Author Topic: Question for Myrna (Read 10580 times)

Dawn · « **Reply #60 on:** July 31, 2010, 09:42:54 AM »

Which is exactly what I said happened in my family. I must not be speaking plainly so I will try again and for the last time.
I was baptized in 1960 (maybe my mother could not remember when or how or anything) so I received a conditional baptism. My husband and children were all baptized in the 90's so therefore the received a complete baptism.

wallflower · « **Reply #61 on:** July 31, 2010, 09:47:59 AM »

Quote from: Dawn

Which is exactly what I said happened in my family. I must not be speaking plainly so I will try again and for the last time.
I was baptized in 1960 (maybe my mother could not remember when or how or anything) so I received a conditional baptism. My husband and children were all baptized in the 90's so therefore the received a complete baptism.

Oh no, I understood. Myrna asked what my problem was so I repeated it more in depth for her. :)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #62 on:** July 31, 2010, 10:24:24 AM »

Quote

My understanding of the sedes though, is that there is a blanket statement or judgment made across the board that no NO is or could possibly be Catholic. In that case there would be no doubt that their baptism was invalid (beyond whatever year the sedes believe the NO started).

When Christ instituted the sacrament of Baptism, along with the other sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and belong to Christ. But He founded the Catholic Church, and committed His religion to her only. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. If the novus ordo person administer Baptism validly, it is because one need not be a priest, therefore if the Baptism was done properly even within the novus ordo, the person is Baptized into the Catholic Church, because they alone own the sacrament, through Christ. The person is not Baptized into novus ordo or Protestant sect but the Catholic church. Yet, it still must be done properly, which is my point.

As Dawn pointed out, there are too many questions these days as to whether it was done properly or not.

Since Baptism could only be administered ONCE, an all out Baptism as you worded it would not be correct, on the chance it was done properly.

CMRI knows the catechism/canon law et al, because they use past encyclicals of past popes, prior to Vatican II for research in all matters of Faith and Morals, as I hope and believe all SV chapels do. Unlike the novus ordo religious, which is why they are not Catholic in the eyes of SV chapels. Many laity there, (novus ordo) I have no doubt know more about Tradition than their so-called Modernist "priest". They, the Modernist are the movement, moving toward the one world religion to go with the one world government.

I wonder what will happen to all the SSPX laity, if their Bishops really do merge fully with novus ordo. I always believe they would not go along, but seeing so many defend novus ordo here, I now have my doubts.

What about you Wallflower would you just follow along, if that happened?

anonymouse · « **Reply #63 on:** July 31, 2010, 10:30:11 AM »

Myrna,

I don't share the belief the Novus Ordo is invalid. Also, I don't have the authority to declare it either valid or invalid, and I don't think the CMRI does either.

We are living in such horrific times and there is so much confusion. I'm starting to think much of the "traditional movement" (some of the leaders, not the truly faithful) is the controlled opposition. And I worry some of the confusion is an elaborate attempt to thwart the Consecration of Russia. I get very, very nervous when I don't see a traditional group clamoring for the consecration.

Matthew, I agree. Some of the NO folks are living saints. Some of the traddies are too. But not all.

Dawn · « **Reply #64 on:** July 31, 2010, 10:37:57 AM »

Well if the Novus Ordo not invalid in your eyes. There is your hope. Maybe one day Benedict will stop lying (some pope there!) and really do the consecration.
Oh wait, I just remember the Novus Ordo said the consecration of Russia was in fact done. So again no worries.
Just does not work if you think the Novus Ordo is valid.

anonymouse · « **Reply #65 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:03:48 AM »

Dawn,

You are twisting my words.

Also, I know of people in the NO as well as in traditional circles who pray for the Consecration of Russia.

Penitent · « **Reply #66 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:06:21 AM »

Quote from: wallflower

My understanding of the sedes though, is that there is a blanket statement or judgment made across the board that no NO is or could possibly be Catholic. In that case there would be no doubt that their baptism was invalid (beyond whatever year the sedes believe the NO started).

That's not my experience. My daughter was baptized in the NO in 1991. My independent SV priest said that so long as she was baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and that it wasn't some kind of a weird group thing, then it was valid. He was predisposed to accept it. I would have had to prove to him that it was invalid for him to do it again. But fortunately, it was a normal and proper baptism, so my daughter is indeed a Catholic.

wallflower · « **Reply #67 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:09:16 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote
My understanding of the sedes though, is that there is a blanket statement or judgment made across the board that no NO is or could possibly be Catholic. In that case there would be no doubt that their baptism was invalid (beyond whatever year the sedes believe the NO started).

