The water was administered separately to the words
INVALID/DOUBTFUL if matter and form substantially separate; POSSIBLY VALID if morally simultaneous. In 1858, the Holy Office commanded that Baptism be repeated conditionally in such cases.
INVALID/DOUBTFUL if matter and form substantially separate; POSSIBLY VALID if morally simultaneous (one immediately following the other). Regardless, in 1858, the Holy Office commanded that Baptism be repeated conditionally in such cases.
As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Reading List.
Comments
In 1916, the Holy Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments published an answer to a question on this topic. The case was complex because it involved two or three defects, namely:
The separation of the words and the washing;
One person saying the words and another performing the washing; specifically
The candidate performing the washing on herself.
Each of these defects is addressed in its proper article in our guide, but in brief, the Sacred Congregation answered that:
That the separation of the matter and form can render the sacrament invalid, at least under certain circumstances
That an administration will certainly be invalid if the same person does not say the words and apply the water.
This answer was promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official commentary of the Holy See and is the means by which laws and texts are promulgated to the whole Church. As such, these two answers are authoritative.
The authorities in the moral manuals below are added for interest, but the principle is settled by the Sacred Congregation.
Why is such separation a potential problem? The form of a sacrament is what determines the matter. The proximate matter alone – namely the washing – could itself signify a number of different things. But the addition of the form – namely the words “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” – determines that this ablution is a Christian baptism.
Now, if there is a substantial separation between the washing itself and the present tense verbal determination of this washing, then the washing is undetermined, and the words are not determining any present act. As such, there is no determined sign of a washing, and therefore there is no sacrament.
What about ‘moral simultaneity’?
There appears to be a slight difference between the Congregation for the Sacraments decree of 1916 and an earlier Holy Office decree of 1858.
The 1916 decree states:
Common doctrine holds that the physical union of matter and form is not required for the validity of a baptism, but that a moral union suffices, which is considered as often as if ablution happens immediately before the form is brought to an end, so often if it happens immediately afterwards. This moral union seems to exist in the case that is laid out [before us], [Ed: in which the words were spoken and the water immediately applied] since the immediate succession between the pronouncement of the words and the descent of the woman into the pool is signified [Ed: note that the descent of the woman by herself is treated as a separate problem]. Hence from this summary there appears to be no reason for invalidating the baptism. […]
While affirming validity in the case of physical simultaneity (the “ablution happens immediately before the form is brought to an end”), this decree also also seems to affirm the validity of a “merely moral simultaneity” of matter and form (i.e., when matter and form are not physically simultaneous, but one immediately follows the other) in that the woman descended into the pool after the words had finished.
We should note first that the 1916 document is not saying that the matter and form can be separate. Murray Rundus, who had the document translated, points this out, along with some of the questions raised by this document:
If the minister pours water or immerses immediately after the words are said, is this baptism valid? It is possible, but how exactly this is done isn’t clear, which leaves some room for doubt. [T]he Church does not say that it must happen at the exact same time, but rather that there must be a moral union between the words and the action to the point where it can be said that it is one action.
That being said, the document uses strict words. It says “immediately,” and by going off the text alone, especially with the other documents cited, it is clear that this is uncompromising. The document later says, “Catholic doctrine most certainly holds that the matter ought to be placed by one and the same minister at the same time as the form of the baptism is offered.” This document clearly does not say it is okay to separate these two things; they need to be together.
The interpretation I have received from priests is that if the minister started to immerse as he finished the statement, they would say it is valid. But if there was a period in between the words and the actions, they would recommend a conditional baptism.
This is precisely what the Holy Office commanded in 1858, according to several sources (Goodwine, Halligan, Prümmer and others): that conditional baptism must take place in cases in which the matter and form of of the putative baptism had been merely morally simultaneous—e.g., when the pouring of water was complete before the words were spoken, or when the words were spoken before the pouring of water began.
I have not been able to find the text of the decree (due to faulty citations), but here is how Prümmer presents the issue:
According to a view that is at least theoretically probable, these sacraments are validly conferred even when there is a very brief interval between the application of the matter and the form. This is evident because, although the forms of the aforementioned sacraments signify the present time (I baptise, I sign, etc.), morally speaking, the present time admits a certain latitude and is still considered present if it immediately precedes or immediately follows. Thus, for example, a person is considered truthful if he says, I drink to your health, even if he is not drinking at that exact moment but is about to drink immediately.
Authors do not agree on how long an interval invalidates the validity of these sacraments. Billuart holds that a brief pause equivalent to the recitation of one Ave does not destroy validity, while St Alphonsus is of the opinion that a pause equivalent to one Pater renders these sacraments invalid. However, the Holy Office, in its instruction given on 2 May 1858 to the Apostolic Vicar of Abyssinia, declares that baptism (and all other sacraments conferred in the same manner) must be repeated conditionally if the washing has already been entirely completed when the form is pronounced, or conversely, if the form is fully pronounced before proceeding to the washing.
