SSPX

[Gardener]

I am thinking that if the Mormons and JWs don't believe in the Trinity they don't use the Trinitarian form which make them invalid.

I just checked and the Mormons do use the Trinitartian form so I see no reason why it would be invalid????

It's because of their formalized incorrectness on the Trinity, and that they don't intend to do what the Church does but what the Mormons do that it's invalid.

Here's the CDF document on it:

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

On its face, one would fail to see the distinction between the Mormons and any heretic, pagan, or Jew, etc. baptizing. But the distinction is here: intending to do what the Church does.

[Michael Wilson]

The difference between what the Mormon does and a Pagan and a Jew etc. Is that when the Mormon speaks of the "Blessed Trinity" he means "three men"; he has an explicit contrary intention that the Church has, of Baptizing in the name of the triune spiritual God; while a Pagan, Jew etc. Are essentially following the ceremony of the Church without expressing a contrary intention, so the intention of the Church is presumed.

[QuaeriteDominum]

You are all reading way more into what is required for a valid Baptism than what is required according to the Council of Trent.  You have to have the form correct, i.e. - the words. and water  You have to intend to do what the church does, which is simply to confer baptism, which is what the church does. You do not have to believe in the triune God, or have a certain belief in the nature of the Trinity, or in the nature of each of the members of the Trinity, or even the Divinity of Christ.  You just have to intend to baptize, as evidenced by the fact you are doing it, and you have to say the words while pouring the water. Bam  - done.  The church, in this Sacrament, has made it easy to confer to allow for human 'errors' of thought which the church provides correction for in the simplicity of this beautiful sacrament.

[GBoldwater]

You are all reading way more into what is required for a valid Baptism than what is required according to the Council of Trent.  You have to have the form correct, i.e. - the words. and water  You have to intend to do what the church does, which is simply to confer baptism, which is what the church does. You do not have to believe in the triune God, or have a certain belief in the nature of the Trinity, or in the nature of each of the members of the Trinity, or even the Divinity of Christ.  You just have to intend to baptize, as evidenced by the fact you are doing it, and you have to say the words while pouring the water. Bam  - done.  The church, in this Sacrament, has made it easy to confer to allow for human 'errors' of thought which the church provides correction for in the simplicity of this beautiful sacrament.

Let's not worry about Mormons. The Novus Ordo created a new rite in which the rubrics don't insist on water being poured on the head. So, the Novus Ordo baptisms are doubtfully valid in each case unless investigation shows positive evidence it was done correctly.

[St.Justin]

You are all reading way more into what is required for a valid Baptism than what is required according to the Council of Trent.  You have to have the form correct, i.e. - the words. and water  You have to intend to do what the church does, which is simply to confer baptism, which is what the church does. You do not have to believe in the triune God, or have a certain belief in the nature of the Trinity, or in the nature of each of the members of the Trinity, or even the Divinity of Christ.  You just have to intend to baptize, as evidenced by the fact you are doing it, and you have to say the words while pouring the water. Bam  - done.  The church, in this Sacrament, has made it easy to confer to allow for human 'errors' of thought which the church provides correction for in the simplicity of this beautiful sacrament.

Let's not worry about Mormons. The Novus Ordo created a new rite in which the rubrics don't insist on water being poured on the head. So, the Novus Ordo baptisms are doubtfully valid in each case unless investigation shows positive evidence it was done correctly.

approved by the full body of bishops at its November 2004 General Meeting, received the subsequent recognitio of the Holy See, and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.

The Essential Rite of the Sacrament

The bishop, priest, or deacon either pours water three times on the person's head or immerses the candidate in water three times. In the Latin
Church, he accompanies the act with the words, "[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The
celebrant matches each pouring or immersion with the invocation of each of the Divine Persons. The ritual of immersion or washing helps
us understand that our sins are buried and washed away as we die with Jesus, and we are filled with divine light and life as we rise from immersion in
the water or are cleansed by the pouring.

