Valid Baptismal Formula?

[javier_29]

My wife and I recently had premature twins at 27 weeks.
When it was determined that they had to take them out by C-section I requested a priest to have them baptized right away. There wasn’t a priest available but a Catholic chaplain was and she said that she spoke to the priest and he asked her to baptize them.

I was a little panicked but I suspect that was OK. When she did the baptisms she used the following words…

“I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit”

I guess I was expecting “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” so it kind of threw me off especially since I was already on edge that a priest was not available.

Am I worrying for nothing?

By the way the twins are doing well…THANK GOD!! They are still in the NICU and will be for some time but I know that God has granted me two miracles.

 

[1ke]

I don’t think you have anything to worry about. But, discuss it with your priest.

However, the baptism does need to be reported, verified, and recording in the sacramental records. Your priest can also peform the remaining rights-- chismation, presenting the white garment, etc.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I don’t think you have anything to worry about. But, discuss it with your priest.

However, the baptism does need to be reported, verified, and recording in the sacramental records. Your priest can also peform the remaining rights-- chismation, presenting the white garment, etc.

What she said. And congratulations!

 

[bpbasilphx]

As long as water and the three persons of the Trinity were invoked, I should think it would be valid, even if unusual.

FWIW, the Byzantine formula is “The servant of God N is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” with three separate immersions, and the people responding “Amen” after each person.

And I understand the Assyrians say “N, be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

 

[AJV]

My wife and I recently had premature twins at 27 weeks.
When it was determined that they had to take them out by C-section I requested a priest to have them baptized right away. There wasn’t a priest available but a Catholic chaplain was and she said that she spoke to the priest and he asked her to baptize them.

I was a little panicked but I suspect that was OK. When she did the baptisms she used the following words…

“I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit”

I guess I was expecting “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” so it kind of threw me off especially since I was already on edge that a priest was not available.

Am I worrying for nothing?

By the way the twins are doing well…THANK GOD!! They are still in the NICU and will be for some time but I know that God has granted me two miracles.

I don’t think you are worrying for nothing. I believe the formula “in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, etc.” was declared at one point valid, but I don’t recall any such thing for the repetition of the entire formula for each Person as you posted. There are/were many moral theologians who regarded it as doubtfully valid

This formula is dangerous because it does not indicate clearly that there are Three Persons, One God in the Divine Trinity but is open to many heresies e.g. modalism (three different aspects)
She *could *just be easily saying that they are all different names for one God.

Perhaps you can get your children conditionally baptised. Perhaps you can also send a kind note to the chaplain, or to the priest or whoever, requesting that the correct baptismal formula be pronounced in future.

Congratulations, and many prayers for your twins.

 

[mommyof4]

My wife and I recently had premature twins at 27 weeks.
When it was determined that they had to take them out by C-section I requested a priest to have them baptized right away. There wasn’t a priest available but a Catholic chaplain was and she said that she spoke to the priest and he asked her to baptize them.

I was a little panicked but I suspect that was OK. When she did the baptisms she used the following words…

“I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit”

I guess I was expecting “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” so it kind of threw me off especially since I was already on edge that a priest was not available.

Am I worrying for nothing?

By the way the twins are doing well…THANK GOD!! They are still in the NICU and will be for some time but I know that God has granted me two miracles.

Congrats on the twins!

I would ask a priest if this is valid- I’d hate to base it on a bunch of lay persons opinion.

Mary

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think you are worrying for nothing. I believe the formula “in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, etc.” was declared at one point valid, but I don’t recall any such thing for the repetition of the entire formula for each Person as you posted. There are/were many moral theologians who regarded it as outright invalid. IMHO, at best, it may be doubtfully valid

This formula is dangerous because it does not indicate clearly that there are Three Persons, One God in the Divine Trinity but is open to many heresies e.g. modalism (three different aspects)
She could just be easily saying that they are all different names for one God.

