Author Topic: Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?  (Read 1512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Prodinoscopus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Reputation: +12/-0
Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
« on: June 26, 2009, 02:36:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Once you arrive at the conviction that the Conciliar Church is a counterfeit church, does that invalidate your baptism? Or do you believe that the Conciliar Church confers a valid baptism, much like the protestant sects?

    If this has already been discussed, please point me to the relevant thread.
    Exile in Novus Ordo land ... please pray for me!

    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +45/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #1 on: June 26, 2009, 02:46:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This may have what you are looking for:


    CHANGES IN THE RITE RESULTING FROM VATICAN II

    The Second Vatican Council mandated changes in the sacraments. The
    Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reported that "the Second Vatican
    Council introduced certain modifications in the very essence of the
    sacramental rites."186 The Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican II
    ordered that the rite for the baptism of infants and adults be
    revised.187  The new rite for the baptism of infants was introduced on
    June 1, 1970. The RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) was
    issued on January 6, 1972.




    THE NEW RITE OF BAPTISM
    Father Dominic Radecki, CMRI

    THE DIVINE POWER IN BAPTISM

    Let us consider what is essential for baptism in the light of
    reason and common sense. How can water flowing over a few inches of a
    baby's skin cleanse a stain which is on the infant's soul? When Our Lord
    restored the sight of the blind man, he applied a clay to his eyes and
    commanded him to wash in the pool of Siloe. He went, he washed, and he
    saw. Now clearly light did not come to the man's sightless eyes because
    of water or clay. If such had been the case there would have been no
    blind men in Judea. His sight was restored not because of the clay or
    the water but through the divine power of Christ working through the
    clay and water. It is not the water or the words of baptism but the
    power of Christ working through these elements that gives grace to the
    soul and removes original sin.


    MATTER, FORM, MINISTER AND INTENTION

    As pointed out in the introduction, the Catholic Church teaches
    that there are four essential elements in every sacrament: valid matter,
    valid form, valid minister, and the proper intention of the minister. If
    any of these is lacking the sacrament is invalid.

    The matter of a sacrament is some sensible action or thing,  i.e.,
    the material element of a sacrament (baptismal water...) The form of a
    sacrament are the essential words, e.g., "I baptize you in the name of
    the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The minister of the
    sacrament is the person conferring the sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas
    taught, "There is required on the part of the minister that intention by
    which he subjects himself to the principal agent, i.e., intends to do
    what Christ does and the church."188


    THE ESSENTIALS OF BAPTISM   

    A priest or bishop is not required for the valid administration of
    baptism. "Those who may administer baptism, in case of necessity,... are
    included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may
    belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels
    and heretics; provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic
    Church does in that act of her ministry." 189  "The theological reason
    for the validity of baptism when conferred by a heretical minister is to
    be sought in the maxim so constantly urged by St. Augustine: 'It is
    Christ who baptizes.'"190

    However, if the person who is baptizing does not intend to do what
    Christ and the Church does, the baptism is invalid. In 1690 Pope
    Alexander VIII condemned the proposition that "Baptism is valid if
    conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of
    the sacrament, but interiorly in his heart says: I do not intend to do
    what the Church does."191

    In the post-Conciliar "Rite of Christian Initiation" (replacing
    the traditional rite of Baptism) the emphasis is almost exclusively
    placed on the recipient's entrance into the Community of the people of
    God. The document is replete with phrases such as "through the
    sacraments of Christian initiation men and women are freed from the
    power of darkness" and "made God's sons and daughters with the entire
    people of God." Again, "baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith
    by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up
    together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation
    and a royal priesthood. It is a sacred bond of unity linking all who
    have been signed by it." There is throughout its 50 pages only a single
    passing reference to original sin.192 With so much stress laid on
    entrance into the Community of the people of God, one can seriously
    question whether the power to remit original sin even enters into the
    mind of the officiating minister. If the intention to do what the Church
    does is vitiated, the rite becomes invalid.

