Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon  (Read 1931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 31202
  • Reputation: +27119/-495
  • Gender: Male
Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
« on: April 26, 2019, 12:39:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Holy Thursday
     April 18, 2019

    Dear Rev. Prior, Priests, Brothers and religious…
     My dear Brethren,

    As Catholics, we believe that there are four marks in the Catholic Church: One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic. Needless to say that Catholic Church has the power to produce Saints. This is the mark of sanctity. Absolutely God sends his grace from above as source of holiness. For that purpose Our Lord Jesus Christ has instituted seven sacraments in order to be a common way of sanctification, prefigured under the Mosaic Law and accomplished under the Law of the Gospel by the true and unique Messiah – our Lord Jesus Christ
     A sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ in order to give grace, which we need for the eternal salvation of our soul. Taking human nature into account, Our Lord linked an invisible grace, for example to be child of God by adoption, to visible a sign - like water - when is used for Baptism. In other words, man stands in need of perceptible outward signs so that can realize and communicate spiritual realities. In a way, sacraments are symbols, however they signify what they perform.
    Catholic Tradition has transmitted that there are three essential elements in a sacrament: matter, form and intention. Certainly, there is an immemorial use of OIL in the administration of some sacraments. For instance, it is essential to use holy Chrism (a mix between Olive Oil and balsam) in the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning the administration of sacraments in preserving their substance, Traditional teaching including the common teaching of the Church and theologians, have transmitted those matter, form and intention, and have religiously expressed them in prayers and gestures by the Roman Ritual or Eastern Liturgical Rites.  Indeed, after SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL THESE RITES WERE MODIFIED. Why?
    Here are some dates of modification:
    1968 a new rite of priestly Ordination
    1969 a New Mass
    1969 a new rite of Baptism
    1969 a new rite of Matrimony
    1971 a new rite of Confirmation
    1972 a new rite of Extreme Unction
    1973 a new rite of penance
    1988 a new rite of exorcism, etc..

     So, in 1970 there was installed a new matter for the holy Oils, not only enforcing a different kind of oil but also granting the fact of blessed oils instead of consecrating them.
    The new Rites - in general - do relativize the essential intention in administering Sacraments because undermine the truths of Catholic Faith. For instance, OLIVE OIL from Apostolic times was considered as the proper unique matter. The Ritual for the consecration of holy Oils, which we are going to use in few minutes, expresses during the preface that the olive oil was chosen among other trees for the signification of tree of peace and light – arbor pacis et lucis. It says that Noah had received some leaves of Olive tree, as signal of peace from God after the Deluge; also how Our Lord - praying in the Garden of Olives - willed to sanctify those olive trees in order to sanctify us when we offer ourselves to God, in particular when a person gives oneself to God in priestly or in religious life. In fact, for purpose of validity in administering the Sacrament of Confirmation the holy Chrism is essentially needed to be from olive oil mixed with balsam.
    Otherwise, on December 3, 1970 the Congregation of Rites authorized the use of other vegetable oils in the administration of Sacraments, approved by Pope Paul VI. In addition, in canon 847 the new Canon Law (1983) reads: “In administering the sacraments in which holy oils must be used, the minister must use pressed olives OR OTHER PLANTS….. consecrated or BLESSED by a bishop.”
    Nevertheless, the Congregation of Rites gave no reason to justify that something that has always been understood as INVALID (other kind of oil), later had suddenly considered to be VALID and enforceable. If Catholic Tradition has always refused to change the essential elements of the sacraments, it is because Jesus Christ has instituted them.
    After Vatican II, very many priests had been erroneously indoctrinated through their preparatory years of formation so that they could deliberately be weak in learning Tradition, and strong in modernism. Their Novus Ordo modified ways in considering the sacraments, not only affect the priests’ believing but also the faithful’s beliefs in presiding community celebrations or interacting in social functions. Due to constant defects and excesses, the new Rites of sacraments are projecting a different way of believing. 
    That is the reason why Archbishop Lefebvre wisely RESISTED these innovations in order to preserve our Faith and the grace of God, so that the four marks of the Church could be preserved but in particular that one of Sanctity, for the Greater glory of God and the eternal salvation of many souls.
    Let’s thank to Our Lord, during this ceremony, for the institution of the sacraments on Holy Thursday - the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders because He also wanted to consecrate the ministers of the sacraments. That’s why He consecrated the first bishops in order to preach the Gospel throughout the world with its Traditions. We therefore should pray for the fidelity of Traditional bishops, in spite that some of them want to play the betrayal role of Judas Iscariot.
    In concluding, more than ever let’s thank to Notre Dame de Paris for having sent the French Prelate, Archbishop Lefebvre, to preserve our Catholic Episcopacy, and Catholic priesthood, in using the Traditional Rite of Sacraments, particularly that one of consecration of Holy Oils for their validity. As the statue of Notre Dame remained safe after and in spite of last Monday burning fire, the Archbishop’s stands for Tradition shall remain safe in spite of the burning fire of Vatican II destructive innovations.  
    Therefore, let’s once again thank to Notre Dame of Paris for remaining at the traditional main Altar in the Cathedral after last Monday burning fire, either way if it was provoked by accident or by incident, God knows. But what we really know is that in spite of such fire and smoke, Our Lady wanted to remain at the foot of her beloved Son’s cross, enhanced by Royal Crowns in Paris, as A TESTIMONY that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Mystical Body of Christ. Catholic Church will not be destroyed, and Notre Dame of Paris Cathedral shall be restored. Absolutely, the Mother of God encourages us to keep the Deposit of the Faith transmitting the mystery of the Redemption, in spite of Vatican II diabolical confusion. The cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ is always prevailing because He is True God, True Man and True King!!!