Perhaps you can get your children conditionally baptised - by yourself, if necessary. Perhaps you can also send a kind note to the chaplain, or to the priest or whoever, requesting that the correct baptismal formula be pronounced in future.

Congratulations, and many prayers for your twins.

I think you’re the one who’s worrying for nothing. Theologians used to speculate that if you said, for example, ‘in the name of the Son and of the Father and of the Holy Spirit’ it would be invalid. I think very very few if any theologians would hold that view today - since it is every bit as ‘Trinitarian’ as saying Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

OP, it’s a simple matter to put your mind at ease by asking your priest, since you have to talk to him to have the baptism registered and the accompanying rites (not rights) completed anyway. And if necessary, a conditional baptism can be done

 

[AJV]

I think you’re the one who’s worrying for nothing. Theologians used to speculate that if you said, for example, ‘in the name of the Son and of the Father and of the Holy Spirit’ it would be invalid. I think very very few if any theologians would hold that view today - since it is every bit as ‘Trinitarian’ as saying Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

OP, it’s a simple matter to put your mind at ease by asking your priest, since you have to talk to him to have the baptism registered and the accompanying rites (not rights) completed anyway. And if necessary, a conditional baptism can be done

Perhaps so, and I agree that the OP should not take my opinion alone, but should have recourse to his priest. But it is prudent for a matter in the sacraments to be worried rather than regarding all formulae that mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit as valid.

With respect, I seriously doubt you will find a theologian who regarded “in the name of the Son and of the Father and of the Holy Spirit” as invalid, but I am willing to be corrected on the matter.

 

[Karl_M]

Well,

I can at least say that it is vaild that the Chaplain did it. It’s best to have a deacon or priest (or bishop) do it, but given the potentially serious medical situation, that part of it is OK.

As for the rest of it, it sounds trinitarian to me, but then again, I’m not an expert. I don’t think I’d lose any sleep over it, but it also isn’t “worrying for nothing.”

Get it checked out by a solid, Catholic Priest. One that you know will give you the right answer. You may end up having to conditionally baptise the children ("if you have not been baptized, I baptize you, etc…)

You can try the “Ask the Apologist” section, this sounds like a question they’d answer.

 

[Spirithound]

“I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit”

That formula seems to be a “long form” of the “normal” Trinitarian formula, which is made up of three clauses conjoined together, but with the verb “baptize” ellipsed in the second and third clause. Linguistically, they both mean the same thing. It sounds clear that the chaplain intended to “do what the Church does”, so it’s valid.

 

[japhy]

There wasn’t a priest available but a Catholic chaplain was and she said that she spoke to the priest and he asked her to baptize them.

Two points here. The term “chaplain” is not lawful for an unordained person. Second, any Chaplain should know the standard baptismal formula. It’s not that hard, really.

 

[LilyM]

Two points here. The term “chaplain” is not lawful for an unordained person. Second, any Chaplain should know the standard baptismal formula. It’s not that hard, really.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"Main Entry: chap·lain
Pronunciation: \ˈcha-plən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chapelein, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin cappellanus, from cappella
Date: 14th century
1 : a clergyman in charge of a chapel
2 : a clergyman officially attached to a branch of the military, to an institution, or to a family or court
3 : ***a person chosen to conduct religious exercises ***(as at a meeting of a club or society)
4 : a clergyman appointed to assist a bishop (as at a liturgical function) "

Although of course there may be a Canon Law or other church definition restricting use of the term to clergy, it would appear that in the ordinary definition it can be used.

What else would you call such a person, appointed to a hospital to conduct religious rites (probably including ministering Communion as well as emergency baptisms)

 

[Penitant]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"Main Entry: chap·lain
Pronunciation: \ˈcha-plən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chapelein, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin cappellanus, from cappella
Date: 14th century
1 : a clergyman in charge of a chapel
2 : a clergyman officially attached to a branch of the military, to an institution, or to a family or court
3 : ***a person chosen to conduct religious exercises ***(as at a meeting of a club or society)
4 : a clergyman appointed to assist a bishop (as at a liturgical function) "

Although of course there may be a Canon Law or other church definition restricting use of the term to clergy, it would appear that in the ordinary definition it can be used.