    It will be argued by some that despite the numerous changes
    (additions, deletions, etc.) in the new rite the essential words "I
    baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
    Spirit" have been retained. Does this assure the validity of the new
    rite?

    Since the Second Vatican Council, many of the clergy have felt
    free to "experiment" with the manner in which they administer the
    sacraments. Clearly, if the proper words of the form are not used, no
    baptism occurs. Others have changed the essential ceremony, for example,
    changing the manner in which water is administered. With regard to this
    consider the words of Archbishop Francis Kenrick: "Where no water is
    applied, it is absurd to suppose baptism: where the application of the
    water is scanty and careless, as when a few drops are sprinkled towards
    the person, or the moist finger is slightly pressed on the forehead,
    there is great reason to fear that there is no baptism. Where the words
    are preceded by others, which modify or change their meaning, or where
    they are not morally connected with the ablution (application of water),
    being uttered before or after it at a considerable interval, the baptism
    is doubtful, if not null."193 These and other defects have rendered many
    baptisms doubtful and others certainly invalid.

    However, the greatest threat to the validity of baptism in the New
    Church comes from a possible defective intention on the part of the
    minister. Many of the post-Conciliar clergy have accepted the heresies
    of Teilhard de Chardin on original sin. Some openly proclaim their
    disbelief in the traditional teachings of the Church and the purpose of
    baptism as established by Christ.  That Baptism is what allows for any
    person - regardless of what sect he adhers to - to enter the Christian
    community, clearly implies that Christ did not establish a visible
    Church. To further compound the situation, such individuals frequently
    believe Christ was nothing other than a "good" man. For such individuals
    the regenerative power of baptism (the removal of original sin) is
    considered unimportant or irrelevant. How is it possible for such
    individuals to have the proper intention?


    MORE ON THE INTENTION OF THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM

    The erroneous teachings of Teilhard de Chardin regarding original
    sin have been assimilated and adopted by some priests. This has caused
    many to have false views and beliefs on baptism. Can they validly
    administer baptism?

    The Church teaches that even heretics can baptize validly if they
    intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use the right matter and
    form in administering it. "The validity of baptism does not depend on
    the minister or the kind of person he may be, but on the fact that,
    wishing to administer the baptism of Christ, he uses the correct rite.
    "194

       St. Augustine said that anyone who follows the rite instituted by
    Christ administers baptism validly.195 "After the Fathers, this question
    was gradually developed, and by the time of St. Thomas it was
    universally held by theologians that anyone, man or woman, baptized or
    unbaptized, could validly baptize. It must, of course, be clearly
    understood that a right intention, that is, an intention of doing what
    the Church of Christ does, is always necessary  for the validity of the
    sacrament."196

    Baptism administered by a non-Catholic is valid if he uses the
    correct rite and intends to administer the baptism of Christ. The
    baptism is valid because of the principle of simple error. The Church
    makes a distinction between the belief in a person's mind and the intent
    in his will. In other words, a person who administers baptism may have
    false beliefs in his mind about the nature, effects, and efficacy of
    baptism. However, as long as his will intends to perform the baptism of
    Christ, the sacrament is valid.

    In the example above, simple error may be in the mind of the
    person because he has a poor or even erroneous understanding of baptism.
    Yet, as long as he does not have an actual intention in his will
    contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church, the baptism
    is valid. If the person who administers baptism by a special act of his
    will does not intend to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the
    Church does, the sacrament would be invalid.

    The principle of simple error must be clearly understood. "Error
    is a false judgment of the mind. The error is simple if it remains in
    the mind without passing over into the will, and so without modifying
    the act which the will elicits."197 Theologians make a distinction
    between the error in the mind and the intention in the will.

    The topic of the minister's intention in baptism was covered in an
    article in the American Ecclesiastical Review. I will quote several
    passages from this article. The principle of simple error will help one
    to understand the reasoning of theologians on this subject.

