If it is true that AS A GROUP and AS A RULE the SSPV is demanding conditionalbaptisms from NO converts, that is enormously troubling. Its the simplest sacrament to perform. There aren't really any tricks involved. You use water and the tribitarian form (Father Son and Holy Ghost ) and its valid. That's it. It could be performed by a voodoo priest and as long as the form and matter are true (with intent, which is assumed upon meeting form and matter) then its a valid sacramen and the person is baptized. Baptizing conditionally without sufficient reason is a grave sin.
Doesn't a valid baptism have to be performed with the intent to remove original sin?
Does the NO still really believe in original sin anymore? Can they (SSPV) be certain some random NO priest that performed your baptism believed in it and performed your baptism with intent to cleanse you of it or with some ambiguous intent, like a protestant? If it is just NO converts they are requiring this of, is it really a big problem? I think it seems like they just take it very seriously and are being cautious.
I know my priest believed baptism removes original sin because I didn't have to go to confession.
I'd consult an SSPV priest about this and follow his advice. There is so much nonsense in the novus ordo - I had a missal with me once when the presider did a baptism and there is so much left out.
With the ecclesiological focus of the post-Vatican II being in the direction of "universal salvation" - why risk it?
Honestly, why risk it? If the SSPV priest thinks you need to be conditionally rebaptized - do it.
There are only three things necessary for a valid baptism. Matter, form, intent. Or, water, the words "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and intent-- which is assumed if matter and form are present. Which of these three was missing at the NO baptisms you attended?
Why risk it?
How about the use of the word "Holy Spirit" instead of "Hyly Ghost"?
A spirit could be any thing - even the evil one.
With the novus ordo and all the of the changes in the mass and the ecclesiology of new church pointing in the direction of "universal salvation" - why harm is there in a conditional rebaptism?
The point is, if the three requirements for a sacrament are met,
there is no risk. No sacrament should be re-done without there being a good reason. There is no good reason to conditionally baptize Novus Ordites as a rule. Confirmands, priests and penitents, yes. But there is really no doubt to the validity of NO baptisms as a rule, because they have retained the proper form and matter, and as already mentioned, the minister of the sacrament can be anyone-- he needn't even be a Christian.
As to Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, there is no substantial difference. The shift from Ghost to Spirit was modernist in motive, but the term Holy Spirit is not in any way unorthodox or suggesting of anything heretical. It's an unfortunate change, but not a substantial one.
Sacramental scrupulosity is not good. There's a world of difference between conditionally ordaining or confirming or requiring a general confession and conditionally baptizing. The other sacraments have positive doubts to their validity. The NO baptism rite simply doesn't.
Topic: SSPV (Read 24604 times)