Author Topic: Doubtful validity of Novus Ordo rite of baptism (Read 3928 times)

McCork · « **on:** January 29, 2016, 06:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: ilpadrino
I'm an ex-SSPX seminarian and am discerning the possibility of returning to formation, either in Boston, KY or in Angers, France.

I am a convert from the Novus Ordo (and the only one in my family), and was a N.O. seminarian for 2 years before leaving on my own. Having discerned that I still had a vocations, I went to the SSPX because of it's then-solid position regarding the Crisis in the Church. I eventually entered the seminary for them and was there for 4 years, then asked/told to take a year off in a priory, which turned out to be an ejection year. The reasons given to me were very weak, even in the opinions of priests and lay folk to whom I've told the story to. (I'm willing to relay them via PM if you're interested, as I don't consider it a type of material to post ad multitudinem.

I realize now that members of the SSPX (especially it's seminarians and brothers living in the seminary) have been and are still being hoodwinked if not out-right deceived by the authorities thereof.

I would ask the prayers and sacrifices of all who read my post for the intentions of clarity in discernment, especially in October when I will be going on retreat. Thank you and God bless! :gandalf:

Like a mother of a newborn, the first thing you should be concerned with is baptism. The SSPX assumes validity of the Novus Ordo baptisms when they should be doubting them by default. The new rite of baptism in 1971 does not ensure a valid baptism because it does not ensure the proper form be followed. In each individual case, it may or may not have been done properly, thus the doubt by default.

If you consider the form itself to be valid, then whether or not it was actually followed constitutes a negative doubt ... absent any concrete reasons to believe otherwise. Given the importance of Baptism (which ironically you deny, McCork), however, if one believes that there was a widespread trend to take liberties with the form, a conditional Baptism might still be in order. I think that there's a threshold of negative doubt where it might justify conditional Baptism. It's on those very grounds that for many years the SSPX would administer conditional confirmation and conditional ordination.

Negative doubt of the validity of Catholic baptism would be when, before Vatican II, one doesn't see the ceremony, but one says, "what if...the priest sneezed, or was distracted, or sick or tired, etc. and he made a substantial mistake causing the baptism to be invalid?".

Anyone before Vatican II considering those things was just plain WRONG. Negative doubt is not a consideration.

Now we look at the way the Catholic Church has handled converts from the Protestant sects. The Catholic books say that the slightest doubt warrant conditional baptism. The books say that the actual historical practice is to MOST often conditionally baptize converts based on the statistic that Protestant are often known to be negligent in the performance of the rite. This even includes those Protestants who actually have the Catholic rite of baptism. This statistic is a positive doubt.

This is only ONE facet of the issue, because the Novus Ordo are not only statistically known to be negligent, but also experimenters and innovators. On this point alone it outdoes the statistic of the Protestants.

The other facet is that the very rite of the Novus Ordo baptismal rite removes a necessity of the rubric that ensures the very "form" of the Sacrament. Part of the form is that the water flow on the skin of the head at the time the priest says the words. Even if the words are correct, the NO rite does not insist that the water flow on the head. This also makes it doubtful by default, and it is another positive doubt.

Cantarella · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2016, 06:37:48 PM »

Your preoccupation with the water pouring on the head is certainly odd given that you believe that the water Baptism is optional for salvation anyway. You seem to be the "Feeneyite" talking here. Quite amusing.

I guess if one is able to be present at the Baptism ceremony and sees the Novus Ordo Priest actually sprinkling the water on the head, that alone means that it is undoubtedly valid, right?

Given the extreme importance of this matter, I would make sure to do the same in other Church approved baptismal rites as well. For example, in some Eastern ones, which directives may also state "pour water on it", instead of using the specific word: "head"

:rolleyes:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2016, 06:52:57 PM »

I do not understand why both Lad and Cant claim that McCork does NOT consider the importance of Baptism; as was said ... "Given the importance of Baptism (which ironically you deny, McCork)"

You both are either very mistaken or out-right liars. I prefer to think you both are mistaken since I enjoy giving everyone the benefit of a doubt. Also when one lies it is as if you were nailing Christ to the Cross again.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2016, 06:53:50 PM »

How would you summarize objections to the new rite?

Baltimore Catechism #3, Fourteenth Lesson: On Baptism

Quote

Q. 638. How is Baptism given?
A. Whoever baptizes should pour water on the head of the person to be baptized, and say, while pouring the water: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

McCork · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2016, 06:55:26 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Your preoccupation with the water pouring on the head is certainly odd given that you believe that the water Baptism is optional for salvation anyway. You seem to be the "Feeneyite" talking here. Quite amusing.

What is amusing, at least, is your ignorance of this subject and your silly confidence in commenting on it.

There is no preoccupation, it's simply the truth as the subject comes up, as with any subject. Traditional Catholic books say that water MUST flow on the skin of the head to be considered valid. Do you have the arrogance to object?

Water baptism is not "optional", because the term "option" means one has the obligation to will water baptism. In Catholicism, one is not guilty of not choosing an option if invincibly ignorant that it is an option in the first place. I am sorry, but in common parlance, you are stupid on this subject.

Cantarella · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2016, 07:10:20 PM »

The word "head" does not appear here either. Perhaps the Code of Canon Law 1917 got it wrong too? It says: "It is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and pronouncing tne prescribed form of words".

It should specify "only by ablution with truly natural water ON THE HEAD" but it does not.

How diabolical

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2016, 08:10:11 PM »

From A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW by THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D. Professor of Canon Law, published by B. HERDER BOOK CO., 1918.

