Is this a legit baptism?

[TandJ]

I heard an unusual form of Baptism a few weeks ago and am wondering if it's valid or not. The priest said, " I baptise you in the name of God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus, in the name of Gods Holy Spirit."

If it is invalid what are my obligations to make this known and how far do I take the info?

[Jayne]

"Inserting additional words or deliberately modifying the Trinitarian formula may invalidate the baptism."  When the priest changes the words like that it needs to be examined by a competent authority.  It is decided on a case-by-case basis. If the change "manifests a lack of intention to do what the Church does", it would render the baptism invalid.

In other words, it needs to be investigated to find out what the priest meant by changing it that way.  In general, we expect people who intend to do what the Church does to say what the Church normally says, so there is cause for concern whenever the formula is deliberately modified. 

You don't have the authority to investigate this yourself so you should report it to somebody who does.  Probably the bishop in charge of the priest.  If the priest did this at the baptism you witnessed, it is pretty likely that he does it regularly.  His superior needs to know.

[Philip G.]

I would say it is a doubtful baptism, and needs to be conditionally redone.  What the church intends to do is what the church (traditionally) does.   And, the church does not allow priests to alter her formulas on their own volition.

[John Lamb]

Here's a baptism according to the ancient American Rite.

[TheReturnofLive]

Incorrect - the baby needs to be Native American, then it's truly the Ancient Apostolic American-Rite form.

[Laurentius Ioannes Vong]

I heard an unusual form of Baptism a few weeks ago and am wondering if it's valid or not. The priest said, " I baptise you in the name of God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus, in the name of Gods Holy Spirit."

If it is invalid what are my obligations to make this known and how far do I take the info?

There is a great chance this is invalid. There is only one name we are baptized in: the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To say it thrice is as if it is three names and not one. I think Taylor Marshall has done a video about invalid baptisms, and three "in the name"s was an example he raised regarding invalid baptisms.

Approach a traditional and orthodox priest. If it were not possible in your diocese, inbox a priest online. Tell him your situation and he shall give you more solid analysis and solutions. He might even be the one conditionally baptizing the concerned person if he judges it as invalid.

[The Theosist]

I heard an unusual form of Baptism a few weeks ago and am wondering if it's valid or not. The priest said, " I baptise you in the name of God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus, in the name of Gods Holy Spirit."

If it is invalid what are my obligations to make this known and how far do I take the info?

There is a great chance this is invalid. There is only one name we are baptized in: the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To say it thrice is as if it is three names and not one. I think Taylor Marshall has done a video about invalid baptisms, and three "in the name"s was an example he raised regarding invalid baptisms.

Approach a traditional and orthodox priest. If it were not possible in your diocese, inbox a priest online. Tell him your situation and he shall give you more solid analysis and solutions. He might even be the one conditionally baptizing the concerned person if he judges it as invalid.

So what happens if we have a language in which the grammatically correct and natural way to say something like "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is literally like "in the name of the Male Progenitor, in the name of the Male Offspring, and in the name of the Breath that is Holy"? Maybe we should just stick to the Greek? In Greek the words patros, uiou and agiou are naturally all in the genitive case, so I think treating "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" itself as a name, rather than treating "the name" as a reference to their name or names, is a bit odd.  And there's the problem with this kind of statement, "There is only one name we are baptized in: the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Clearly that's not the case. There are at least as many names as there are languages in which valid baptismal formulas exist.

Either words have some kind of independent existence and intrinsic power here, in which case we'd better try find out what sounds Jesus originally uttered, or what matters is the intended and interpreted meaning of signs to a person whereby they become words.

[Vetus Ordo]

So what happens if we have a language in which the grammatically correct and natural way to say something like "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is literally like "in the name of the Male Progenitor, in the name of the Male Offspring, and in the name of the Breath that is Holy"? Maybe we should just stick to the Greek? In Greek the words patros, uiou and agiou are naturally all in the genitive case, so I think treating "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" itself as a name, rather than treating "the name" as a reference to their name or names, is a bit odd.

Hagiou is indeed genitive but it is "holy." Pneumatos is the spirit.

The words that mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whichever language it may be, are the ones to be used.

[The Theosist]

So what happens if we have a language in which the grammatically correct and natural way to say something like "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is literally like "in the name of the Male Progenitor, in the name of the Male Offspring, and in the name of the Breath that is Holy"? Maybe we should just stick to the Greek? In Greek the words patros, uiou and agiou are naturally all in the genitive case, so I think treating "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" itself as a name, rather than treating "the name" as a reference to their name or names, is a bit odd.

Hagiou is indeed genitive but it is "holy." Pneumatos is the spirit.

The words that mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whichever language it may be, are the ones to be used.

Thanks for your trite non-addressing of the problem.

