Tertullian: Everyone can Baptize

[Thepeug]

From what I understand, only a validly-ordained priest can perform the rite of Baptism on an individual. When reading Tertullian’s On Baptism the other day, however, I came across the following in chapter 17 that seems to suggest that any of the faithful, ordained or not, can perform a valid baptism:

“The highest priest, who is the bishop, has of course the right to confer it (baptism); then the presbyters, not, however, without the bishops’s authority, out of respect to the Church: when this respect is maintained, peace is secure. But besides,** even laymen have the right to baptize, for that which is received alike by all, can be by all alike conferred;** unless you argue that the name ‘disciples’ belongs only to bishops are presbyters and deacons. The Word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by anyone. ** In like manner Baptism also, which is equally a divine institution, can be practiced by all.”**

I realize that the Church Fathers were certainly fallible and that Tertullian later converted to Montanism, but I found this passage interesting, nonetheless. How does it compare with the modern Church teachings on Baptism?

God bless,

Chris

 

[Cherub]

In our Catechism there is recognition that anyone can baptise – even an infidel, or a non believer. This is not the normative means of Christian baptism, and is to be done only when there is immediate danger of death and no chance of reaching a priest in time, and it must be done in the trinitarian formula, with proper matter and the intention to do what the Church does when it baptizes.

 

[puzzleannie]

the ordinary minister of baptism is the bishop, priest or deacon. in case there is a danger of death, anyone can baptized, even a non-Christian. Because anyone can baptize, baptisms by non-Catholic ministers are valid as long as proper matter, form and intention are present.

a quote from one Father of the Church or one theologian does not make or break a dogma, or a canon law. It is the magesterial teaching office of the Church, the pope with all his bishops, that defines the doctrine or enacts the law. In studying practice of the early Church, the writings, teachings and actions of all the Fathers and bishops, with final reference point being the decision of the pope in office at the time, are the basis for the teachings and traditions the Church maintains.

 

[EENS]

The reason that all people are permitted to baptize is that Baptism is necessary for salvation. God, after having instituting this Divine Precept, from which NO ONE is excempt, only thought it right to make this available to the greatest possible number of people, which was by permitting all people to be able to baptize validly. Of course, a layman ought only to baptize in a case of necessity (danger of death).

 

[Thepeug]

Wow, I had no idea that laymen could baptize in times of emergency. Thanks for the info, everyone.

God bless,

Chris

 

[SFH]

Thepeug:

From what I understand, only a validly-ordained priest can perform the rite of Baptism on an individual. When reading Tertullian’s On Baptism the other day, however, I came across the following in chapter 17 that seems to suggest that any of the faithful, ordained or not, can perform a valid baptism:

"The highest priest, who is the bishop, has of course the right to confer it (baptism); then the presbyters, not, however, without the bishops’s authority, out of respect to the Church: when this respect is maintained, peace is secure. But besides,** even laymen have the right to baptize, for that which is received alike by all, can be by all alike conferred;** unless you argue that the name ‘disciples’ belongs only to bishops are presbyters and deacons. The Word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by anyone. In like manner Baptism also, which is equally a divine institution, can be practiced by all."

I realize that the Church Fathers were certainly fallible and that Tertullian later converted to Montanism, but I found this passage interesting, nonetheless. How does it compare with the modern Church teachings on Baptism?

God bless,

Chris

Chris, only a bishop, priest, or deacon can perform the RITE of baptism (i.e., the additional prayers and rituals that take place in the church), but anyone can baptize someone (i.e., pour water and say the trinitarian formula). That’s always been the case.

 

[mayra_hart]

iam a nicu nurse an there is ocasssions where i have done it.

 

[bengal_fan]

EENS:

The reason that all people are permitted to baptize is that Baptism is necessary for salvation. God, after having instituting this Divine Precept, from which NO ONE is excempt, only thought it right to make this available to the greatest possible number of people, which was by permitting all people to be able to baptize validly. Of course, a layman ought
only to baptize in a case of necessity (danger of death).

it seems that, according to Christ, it is necessary for one to partake of the eucharist for salvation also (whoever eats my flesh…whoever does not eat… Jn 6). so, according to this logic, we should all be able to consecrate the host in times of emergency also. am i missing something?