This instruction of the Holy Office appears to be the standard to be observed in practice throughout the world. On the other hand, the contrary opinion of Lugo, who asserts that in this case the sacrament does not necessarily have to be repeated, no longer seems safe in practice. St Alphonsus similarly concurs, for although in the cited location he appears to approve of the opinion of Lugo and others, he nevertheless calls it practically improbable in his Examination of Ordinands, no. 6.
How to reconcile 1916 with 1858?
The validity of a baptism in which the matter and form are merely morally united is, it seems, a probable opinion; and as we know, one cannot rely on merely probable opinions when it comes to the validity of the sacraments if that involves leaving aside the safer opinion (in this case, conditional baptism).
But in 1916, the Congregation of the Sacraments mentioned this issue almost in passing, and did not make it the main subject of its treatment; it was dealing more expressly defending the theses that (1) the separation of the matter and form can indeed render the sacrament invalid, at least under some circumstances, (2) and that an administration will certainly be invalid if the same person does not say the words and apply the water. John Lamont‘s comments on papal texts would appear to apply a fortiori to such texts from the Roman Congregations:
“Papal statements intended to settle important and centuries-old theological disputes do not and cannot do so by adding a subordinate phrase to a text that deals with a different subject-matter. They must clearly state the resolution to such debates and clearly state that Catholics are bound to hold this resolution. This follows from the character of magisterial teaching as being, among other things, a legally binding norm for belief and utterance. In order for a legal norm to come into force, it must be manifestly promulgated; this is a basic principle of Catholic law. Manifest promulgation requires a clear and explicit statement of what must be believed and the obligation to believe it. It cannot be done by a subordinate phrase.”
Further, the 1916 decree also expresses itself in more tentative terms (“seems”/”appears”). By contrast, in 1858, the Holy Office seems to have been expressly commanding a particular line of conduct to be followed in all cases.
Further, even aside from the force of language, a decree of the Holy Office would seem to be of higher weight than one of the Congregation of the Sacraments.
If the minister pours water or immerses immediately after the words are said, is this baptism valid? It is possible, but how exactly this is done isn’t clear, which leaves some room for doubt. [T]he Church does not say that it must happen at the exact same time, but rather that there must be a moral union between the words and the action to the point where it can be said that it is one action.
That being said, the document uses strict words. It says “immediately,” and by going off the text alone, especially with the other documents cited, it is clear that this is uncompromising. The document later says, “Catholic doctrine most certainly holds that the matter ought to be placed by one and the same minister at the same time as the form of the baptism is offered.” This document clearly does not say it is okay to separate these two things; they need to be together.
Further, even if merely moral simultaneity is indeed sufficient for validity, it naturally lends itself to uncertainty, scruples and dispute. Who is to say whether the delay was too long or not? What if the length of the delay is disputed after the event? All such problems are resolved by either (a) following the rite as prescribed, which ensures physical simultaneity, or (b) conditional repetition in cases of merely moral simultaneity—as commanded in 1858.
Conditional repetition of the sacrament in such cases is clearly the safer course, and thus would still seem to be obligatory today, notwithstanding the comments in the 1916 decree.
With gratitude to Murray Rundus, writing on this topic at One Peter Five here and here, for having the Sacred Congregation document professionally translated.
Authorities
[However,] Catholic doctrine most certainly holds that the matter ought to be placed by one and the same minister at the same time as the form of the baptism is offered; just so, for instance, the form: I baptize you, I wash you would serve a falsehood.
Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1916 p 478-9. Available in Latin here and English translation published by One Peter Five here.
Below: Prümmer referring to the Holy Office decision of 1858—which seems to clarify that the 1916 decree above (1) is not to be followed in practice, and (2) that the safer practice, which must always be followed, is that conditional baptism must take place if there was any separation between the form and matter at all.
According to a view that is at least theoretically probable, these sacraments are validly conferred even when there is a very brief interval between the application of the matter and the form. This is evident because, although the forms of the aforementioned sacraments signify the present time (I baptise, I sign, etc.), morally speaking, the present time admits a certain latitude and is still considered present if it immediately precedes or immediately follows. Thus, for example, a person is considered truthful if he says, I drink to your health, even if he is not drinking at that exact moment but is about to drink immediately.
Authors do not agree on how long an interval invalidates the validity of these sacraments. Billuart holds that a brief pause equivalent to the recitation of one Ave does not destroy validity, while St Alphonsus is of the opinion that a pause equivalent to one Pater renders these sacraments invalid. However, the Holy Office, in its instruction given on 2 May 1858 to the Apostolic Vicar of Abyssinia, declares that baptism (and all other sacraments conferred in the same manner) must be repeated conditionally if the washing has already been entirely completed when the form is pronounced, or conversely, if the form is fully pronounced before proceeding to the washing.
This instruction of the Holy Office appears to be the standard to be observed in practice throughout the world. On the other hand, the contrary opinion of Lugo, who asserts that in this case the sacrament does not necessarily have to be repeated, no longer seems safe in practice. St Alphonsus similarly concurs, for although in the cited location he appears to approve of the opinion of Lugo and others, he nevertheless calls it practically improbable in his Examination of Ordinands, no. 6.
Dominicus M. Prümmer OP, Manuael Theologiae Moralis secundum Principia S. Thomae Aquinatis, Tomus II, Editio Duodecima, Herder, 1955.
