"To accomplish fully the sacrament of Baptism": thoughts on the CDF's recent doctrinal note on Holy Baptism

The debacle surrounding the supposedly invalid baptism conferred on a priest (although, of course, if the Baptism was invalid he had not been validly ordained priest) in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit raises a number of issues of interest to classical Anglican sacramental theology.

The doctrinal note from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judged that the illict baptismal formula in question - 'We baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' - resulted in such baptisms being invalid, requiring baptism to be administered in forma absoluta (i.e. not a conditional baptism) to those who had received the illicit formula.  As a consequence, the individual priest who first alerted the ecclesiastical authorities to his concerns regarding his baptismal status, had to be confirmed and ordained deacon and priest because, as the Archdiocese rightly noted, "other sacraments cannot be validly received in the soul without valid baptism".  This, of course, is a theological belief and practice maintained by Anglicanism.  To give the example of the Church of Ireland's Canons, the first stipulation in Canon  21 concerning "Qualifications of such as are to be ordained" states:

A bishop shall not admit any person into holy orders unless such person

(1)    has been baptized and confirmed.

To be clear at the outset, the baptismal formula in question was and is, of course, illicit.  Clergy are not free to alter authorised liturgical norms which embody doctrinal truth.  The question is, however, whether the said formula renders baptism invalid.  While the CDF rightly states that Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae explicitly addresses the use of 'We' in a baptismal formula, it seems to ignore the fact that he was referring to the prospect of multiple ministers conferring baptism simultaneously to one candidate.  This, as Aquinas states, undermines belief in "one baptism" and therefore "seems to annul the Sacrament of Baptism".  

The case in question, however, did not involve multiple ministers of the Sacrament, which is Aquinas's focus at this point.  Perhaps more relevant is his statement regarding the Eastern formula:

if several were to baptize one at the same time, we must consider what form they would use. For were they to say: "We baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," some maintain that the sacrament of Baptism would not be conferred, because the form of the Church would not be observed, i.e. "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." But this reasoning is disproved by the form observed in the Greek Church. For they might say: "The servant of God, N ..., is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," under which form the Greeks receive the sacrament of Baptism: and yet this form differs far more from the form that we use, than does this: "We baptize thee" (ST III.67.6).

To put it another way, the CDF appears to be attaching an infinitely greater significance to the use of "I" in the baptismal formula than Aquinas suggests in light of Eastern practice.  BCP 1662, in the closing rubric of the rite for the Private Baptism of Infants, addresses this matter:

But if they which bring the Infant to the Church do make such uncertain answers to the Priest's questions, as that it cannot appear that the Child was baptized with Water, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (which are essential parts of Baptism,) then let the Priest baptize it in the form before appointed for Publick Baptism of Infants: Saving that at the dipping of the Child in the Font, he shall use this form of words.

IF thou art not already baptized, N. I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Water and the Triune Name are the "essential parts of Baptism".  "I" is not (as testified by Eastern practice).  This suggests that the CDF judgement was a rather grevious error, invalidating baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, absolutions, and Eucharists, resulting in significant confusion and distress for the faithful effected by this incident.

Two reasons are at the centre of the CDF judgement.  The first concerns a theology of in persona Christi applied to the minister of Baptism:

When the minister says “I baptize you…” he does not speak as a functionary who carries out a role entrusted to him, but he enacts ministerially the sign-presence of Christ, who acts in his Body to give his grace and to make the concrete liturgical assembly a manifestation of “the real nature of the true Church” [quoting Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium].

This seems to come dangerously close to making the ordained minister (acting in persona Christi) a necessary part of the Sacrament.  Hooker, by contrast, warns against "their fumbling shifts to enclose the minister's vocation within the compass of some essential part of the sacrament" (LEP V.62.14):

make not the force of the word and sacraments, much less their nature and very substance to depend on the minister's authority and calling ... there being not any law of God which saith that if the minister be incompetent his word shall be no word, his baptism no baptism (V.62.13).

The ordained minister is not necessary for valid Baptism because, Hooker affirms, form and matter have been determined by Christ:

if baptism seriously be administered in the same element and with the same form of words which Christ's institution teacheth, there is no other defect in the world that can me it frustrate or deprive it of the nature of a true sacrament (V.62.12).

Secondly, the CDF invokes "the tridentine injunction concerning the necessity of the minister to at least have the intention to do that which the Church does".  If we wanted a reminder of the ongoing theological and pastoral significance of Article 26, here it is.  The Sacraments, the Article declares, are "effectual", even when the minister is unworthy, "because of Christ's institution and promise".  A minister's intentions maybe lacking or deficient: Christ's institution and promise is not and cannot be.  It is this, Hooker declares, which refutes the "conceit" of the Novatians "that none can administer true baptism but the true Church of Jesus Christ" (V.62.5), for this conceit obscures Christ's institution and promise:

All that belongeth to the mystical perfection of baptism outwardly, is the element, the word, and the serious application of both unto him with receiveth both; whereunto if we add that secret reference which this action hath to life and remission of sins by virtue of Christ's own compact solemnly made with his Church, to accomplish fully the sacrament of baptism, there is not anything more required (V.62.15).

All of which brings us back to the CDF's insistence that the minister of Baptism "does not speak as a functionary who carries out a role entrusted to him".  On first reading this phrase, what came to mind was the form of words used in the 1662 Ordering of Priests: "And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments".  There is an echo of this too in the Prayer for the Church Militant, in the petition for clergy: "administer thy holy Sacraments".  Something of the import of both words is caught by the very term the CDF dismisses: "functionary".  It is the function of clergy to administer, to dispense the Sacraments.  It is a role of service.  Clergy are not part of the element of the Sacraments.  The words they speak at the Sacraments are not their own but the words of Christ.  The ordained minister at the Sacraments is indeed a functionary, proclaiming the words of Christ, administering Sacraments which are the gift of Christ, holding the promise of Christ.  The minister is a functionary because they are merely bearers of Word and element.  In the words of Jewel:

As Princes seals confirm and warrant their deeds and charters: so do the Sacraments witness unto our conscience, that God’s promises are true, and shall continue for ever.  Thus doth God make known his secret purpose to his Church: first, he declareth his mercy by his word: then he sealeth it, and assureth it by his Sacraments.  In the word we have his promises: in the sacraments we see them.

We should be grateful for this CDF judgement: it demonstrates the necessity of the Reformed Catholic sacramental theology of the Formularies and classical Anglican thought.  In particular, it offers an opportunity for us to be reminded of the richness and vibrancy of this sacramental theology, precisely because the minister is a functionary, for the Sacraments depend not upon him or her but upon Christ's word and promise.