The entire time we went to SSPX, we never mentioned we were sedevacantists. We got along just fine. Many people at the chapel were into the SSPX like a brand name, they were very passionate about the organization itself, and assumed we were just like them. We were so thankful that we had a mass to go to, that it wasn't necessary to bring it up.
I have an experience that might be of help in this.
I was helping out in a choir at another chapel, and we had some
meetings for learning music techniques and Chant notation and
such things, along with some rehearsals and social time. During
this three weeks, there was one man in my section that seemed
to evoke an air of discomfort, as though he felt out of place, and
I didn't know how to think about that: was I saying things to make
him feel that way or did he have some serious personal problem?
Long story short, I spoke to him about religion in general and he
said some things that made me wonder about his faith, so I asked
him, "Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Christ is God?"
And he reluctantly admitted that he did not. Well, at least he was
honest enough to say so. He was the son of one of the other choir
members, who had encouraged him to come, in hopes that he
would find reason to return to the Church. Instead, once he had
voiced his lack of faith to me, he became scarce, and the next
time the group met, he was no longer present.
The point is, when you hold a difference of faith from what the
group does, not infrequently it eventually emerges, and when it
does, it often causes a physical separation to occur.
If you don't have a way of confirming that your baptism was not done by a nutty priest who may have deviated from proper form, then I would feel much more comfortable with a conditional baptism. And I strongly encourage conditional confirmation.
In my experience, it is a more positive evidence that the priest
will go by, not a double negative evidence like "...you
don't have
a way of [showing] that your baptism was
not done by..." The
priest in reviewing your situation is going to look for things like,
did the baptizing priest use the proper words, did he pour the
water three times as he said the words (or did someone else
pour the water), etc., rather than "Unless you can prove that the
priest who baptized you wasn't a flaming deviant with no
intention of baptizing you,..." because that's not what a priest
says. That is, baptisms are presumed to be valid UNLESS some
specific and essential element was missing or improper.
Some of the people who go to my chapel have received conditional Confirmations despite being confirmed by the Novus Ordo because I believe there are doubts about that sacrament. But I don't think any have received conditional Baptism because the SSPX doesn't doubt the validity of Novus Ordo Baptisms.
I don't doubt the validity of NovusOrdo baptisms, either, but I
do question Protestant baptisms since I have found out that
it is not uncommon for the 'minister' to have no intention of
doing what the Church does, but rather he is going through
a silly and antiquated ritual that is like a Rotary Club award
ceremony, by which the recipient 'joins the club' which is in
this case called 'A CHURCH', but it is only for the purpose of
being on the roll call at services for attendance figures.
And since NovusOrdo everything is becoming more Protestant,
one has to wonder. I have found NovusOrdo priests who don't
believe in original sin, nor in transubstantiation. They may
think that the sacraments are cute, vestigial remnants of an
old thing that is no more. I knew one who gave a series of
lectures on the Catholic traditions of Ireland in the name of
St. Patrick, and out of 5 class meetings by the time we got into
class number two, all it was from then on was Thomas Merton,
Thomas Merton, Thomas Merton. He then told the
congregation during a sermon that he didn't use the term
"guardian angel" but preferred "guarding angel." It was his
deliberate intention to make Catholics think that he was
giving them the Catholic faith but was actually something else,
under the APPEARANCE or 'trappings' of the Church, which is
a deception, that was a problem with him. He was wont to
do a ceremonial prayer for various events, which is normal
for a Catholic priest, but when this one did it, he did not
begin or end with the sign of the cross. When I asked him
about that he said there were non-Catholics present, that he
didn't want to make them feel uncomfortable.
Maybe he wasn't 'comfortable' with it himself! Would it be
such a stretch for such a man to say that the Eucharist is
'symbolic' or that "the church is what you make of it?"
In other words, "what the Church does" is whatever you darn
well decide that you want it to do?
All in all, I see no problem with a conditional Baptism. What's
the worst that can happen? If the first one was valid, the
second one is of no effect, so what's the damage? If the first
one was INvalid, and you don't bother with the second one,
you're not baptized. I think that's a problem.
It's noteworthy that the NovusOrdo has started doing annual
restatement of the vows of your baptism. They have the
entire congregation doing this, and it was going on 20 years
ago. Now it's "traditional." It makes me think, maybe it's
out of a sense of guilt for knowing that perhaps your baptism
wasn't really a baptism, so taking the vows again, you might
be at least able to prove you have a DESIRE for baptism.
Maybe that's all you really need is the 'desire'! Unless, that
is, the desire for baptism is
necessary but not sufficient. I've known several ladies who had a very sincere desire to
be married, but never had their wedding day. They became
old maids. Their desire for matrimony was necessary but it
was not sufficient.
I knew a man who really wanted to buy a house but did not
make an offer. So he never opened escrow. His desire was
necessary but not sufficient.
Some say these things are all just fine, but when it comes to
baptism, there are "no technicalities" all of a sudden. Of
course, the need for pouring water or saying the proper
words or having the proper intention somehow don't quite
rise to the level of "a technicality."
.
Topic: I might join SSPX around Xmas (Read 2339 times)