Many times I have posted regarding Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as extraordinary means of obtaining both Church membership and salvation at the moment of death. The Feenyites (both sedevacantist and Vatican II sect) are always ready to pounce on any exposition regarding this matter of established Church doctrine which must be believed in order for someone to be a Catholic. Instead, they should be more worried about the revised baptisms produced by the Second Vatican Robber Council and in use since at least 1972. I have always maintained that all the sacraments of the Vatican II sect are invalid except for most baptisms and marriages, since there is no need for a priest to validly confer either sacrament and the basic matter and form remain. I have been doing some research on this subject and I would like to revise my prior statement based on my findings: Some baptisms and marriages may be valid in the Vatican II sect not most.
I've changed my conviction based on some very serious considerations I'd like to share with you. First, I will set out Traditional Church teaching, followed by the revisions made to baptism in the Vatican II sect.
THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON BAPTISM
According to theologian Prummer, baptism is "the sacrament of regeneration through water in words" (quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The effects of baptism by Divine Law are six: 1. The bestowal of the Baptismal character (even if the sacrament is unlawfully administered or received); 2. the remission of all sin; 3. the remission of all punishment; 4. the bestowal of Grace, virtues, and the gifts; 5. the bestowal of sacramental grace; 6. incorporation in the Church. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, 1957; pgs. 252 and 254)
The proper minister for lawful reception is a priest, and for valid reception, any person who has attained the use of reason. The remote matter of the sacrament is pure, natural water. The form of the sacrament, to be employed while the water (proximate matter) is flowing over the face or forehead is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (See Prummer, Ibid, pgs. 252-256). The intention of the minister is to remit Original Sin, infuse Grace, and make the person a member of the Catholic Church.
The sacrament is so necessary to salvation, Christ made it very hard to invalidate it.
VATICAN II AND CHANGES TO BAPTISM
Most Protestant sects acknowledge Baptism as a sacrament, so why all the changes by Vatican II in the rite? The Modernists wanted to bring it in alignment with the new and heretical ecclesiology, whereby one is more or less part of the Church according to "degrees of participation." Hence, the inversion of the primary and secondary effects of the sacrament (the usual ploy of the Modernist heretics), so that Original Sin is hardly mentioned, and emphasis is on "full participation in the Christian community."
According to the Vatican II sect's Christian Initiation, General Introduction, no. 4, 1973, "...baptism is the sacrament by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacramental bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it." Really? "All who have been signed by it"? This would include validly baptized adults in heretical and schismatic sects--welcome to the new ecclesiology.
As theologian Henry Davis teaches, "In conferring the sacraments, (as also in the consecration in Mass), it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology,Sheed and Ward, 1935; 3:27). As previously stated, it is very hard to invalidate the sacrament of baptism, but where there's an evil will, the Modernists find an evil way. Yes, the matter is still water, and yes, the form is the substantially the same (substituting "you" for "thee" and "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Ghost" nevertheless retains the same meaning).
However, there are problems in many cases. With regard to the matter and form, many times the "priest" will
- flick water over the hair so as to preclude contact with the skin
- dip his fingers in the water and touch the forehead, not signifying a true ablution (washing) from sin
- separate the recitation of the form (words) from the water flowing on the recipient (proximate matter), sometimes by a long interval
- change the form to be politically correct (as one "priest" in Boston did by baptizing, "In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.")
It will be protested that these are "abuses" and the integral rite retains the valid matter and form. However, there is a problem with the intention that could be inherent in the rite for those who use it. To begin with, the new rite calls itself, "The Rite of Christian Initiation" (one for adults, another for children). Absent are:
- The exorcisms
- The requirement a saint's name be used
- Godparents' playing an active role
- emphasis on remission of Original sin
But the rite has been changed---it was changed after the principles of the most heretical Protestants when they tampered with the rite of baptism in the 1500s. These baptisms are considered invalid. We must distinguish between false ideas in the intellect, and the intention which is an act of the will. If a baby is dying and the child's mother asks a non-Catholic nurse to baptize him, as long as that nurse intends to perform the baptism as instituted by Christ (in accordance with the mother's wishes with proper matter and form applied), the sacrament is valid. Therefore, personally held views that are heretical and erroneous regarding the sacrament of baptism do not render it invalid, as long as the sect's "priests" think they are repeating and performing the rite established by Christ and doing what the Church does using correct matter and form.
However, in his A Treatise on Baptism, theologian Kendrick writes, "The belief in [baptism's] efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: but may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ Our Lord?" What Kendrick wrote about Protestant baptism in 1852 could easily apply to the Vatican II sect today. The revised rites, all in use since January 6, 1972, have a heretical concept driving them. They are now administered by invalidly ordained "priests" taught heresy in sodomite-filled seminaries where many may think baptism is just an empty rite, even as Original sin means "evil in the world" but is not an actual deprivation of grace. They do NOT intend to seriously administer an institution of Christ, in which case the baptism would be invalid!
My conclusion: some Vatican II baptisms are valid, and some are not--even ones where matter and form are correctly applied. This opens another can of worms: Marriages in the sect between a member validly baptized and one invalidly so. The consequences of the new rite of baptism are staggering.
Few receive the miracle of Baptism of Desire. Thanks to Vatican II and the false "popes," this venue might be the only hope for many of their followers.