Translate

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

I HAVE TO CAPTURE THESE BEFORE THESE ARE REMOVED



Praytell
has an article on the invalid formula for baptisms by certain priests and deacons. You can read it here, but here are some interesting comments that might get deleted soon, so I post them. The 4th one I think is in greatest peril of deletion because it makes so much sense and conveys the truth of Church teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.

However, in the case of these invalid baptisms by certain renegade clerics, I am sure the theology of Baptism of Desire applies to these souls invalidly baptized through no fault of their own.

But here are the comments:

    1. Goes back even further than that. Boston’s Paulist Center’s use of that formula roughly 30 years ago was determined to be invalid. This is old news. It appears to have been forgotten.

  1. In light of Matthew’s Hazell’s comment, I wonder if it would not now be wise to return to conditionally baptizing all protestants who wish to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church. When conditional baptism was dropped as a requirement, one could be morally certain that a Presbyterian’s whose denomination decreed a particular baptismal formula would have been baptized with that formula. Now, I am not so sure. Also if a Catholic minister is now routinely conditional baptizing due to potential defects, perhaps he (or she) would be less likely to stray from the formula.

  2. The other view of the controversy is this: A priest (in this case) decided, on his own and in contravention of church law, to change the clear wording of the formula used to baptize his parishioners.

    It is a commentary on our age that the outrage is directed at the church authority rather than the priest who potentially imperiled the eternal souls of his parishioners by his unnecessary unilateral action.

 

6 comments:

TJM said...

There was an old dunderhead priest in his late 70s who used this formula at the beginning of Mass and even my very liberal old aunt thought it was absolutely ridiculous. The strange thing is this priest had been master of ceremonies back in the late 1950s/early 1960s and was then more Roman than Rome. I guess he was trying to be “hip.”

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

There were many pre-Vatican II priests and religious who underwent a dramatic change in ethos, ideology, discipline and demeanor after Vatican II. I think they simply accepted things prior to Vatican II from obedience and authority and no real conviction on their part or they were in fact rigid and after Vatican II they experimented with their own autonomy and what they believed and maybe even some elements of gnosticism. And many underwent psychological treatment for the pre-Vatican II rigidity which was what the Church asked of them before Vatican II and the Church wanted them after Vatican II to become flexible and pastoral. Sound familiar?

TJM said...

They sound like rebellious children to me. They are "flexible and pastoral" as long as you don't seek sacred tradition

V for Vendee said...

Don’t forget it was the Americans that undermined Vatican II from the start with the preparatory documents. If Our Lady came back today she would be warning the World about the USA spreading its errors and we as a nation swim in our river of blood from the murder of our unborn.

TJM said...

V for Vendee

I think the Americans had little influence. Here's one take as to whom derailed the Council and they are all Europeans:

"At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. Their objective was to gain control of the conciliar drafting commissions. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a suspected Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Liénart’s action deflected the course of the Council and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber)"

Fr Martin Fox said...

It is sadly amusing to see liberals moaning about how rigid the church authorities are being about this. At the National (so called) Catholic Reporter there was an item with a headline along the lines of, "What would Jesus say about this?" implying he doesn't care.

Of course, that line of reasoning doesn't stop there. Maybe he doesn't care about baptism -- at all? Maybe he doesn't care about sacraments -- at all?

And if you protest, oh but I didn't mean that! Then the question becomes acute: when is a sacrament valid? Sorry, you can't avoid this if you seriously think sacraments matter; because if you can't bear to "limit God" this way, then anything can be a sacrament, and that means there are no sacraments to speak of.