    In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, AMEN
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #1 on: April 26, 2019, 01:26:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This reminds me. I received all my Sacraments in the NO. Are they all(bar, presumably Baptism) invalid?


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31202
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #2 on: April 26, 2019, 01:30:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This reminds me. I received all my Sacraments in the NO. Are they all(bar, presumably Baptism) invalid?

    I'd talk to your local Trad priest about it.
    I will say that they are not all equally doubtful. There are degrees of doubt.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #3 on: April 26, 2019, 01:32:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The use of vegetable oil for Extreme Unction (or its diluted counterpart, "Anointing of the Sick" in the conciliar religion) would almost certainly be invalidating.

    In fact, I feel guilty adding in the "almost."

    St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the sacrament was instituted by Christ Himself, and that oil properly speaking is olive oil (i.e., Everything else we call oil is so-called merely for its likeness to [olive] oil, but is not truly "oil").

    It would be analogous to attempting to confect the Eucharist with Sake (i.e., Japanese rice "wine"): Rice "wine" is not really any wine at all (wine is exclusively derived from the grape), but is merely called "wine" because of its likeness to it.

    Here is St. Thomas (Be sure to read at least article 3-4):

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5029.htm#article3


    Article 4. Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?

    Objection 1. It would seem that olive oil is not a suitable matter for this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained immediately to the state of incorruption. Now incorruption is signified by balsam which is contained in chrism. Therefore chrism would be a more suitable matter for this sacrament.

    Objection 2. Further, this sacrament is a spiritual healing. Now spiritual healing is signified by the use of wine, as may be gathered from the parable of the wounded man (Luke 10:34). Therefore wine also would be more suitable a matter for this sacrament.

    Objection 3. [Conciliar/Paul VI argument] Further, where there is the greater danger, the remedy should be a common one. But olive oil is not a common remedy, since the olive is not found in every country. Therefore, since this sacrament is given to the dying, who are in the greatest danger, it seems that olive oil is not a suitable matter.

    On the contrary, oil is appointed (James 5:14) as the matter of this sacrament. Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore this is the matter of this sacrament.

    Further, spiritual healing is signified by anointing with oil, as is evident from Isaiah 1:6 where we read: ". . . swelling sores: they are not . . . dressed nor fomented with oil." Therefore the suitable matter for this sacrament is oil.