Caput I. De essentia et existentia sacramentorum. Art. III § 4, p 13.
The matter and the form must be morally united at one and the same time. For just as in physical substances the matter and the form together constitute one body, so it is essential for a similar moral union to exist at the same time between the matter and form in order to constitute one sacrament. Thus, for instance, Baptism is invalid if after pouring the water some interval is allowed to intervene before pronouncing the words of the form.
Dominic Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Mercier Press, Cork, 1956, n. 529.2 (Reminder: we earn through Amazon links)
The matter and form must be sufficiently united. For example, if a person poured the water and only after several minutes said: “I baptize thee, etc.,” there would be no sacrament. However, different union suffices for different sacraments. […]
The words must be pronounced while the ablution is being performed.
Outlines of Moral Theology, Francis J. Connell CSsR, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1958. p 179, 189
Since the matter and form are parts of a single composite sign, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial separations, which destroy the continuity or unity of signification. […] Even when the same minister applies both matter and form, there is a substantial separation between these parts when the form is not spoken at the same time or for the same time that the matter is posited, and thereby, from the special character of the Sacrament, leaves the signification of the sacramental matter unsettled. This happens when the form is spoken too long before or too long after the presence or application of the matter […].
Callan and McHugh, Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, Vol. I and Vol. II Project Gutenberg, Imprimatur dated 1958. n. 2655b
There is a moral simultaneity like to the physical contemporaneousness [physical simultaneity] when the matter and form are partly present in the same instants of time, and perhaps such close succession that not more than a Pater or Ave could be said between them. This kind of union is the maximum in Penance and Matrimony, for absolution must follow after confession, and conjugal acceptance must follow after conjugal offer. It suffices in Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Orders; for these four Sacraments do not consecrate the matter (and hence some little separation is allowed), but they do signify in the present tense the bestowal of grace through the application of the matter (and hence any separation must be of the slightest).
There is a purely moral simultaneity when the form follows the matter after a somewhat considerable interval of time has elapsed, but with a connection between the two based on human usage which carries the matter on in human estimation over to the time the form is employed. This suffices in Penance and Matrimony. […]
In Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Orders, it would seem on account of the danger of nullity to be a serious sin to exclude all physical simultaneity between matter and form (e.g., to pour all the water and then to begin the words: “I baptize thee, etc.,” or vice versa). In practice the Rubrics should be followed.
Callan and McHugh, Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, Vol. I and Vol. II Project Gutenberg, Imprimatur dated 1958. n. 2656b-c, 2657
The form should be pronounced whilst the water is being poured, or sprinkled, or the subject immersed, but if the ablution, etc., took place immediately after the form was begun or immediately after the form was completed, the Baptism would have been valid.
A protracted interval between the ablution, etc., and the pronouncing of the form, or between the several words of the form, renders the Baptism invalid.
Henry Davis SJ, Moral and Pastoral Theology – A Summary. Sheed and Ward, New York, 1952. 202-3
A union of matter and form is required and it must be such that it actually constitutes one individual sacramental sign […] In the other Sacraments a moral unity suffices, and this may vary according to the nature of the Sacrament. […] In Baptism, Confirmation and Extreme Unction, there must be at least a partial union of matter and form. Should the form be spoken immediately following the application of the matter, one may theoretically consider the Sacrament as valid, but in practice the Sacrament should be repeated conditionally. The Sacrament is invalid if matter and form are separated for the space of an “Our Father.”
Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, The Newman Press 1962, n. 444
The form should be pronounced by the minister while he pours the water, and it is clear that if one pronounced the words while another poured the water, or if one baptized one’s self, the Baptism would be invalid.
Fr Thomas Slater SJ, A Manual of Moral Theology for English-speaking Countries Vol II, Burns Oates and Washbourne, London 1925, 77.
The form is to be pronounced at the same time as the water is poured […] not only moral but also physical simultaneity of application of matter and form should be sought, since in practice the safer opinion must be followed, and this is the action prescribed. […]
Nicholas Halligan OP, The Administration of the Sacraments, Alba House 1964, 34, n. 2.13.c
The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words.
William Fanning, ‘Baptism’, in The Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1918
[The words and the pouring both] must be performed by the one baptizing. The words of the form clearly indicate this. […] This formula, so full of meaning and of such vital importance for the effects it causes, should be pronounced as the water is being poured on the head of the one to be baptized. It is not necessary that water be poured all the time during the saying of the words, but at least while some of the words are being said the sacred action of washing should take place.
Thomas Donlan OP et al, Christ, and His Sacraments, The Priory Press, Dubuque, Iowa, 1958, 335-7
If you suspect that your baptism may have been defective—whether in form, matter, or intention—then speak to a traditional Catholic priest.
We cannot provide personal advice on such cases.
Return to Index:
Further Reading:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
What are you thoughts on a baptism done this way: I baptize you in the name of the Father (then pouring then water), and of the Son (then pouring the water), and of the Holy Ghost (then pouring the water)
The water was poured three times but it was poured AFTER each innovation of the Names of the Holy Trinity.
Please let me know your thoughts on it.