Valid/licit baptism

[mumto5]

OK, EWTN forums are constantly full so I’m hoping someone can give a definitive answer. If a baby is baptised I know they are to be called by their full name. i.e. Firstname Middlename(s) Lastname, I baptise you in the name of the father…etc.

So what if a baby is baptised with just Firstname Lastname, or, even just Firstname? Is that a valid baptism? I assume so. But even if it is valid, is it licit?

I really need an answer to this. Thanks.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Actually, one never uses the family name (last name) when baptizing. And, yes, it is valid if only the first or the first and middle names are used.

Deacon Ed

 

[otm]

In fact, it would be valid if the name was not used. The name is not essential to the sacrament.

 

[mumto5]

Deacon Ed:

Actually, one never uses the family name (last name) when baptizing. And, yes, it is valid if only the first or the first and middle names are used.

Deacon Ed

OK - the reason I am asking is that my first four children were all baptised by the same priest. They were called by first, middle and last names. Certainly by first and second. The baptisms were well done. My fifth baby’s baptism was a shambles and very disorganised, during a Mass. The others were all individual ceremonies at a seperate time, no mass. My fifth baby was baptised by first name only. Her middle name was never mentioned.

Does this mean my baby’s baptism was invalid?!

 

[JimG]

All the baptisms were valid.

 

[mumto5]

Deacon Ed:

Actually, one never uses the family name (last name) when baptizing. And, yes, it is valid if only the first or the first and middle names are used.

Deacon Ed

OK - the reason I am asking is that my first four children were all baptised by the same priest. They were called by first, middle and last names. Certainly by first and second. The baptisms were well done. My fifth baby’s baptism was a shambles and very disorganised, during a Mass. The others were all individual ceremonies at a seperate time, no mass. My fifth baby was baptised by first name only. Her middle name was never mentioned.

Does this mean my baby’s baptism was invalid?!

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

otm:

In fact, it would be valid if the name was not used. The name is not essential to the sacrament.

I agree! i have encountered an emergency baptism of an newly born infant and i just said the powerful phrase and thats it. I dont know the family name nor the middle and first name. Unluckily he died in the hospital.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

mumto5:

OK - the reason I am asking is that my first four children were all baptised by the same priest. They were called by first, middle and last names. Certainly by first and second. The baptisms were well done. My fifth baby’s baptism was a shambles and very disorganised, during a Mass. The others were all individual ceremonies at a seperate time, no mass. My fifth baby was baptised by first name only. Her middle name was never mentioned.

Does this mean my baby’s baptism was invalid?!

No the formula used was valid. As noted above a name is not required nor are Godparents in an emergency situation.

 

[GoLatin]

I was given Conditional Baptism two days ago by a very good Priest.(Latin Rite)

As far as I recall, Father used my first name only.

I know that of course the Sacrament was VALID, but is it LICIT to use only a person’s first name in a NON-EMERGENCY situation(which this obviously was)?

Is there anybody out there who can give a good canonical answer to this?

Thanks!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

GoLatin:

I was given Conditional Baptism two days ago by a very good Priest.(Latin Rite)

As far as I recall, Father used my first name only.

I know that of course the Sacrament was VALID, but is it LICIT to use only a person’s first name in a NON-EMERGENCY situation(which this obviously was)?

Is there anybody out there who can give a good canonical answer to this?

Thanks!

The use of the name comes from the time when a person from a pagan background chooses a Christian Baptismal name. The Rite states “N. , I baptize you…” the N is your new Christian name which is usually only your first or sometimes first and second name. So for licitness according to the Rite of Baptism at least the first name should be used.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

mumto5:

OK - the reason I am asking is that my first four children were all baptised by the same priest. They were called by first, middle and last names. Certainly by first and second. The baptisms were well done. My fifth baby’s baptism was a shambles and very disorganised, during a Mass. The others were all individual ceremonies at a seperate time, no mass. My fifth baby was baptised by first name only. Her middle name was never mentioned.

Does this mean my baby’s baptism was invalid?!

As has already been noted, the baptism is valid. For validity all that is required is an unbaptized person, flowing water, and the appropriate formula (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”) along with the intention to do what the Church does when she baptizes. No name need be used, although it is traditional to use a Christian name (as Brother Rich has pointed out).

Deacon Ed