NOTES AND QUERIES

THEOLOGY

VALID ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM

REV. DEAR SIR,-1°. Is the Sacrament of Baptism validly administered, if the minister pours the water once only on the head of the child while saying part of the necessary form? He proceeds, for instance, in this manner: Ego te baptizo [fundit] in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti'; so that the water is all poured on the head while he says the first part of the form, and none u ed while he says ' et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.'

2o. Is the Sacrament conferred validly, if, through inadvertence, the minister says 'Spiritui,' and immediately corrects himself, without repeating the form in full?

3o. Is the Sacrament validly conferred if the word 'et' before 'Spiritus Sancti' is inadvertently omitted?

4°. Sometimes the skin of infants is naturally oily, and the water seems to roll off without coming into contact with the skin. If such a thing happens, is there any doubt about the administration of the Sacrament?

AN ANXIOUS INQUIRER.

1°. The Sacrament is validly conferred in the circumstances stated; most probably the same is true even though no water at all be used during the recitation of the form-provided the interval between the two elements be very brief.

2o. Yes. And the Sacrament would be valid even if the minister did not correct himself.

3. Yes. Against the validity of the baptism no argument, worth considering, has ever been adduced. What has to be guarded against, in the second portion of the formula, is any corruption that tends to obscure either, 1°, the unity of God or, 2°, the existence of, and distinction between, the three divine Persons. The formula submitted is safe enough from both points of view-unless in the extreme hypothesis that the baptizer intends to put 'Holy Spirit' in apposition to ‘Father and Son,' and so proclaim a duality of persons.

Scavini states 1 that, in a Cenida case decided by the Congregation of the Council on the 12th May, 1753, a baptism was declared doubtful

1 Th. Mor., iii. 252.

when conferred with the form 'Mi te abattezzo in nome del Padre e del Figliulo, dello Spirito Santo.' But we may remark:

(1.) That, even were the statement correct, no conclusive argument could be adduced against the validity of the concluding portion of the formula. The verb is deformed enough to bear the whole responsibility.

(2.) That, as a matter of fact, Scavini's statement is incorrect. The answer of the Congregation was 'Scribatur juxta mentem,' and the 'mens' is missing in the official compilation. But that it implied no condemnation of the baptism is clear enough. In a subsequent case— submitted from Fiesole on the 12th September, 1801-the statement was made that, according to the Cenida decision, the baptism was not to be repeated even conditionally': twenty-two years later, in connexion with a Fossombrone discussion,1 the Cenida decree was referred to as having declared the baptism 'valid.' And the records of the latter case seem to indicate what the 'mens' really was-a command that nurses be properly instructed before being allowed to administer the Sacrament.

4°. We had never heard of this little physiological trouble before. And we do not think it need cause any anxiety. In normal cases, obviously, the thing is of no importance: else the manuals, written by men who have gathered up all the minutiae on the subject, would not pass it over in silence. In a special case, the departure from the normal will be slight enough to be negligible. When the rite is performed with ordinary care, some drop of water will touch successively some two or three points on the head of the baptized. And that suffices.

VIATICUM AND EXTREME UNCTION

REV. DEAR SIR,-In Session XIV, chapter iii, of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, it is stated that, if a patient, after being anointed, improves in health so as to be out of danger of death (convaluerit), he can be again anointed when a new danger of death sets in. St. Alphonsus, quoting this decree, says that, unless the patient so improves as to be out of danger of death, there is to be no second anointing, even though the illness is a lasting one.

Occasionally, an old person will be found to live on four or five months after being anointed. And it cannot be said that the patient, at any time within that period, becomes noticeably better in health than when anointed. So, may I ask :

1°. Whether such a person may be re-anointed;

2o. Whether such a person may, on any day within that period, receive Holy Communion without being fasting;

3°. Whether Holy Communion may be given to such a persont a any hour of the day or night?

SACERDOS.

I. We have discussed these matters before. 2 If 'Sacerdos' kindly

1 24th May, 1823.

2 See, eg, I. E. RECORD, June, 1915, Fifth Series, vol. v. pp. 635-7 ; November, 1917, pp. 413-6, etc.

reads the replies already given, he will find that the situation may be summed up somewhat as follows:—

1o. In cases of chronic illness, Extreme Unction is not to be repeated unless there has been a recovery and relapse. But moral certainty is not required in regard to either event. It will be enough if, in the opinion of an ordinarily reasonable man who has had a fair chance of appreciating all the facts, there is a sound probability that both have occurred.

2o. Both may occur in a very short time-say half an hour or less: on the other hand, it may be obvious enough that, even after several months, neither has occurred. What period may be fixed on as a general standard? The experts select a month. They do not claim anything approaching mathematical accuracy. There is nothing specially sacrosanct about the period: it just represents a rough estimate based on intelligent experience. In particular cases it may have to be modified; but, as a rule, and apart from strong evidence to the contrary, it gives as good results as can be reasonably hoped for until the world becomes wiser than it ever was.

3°. That is the practical rule. Its theoretical justification is not so clear. The majority of experts seem to argue as follows. When a patient is in real danger in such danger as justifies the administration of Extreme Unction-it may be reasonably anticipated that the disease, if allowed to pursue its course unchecked, will prove fatal within a month. If, after the month has passed, he is still alive (though dangerously ill), two conclusions may be drawn: first, that the disease has not followed its course unchecked-in other words, that there must have been a recovery at some time or other, even though the most observant attendant cannot fix the precise date; second, that (consequently) the danger now existing is not the danger that threatened the patient a month ago. In such circumstances, a repetition of the sacrament is valid and lawful.