    Ulric Beste begins by listing the essential elements of a
    sacrament. "It is then certain and admitted by all that, besides the
    matter and form prescribed by Christ, also the proper intention on the
    part of the minister is required for validity in the administration of
    baptism. However, as is commonly taught by theologians, this intention
    need not necessarily be explicit or express, nor determinate and
    distinct or well-defined.; it is quite sufficient that it exist
    confusedly and implicitly in the mind of the minister."

    "Indeed, no more is necessary than that he intends to perform what
    the Church performs, or what Christ instituted and ordered to be done,
    or what he ordinarily sees pastors or Christians do in their churches.
    This remains true although interiorly in his heart and mind he feels and
    is convinced that this is a vain and meaningless ceremony and that the
    Church in performing it certainly errs and posits a purely  
    inefficacious act. This conclusion is evident from the practice of the
    Church, for she will not order or allow rebaptism for the sole and
    simple reason that a Jew or Saracen, pagan or heretic, who frequently
    know little or nothing about the purpose and powers of baptism,
    administered the sacrament, provided of course the duly requisite matter
    and form were employed."198

    The principle of simple error is now used in reference to the
    minister of baptism. "Error and mistaken notions about baptism, holding
    it to be but an external sign of aggregation without any effect upon the
    soul, even when systematically taught as a tenet of a sect and
    obstinately declared by a minister immediately before the act of
    baptizing (whether as part of the ceremonial of baptism or not), do not
    yet destroy the intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ
    instituted; his general intention prevails over and, as it were, absorbs
    the private or qualified mental attitude of the minister towards baptism
    due to false doctrines and heretical ideas; error can coexist with a
    right intention."199

    "The reason is that the minister's general intention to do what
    Christ instituted predominates and absorbs false ideas and opinions.
    Error is rooted in the intellect, while intention is an act of the will.
    The Sacred Congregation does not tire to repeat and insist in its
    pronouncements that error about the effect of a sacrament does not  make
    it impossible for a minister to have the necessary intention to perform
    what Christ has instituted."200

    The Code of Canon Law applies this same principle to marriage
    cases. Canon 1084 describes simple error regarding the unity or the
    indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage in these terms:

    "'In order that such error may vitiate the consent, it must be
    transferred to and made part of the intention by a positive act of the
    will, as is stated explicitly in canon 1086, section 2,' But if either
    party or both parties by a positive act of the will should exclude
    marriage itself, or all rights to the conjugal act, or any essential
    property of marriage, he contracts invalidly.'"201

       Let us apply this principle now to baptism. "Analogously in
    baptism false notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy,
    and effects of the sacrament are compatible with the minister's true and
    sincere intention of doing what the true Church does or what Christ has
    instituted."202

    Let us examine this principle in the intention of the minister of
    baptism. The will embraces its object as represented by the mind. False
    notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy and effects of
    the sacrament may remain in the mind. This simple error of the mind is
    compatible with the proper intention in the will. As long as the
    minister of baptism does not have an actual prevailing intention in his
    will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church, the
    sacrament is valid.

    If the minister of the sacrament of baptism by a special act of
    the will elicits a contrary intention to the general intention to do
    what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does, the sacrament
    would be invalid. Therefore, in the face of an  actual prevailing
    intention to the contrary to what Christ wanted and instituted and the
    Church does, this general intention would be nullified and destroyed.

    The decisions and pronouncements of the church make this principle
    stand out clearly. "At one time in France a dispute had arisen whether
    those baptized by the Calvinists should be rebaptized. St. Pius V
    settled the controversy by defining that baptism was not to be repeated.

    It should be noted that the Calvinists, like our sects, denied baptism
    to have any efficacy to regenerate. Yet the instruction makes it clear
    that erroneous views in the minister 'circa intelligentiam formae vel
    aliquem effectum' do not render the sacrament invalid, provided the
    right matter and form instituted by Christ were used with the general
    intention to perform what Christ instituted; that this general intention
    prevails over the particular error or wrong private interpretation.

    Error and heretical opinion about the nature and effects of baptism can
    therefore coexist with a sincere intention of doing what Christ did or
    had instituted."203

    "It is possible, of course, that a minister carry his heretical
    ideas from the realm of his intellect into that of his intention in such
    a way that, although pronouncing the words of the essential form in
    baptism, he wills and intends to administer a mere external rite or
    ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy. But to bring that
    about the must elicit a positive act whereby he specifically and
    definitely excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the
    essential rite of baptism."

