Q: Can you remind me again the teaching/expectation of OCIA 575 regarding “deacons” baptism?
This action of a “deacon” is presuming the separation of baptism and delaying “Confirmation” not at the same liturgy, correct? (OCIA 577; 215)
So … at Easter Vigils an elect to be baptized – and fully initiated that evening – ought to be baptized by the same priest Confirming (not a deacon).
Several priests can be associated with the Confirmation; but per the Rite/Order … deacons ought not to baptize if Confirmation is to be – and should be – celebrated.
Thanks for helping me keep this correctly in my head (and responses).
==
A: OCIA 575 is a copy/paste from 226 (the uncombined adult rite of baptism), which appears again at 317 in the administration of baptism of children of catechetical age. I really think it’s concerned about how best to handle a very large number of baptisms in the same ceremony. (A Ugandan priest friend has told me of baptisms of over a hundred at a time.)
The action of a deacon baptizing presumes either the unusual separation of adult baptism and confirmation, or the presence of a bishop who will administer confirmation, or of a priest delegated by the bishop to confirm.
OCIA 232 says clearly that if the bishop is not present, confirmation is given “by the Priest who conferred Baptism,” citing canon 866. (You see this again at OCIA 323 and 588).
At Easter Vigils, yes, the elect to be baptized should be baptized by the priest who will confirm them—not by a deacon. Having a deacon baptize raises problems because it renders the priest ineligible to confirm the person unless he has received permission for the bishop to do so.