A lot of good posts here. It's good to read this.
Exorcism is not necessary, but it is wonderful surely and extra plus to have during a Catholic baptism.
I don't think SSPX says exorcism is necessary. When my husband converted from Protestism to Catholic, he was re-baptised because during his Protestant baptism he was only sprinkled with water and did not have the water poured.
I heard of a novus ordo baptism in which, the child was baptized in the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
So the reason why a Novus Ordo/Protestant Baptism is in question is because the person may not have been fully submersed or had water poured on them?
Not only does the water have to be poured over the person, it must be poured or flowing over WHILE saying the words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it would be invalid if it was poured, and after the water stopped flowing the words would be said, or if the words were said and then the water poured. It must be poured WHILE THE PROPER WORDS ARE SAID. That is the way I learned my catechism some 60 years ago.
This is my question: True story: A few years ago, I know of a young man, who was brain dead from a head injury, he was being kept alive, according to his family he was never baptized. I asked if someone would go and baptize him and I was informed that his head was all bandaged and no one could get the water to flow over his head. They tried but since I wasn't there I don't know exactly what they did.
That's really tragic, that a patient's head is all bandaged and they know he's
going to die, and no brain activity so no access to his skin to baptize, etc. What
good are the bandages??? I would say that if there were ever a case for
Baptism of Desire it would be when someone pours water over this bandaged
forehead and says the proper words!
On the other hand, maybe the patient does not WANT to be baptized and God,
in His infinite mercy has made his forehead unavailable for a reason - that if
it were possible to baptize him he would then suffer even MORE torments in
hell because of his final impenitence and rejection of the Holy Ghost.
Final perseverance is a most precious gift that cannot be
merited by any works in this life. It is more valuable to one soul
than all the riches of the world. But yes, I forgot to mention that
the words must be spoken BY THE SAME
PERSON as the one who pours the water, and it must be done AT THE SAME TIME:
saying these words as the water flows: I baptize thee (or you - and it helps to
mention his or her chosen Christian name, but it is not required to say their name)
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit). I
have seen several traditional priests pour the water three times, once while saying
"I baptize thee in the name of the Father," then pause and stop pouring, then start
pouring again as he says "and of the Son," then pause and stop pouring, then
start pouring again as he says, "and of the Holy Ghost." I wondered if he was
looking for any kind of reaction from the child, and one told me that he was just
making sure that water was moving over the skin for each of the three Holy
Names.
A "sprinkling" of water is doubtfully valid because there may have been no
movement of water over the skin WHILE the words were being said, and, of
course, the person sprinkling the water may have been someone other than
the person speaking the words, like a 'helper' or a relative or whatever. The
janitor cleaning windows? Who knows. Maybe it was done in the falling rain to
be 'different'. It is a Modernist 'virtue' to find interest in something just because
it is 'different'. Change is not inherently good.
There was a time when it could be assumed that mainstream Protestant baptisms were valid. I am not sure we can anymore though.
What changed? Just how some protestants only baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? I would agree that those types of Baptisms are invalid or at least might be. It seems that if the Baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it would be valid. Regardless of whether it is done by a SSPXer, Novus Ordo, or even protestant.
It would be. However, an increasing number of liberal Protestants do not use the correct form. They use things like, "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier" or worse "In the name of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit".
This is unlikely among Lutherans or Anglicans.
Most Protestant baptisms use the correct formula. I am just not sure that we can confidently assume this any more.
No, we should not assume that a Baptism that has already taken place was valid or not. We should rely on witnesses and docuмentation to prove that it was done properly. Without those things a conditional Baptism would be necessary.
This is a crucial point. We should not be so hasty to pass judgment. There is too
much at stake. It is the salvation of a soul, and it is the validity of some future
sacraments such as Confirmation, Matrimony and Holy Orders, and the
effectiveness to avoid sacrilege for Extreme Unction, Penance and even Holy
Communion.
I know of a priest who met a man lying on the sidewalk, having just suffered a
heart attack, with passers-by ignoring him, when the priest paused and
introduced himself. He offered to help the man, and asked him if he was a
Christian. The man replied, in obvious pain, that no, he was a Jew. The priest
asked him if he would like to become Catholic and go to heaven to be with
God forever in eternity. And the Jew nodded affirmatively, and whispered "Yes."