[Jayne]

The problem with this baptism is that there is good reason to suspect that the priest did not intend to do what the Church does.  It has nothing to do with translation or being pedantic about words. Just as we presume that correct form and matter implies correct intent, the reverse is true.  An incorrect form like this means that we cannot presume correct intent.  This is true whenever there are significant changes to the form.  It is especially so in this case.

There are heretical groups that reject using the Trinitarian formula in baptisms.  They claim it is unscriptural and the correct way to baptize is in the name of Jesus.  " I baptise you in the name of God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus, in the name of Gods Holy Spirit" looks like a combination of these two formulas. 

Does the priest agree with the heretics and is trying to sneak their form in by hiding it within the Trinity?  Is he trying to be "ecumenical" be combining them?  Pretty much any explanation involves an intent other than what the Church intends.  There is a high risk the baptism is invalid.

As I said before this priest needs to be investigated by his superior.  Merely dealing with this as an isolated case and performing a conditional baptism is not enough.  A priest who would do this once is extremely likely to do it habitually.  He must be stopped and all the invalid baptisms he already performed need to be traced and dealt with.

[Philip G.]

There is a high risk the baptism is invalid.

Merely dealing with this as an isolated case and performing a conditional baptism is not enough.  A priest who would do this once is extremely likely to do it habitually.  He must be stopped and all the invalid baptisms he already performed need to be traced and dealt with.

What right to do you have to say any of this?  The church doesn't invalidate/operate that way.

So long as there is no substantial change in the formula, and there isn't, the accidents only render it doubtful, meriting only a conditional rebaptism.  To utter the word invalid is theoretically a scandal.

[Jayne]

There is a high risk the baptism is invalid.

Merely dealing with this as an isolated case and performing a conditional baptism is not enough.  A priest who would do this once is extremely likely to do it habitually.  He must be stopped and all the invalid baptisms he already performed need to be traced and dealt with.

What right to do you have to say any of this?  The church doesn't invalidate/operate that way.

So long as there is no substantial change in the formula, and there isn't, the accidents only render it doubtful, meriting only a conditional rebaptism.  To utter the word invalid is theoretically a scandal.

What an odd comment to make to the only person in this thread who has been stressing the importance of reporting the baptizer to his superior because it needs to be investigated by someone in authority.  I thought, in that context, it was clear that I was writing about the situation in which the superior determines the baptism is invalid (although the likelihood of it being habitual problem would also apply if merely doubtful).  It should have been obvious that I did not intend to declare the baptism invalid.

Nobody on this forum has any right to say that "there is no substantial change in the formula" as you just did.  None of us can say whether it is definitely invalid and requiring baptism in forma absoluta or merely doubtful and requiring conditional baptism.  Nobody is ever supposed to do a conditional baptism without a proper investigation.  And none of us can do that investigation.  The situation needs to be reported.

[Philip G.]

There is a high risk the baptism is invalid.

Merely dealing with this as an isolated case and performing a conditional baptism is not enough.  A priest who would do this once is extremely likely to do it habitually.  He must be stopped and all the invalid baptisms he already performed need to be traced and dealt with.

What right to do you have to say any of this?  The church doesn't invalidate/operate that way.

So long as there is no substantial change in the formula, and there isn't, the accidents only render it doubtful, meriting only a conditional rebaptism.  To utter the word invalid is theoretically a scandal.

What an odd comment to make to the only person in this thread who has been stressing the importance of reporting the baptizer to his superior because it needs to be investigated by someone in authority.  I thought, in that context, it was clear that I was writing about the situation in which the superior determines the baptism is invalid (although the likelihood of it being habitual problem would also apply if merely doubtful).  It should have been obvious that I did not intend to declare the baptism invalid.

Nobody on this forum has any right to say that "there is no substantial change in the formula" as you just did.  None of us can say whether it is definitely invalid and requiring baptism in forma absoluta or merely doubtful and requiring conditional baptism.  Nobody is ever supposed to do a conditional baptism without a proper investigation.  And none of us can do that investigation.  The situation needs to be reported.

You are a usurper or authority. You obviously didn't notice that my comment about "rights" came in the form of a question, whereas both of yours, one about the invalidity of a baptisms, and two about my right to opine on change substantial and accidental, both come in the form of a statement.  So, again, I repeat, by what right, or in other words, by whose authority do you say "... all the invalid baptisms he already performed need to be traced and dealt with"?

[Jayne]

So, again, I repeat, by what right, or in other words, by whose authority do you say "... all the invalid baptisms he already performed need to be traced and dealt with"?

What authority would I need?  The baptism described in the OP changes the words of the baptismal formula.  The rule in such situations is that the situation needs to be investigated.  One needs authority to make rules, but not to tell people about existing rules.

If the investigation determines that this formula is doubtful or invalid, then any other recipients of putative baptisms performed this way require conditional baptism or baptism respectively.  The recipients need to be traced and the proper action taken.

[Philip G.]

You have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is what you did.  It is that simple.  You are in error, stop trying to slither out of it.