    I answer that, The spiritual healing, which is given at the end of life, ought to be complete, since there is no other to follow; it ought also to be gentle, lest hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need, be shattered rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening effect, it penetrates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence, in both the foregoing respects, it is a suitable matter for this sacrament. And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid extract of olives, for other liquids are only called oil from their likeness to it, it follows that olive oil is the matter which should be employed in this sacrament.

    Reply to Objection 1. The incorruption of glory is something not contained in this sacrament: and there is no need for the matter to signify such a thing. Hence it is not necessary for balsam to be included in the matter of this sacrament, because on account of its fragrance it is indicative of a good name, which is no longer necessary, for its own sake, to those who are dying; they need only a clear conscience which is signified by oil.

    Reply to Objection 2. Wine heals by its roughness, oil by its softness, wherefore healing with wine pertains to Penance rather than to this sacrament.

    Reply to [conciliar/Paul VI argument] Objection 3. Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet it can easily be transported from one place to another. Moreover this sacrament is not so necessary that the dying cannot obtain salvation without it."


    Compare the parts in red above with the revised matter, per Paul VI on November 5, 1972:

    "All these elements had to be taken into consideration in revising the rite of Sacred Anointing, in order better to adapt to present-day conditions those elements which were subject to change.[12]

    We thought fit to modify the sacramental formula in such a way that, in view of the words of Saint James, the effects of the sacrament might be better expressed.

    Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture."
    https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6ANOIN.HTM

    PS: They also changed the form of the sacrament.

    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +241/-106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #4 on: April 26, 2019, 01:33:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This reminds me. I received all my Sacraments in the NO. Are they all(bar, presumably Baptism) invalid?
    I definitely want to be conditionally Confirmed.
    Hopefully I was validly baptized! Lol


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #5 on: April 26, 2019, 01:54:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The use of vegetable oil for Extreme Unction (or its diluted counterpart, "Anointing of the Sick" in the conciliar religion) would almost certainly be invalidating.

    In fact, I feel guilty adding in the "almost."

    St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the sacrament was instituted by Christ Himself, and that oil properly speaking is olive oil (i.e., Everything else we call oil is so-called merely for its likeness to [olive] oil, but is not truly "oil").

    It would be analogous to attempting to confect the Eucharist with Sake (i.e., Japanese rice "wine"): Rice "wine" is not really any wine at all (wine is exclusively derived from the grape), but is merely called "wine" because of its likeness to it.

    Here is St. Thomas (Be sure to read at least article 3-4):

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5029.htm#article3


    Article 4. Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?

    Objection 1. It would seem that olive oil is not a suitable matter for this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained immediately to the state of incorruption. Now incorruption is signified by balsam which is contained in chrism. Therefore chrism would be a more suitable matter for this sacrament.

    Objection 2. Further, this sacrament is a spiritual healing. Now spiritual healing is signified by the use of wine, as may be gathered from the parable of the wounded man (Luke 10:34). Therefore wine also would be more suitable a matter for this sacrament.

    Objection 3. [Conciliar/Paul VI argument] Further, where there is the greater danger, the remedy should be a common one. But olive oil is not a common remedy, since the olive is not found in every country. Therefore, since this sacrament is given to the dying, who are in the greatest danger, it seems that olive oil is not a suitable matter.

    On the contrary, oil is appointed (James 5:14) as the matter of this sacrament. Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore this is the matter of this sacrament.

    Further, spiritual healing is signified by anointing with oil, as is evident from Isaiah 1:6 where we read: ". . . swelling sores: they are not . . . dressed nor fomented with oil." Therefore the suitable matter for this sacrament is oil.

    I answer that, The spiritual healing, which is given at the end of life, ought to be complete, since there is no other to follow; it ought also to be gentle, lest hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need, be shattered rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening effect, it penetrates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence, in both the foregoing respects, it is a suitable matter for this sacrament. And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid extract of olives, for other liquids are only called oil from their likeness to it, it follows that olive oil is the matter which should be employed in this sacrament.

    Reply to Objection 1. The incorruption of glory is something not contained in this sacrament: and there is no need for the matter to signify such a thing. Hence it is not necessary for balsam to be included in the matter of this sacrament, because on account of its fragrance it is indicative of a good name, which is no longer necessary, for its own sake, to those who are dying; they need only a clear conscience which is signified by oil.

