Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matto on February 10, 2017, 04:25:35 PM
-
This idea came up and I wondered about it. Do you think Novus Ordo Baptisms are valid? It seems in my general experience most trads consider Novus Ordo Baptisms to be valid unless the priest changed the words during the ceremony. But I am aware that some sedevacantists doubt the validity of Novus Ordo Baptisms and conditionally Baptize converts from the Novus Ordo, but I do not think this is common. It seems like it is common for trads to doubt the validity of Novus Ordo Communion and Confession and Holy Orders and Confirmation and Extreme Unction but not Baptism. What do you think?
-
If the Trinitarian formula is used and the priest intends to do what the Church does I don't see how could the NO baptism be invalid. And since the majority of sedes believe in BoD for unconverted Muslims, Jєωs etc., according to their logic a person with invalid baptism would surely receive BoD :wink:.
I know there is a book arguing invalidity of the new rite of baptism by Patrick Pollock (never heard of him except for that book, apparently even sedes hardly heard of him - http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1684), but I have never read it.
-
I think along the same line of thinking as you said. I did find out in my case though that even though I had a NO baptism, I was baptized by a priest ordained in the old rite.
-
I was baptized by a priest ordained in the old rite.
It is not really relevant, since anyone can validly baptize - it does not have to be a priest. Even an atheist or a pagan can validly baptize if the proper formula is used and he intends to do what the Church does.
Even the Dimonds do not question validity of the Novus Ordo baptism.
-
Only four Sacraments in the Novus Ordo are dubious. Namely, Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders.
Because the essentials have not changed in the sacrament of Baptism, Penance, and Matrimony, there is no reason to doubt their validity.
-
Only four Sacraments in the Novus Ordo are dubious. Namely, Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders.
Because the essentials have not changed in the sacrament of Baptism, Penance, and Matrimony, there is no reason to doubt their validity.
But if Holy Orders are not valid, then Penance is invalid also among Novus Ordo priests because laymen cannot forgive sins.
-
Only four Sacraments in the Novus Ordo are dubious. Namely, Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders.
Because the essentials have not changed in the sacrament of Baptism, Penance, and Matrimony, there is no reason to doubt their validity.
But if Holy Orders are not valid, then Penance is invalid also among Novus Ordo priests because laymen cannot forgive sins.
Well... dubious is not necessarily invalid, but I guess the safest route is confessing to a Priest ordained in the Old Rite.
-
I was baptized by a priest ordained in the old rite.
It is not really relevant, since anyone can validly baptize - it does not have to be a priest. Even an atheist or a pagan can validly baptize if the proper formula is used and he intends to do what the Church does.
Even the Dimonds do not question validity of the Novus Ordo baptism.
Yes, true, but the fact that the priest who baptized me was ordained in the old rite would mean he would have more likely went by the book and not messed around with the form and matter.
-
Our pastor (sedevacantist) would typically take it case-by-case. If family members were present at the baptism and stated that the baptism was done properly, then our pastor would accept the baptism. If there was any doubt, he would repeat the sacrament.
Though the further we get away from the changes put in place by Vatican II, the more likely so-called Novus ordo clergy may introduce some kind of novelty into the process. So some traditional clergy are apparently repeating the sacrament more often as time goes on. It's kind of similar to what happened with the Old Catholic sect - for the first 50 years or so after they were excommunicated, their sacraments were still considered valid. But then so much time had passed and their training became questionable, so many clergy began not to trust their Sacraments any longer.
-
I was baptized by a priest ordained in the old rite.
It is not really relevant, since anyone can validly baptize - it does not have to be a priest. Even an atheist or a pagan can validly baptize if the proper formula is used and he intends to do what the Church does.
Even the Dimonds do not question validity of the Novus Ordo baptism.
Yes, true, but the fact that the priest who baptized me was ordained in the old rite would mean he would have more likely went by the book and not messed around with the form and matter.
I don't believe it is safe or fair toassume that priests ordained in the new rite do not intend to do what the Church does or change the form and matterr, thus invalidating the sacrament of Baptism.
-
I was originally baptized as a Methodist in 1949. They use the Trinitarian Formula.
In 1953 I was re Baptized as a Roman Catholic conditionally.
-
I was baptized by a priest ordained in the old rite.
It is not really relevant, since anyone can validly baptize - it does not have to be a priest. Even an atheist or a pagan can validly baptize if the proper formula is used and he intends to do what the Church does.
Even the Dimonds do not question validity of the Novus Ordo baptism.
Yes, true, but the fact that the priest who baptized me was ordained in the old rite would mean he would have more likely went by the book and not messed around with the form and matter.
I don't believe it is safe or fair toassume that priests ordained in the new rite do not intend to do what the Church does or change the form and matterr, thus invalidating the sacrament of Baptism.
I do not argue that all priests ordained in the new rite do not carry out baptism correctly, but it can be a possible higher likelihood for a priest in the old rite to especially go by the book.
-
There better be the "intention" to remove Original Sin. IMO I don't think that would be in the heart of a Marxist New Order, do you? Want to take a chance?!
-
Some years ago, Jesuit theologian, Fr. Paul Trinchard, ( R. I. P.) told us that many dioceses in the U. S. were using manuals which stated that original sin was the state of the world that the child was born into, not a condition of his soul. Needless to say, I had my two younger children conditionally baptized by Fr. Post with the SSPX.
I wouldn't trust anything in the NO. The priest and the director of religious education were going to teach Planned Parenthood sex ed to my older children, but I said "No, you're not." and pulled them out of CCD.