When Christ instituted the sacrament of Baptism, along with the other sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and belong to Christ. But He founded the Catholic Church, and committed His religion to her only. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. If the novus ordo person administer Baptism validly, it is because one need not be a priest, therefore if the Baptism was done properly even within the novus ordo, the person is Baptized into the Catholic Church, because they alone own the sacrament, through Christ. The person is not Baptized into novus ordo or Protestant sect but the Catholic church. Yet, it still must be done properly, which is my point.

As Dawn pointed out, there are too many questions these days as to whether it was done properly or not.

Since Baptism could only be administered ONCE, an all out Baptism as you worded it would not be correct, on the chance it was done properly.

Right. Which is why the argument that a Novus Ordo person CAN BE a Catholic still stands. Dawn's position of doing a full baptism for her husband and children makes sense from the sede standpoint that no NO could be Catholic. But you just contradicted yourself saying on one hand that a NO could receive a true baptism, yet on the other hand, no NO can be considered Catholic in SV chapels. This is not consistent. In your mind, can a NO be a Catholic or not? Or is there doubt, in which case, some are and some are not?

wallflower · « **Reply #68 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:10:10 AM »

Quote from: Penitent

Quote from: wallflower

My understanding of the sedes though, is that there is a blanket statement or judgment made across the board that no NO is or could possibly be Catholic. In that case there would be no doubt that their baptism was invalid (beyond whatever year the sedes believe the NO started).

That's not my experience. My daughter was baptized in the NO in 1991. My independent SV priest said that so long as she was baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and that it wasn't some kind of a weird group thing, then it was valid. He was predisposed to accept it. I would have had to prove to him that it was invalid for him to do it again. But fortunately, it was a normal and proper baptism, so my daughter is indeed a Catholic.

Yes, I am beginning to see that there must be variety among sedes.

Caminus · « **Reply #69 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:17:26 AM »

Quote

My independent SV priest said that so long as she was baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and that it wasn't some kind of a weird group thing, then it was valid. He was predisposed to accept it. I would have had to prove to him that it was invalid for him to do it again. But fortunately, it was a normal and proper baptism, so my daughter is indeed a Catholic.

This is the correct attitude. Saying the proper form manifests the proper intention to "do what the Church does." That is why even Jews and pagans can baptize. Obviously their errors go far beyond the errors of the N.O. priest, they deny Christ and religion altogether. Dawn's true priest is actually committing sacrilege through his reckless attitude regarding the new rites. Yes, one can err even through excess. The idea that the more we can impugn the new rites the better leads to sin by excess.

wallflower · « **Reply #70 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:21:38 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I wonder what will happen to all the SSPX laity, if their Bishops really do merge fully with novus ordo. I always believe they would not go along, but seeing so many defend novus ordo here, I now have my doubts.

What about you Wallflower would you just follow along, if that happened?

I think you are mistaking the defense of individual NO people who do not know better with the defense of the NO itself. I'm not going to ponder on ifs ands and buts as far as what will happen with the SSPX, what I would do etc... Right now they best represent the conclusions I've drawn and I can only hope that God will provide the graces for them and us to take every day and every year as they come.

Dawn · « **Reply #71 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:24:10 AM »

But Caminus, I just said that the baptism's in that parish are to make you a member of the community. If they had not the intention of removing the stain of original sin and making us Children of God He was right in doing the baptism.

Please Caminus explain how he was wrong to take a baptism of the community as something that was questionable and then to do the baptism in the correct way.

Caminus · « **Reply #72 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:24:21 AM »

Quote

I wonder what will happen to all the SSPX laity, if their Bishops really do merge fully with novus ordo.

I wonder what's going to happen to the sede's when a traditional Pontiff is elected. Unless they are content with no Pope or bishops until the end of time?

Caminus · « **Reply #73 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:26:05 AM »

Quote from: Dawn

But Caminus, I just said that the baptism's in that parish are to make you a member of the community. If they had not the intention of removing the stain of original sin and making us Children of God He was right in doing the baptism.

Please Caminus explain how he was wrong to take a baptism of the community as something that was questionable and then to do the baptism in the correct way.

I'll explain it to you but first explain to me how you think a Jew, who denies our Lord, or pagan, who denies all religion, can validily baptize someone.

Dawn · « **Reply #74 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:30:24 AM »

Does the Jew or whomever have the intention to baptize the person who has requested it? Then it is done.

But, as I stated Caminus (which means Vulcan's furnace I see) the Novus Ordo priest clearly did not have the right intention.