    "False views and beliefs based upon the heretical opinions and
    teachings, changes and alterations, even when systematically introduced
    or manifested in the ceremonial parts of the ritual, written or
    unwritten, do not constitute a sufficient indication and proof that the
    minister, even when pronouncing the essential form accurately and
    completely, has a heretical intention so tainted by error as to vitiate
    the sacrament essentially."

    "For so long as that heretical error as regards baptism manifests
    itself in the ceremonial portion of the ritual only; so long as the sect
    holds that material rite of baptism to be an institution of Christ; so
    long as in the administration of the sacrament, the scriptural form,
    handed down by Christ and observed constantly in the Church, is
    seriously and scrupulously adhered to; in short, so long as the sect and
    its ministers think that they are performing and repeating that rite of
    Christ, the  Church justly and reasonably presumes and must presume that
    they want to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the true Church
    does, whatever the minister in a particular case may think about the
    true nature, necessity and efficacy of the sacrament."204


    CONCLUSION

    For a valid sacrament one must have valid matter, form, intention,
    and minister. Prior to Vatican II one could assume that a priest had the
    proper intention when he confected a sacrament. He was well instructed
    in the seminary in regard to the proper intention for each sacrament.
    Also, the rite, (i.e., the particular prayers of the Church for each
    sacrament) sets the proper intention for the priest.

    The teachings of Teilhard de Chardin on original sin have been
    condemned by the Catholic Church. Many priests since Vatican II have
    followed these errors. A simple error in the mind of the minister does
    not invalidate a sacrament as long as he intends to administer the
    sacrament of Christ. In some cases, the person who administers a
    sacrament not only has a simple error in his mind, but his will
    positively intends to perform a rite contrary to the intention of Christ
    and the Church. He invalidates the sacrament. Priests who follow the
    teachings of Teilhard do validly baptize if they intend to administer
    the baptism of Christ and use the proper matter and form.

    However, baptism administered by these priests is invalid if they
    have an intention in their will contrary to the general intention of
    Christ and His Church. The sacrament is invalid if the minister of
    baptism elicits a positive act whereby he specifically and definitely
    excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the essential
    rite of baptism. He carries his heretical ideas from the realm of his
    intellect into that of his intention in such a way that, although
    pronouncing the words of the essential form in baptism, he wills and
    intends to administer a mere external rite or ceremony shorn of all
    spiritual meaning and efficacy.

    Archbishop Kenrick says that a simple error of the mind may lead
    to a perversion of the will resulting in  a defective intention and an
    invalid baptism. "The belief in its efficacy to remit sin is not indeed
    necessary for its valid performance: yet may we not fear that the
    prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the
    visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert
    the intention of the person who baptizes (my emphasis), that he may
    propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form,
    than seriously to administer an institution of Christ our Lord?"205
    Could this quotation of Archbishop Kenrick be applied to Chardinian-
    minded ministers?

    In summary, since Vatican II many  sacraments have been rendered
    invalid  due to a defect in matter, form, minister and intention. A
    minister of baptism who accepts the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin in
    regard to original sin has at least a simple error of the mind. If his
    will has an intention contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church
    when administering baptism, the sacrament is invalid. Priests who follow
    the teachings of Vatican II do validly baptize if they intend to
    administer the baptism of Christ and use proper matter and form.



    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #2 on: June 26, 2009, 03:41:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How is it possible that this priest could violate in his conclusions what was just explicitly stated in the body of the article?  

    Offline Prodinoscopus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 149
    • Reputation: +12/-0
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #3 on: June 26, 2009, 05:08:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dawn, are you incapable of answering a question in your own words? Why must you always respond with a 5,000 word essay in someone else's words?

    Just answer the question, as best you can, based on what your current level of understanding. I don't have time to read every long essay that you post.

