Author Topic: Are NO baptisms valid?  (Read 914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pelly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
  • Reputation: +118/-0
Are NO baptisms valid?
« on: June 21, 2015, 01:26:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have to ask whether NO baptisms are valid.

    Offline JezusDeKoning

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2749
    • Reputation: +980/-1244
    • Gender: Male
    Are NO baptisms valid?
    « Reply #1 on: June 21, 2015, 02:09:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They use the proper matter, form and intention, so yes. Technically, in danger of death, anyone can baptize if what is there is correct. Those and Holy Matrimony are the two Sacraments that the NO can provide without any doubt.
    Tío Samuel, ven pa 'aca


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4513
    • Reputation: +3875/-348
    • Gender: Male
    Are NO baptisms valid?
    « Reply #2 on: June 21, 2015, 02:17:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the priest uses water, at least pours the water over the subject's forehead, and pronounces the words of the form of the sacrament, (in English, the words) "I baptize you (or he could say the person's name) in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost)," and demonstrated that he has the intention of doing as the Church does, that is, remove original sin and make the person a Christian.

    All of my children were baptized using the Novus Ordo rite.  Each priest used water, poured the water over the child's forehead, and spoke the correct words.  Further, each priest did talk about removing original sin by the baptism.  I have no reason to suspect that the Conciliar priest did not have the intention of doing as the Church does in this sacrament.

    I have discussed this issue with traditional priests and all of them have told me that if I do not have a positive reason to suspect the baptisms to be invalid, then validity must be presumed.

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3483
    • Reputation: +1282/-97
    • Gender: Female
    Are NO baptisms valid?
    « Reply #3 on: June 21, 2015, 04:06:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One can presume?  If you have doubt, baptize them yourself.

    Offline BTNYC

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2426
    • Reputation: +2737/-21
    • Gender: Male
    Are NO baptisms valid?
    « Reply #4 on: June 21, 2015, 04:13:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: songbird
    One can presume?  If you have doubt, baptize them yourself.


    A negative doubt is to be despised. And re-baptism is gravely sacrilegious.

    This is why a mute swan is better than a songbird clucking hen in many instances.

    Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

    - First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy ii:xi-xii


    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6000
    • Reputation: +3302/-194
    • Gender: Female
    Are NO baptisms valid?
    « Reply #5 on: June 21, 2015, 08:20:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: songbird
    One can presume?  If you have doubt, baptize them yourself.


    In the context of TGKS' post presume has a positive meaning.

    presume
    verb
    =  believe, think, suppose, assume, guess (informal, mainly US & Canadian), take it, take for granted, infer, conjecture, postulate, surmise, posit, presuppose •

    It would be wrong to "baptise them yourself" on the grounds that the Baptism was performed by a Novus Ordo priest.

    Offline Donato

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 104
    • Reputation: +64/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Are NO baptisms valid?
    « Reply #6 on: June 22, 2015, 11:50:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    If the priest uses water, at least pours the water over the subject's forehead, and pronounces the words of the form of the sacrament, (in English, the words) "I baptize you (or he could say the person's name) in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost)," and demonstrated that he has the intention of doing as the Church does, that is, remove original sin and make the person a Christian.

    All of my children were baptized using the Novus Ordo rite.  Each priest used water, poured the water over the child's forehead, and spoke the correct words.  Further, each priest did talk about removing original sin by the baptism.  I have no reason to suspect that the Conciliar priest did not have the intention of doing as the Church does in this sacrament.

    I have discussed this issue with traditional priests and all of them have told me that if I do not have a positive reason to suspect the baptisms to be invalid, then validity must be presumed.



    TKGS: I will guess you perhaps have or had the concern of your children being baptized into a false church (which we both know the Novus Ordo/V2 church is). We have to remember what the Church teaches, that even a protestant couple (lets say a baptist couple) who baptizes their child- that child, despite being raised Baptist, is still a member of the Catholic Church until the age of reason (which only God can determine).

    I'm sure you already knew what I wrote above already, but we also have to deal with the fact that Paul the Sick deprived your children, and myself included (I was baptized October of '74- not sure if you are younger or older than me) of the exorcism prayers, which he personally took away from the Novus Ordo baptismal rite. That doesn't invalidate the sacrament, but it deprives an innocent newborn a certain protection from the devil, who is more than content in attacking even the young. This supplementary prayer was not totally necessary, but I believe it was a gift given to Leo XIII from the Holy Ghost especially after his horrid vision of Satan telling our Lord he would destroy the Church.

    I was considering since becoming a Traditionalist 3 years ago, the possibility of having a conditional baptism. I'm going to get confirmed over again, thats for sure, and I absolutely believe my baptism was 100 percent valid. I simply wanted the exorcism prayers.....but it would be a true sacrilege to do this, and I have correctly decided not to do this anymore.

    I just recently purchased "The Problems with the Other Sacraments apart from the New Mass" by Rama Coomaraswarmy......will be interesting to see what problems he spoke of regarding the new rite of Baptism.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16