What else would you call such a person, appointed to a hospital to conduct religious rites (probably including ministering Communion as well as emergency baptisms)

Ecclesiae de mysterio:

1. The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated “extraordinary ministers” when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in Canon 230, 3(56) and in Canons 943 and 1112. Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are canonically entrusted e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors etc. Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes – mentioned in Canon 230, 2 – does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful.(57)

It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as “pastor”, “chaplain”, “coordinator”, " moderator" or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest

Properly, so, they are Extraordinary Ministers. In this case, it would be Extraordinary Minister of Baptism, I believe.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My wife and I recently had premature twins at 27 weeks.
When it was determined that they had to take them out by C-section I requested a priest to have them baptized right away. There wasn’t a priest available but a Catholic chaplain was and she said that she spoke to the priest and he asked her to baptize them.

I was a little panicked but I suspect that was OK. When she did the baptisms she used the following words…

“I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit”

I guess I was expecting “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” so it kind of threw me off especially since I was already on edge that a priest was not available.

Am I worrying for nothing?

By the way the twins are doing well…THANK GOD!! They are still in the NICU and will be for some time but I know that God has granted me two miracles.

I would suggest speaking with your pastor. The other thing is that there is no such thing as a “Catholic Chaplin” who is not an ordained Priest.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"Main Entry: chap·lain
Pronunciation: \ˈcha-plən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chapelein, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin cappellanus, from cappella
Date: 14th century
1 : a clergyman in charge of a chapel
2 : a clergyman officially attached to a branch of the military, to an institution, or to a family or court
3 : ***a person chosen to conduct religious exercises ***(as at a meeting of a club or society)
4 : a clergyman appointed to assist a bishop (as at a liturgical function) "

Although of course there may be a Canon Law or other church definition restricting use of the term to clergy, it would appear that in the ordinary definition it can be used.

What else would you call such a person, appointed to a hospital to conduct religious rites (probably including ministering Communion as well as emergency baptisms)

Yes you are correct, use Canon Law when “Catholic” in put in front, instead of Merriam-Webster!

 

[AJV]

With respect, I seriously doubt you will find a theologian who regarded “in the name of the Son and of the Father and of the Holy Spirit” as invalid, but I am willing to be corrected on the matter.

My apologies Lily…I was reading too fast and copied directly from your post. I did not see that you had inverted the order of the Three Persons. I shall not be so hasty in the future.

With regard to that formula, you are right- it is true that some very early theologians did pronounce it invalid, but the majority of (relatively) modern theologians (especially since the 18th century) pronounced it valid, unless by the change there was meant to indicate a different doctrine.

 

[1ke]

registered and the accompanying rites (not rights)

Uh, yeah, caught my spelling error after the time to edit had expired.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I would suggest speaking with your pastor. The other thing is that there is no such thing as a “Catholic Chaplin” who is not an ordained Priest.

I just happened to stumble across something today. I was not looking for this. A reference to #220 of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults the 1976 edition which I do not have so I can’t verify it. has this exact wording for the Baptismal formula.

 

[AJV]

I just happened to stumble across something today. I was not looking for this. A reference to #220 of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults the 1976 edition which I do not have so I can’t verify it. has this exact wording for the Baptismal formula.

No. 220 covers immersion and has (omitting the extra bits)

N. I baptize you in the name of the Father (he immerses him the first time) and of the Son (he immerses him a second time) and of the Holy Spirit (he immerses him a third time)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

No. 220 covers immersion and has (omitting the extra bits)

You are looking at the 1976 edition? Is that correct?

I only have the current edition and a 1988 edition, so I can’t check the wording.