Others view things differently. Experience tends to show, they say, that the theory of recovery is a myth: the disease often does pursue its course unchecked, slowly but surely, for a very considerable time. Why, then, administer the sacrament after a month? Because the fact that the patient has lived so long proves that there was no real danger a month ago. The attendants were mistaken: the ceremony was invalid; if the sacrament is administered now, it is administered for the first time. But is it validly administered even now? That cannot be known just now for certain; it will be decided only when the next month proves that there is, or is not, real danger at the present moment.

The second theory is ingenious. Whether true or false, who can say? Our consolation is that, from the practical point of view, we are not called upon to say anything. Both sides agree on the practical consequences. Whether the ceremony involves a first, or a second, or no administration at all-let theorists decide. That the priest is

1 So far as we know, the theory was first suggested in the I. T. Quarterly, January, 1907, p. 54.

allowed, and indeed obliged, to do all he can to administer the sacrament now, all admit. And that is the problem with which 'Sacerdos,' as a practical man, is mainly concerned.

II. To the second and third queries we have already replied in the affir native more than once.1 The older authorities used to be comparatively strict: would allow the Viaticum only at protracted intervals, would insist that the recipient should, as far as conveniently possible, comply with the usual regulations regarding the fast and the hours of administration, etc. But there was always a strongly-supported opinion that patients qualified to receive the Viaticum were simply exempt from these regulations; and the prescriptions of the Code point in the same direction. Reverence for the sacrament will suggest greater rigour and self-sacrifice in practice, as it suggested the law itself in the beginning; but, strictly speaking, there would seem to be no obligation arising either from the fitness of things or from the Church legislation on the subject.

PENITENTIAL JURISDICTION IN THE CODE

REV. DEAR SIR,-May I suggest a doubt on the meaning of ' fidelium ' in Canon 892, § 2, of the Code. Is it to be understood in its unrestricted sense, namely, 'fidelium ubique terrarum,' for confessors outside as well as inside their dioceses, etc.? This of course, would import a revolutionary change in Church discipline and practice. And commentators, I believe, do not interpret the word in the sense I mention. I make the following points :

(1) The tendency of Church law in recent times to favour penitent. (2) The congruity of giving to confessors in general travel extranormal faculties, as is the case of 'confessores navigantes,' at least in cases of urgent necessity.

(3) 'Fidelium' in paragraph 2 is unqualified—' ubi lex non distinguit, etc.'

(4) The words of Canon 892, § 2, are apt words to express and convey the extended power.

(5) Confessors are bound ex caritate,' where parochi, etc.' are bound ex justitia,' to hear the confessions of the faithful over whom they have jursidiction 'quoties i audiri rationabiliter petant.' Certainly it is not required that urgent necessity be present before the obligation ex caritate' arises.

(6) To say, therefore, that confessors in reference merely to the faithful under their jurisdiction are bound 'urgente necessitate' is to imply that they are not bound under less important circumstances. ***

6

(7) The words of the Code are omnes confessarii.' The word 'confessarii' alone would be properly used if 'fidelium' be accepted in the restricted sense, whereas omnes seems to make for, and agree with, the idea of universality in connexion with 'fidelium.'

(8) In the second member of the sentence of paragraph 2, Canon 892, i.e.. in mortis periculo,' 'fidelium' bears an unrestricted sense-ergo,

1 See previous issues.

a pari. We are not to suppose that the compilers would use the same word in different senses in the same sentence.

(9) Congruity. The greater the need, the greater the help. Thus, for necessity (a) 'levis' or communis-all priests having jurisdiction in the area; (b) 'urgens'-all priests having jurisdiction anywhere; (c) 'extrema-all priests without exception.

(10) Fidelium' in paragraph 1, Canon 892, is qualified, i.e., 'fidelium sibi commissorum.' The qualification in itself is unnecessary; it is made simply for greater clearness. For, it is evident, the obligation ex justitia ' of the 'parochus' can apply only to those for whom he holds a benefice. But fidelium' of paragraph 2, immediately following and dealing with the larger virtue of charity, stands alone, leaving the qualification to be understood, unless we accept 'fidelium' in a universal sense.

RUS IN RURE.

Our correspondent's suggestion is somewhat revolutionary. Like all revolutions, it would, if successful, find many apologists and even panegyrists. But, in the transition stage, it stands in need of support from reason and authority. And we fear there is little chance of support from either quarter.

To simplify matters, we may distinguish the three stages of necessity that demand, or suggest, the administration of the sacrament. They

are:

1o. 'Extreme'—when the patient has reached the point from which there is no returning (articulus mortis '), or has, at least, entered on the particular downward path that, in all human probability, will, sooner or later and soon at latest, lead to final dissolution (' periculum mortis ').

2°. 'Grave-when the conditions just mentioned do not apply, but when the refusal of the Sacrament would lead to very serious trouble in the spiritual life of the individual concerned. The standard is very well expressed in the famous decree of 1886-and in the replies that extended, or modified, its application. But, on principles already stated,1 we think that the case arises only when the person concerned feels and realizes his position.

3o. Ordinary'-when even the conditions mentioned in the second case are wanting, though it would be a great convenience, and a very desirable help in the spiritual life, to have the sacrament administered. It is the stage of our correspondent, and (we earnestly hope) of ourselves, and of every normal human being, for 'in multis offendimus omnes.'

Now, in regard to the first and third cases, our correspondent is fairly in line with the authorities. When there is even danger' of death, all priests can, and may, absolve every one duly disposed (882). When the necessity' is only ordinary '-when the request is mere reasonable' (892, § 1)—no one, except those specially commissioned, is called upon to exercise, nor is a simple priest 'entitled to claim any penitential jurisdiction.

6

The trouble is confined to the second case. Our correspondent holds. apparently that every priest who has jursidiction anywhere is obliged,

1 See I. E. RECORD, May, 1916, Fifth Series, vol. vii, pp. 487-8.