    Reply to Objection 2. Wine heals by its roughness, oil by its softness, wherefore healing with wine pertains to Penance rather than to this sacrament.

    Reply to [conciliar/Paul VI argument] Objection 3. Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet it can easily be transported from one place to another. Moreover this sacrament is not so necessary that the dying cannot obtain salvation without it."


    Paul VI saying the opposite in his promulgation of November 5, 1972:

    "Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture."
    https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6ANOIN.HTM

    PS: They also changed the form of the sacrament.

    Paul VI vs St. Thomas Aquinas (above): Who do you think knew better?

    [NB: Grammatical and syntax errors from the previous post are corrected in the quote above in this post; the edit window closed before I could correct the previous post.]

    Offline pnw1994

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 61
    • Reputation: +112/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #6 on: April 26, 2019, 02:04:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I definitely want to be conditionally Confirmed.
    Hopefully I was validly baptized! Lol
    I'd say the risk of having been invalidly baptized in the NO is pretty low...but I could be wrong. In fact I've never known the society to conditionally baptize anyone who had been baptized in the NO.
    God cannot leave a soul to swim
    That has not first abandoned Him.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31202
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #7 on: April 26, 2019, 02:09:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'd say the risk of having been invalidly baptized in the NO is pretty low...but I could be wrong. In fact I've never known the society to conditionally baptize anyone who had been baptized in the NO.

    Yes, when you consider what it takes to make a valid Baptism, I'd say every Novus Ordo Baptism is valid:

    1. Water must be used, holy water preferred (doubtful or invalid: any other liquid)
    2. Anyone can perform the ceremony validly, even a layman (even a Freemason, as long as he intends to "do what the Church does".)
    3. While pouring the water over the person's head (water must contact the skin), the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
    (Invalid: "I baptize you in the name of the Trinity", "Welcome to the club/team/Church!")

    Holy Spirit works just as well, being an equally accurate translation of "Spiritus Sancti".

    So what, exactly, would Novus priests be doing wrong to make the Sacrament invalid?
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +249/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #8 on: April 26, 2019, 03:35:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Where did he say the Chrismal Mass?
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2133
    • Reputation: +1330/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #9 on: April 27, 2019, 03:43:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Where did he say the Chrismal Mass?
    At the SAJM seminary/the Dominican's chapel.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1889
    • Reputation: +500/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #10 on: April 27, 2019, 09:59:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, when you consider what it takes to make a valid Baptism, I'd say every Novus Ordo Baptism is valid:

    1. Water must be used, holy water preferred (doubtful or invalid: any other liquid)
    2. Anyone can perform the ceremony validly, even a layman (even a Freemason, as long as he intends to "do what the Church does".)
    3. While pouring the water over the person's head (water must contact the skin), the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
    (Invalid: "I baptize you in the name of the Trinity", "Welcome to the club/team/Church!")

    Holy Spirit works just as well, being an equally accurate translation of "Spiritus Sancti".

    So what, exactly, would Novus priests be doing wrong to make the Sacrament invalid?
    How in your mind would this apply to Baptist baptisms?

    I assume point #3 wouldn't make an immersion baptism invalid, though maybe I'm wrong about that.  But my question more relates to #2.  Is a baptism performed by a minister who believes its just a symbol "intending to do what the Church does?"  Why or why not?


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #11 on: April 27, 2019, 11:03:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How in your mind would this apply to Baptist baptisms?

    I assume point #3 wouldn't make an immersion baptism invalid, though maybe I'm wrong about that.  But my question more relates to #2.  Is a baptism performed by a minister who believes its just a symbol "intending to do what the Church does?"  Why or why not?
    Someone does not need to know (or even believe) all the theology behind a sacrament to "do what the church does". The intent to "do what the church does" is manifested by doing the rite correctly. 
    For baptism, the form is spelled out in Scripture, so many mainline Protestants do that correctly. Some denominations may not follow or not always follow the specified form sufficiently.
    The water signifies cleansing. The Roman rite uses pouring, so it emphasizes that the water needs to flow. But in an immersion baptism, the signification of cleaning is rather difficult to avoid.

