What percentage of baptisms performed in Novus Ordo churches by Novus Ordo priests are invalid?Enough that they are all suspect. Being welcomed into the community is not the same as being initiated into the Eternal Kingdom.
I've heard stories of people being baptized in the names of the "God, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" or some other invalid form. How common is this?
I won't attempt to guess a percentage. I DO know that my "first" Confirmation was invalid due to defect of form and matter. The other five dozen or so with me were also not Confirmed. I know the baptisms of both my nephews, in 1998 and 2007 are invalid. The form was wrong in both, and matter in the second.Lord have mercy.
The Confirmandi high schoolers wrote "a creative liturgy" which the Bishop used in 1974. There was no oil used, but I recall processing outside in a conga line to the beat of bongo drums and a sitar. There was a group photo with the bishop, then everyone went home. Decades later, I requested a record of this and all that was found was a yellowed sheet of loose-leaf paper with penciled names some checked, some crossed off, some with question marks. This was stuck in the back of a large binder from the parish which has since gone out of existence. The binder was in the basement of neighboring parish. There is no record with the diocesan headquarters.
At both baptisms, the words, "You are initiated a child of the Father, the Creator, the Spirit. Welcome to the family of God," were substituted. At the 2007 baptism, a "eucharistic minister" sprinkled holy (?) water while the priest (?) said the incorrect words from his wheelchair. He had broken both arms and legs in an auto accident, and was therefore literally unable to baptise anyone.
It's just as well on the baptisms because the children haven't entered a house of worship since. They were raised "not-religious." They were baptized to appease an elderly relative whose house they were living in, free of charge.
Lord have mercy.What percentage of, say, Arian Baptisms are/were invalid?
.
I did not realize it was that bad now having not been inside a Novus Ordo church since 1993.
.
The few clown masses that are on youtube have been quite shocking.
What percentage of, say, Arian Baptisms are/were invalid?We have a saint, Saint Constantine.
Matter, Form, Minister, Intention...
"Don't think of Elephants..."
It's a trick question anyway, if unwitting; why? Because, sacramentally speaking, there's no such thing as a NO baptism, a Protestant Baptism, an Anglican Baptism etc., etc....
May as well ask about the validity of Atheist Baptisms.
Stolen goods are just that, stolen goods.
I must admit years ago I attended a Family baptism of a new born infant.... and wasn't Sacramentally baptized as a Catholic, at least at that time.
The Priest is known for his extreme liberalism and have long since left the Priesthood and
the church.
I remember that he used the following in the baptism:
I baptized you in the Name of the Father, the mother, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The infant who is one of my nephews grew up and is now a very radical leftist and atheist.
We have a saint, Saint Constantine.The Emperor Constantine who was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop is not venerated as a saint.
He was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian, was he not? Beggars cannot be choosers.
Yet, he is venerated as a saint.
The Emperor Constantine who was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop is not venerated as a saint.He is considered to be a saint in the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church.
I get the impression that the Novus Or do is better about this now. 40% might be legit for the 70s but way too high nowadays. Probably only 5% or less invalid now.I don't know. I note that it was in 2005 when the Novus Ordo priest in my parish decided to make up his own words for the Consecration at Mass. If priests are making up their own Consecration formula in 2005, I'm sure their not going to be too "scrupulous" about making up their own baptismal formulas. Perhaps forty percent is a little high, but five percent might be a little low.
Woe to the children of these times [i.e., 20th century]! It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and also the Sacrament of Confirmation.(source: The Story of Our Lady of Good Success and Novena (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5948))
He was not baptized by an Arian. The bishop who baptized him had already recanted and accepted the Nicene creed.I hope that is accurate. This is the first time I've ever heard this.
The intention of doing what the Church does, whatever that may be in
the opinion of him who administers the sacrament, is said to be required.
Thus St. Thomas: "Although he who does not believe that baptism is a
sacrament, or does not believe that it has any spiritual power, does not
intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless he intends to
do what the Church does, even if he counts that as nothing; and because the
Church intends to do something, therefore, as a consequence of this, he
intends implicitly to do something, though not explicitly."[1] But it is
not necessary that the minister think as the Church does, or that he not
err concerning her teaching; for it is enough if his intention is towards
something which is identically that which the Church intends, or, something
which amounts to the same thing, for example, if he intends to do that
which Christ instituted, or which is commanded in the Gospel, or which
Christians are accustomed to do according to the prescription of their
religion. (Thus it is apparent how even a Jєω or a pagan can have an
intention sufficient for baptizing. Consider for example a catechumen
placed in a moment of necessity, who asks a pagan saying, "Do for me, I
entreat you, this mercy, that you pour water on me, pronouncing the words,
'I baptize you,' etc., with the intention of doing what I myself intend to
receive according to the prescription of the law of Christians.)
Catholic baptism? Mormons have the correct matter and form in their baptisms. They use water and the proper Trinitarian formula. They're baptisms are nevertheless presumed invalid by the Church because Mormons deny the Trinity, and an Arian baptism would be invalid for exactly the same reasons: the intention is wrong. People who deny the Trinity cannot intend to do what the Church does with the formula "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".Yes, I agree that a Mormon baptism is invalid. I said that if a Mormon intended to do a Catholic baptism, it could be valid.
In any case, for persosn above the age of reason this is absolutely impossible. TO quote Ott, "The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith (De fide)". As Trent declares of justification, "the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified" But what is this faith? Look at the Athanasian creed please: the Trinity and Incarnation are absolutely essential to it. There is no faith without them.