The priest said, then may I baptize you to give you God's grace of salvation? The
man nodded Yes again. What is your name? The man whispered something
unintelligible. The priest asked him, "May I call you John?" The man nodded
again. So the priest got out his holy water and baptized him, "I baptize thee, John,
in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and then the
poor man died, with a smile on his lips.
The news got around quickly that a Jew had died a Catholic, but it did not get into
the newspapers. This is a story of a modern-day St. Dismas.
Also, as songbird, here touches on, the judgment of Holy Mother Church in the
19th century regarding the intentions of heretical sects may be only partially
applicable today. For now we have a much more sinister heresy going on, the
heresy of Modernism and post-Modernism, the latter of which renders the
Modernist aware of the infallible teachings of the Church in regards to the
pitfalls of subjectivism and willful 'mental reservations' but nonetheless, chooses
to have a subjective and willful mental reservation anyway, even in his taking
of the Oath Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism, St. Pius X, 1910), and
this heresy rises even unto the throne of St. Peter in its fullest manifestation
with the most recent occupant (some say 'claimant') PEB* who is the most
exemplary post-Modernist alive today, by all appearances.
So not only in the Protestant sects, but now even among those who claim to
be Catholic and are acknowledged as such by the "visible Church" we have the
occasion for doubtful validity not only of Holy Communion, but as Pope St.
Pius X prophetically said in his landmark encyclical
Pascendi dominici gregis, the adversary injects his poison into the VERY ROOT OF THE CHURCH, and as
a tree whose roots are poisoned, which then moves up the trunk, into the
branches, and poisons all the leaves, so too the Church once contaminated
with putrid heresy becomes entirely filled with error and loses all spiritual life.
So we cannot be so hasty anymore, to presume validity in many more cases.
If I was going from one sect to a true religion, I would want that baptism and Catholic baptism is to remove original sin and the true baptism includes exorcism and such. Other sects may not include or see it this way. For many it is their "intentions" to bring in a new member, initiation.
I expect you meant to say "
the true religion," instead of "a" true religion.
While exorcism is part of the traditional sacrament, it is not an essential part.
But it can make a difference later in life when trials come, and temptations. We
cannot understand everything that goes on here, but just as the sanctity of
the priest at Mass has an effect on the quantity (and quality??) of grace that
the Faithful assisting receive at that Mass, so too the presence or absence of
exorcism at holy baptism may affect the graces that recipient will receive all
life long from that moment forward, even unto eternity! So exorcism is a very
important part, even if it is not ESSENTIAL. This is one of the MAJOR
criticisms of NovusOrdo baptism - they have deleted exorcism, and they even
do multiple baptisms, where two, three, four, five, as many as 10 or even more
children are lined up and the priest goes down the line pouring water and
saying the words one at a time, assembly-line style. They think it is "meaningful
to the modern age" that way. And, of course, more meaningful is better!
I would prefer a
holier baptism to a more 'meaningful' one, personally. Can
you imagine meeting someone in heaven, and they say, "Oh, nice to meet you.
I see you received a more meaningful baptism." .......... Uh, I don't think so.
Perfect. We are moving right along. So basically there is doubt to whether or not a Protestant and Novus Ordo Baptism is valid because it may not be being performed properly and does not include the exorcism portion.
You have misunderstood, InfiniteFaith. Lacking exorcism does not mean the
sacrament is invalid. There may not be time for an exorcism, or it may be in
the case of an emergency, or the priest may not be able to remember the words
of exorcism under duress. Bishop Williamson just told that story in the priests'
retreat that was posted just yesterday as I recall.
It's in the Sermons sub-forum.
He said he had just been ordained a priest, and was driving "on the wrong side
of the road" in Germany (it was the correct side for being in Germany, but he's
from England where they drive, well, you know...), when an oncoming car took
the long curve too fast, went up on two wheels, probably couldn't steer, and
went off the road, crashing right before Fr. Williamson, into a tree. Fr. pulled
over, got out to help the poor man, who was dead instantly from the crash,
and Fr. could not recall the words of exorcism. So he conditionally baptized
the poor man, just in case.
If he were to do that today in Germany, they might send him to prison for being
anti-Semitic, or "inciting racial unrest." Not being funny here.
But as for "being done properly," yes, it is important. Form, Matter and Intention
is important.
