The Traditional Rite of Baptism – Marvellous

The Traditional Rite of Baptism – Marvellous

From YouTube Platform…

Introduction…

Father Alexander Wiseman, professor at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary [looks] at the Traditional Rite of Baptism. As you’ll see, it is so much more than simply pouring water, and saying a few words of the formula. The Church has filled the ritual with exorcisms, symbolism, and graces for the benefit of the new Christian being Baptized. We’d like to say a special thank you to those who graciously shared pictures of their children’s and grandchildren’s Baptisms for use in this episode. It helped to make Fr. Wiseman’s descriptions even more clear.

Selected comments…

Modernists have removed the exorcisms in the rite of Baptism for a specific reason.
It’s not hard to connect the dots 😉

Thank you for these wonderful instructions. I am a convert to Catholicism 37 years ago and am learning so much.

Father, don’t worry about being too elementary. Many of us were raised on the Novus Ordo and are only recently attending the TLM. We are literally understanding our Faith for the first time.

Wonderful and clear instruction regarding baptism. Thank you.

Questions & Answers…

Can someone clarify – I’ve been told one should go to Confession before receiving the Holy Eucharist for the first time, but would that still be necessary since you’re being baptized before receiving any other Sacrament?

Reply:  SSPX – English

If receive a valid baptism, all of your sins are forgiven. If your communion is shortly afterward, you should not go to confession. Nor should you confess sins committed before baptism subsequently. That would effectively be to place the efficacy of baptism (and so of Christ’s passion) in doubt. If however you sin after baptism, but before communion, you may go (if they were venial sins) although it is not necessary, and you must go (if you fell into mortal sin).    In Christ, Fr. P. Franks

What happens to baptised Catholics who later renounce the Faith, would they still carry “the mark” of the Faith ?

Reply:  SSPX – English

Yes, they retain the baptismal character. The soul will be marked with it in Heaven or in Hell. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains: “The second effect of the Sacraments — which, however, is not common to all, but peculiar to three, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders — is the character which they impress on the soul… This character is, as it were, a distinctive impression stamped on the soul which perpetually inheres and cannot be blotted out. Of this St. Augustine says: Shall the Christian Sacraments accomplish less than the bodily mark impressed on the soldier? That mark is not stamped on his person anew as often as he resumes the military service which he had relinquished, but the old is recognized and approved.” “…Since on account of the nature and efficacy of this character it has been defined by the Church that this Sacrament is on no account to be reiterated, pastors should frequently and diligently admonish the faithful on this subject, lest at any time they may be led into error. This doctrine is taught by the Apostle when he says: One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 
Again, when exhorting the Romans that being dead in Christ by Baptism they should take care not to lose the life which they had received from Him, he says: In that Christ died unto sin, he died once. These words seem clearly to signify that as Christ cannot die again, neither can we die again by Baptism. Hence the holy Church also openly professes that she believes one Baptism. That this agrees with the nature of the thing and with reason is understood from the very idea of Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration. As then, by virtue of the laws of nature, we are generated and born but once, and, as St. Augustine observes, there is no returning to the womb; so, in like manner, there is but one spiritual generation, and Baptism is never at any time to be repeated.”
In Conditional Baptism The Sacrament Is Not Repeated Nor let anyone suppose that it is repeated by the Church when she baptizes anyone whose previous Baptism was doubtful, making use of this formula: If thou art baptized, I baptize thee not again but if thou art not yet baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In such cases Baptism is not to be considered as impiously repeated, but as holily, yet conditionally, administered. In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the Sacrament, abuses are of almost daily occurrence, and which therefore demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism. Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously baptized, but proceed immediately to baptize the child. Nay more, although they be well aware that the Sacrament was administered at home, they do not hesitate to repeat its administration in the Church conditionally, making use of the solemn ceremonies of the Church. This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring what theologians call an irregularity. According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.”  Ends.


Editor writes…

There have been reports of people rejecting the Faith, “handing in” their Baptismal Certificate to the diocese – here’s one report of Catholics seeking to be “de-baptised”… Just when you think you’ve heard it all…

Share your thoughts on the issues raised in the above video and comments, and if you’ve attended a Baptism in the traditional rite, what did you think?  I’m always deeply touched by its beauty, but, again, maybe you disagree, preferring the exorcism-free modernist form of the Sacrament?  Norra a joke, to quote Joe Biden. After all, if you recall, some years ago we reported on the elderly woman attending a public rosary in Glasgow (to mark the Feast of our martyr, St John Ogilvie, ironically) who disapproved of Our Lady showing the three Fatima child-seers the vision of Hell.  Shouldn’t have terrified them in that way, this woman opined, so goodness knows what she’d think of so many mentions of the Devil in the presence of a baby!  Who knows, she might decide to hand back her Baptismal Certificate, since she would certainly have been baptised in the traditional rite.