Quote

The water must be applied in the form of an ablution, which is called the proximate matter. This is done either by pouring the water over the head or forehead of the one to be baptized, or by immersing him in the water (pond or river), or by sprinkling (aspersio) his head. In the Catholic Church pouring (infusio) is more common, at least in our country, although immersion and aspersion, too, are perfectly legitimate. The water must touch the skin, not the hair only, of the head. If the head cannot be reached, some other principal part of the body,— chest, neck, hand or arm,— must be touched. In case of extreme necessity a wet sponge or rag may be used. [Emphasis added]

Cantarella · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2016, 08:25:20 PM »

Baptism is given in three manners:

By infusion: the pouring water on the head
By aspersion: the sprinkling of water upon the head
By immersion: the dipping of the person in water

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of any Baptism provided the use of water (matter) and the Trinitarian formula (form). The Church even recognizes Baptisms in heretical Protestants sects as long as these two requirements are met, as the Council of Trent infallibly taught.

Quote from: Council of Trent

If anyone says that baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema. (Denz. 860)

Quote from: Council of Florence, Exaltate Deo (1439)

In case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but also a layman, or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church (Denz. 696)

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2016, 08:29:55 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The word "head" does not appear here either. Perhaps the Code of Canon Law 1917 got it wrong too? It says: "It is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and pronouncing tne prescribed form of words".

It should specify "only by ablution with truly natural water ON THE HEAD" but it does not.

How diabolical

This was of course a sarcasm to demonstrate the OP silliness, by the way.

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2016, 08:39:42 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

From A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW by THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D. Professor of Canon Law, published by B. HERDER BOOK CO., 1918.

Quote
The water must be applied in the form of an ablution, which is called the proximate matter. This is done either by pouring the water over the head or forehead of the one to be baptized, or by immersing him in the water (pond or river), or by sprinkling (aspersio) his head. In the Catholic Church pouring (infusio) is more common, at least in our country, although immersion and aspersion, too, are perfectly legitimate. The water must touch the skin, not the hair only, of the head. If the head cannot be reached, some other principal part of the body,— chest, neck, hand or arm,— must be touched. In case of extreme necessity a wet sponge or rag may be used. [Emphasis added]

Thank you TKGS,

This actually proves my point rather than McCork's.

See, Mc Cork thinks that the New Baptismal Rite is entirely invalid only because in the textual directives, it appears: "pour water on it", instead of "pour water on the head".

But Baptisms are considered valid as long as both the matter (water) and the Trinitarian formula (form) are used. In the application of such directives in real life, all priests should be sprinkling water on the head anyway. It is a given.

Desmond · « **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2016, 09:21:55 PM »

I must say, any and all doubts about validity of Baptisms, especially due to very minor elements such as incorrect application of water or somesuch, sound completely absurd if BOD is indeed a doctrine.

Let me understand: God would supply the Sacrament via BOD to those unable to obtain the Rite, yet would condemn people who in good faith received a accidentally invalid one?

Wouldn't they be in the same exact position as an unbaptised catechumen?

Desmond · « **Reply #11 on:** January 29, 2016, 09:31:11 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I do not understand why both Lad and Cant claim that McCork does NOT consider the importance of Baptism; as was said ... "Given the importance of Baptism (which ironically you deny, McCork)"

What do you mean Myrna?

He professes that the Sacrament is not really necessary.

In fact, he says BOD does apply even to those devoid of any explicit Faith (infidels).

Yet somehow an invalid baptismal Sacrament would be dangerous to actual Catholics holding the Faith whole and inviolate?

Don't you see the irony?

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:36:07 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I do not understand why both Lad and Cant claim that McCork does NOT consider the importance of Baptism; as was said ... "Given the importance of Baptism (which ironically you deny, McCork)"

You both are either very mistaken or out-right liars. I prefer to think you both are mistaken since I enjoy giving everyone the benefit of a doubt. Also when one lies it is as if you were nailing Christ to the Cross again.

Neither are mistaken and neither are lying, Myrn, McCork denies the importance of Baptism:
From this Post

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: ihsv

Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?

Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".

So now you know why Cantarella said what she said.

If one can get to heaven without water as McCork said, then why start a thread disputing NO baptisms doubtful validity at all if not for felonious reasons?

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:49:14 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Cantarella
Your preoccupation with the water pouring on the head is certainly odd given that you believe that the water Baptism is optional for salvation anyway. You seem to be the "Feeneyite" talking here. Quite amusing.

What is amusing, at least, is your ignorance of this subject and your silly confidence in commenting on it.

There is no preoccupation, it's simply the truth as the subject comes up, as with any subject. Traditional Catholic books say that water MUST flow on the skin of the head to be considered valid. Do you have the arrogance to object?

Water baptism is not "optional", because the term "option" means one has the obligation to will water baptism. In Catholicism, one is not guilty of not choosing an option if invincibly ignorant that it is an option in the first place. I am sorry, but in common parlance, you are stupid on this subject.

In the canon about the sacraments, Trent decreed that "If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

You turn that decree completely on it's head and say the term "option" means one has the obligation to will water baptism? - and that is why [water] baptism is not optional? Hard to believe you actually said these words. You invent your own theology as you go along.

McCork · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2016, 09:13:37 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Baptism is given in three manners:

By infusion: the pouring water on the head
By aspersion: the sprinkling of water upon the head
By immersion: the dipping of the person in water

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of any Baptism provided the use of water (matter) and the Trinitarian formula (form). The Church even recognizes Baptisms in heretical Protestants sects as long as these two requirements are met, as the Council of Trent infallibly taught.

Quote from: Council of Trent
If anyone says that baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema. (Denz. 860)

Quote from: Council of Florence, Exaltate Deo (1439)

In case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but also a layman, or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church (Denz. 696)

There is a difference between considering CAN they do it validly, and DID they do it validly in any particular case. The latter is only what I am concerned with. Here is a quote from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

.

.

.