    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +241/-106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #12 on: April 27, 2019, 11:15:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, when you consider what it takes to make a valid Baptism, I'd say every Novus Ordo Baptism is valid:

    1. Water must be used, holy water preferred (doubtful or invalid: any other liquid)
    2. Anyone can perform the ceremony validly, even a layman (even a Freemason, as long as he intends to "do what the Church does".)
    3. While pouring the water over the person's head (water must contact the skin), the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
    (Invalid: "I baptize you in the name of the Trinity", "Welcome to the club/team/Church!")

    Holy Spirit works just as well, being an equally accurate translation of "Spiritus Sancti".

    So what, exactly, would Novus priests be doing wrong to make the Sacrament invalid?
    I would only question their intention. Granted, I’m very scrupulous, so I have doubts about EVERYTHING.
    I was doing some research on Sacramental intention. What I found was that the minister does not have to “intend to do what the Church intends”, they only have to “intend to do what the Church does”.
    Is this correct?

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #13 on: April 28, 2019, 08:17:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would only question their intention. Granted, I’m very scrupulous, so I have doubts about EVERYTHING.
    I was doing some research on Sacramental intention. What I found was that the minister does not have to “intend to do what the Church intends”, they only have to “intend to do what the Church does”.
    Is this correct?
    This is mostly correct, but the baptiser must intend to baptise them in the name of the Christian God. I don't say triune because actually certain non-Trinitarian baptisms such as Arian ones were regarded as valid, so they can misunderstand or belief falsely about God, but these beliefs must emerge out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. This may sound redundant, since people who don't believe even in a heretical version of the Christian God wouldn't say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", right? But actually it applies to some "Christian" denominations such as Mormons, who do say those exact words, but whose beliefs about God are so divergent and defy so many basic Christian beliefs that it cannot be seen as a mere misunderstanding of God's nature, but as a different religion entirely. Whereas Arians and co. hold heretical beliefs about God, those can be seen as misunderstandings, but the Mormons actually believe in different God(s) entirely, they just call them by the same names. So Mormon baptisms are invalid, despite giving the proper form. See the following link:

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

    Quote
    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.

    ...

    There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity ... God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, ... has a wife ...

    As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

    Following on from this logic, any Trinitarian Protestant following the proper form baptises validly. Even some non-Trinitarian baptisms may be valid if they happen to follow the form correctly. But the intent must be to baptise in some understanding of the Christian God. If you just happen to use the right form and invoke the Trinity, but in your head you're imagining some polytheistic pantheon when you say those words, it's not a valid baptism.

    So in short, you must have some basic intent to do what the Church intends, not merely what it does, but any Trinitarian Protestant meets this bar easily. Certain non-Trinitarian Protestant baptisms are considered doubtful(e.g Mennonites), and then Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are invalid. See here: https://www.catholicjhb.org.za/valid-invalid-baptism-roman-catholic-guide-2017/

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1889
    • Reputation: +500/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas - Chrism Mass 2019 Sermon
    « Reply #14 on: July 15, 2020, 05:47:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Someone does not need to know (or even believe) all the theology behind a sacrament to "do what the church does". The intent to "do what the church does" is manifested by doing the rite correctly.
    For baptism, the form is spelled out in Scripture, so many mainline Protestants do that correctly. Some denominations may not follow or not always follow the specified form sufficiently.
    The water signifies cleansing. The Roman rite uses pouring, so it emphasizes that the water needs to flow. But in an immersion baptism, the signification of cleaning is rather difficult to avoid.
    was rereading this thread and recently read a certain article on 1P5 and another question came to my mind.
    usually in baptist baptisms (at the least all of the ones i’ve ever seen) the “minister” recites the form, and then dunks the person in the water right after he finishes talking.  is that a potential validity issue since technically the minister isn’t administering water “while” reciting the words?
    honestly that seems really silly to me yet that seemed to be what that particular article was implying anyway.
    any thoughts appreciated