Comments (12)

  • westminsterfly

    I was originally ‘christened’ as a baby in the Anglican church in 1961. 24 years later I was received into the Catholic Church. My spiritual director and confessor at that time (an old school Jesuit RIP) was concerned how the C of E was increasingly progressive even back in the 1960’s and he entertained doubts as to whether the baptism was validly performed. There was no way of making enquiries, because the Anglican vicar had long since died. I think my spiritual director consulted a bishop and I was conditionally baptised in the presence of a witness. I never felt there was anything wrong in that. I understood perfectly well that I could only be baptised once, and understood that the conditional baptism was in case of some defect in the original baptism.
    I have been to a few new rite Catholic baptisms (grim) and more recently have attended a traditional baptism and the difference is most striking. Particularly the emphasis on exorcism and removal of original sin and being made a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. The new rite seems to be all about becoming a member of the ‘community’ and giving the baby a name.

    January 22, 2022 at 3:46 pm
    • westminsterfly

      PS I meant to say that some baptisms performed in the Catholic Church are invalid now. I’ve read of ‘gender inclusive’ baptisms that won’t use the words ‘Father’ and ‘Son’. I can’t remember the exact words used but it was something like ‘I baptise you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Spirit of Love’ or words to that effect. Whatever the exact words, such a formula would be invalid.

      January 22, 2022 at 4:51 pm
      • editor

        WF,

        Yes, I’ve read about those ridiculous non-baptisms. Crazy people.

        January 22, 2022 at 5:05 pm
  • Faith of Our Fathers

    I attended a Baptism in The Traditional Rite when a Child was Baptized before our T.L.Mass the Difference was of course for all to see.
    I read the Piece of the so called Catholics wanting their Baptisms cancelled. It looks to me really as if they just want to hand their Souls to Satan. Also regarding Abuses Sexual or otherwise there are more much more Abuses, we know in other Faiths and Institutions than our own. Of course one abuse by one Priest is 1 to many. But I personally believe that Many Good Holy Priests were wrongly accused.

    As for some of the ones wanting their Baptisms cancelled. I think the quote from the Young Women about Our Catholic Faith not Embracing Sodomy said it really all for Her.
    Am no theologian but She obviously supports or takes part in a Sin that Cries out To The Heavens for Vengeance. Rather Her than Me at Judgement Day.

    January 22, 2022 at 4:12 pm
    • editor

      FOOF,

      I have no doubt that there have been unjust allegations made against some priests. It’s all a terrible chapter in the history of the Church.

      January 22, 2022 at 8:53 pm
  • RCAVictor

    The exorcisms were also removed from the Blessing of Holy Water, making Novus Ordo “holy water” a liquid full of good intentions and nothing more. The Rite of Exorcism itself, if I remember correctly, was drastically revised so as to remove commands against Satan to depart, replacing them with polite requests to leave! There were several very interesting analyses of this new rite published years ago, one of them by the former head of Human Life International, Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer.

    https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/the-new-rite-of-exorcism-a-potent-weapon-is-weakened/

    (NOTE: Fr. Euteneuer stepped down from HLI after sexual allegations had been filed against him. He was an exorcist.) (NOTE #2: I am not endorsing the New Oxford Review by posting this link.)

    The pattern and source of this subversive behavior is clear, for those who have eyes to see, but I’ll spell it out anyway: the human levers of power in the Church have been taken over by Satanists.

    January 22, 2022 at 5:22 pm
    • editor

      RCA Victor,

      I remember laughing (couldn’t help it) after reading (a) that the new rite of exorcism had replaced commands to Satan with polite requests to sling his hook, and (b) that Pope John Paul II tried and failed (more than once) to exorcise someone in St Peter’s Square.

      When, I wonder, will be penny drop?

      I met Fr Euteneuer when I visited the USA some years ago. Sad and disappointed when the news broke about the allegations and his “stepping down” from HLI. He was not an authorised exorcist, if my memory serves me correctly, and those who take on this role without proper authority and preparation can, themselves be diabolically affected.

      January 22, 2022 at 8:49 pm
      • Josephine

        Editor,

        It says in the link posted by RCA Victor that Fr Euteneuer actually was an authorised exorcist in some US dioceses.

        January 22, 2022 at 9:46 pm
    • Josephine

      RCA Victor,

      Gosh, I don’t think many people realise that holy water isn’t actually holy at all – that would come as a shock to many. Yet, how will they find these things out? This blog is about the only place it’s possible to get such information and with the priests keeping the people in the dark about Catholic Truth or bad-mouthing it to those of us who know about it already, the majority will be left thinking they are blessing themselves with holy water when they are not. I shudder to think of the evil being done in the Church today, even by priests, some of whom may not know any better. That, itself, is disgraceful.

      January 22, 2022 at 9:45 pm
      • RCAVictor

        Josephine,

        Father Z did write on this particular issue 10 years ago, in some depth, and I miraculously remembered his article:

        https://wdtprs.com/2012/06/quaeritur-is-water-blessed-with-the-newer-rites-really-holy-water/

        January 22, 2022 at 11:38 pm
  • Josephine

    That is a great presentation on the video from the priest about the traditional form of Baptism. I was very impressed.

    There is nothing of the same solemnity in the new form – sad to say. It’s really just a welcoming ceremony.

    January 22, 2022 at 9:41 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Look at this enormous scandal: https://gloria.tv/post/vuujFuxEwANw2NHmmnzDdq8DC

    February 3, 2022 at 2:07 pm

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: