint invoked in the Litany. Far from being a supposed abuse, I have always considered it a pious practice. How possibly could invoking an additional saint invalidate the sacrament?

 

[Alphonsus2005]

Pitcairn17,

I’m sorry, I don’t think I was clear. The deacon stated he was invoking the names of the newly baptized persons themselves as “new saints,” as I recall. Their names were not all recognized saints.

 

[Gorgias]

The deacon stated he was invoking the names of the newly baptized persons themselves as “new saints,” as I recall.

Oh, brother. Sometimes, ya just gotta wonder…

In any case, that seems irregular, but wouldn’t invalidate the sacrament.

Far from being a supposed abuse, I have always considered it a pious practice.

It’s part of the rubrics of the ritual, as memory serves.

The deacon explained, prior to the adding of spikenard

And you’re certain it wasn’t actually chrism?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Roman Ritual of 1952(1964) has this as part of the blessing of Baptismal water:

After this he pours the oil of catechumens into the water in the form of a cross, saying:

May this font be sanctified and made fruitful by the oil that sanctifies for those who are born anew herein for everlasting life; in the name of the Father, + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit.

All: Amen.

1. Then he pours in chrism in the same manner, saying:

May this infusion of the chrism of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, the Consoler, be done in the name of the Holy Trinity.

All: Amen.

1. After this he takes the two phials of holy oils, and pours both together into the water in the form of a cross, saying:

May this mingling of the chrism that sanctifies with the oil of anointing and the water of baptism be done in the name of the Father, + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit.

All: Amen.

1. He mixes the oils and water with his hand, and sprinkles it over the font. Then he cleanses the oil from his hand with a piece of bread. If there are any to be baptized, he baptizes in the ordinary way. Otherwise he washes his hands, and the ablution is poured into the sacrarium.

Per what @Dovekin well explains, a small quantity of oil poured into the water could not possibly invalidate the baptism. Given this information, I wouldn’t worry about it.

But again, if I were the pastor or bishop, I’d take the deacon aside and give him a friendly “word to the wise”, you probably shouldn’t do that again, it worries some people who don’t understand all the ins-and–outs of baptismal rubrics and sacramental validity.

 

[Gorgias]

But again, if I were the pastor or bishop, I’d take the deacon aside and give him a friendly “word to the wise”, you probably shouldn’t do that again, it worries some people who don’t understand all the ins-and–outs of baptismal rubrics and sacramental validity.

Yep, especially since, if he’s using the current ritual, then this action isn’t part of it, and the minister doesn’t have the right to alter the ritual.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

But again, if I were the pastor or bishop, I’d take the deacon aside and give him a friendly “word to the wise”, you probably shouldn’t do that again, it worries some people who don’t understand all the ins-and–outs of baptismal rubrics and sacramental validity.

Yep, especially since, if he’s using the current ritual, then this action isn’t part of it, and the minister doesn’t have the right to alter the ritual.

I do not approve of priests or deacons adding things to rituals such as this, but they could always come back and say “the rubrics don’t say you can’t do this, I thought it would be a nice little touch, and besides, the older ritual allowed it”.

It’s interesting to think of a cleric who would be disposed to play around with the rubrics and who would seek to restore pre-Vatican II practices (after a fashion). Those two concepts usually don’t go together.

 

[Gorgias]

I do not approve of priests or deacons adding things to rituals such as this, but they could always come back and say “the rubrics don’t say you can’t do this, I thought it would be a nice little touch, and besides, the older ritual allowed it” .

They could. But, that’s not the standard. The rubrics tell you what to do. Full stop. Priests and deacons aren’t allowed to ad lib (except where the ritual explicitly allows for it, and those are relatively rare). And besides, “it used to be like this” doesn’t count, either – when a new ritual is promulgated, the one it replaces is abrogated. The way I’ve seen it stated tends to go like this: “you may use the new ritual beginning on such-and-such a date, and you must use the new ritual beginning on this date.”

To my experience, though, it’s generally just poor formation. Rarely – rarely – it’s a guy who thinks he can do whatever he pleases.

 

[Diaconia]

No.

The amount of spikenard in a small container would not make a difference. Nor does small amounts of salt, or, in fonts with recirculating pumps, small amounts of chemicals (that disinfect the font, retard algae, etc.).

It’s a silly thing to do, and shouldn’t be done. But it didn’t effect your baby’s baptism.

Deacon Christopher