    Here's a really simple question, Dawn.  When you became convinced that all the Popes since 1958 are anti-popes, did you get yourself re-baptized?
    Exile in Novus Ordo land ... please pray for me!

    Offline Prodinoscopus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 149
    • Reputation: +12/-0
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #4 on: June 26, 2009, 05:10:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Likewise CM, Raoul76, et al: did you get yourselves re-baptized?

    DeMaistre, what say you?
    Exile in Novus Ordo land ... please pray for me!


    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +45/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #5 on: June 26, 2009, 05:36:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was just trying to show you what the thinking is on this.
    And, yes I was conditionally baptised as were my children. It is just to make certain, as in many instances they do not have the correct intention. My old novus ordo made them members of the community and that is just not correct.

    Offline DeMaistre

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 343
    • Reputation: +15/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #6 on: June 26, 2009, 06:02:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Prodinoscopus, you should know that even Protestant baptisms are valid. I'm fairly sure that I had a valid baptism, obviously my first communion/confession and confirmation are/were not so I have no idea what to do, but I may just get conditionally baptized just to be safe.

    Offline Prodinoscopus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 149
    • Reputation: +12/-0
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #7 on: June 26, 2009, 06:31:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DeMaistre, it seems to me that if you really believe that Satan (or his minion) occupies the Chair of Peter, then you would not be "fairly sure" that your baptism was valid.  You would be convinced that it was not.

    I'm not suggesting that you go get yourself re-baptized, far from it. I'm just suggesting that you consider the practical consequences of your theory.

    Dawn, thank you for your answer.  Sadly, there might well be invalid baptisms occurring in Novus Ordo parishes.  One does not need to be a sedevacantist to recognize the possibility.  As for myself, I'm convinced that everyone in my family is validly baptized.
    Exile in Novus Ordo land ... please pray for me!


    Offline DeMaistre

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 343
    • Reputation: +15/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #8 on: June 26, 2009, 06:42:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, not really. Protestants follow the Devil, but their baptisms are valid.

    Offline Prodinoscopus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 149
    • Reputation: +12/-0
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #9 on: June 26, 2009, 07:12:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: DeMaistre
    No, not really. Protestants follow the Devil, but their baptisms are valid.

    DeMaistre, you sedes love to tell us that if we believe that Benedict XVI is the true Pope, then we must obey ALL that he teaches and commands, even the errors.

    Well, if you literally believe that SATAN HIMSELF rules the visible Church through his proxy in the Chair of Peter, then why would you trust ANY sacrament that you received in that Satanic church?  For if the head is Satan, the body is Satanic.
    Exile in Novus Ordo land ... please pray for me!

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #10 on: June 26, 2009, 07:24:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For baptism all that is necessary is matter, form and intent.  If they say "Ego te baptizo," etc. then you are baptized.  Baptism also happens to be the one Sacrament whose form and sense is mostly unchanged by Vatican II.

    As deceived as most priests in Novus Ordo are, it's doubtful that they would INTEND to take you to hell.  If I were in DeMaistre's place I'd ask a sedevacantist priest whether I should be rebaptized but it's most likely not necessary.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #11 on: June 26, 2009, 07:24:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • By "rebaptized" I mean conditionally baptised.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline DeMaistre

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 343
    • Reputation: +15/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #12 on: June 26, 2009, 07:41:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No sir, but you must recognise all his infallible canonizations, etc since you hold him to be the true pope.

    I don't have any sedevacantist priests nearby. As soon as I graduate, I'm planning to go to one to receive the Sacraments. Then enter Most Holy Family Monastery (or a Catholic seminary, but I've yet to find one).

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #13 on: June 26, 2009, 07:57:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DeMaistre, you're a Feeneyite?  

    Ay yi yi.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline DeMaistre

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 343
    • Reputation: +15/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Should sedevacantists be re-baptized?
    « Reply #14 on: June 26, 2009, 08:13:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    DeMaistre, you're a Feeneyite?  

    Ay yi yi.


    No, I'm a Catholic.  :wink:

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16