Form - the words, "I baptize thee (or you, and include the chosen name, if known)
in the name of the Father (while water runs over the forehead skin), and of the
Son (water moving on skin), and of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit, while water
moves over the skin on recipient's forehead).
Matter - The matter in this case is the water being poured. It must clean, natural
water - does not have to be holy water, but it's okay to use holy water. It should
not be foul or putrid water, or fruit juice or beer or champagne or saliva or
whatever. What if there is no water to be found? Well, then, tell me if I'm wrong,
but if there were ever a case for Baptism of Blood, if the person baptizing were
to cut himself and let some of his own blood flow over the forehead of the
person he baptizes so, there not being any water to be found, certainly that would
suffice, would it not? Correct me if I'm wrong!
Intention - as explained
above by Nishant in post #7, so long as the minister,
or that is, the person saying the words AND pouring the water, intends to do
what the Church does, the sacrament is valid. So if you were lying on the
ground in the countryside of India dying, and instead of a priest walking by,
you have a Hindu vagabond stop to see if you need help, you could ask him
to pour water on your forehead and say these words... If he complies, and
does what you say, then even if he were to kill you next, and rob your corpse
of all its remaining value like gold teeth, for example, it would be a valid
baptism, for he followed your instruction, even though his INTENTION was to
do you ultimate evil. He did what the Church does in baptizing, by saying the
words and pouring the water.
Now, with that being said, given that a Protestant/Novus Ordo Baptism is done in the name of the Trinity... [do] they receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit even though the exorcism is not performed[?]
If they say, "I baptize you in the name of the Trinity. Amen," that is not valid.
If they say, "I baptize you, Lawrence, in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit," that IS valid, so long as the person saying it is putting
on water in sufficient amount to RUN OVER THE FOREHEAD SKIN as he says the
words. But the recipient does not receive the Gifts of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)
really, whether exorcism is performed or not. That happens at Confirmation.
There are 7 gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are received in their fullness at
Confirmation: Wisdom, Understanding, Fortitude, Knowledge, Temperance,
Piety and Fear of the Lord. You get hints of those in Baptism, but not the full
deal. Think of it as smelling the cooking compared to having dinner's main
course. Baptism is sort of like one little taste of one appetizer. It piques your
interest.
At baptism, he receives the graces of remission of original sin, remission of all
his past sins, and remission of all his temporal punishment due to his past sins.
If he dies then, like the Jew in the above story, he goes straight to heaven.
Thus the words of Our Lord to St. Dismas on the cross are known.
There is no temporal punishment due to original sin, as in Purgatory. Our
everyday existence in our fallen nature is sufficient temporal punishment for
original sin.
Also, what is the earliest record that you (SSPX) have stating that the exorcism must be done in order for the Baptism to be valid?
Sorry, I have no idea where that question is coming from. It makes no sense.
Finally,
No, we should not assume that a Baptism that has already taken place was valid or not. We should rely on witnesses and docuмentation to prove that it was done properly. Without those things a conditional Baptism would be necessary.
I have known one case where two children were baptized on the same day
by the same Modernist wacko Novordien priest, a big fan of Thomas Merton,
and two stories happened later. One of the children was conditionally re-baptized
by her father soon after he discovered the teaching of the Church on intention,
and the other child was not conditionally re-baptized.
The first remains a faithful Catholic to this day, and the second has abandoned
all religion, with utter contempt for the subject, and makes friends with atheists,
pagans, and white witchcraft practitioners.
So, you tell me if intention has nothing to do with the facts. The Church
docuмents are all in order, and both Certificates of Baptism were accepted
by the SSPX, and both children were confirmed (not on the same day) by
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. One is truly Catholic and the other is apostate.
So it seems to me that "witnesses and docuмentation" are helpful, but if one
has subjective doubt, and is sincere, and highly desires to have himself
conditionally re-baptized before receiving Holy Communion or Confirmation,
I don't think that his desire should be ignored. Perhaps giving him some kind
of schedule of works to perform first might be appropriate. But if he does
the works and continues to ask for conditional re-baptism, he should be
accommodated IMHO. For what is to prevent him from seeking the help of a
friend to "conditionally re-baptize" him? What would the consequence of that
be for the priest or bishop or Pope who refused to help him?
Salus animarum lex suprema ecclesia est. 
Topic: Protestant Baptism (Read 2888 times)