 

[Damascene]

bengal_fan:

it seems that, according to Christ, it is necessary for one to partake of the eucharist for salvation also (whoever eats my flesh…whoever does not eat… Jn 6). so, according to this logic, we should all be able to consecrate the host in times of emergency also. am i missing something?

Yes.

newadvent.org/summa/408201.htm
Objection 3. Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (74, 1] ; 79, 2). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated above (67] , 3). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest.

Reply to Objection 3. The receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said above (65, 3,4; 80, 11, ad 2). And therefore, although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform this sacrament.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Damascene:

Yes.

ISTM that Jesus is slightly more worthy of confidence than St. Thomas , however.​

Which leaves the question as the poster of post 6 asked it ##

 

[jimmy]

Thepeug:

From what I understand, only a validly-ordained priest can perform the rite of Baptism on an individual. When reading Tertullian’s On Baptism the other day, however, I came across the following in chapter 17 that seems to suggest that any of the faithful, ordained or not, can perform a valid baptism:

"The highest priest, who is the bishop, has of course the right to confer it (baptism); then the presbyters, not, however, without the bishops’s authority, out of respect to the Church: when this respect is maintained, peace is secure. But besides,** even laymen have the right to baptize, for that which is received alike by all, can be by all alike conferred;** unless you argue that the name ‘disciples’ belongs only to bishops are presbyters and deacons. The Word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by anyone. In like manner Baptism also, which is equally a divine institution, can be practiced by all."

I realize that the Church Fathers were certainly fallible and that Tertullian later converted to Montanism, but I found this passage interesting, nonetheless. How does it compare with the modern Church teachings on Baptism?

God bless,

Chris

The council of Florence declared that anyone can do a baptism, even a pagan.

Session 8—22 November 1439

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

 

[jimmy]

bengal_fan:

it seems that, according to Christ, it is necessary for one to partake of the eucharist for salvation also (whoever eats my flesh…whoever does not eat… Jn 6). so, according to this logic, we should all be able to consecrate the host in times of emergency also. am i missing something?

The Eucharist is not necisary for salvation like baptism. The effects of the Eucharist is the increase in Grace in those who recieve worthily.

Council of Florence session 8

manifested long ago in disputation, that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament in wine mixed with water, and because it befits the representation of the Lord’s passion. For the blessed pope Alexander, fifth after blessed Peter, says: "In the oblations of the sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of masses, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. There should not be offered in the chalice of the Lord either wine only or water only but both mixed together, because both blood and water are said to have flowed from Christ’s side’; also because it is fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ. For, water signifies the people according to those words of the Apocalypse: many waters, many peoples. And Pope Julius, second after blessed Silvester, said: The chalice of the Lord, by a precept of the canons, should be offered mixed of wine and water, because we see that the people is understood in the water and the blood of Christ is manifested in the wine; hence when wine and water are mingled in the chalice, the people are made one with Christ and the mass of the faithful are linked and joined together with him in whom they believe. Since, therefore, both the holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We decree, therefore, that the Armenians should conform themselves with the whole Christian world and that their priests shall mix a little water with the wine in the oblation of the chalice, as has been said. The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ. The effect of this sacrament, which is produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of him or her with Christ. Since by grace a person is incorporated in Christ and is united with his members, the consequence is that grace is increased by this sacrament in those who receive it worthily, and that every effect that material food and drink produce for corporal life — sustaining, increasing, repairing and delighting — this sacrament works for spiritual life. For in it, as Pope Urban said, we recall the gracious memory of our Saviour, we are withdrawn from evil, we are strengthened in good and we receive an increase of virtues and graces.

Continued

 

[jimmy]

Aquinas Summa Theologica Question 73 Article 3

I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (Article [1], Objection [2]) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Pt. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (Question [68], Article [2]), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Question [68], Article [2]). Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Question [63], Article [6]): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP073.html