The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse)what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.The 2001 docuмent that you cited concerning the lack of validity of Mormon baptism clearly acknowledges that this is an exception.
This explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hünermann [DH] 110-111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church.
I would presume 0%, as with Mormons, that is, baptisms performed by and upon those denying the Trinity and Incarnation can't possibly be valid.Interesting point
Interesting pointOh yeah? If you like that "interesting point", then consider, for real world, life and death, example in the military, right now, where anyone can validly baptize.
I would presume 0%, as with Mormons, that is, baptisms performed by and upon those denying the Trinity and Incarnation can't possibly be valid.It is not their heretical beliefs that make Mormon baptisms invalid. In general, heretics can validly baptize. In the case of Mormons, what they mean by "Father, Son, and Holy Spirity" is so different from what the Church means by those words, that Mormon baptisms are considered to lack correct form.
I don't know. I note that it was in 2005 when the Novus Ordo priest in my parish decided to make up his own words for the Consecration at Mass.
Consider that if the priest makes it clear that his intention is limited to "welcoming the child into the community", I wonder if his intention is sufficient for validity.
The intention needs to be the intent to do what the Church does, even if the person has an imperfect understanding of Catholic teaching on baptism or anything else.
Here is Cardinal Billot's explanation of what "the intention to do what the Church does" means:
People who deny the Trinity cannot intend to do what the Church does with the formula "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
Lol. Are you serious?The word "intention" has a very specific meaning in the context of Sacramental theology. There is a danger that we will think we know what it means because we are familiar with it in our everyday language, but it is different. It is important to understand how the word is used as a technical theological term in order to properly grasp the Church teaching. I gave several citations to help with this.
What you just said is EXACTLY what I said.
Their baptisms are nevertheless presumed invalid by the Church because Mormons deny the Trinity, and an Arian baptism would be invalid for exactly the same reasons: the intention is wrong. People who deny the Trinity cannot intend to do what the Church does with the formula "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
Are you always this intentionally obtuse?
Arians considered themselves to be Catholics and therefore they intended their baptisms to be Catholic baptisms. To the best of their knowledge, they thought they were doing what the Church does. That meets the requirement for Sacramental intent. This is not affected by their doctrinal errors.
In any case, what I said about Arian baptisms stands: an "Arian" baptism is no different to a "Mormon" baptism. No, NOT an Arian performing a Catholic baptism.
It is a distinction that was lacking, at least in clarity; perhaps a bit of acknowledgment is in order?It is likely that I am not explaining it well. It is a complicated topic. And it is especially confusing that "intent" has a different meaning than we are used to.
It is likely that I am not explaining it well. It is a complicated topic. And it is especially confusing that "intent" has a different meaning than we are used to.I think we'll survive this round ma'am.
Please stop being presumptuous. There is nothing in what I have written that indicates a misunderstanding unless you take me out of context. I agree precisely with all the quoted passages, and I maintain that ARIAN BAPTISMS are invalid just as are MORMON BAPTISMS because both, in denying the Trinity, mean by "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" something entirely different from what the Church means by them, to the point that their intention in administering and receiving Mormon baptisms, in the context of their baptismal rites, cannot be the to do what the Catholic Church does, i.e., he intends to do what the LDS church does and that is to baptise someone into the LDS church and its three strange beigns of Mormon theology and only Mormons know what else, and this intention is blatantly and publically manifest. THis is totally different to the case of a Mormon performing a Catholic baptism.The docuмent you referenced to show that Mormon baptisms are invalid itself says: "Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians."
The docuмent I referenced, which clealry states that there is a deficiency in intention of the celebrating minister of a Mormon baptisms due to their understanding of God:
III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister.
Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism ...
... The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).
If there is error here it was in my saying that they also have valid form, when it's just the objective formula but not the substance of the words (as I said, one may as well baptise in the name of Hindu deities). But this is semantics: if we look at form instead of intention, the same argument applies again to both Mormons and Arians. Arians understood somehting radically different by the Trinitarian formula.
An Arian performing a Catholic baptisms, fine, but an Arian performing an Arian baptism? How is that ontologically different to a Mormon baptism?
For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2:18:42.
Here Athanaius plainly says that though the Arians (after Nicea) use the name sof Father and Son, they really baptise into the "Creator and creature" because of their false understanding of the Trinity.
Also, Mormons aren't heretics. One has to be a validly baptised Christian to be a heretic and a believer in the Trinity and Incarnation to be Christian. I'm not sure I'd call Arians, at least post-Nicea, heretics either.
Oh, I'm sure that still happens but I hear fewer and fewer reports of it. And, actually, the new translation of the Novus Ordo Mass accurately translates the words of consecration so that the NOM might even be valid ... especially when the 1st Canon (=very close to the Tridentine Canon) is used.I wonder if there are "fewer and fewer reports" because it happens less often or if the people are so inured by such things and so ignorant of the faith that no one even thinks its something that should be reported.
LOL, I thought the thread said "What % of Norvus Ordo bishops are invalid?"
I was going to say that I don't think there are many valid bishops left, like maybe one dozen.
I wonder if there are "fewer and fewer reports" because it happens less often or if the people are so inured by such things and so ignorant of the faith that no one even thinks its something that should be reported.
I was baptized in the Novus Ordo in the 1990s. Earlier this year I found a video of my original baptism and showed it to several priests (1 Resistance and 4 SSPX) and all of them agreed that it was doubtful due to defective matter (instead of pouring, sprinkling or immersion the priest traced a sign of the cross with the water on my forehead) and that I should be conditionally baptized.