[GBoldwater]

You are all reading way more into what is required for a valid Baptism than what is required according to the Council of Trent.  You have to have the form correct, i.e. - the words. and water  You have to intend to do what the church does, which is simply to confer baptism, which is what the church does. You do not have to believe in the triune God, or have a certain belief in the nature of the Trinity, or in the nature of each of the members of the Trinity, or even the Divinity of Christ.  You just have to intend to baptize, as evidenced by the fact you are doing it, and you have to say the words while pouring the water. Bam  - done.  The church, in this Sacrament, has made it easy to confer to allow for human 'errors' of thought which the church provides correction for in the simplicity of this beautiful sacrament.

Let's not worry about Mormons. The Novus Ordo created a new rite in which the rubrics don't insist on water being poured on the head. So, the Novus Ordo baptisms are doubtfully valid in each case unless investigation shows positive evidence it was done correctly.

approved by the full body of bishops at its November 2004 General Meeting, received the subsequent recognitio of the Holy See, and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.

The Essential Rite of the Sacrament

The bishop, priest, or deacon either pours water three times on the person's head or immerses the candidate in water three times. In the Latin
Church, he accompanies the act with the words, "[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The
celebrant matches each pouring or immersion with the invocation of each of the Divine Persons. The ritual of immersion or washing helps
us understand that our sins are buried and washed away as we die with Jesus, and we are filled with divine light and life as we rise from immersion in
the water or are cleansed by the pouring.

Looks a little better than the 1970 version. However, it doesn't ensure the water will flow on the skin of the head when poured on the "head". And, when it comes to "immersion" it says nothing about making sure the water flows on the skin of the head. As well, since this is most of the time performed with infants, did you ever see the difficulty of immersing one? Supporting the head while trying to get it in the water?  The necessity of supporting the head tends to obstruct immersing the head where water could flow on it.

[St.Justin]

I can look it up if you need it but it is not required that the water actually reach the skin. It is referred to not required for validity.

[GBoldwater]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Excommunication/RXEiAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22skin%20of%20the%20head%22

[St.Justin]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Excommunication/RXEiAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22skin%20of%20the%20head%22

It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void.   http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

[GBoldwater]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Excommunication/RXEiAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22skin%20of%20the%20head%22

It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void.   http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The "probably" means it is doubtful,  and the "safer course" means that conditional baptism is needed.

[Exsurge Domine]

Your thoughts?  Discuss.

The SSPX is controlled opposition.

The true mass and sacraments can only be found with the true clergy of the Church, not with those who are part of the Revolution.

[trentcath]

Your thoughts?  Discuss.

The SSPX is controlled opposition.

The true mass and sacraments can only be found with the true clergy of the Church, not with those who are part of the Revolution.

[Heinrich]

Your thoughts?  Discuss.

The SSPX is controlled opposition.

The true mass and sacraments can only be found with the true clergy of the Church, not with those who are part of the Revolution.

Are you able to flesh out the first statement? I know a few years ago when the "sell out" was immanent again that the SSPX had a jew lawyer who has questionable connections. This was about the time of the Williamsongate, Resistance movement, etc. All this tied together within the plan?

[Exsurge Domine]

Your thoughts?  Discuss.

The SSPX is controlled opposition.

The true mass and sacraments can only be found with the true clergy of the Church, not with those who are part of the Revolution.

Are you able to flesh out the first statement? I know a few years ago when the "sell out" was immanent again that the SSPX had a jew lawyer who has questionable connections. This was about the time of the Williamsongate, Resistance movement, etc. All this tied together within the plan?

The Williamsongate, as you put it, was the last instance of any remaining Catholic ethos within the SSPX. Anyone who considers the Vatican II sect to be the Spotless Bride of Christ is part of the Revolution and the Society's actions are plain to anyone willing to see. They're consorting with heretics and make no qualms about it. Praying for notorious heretics like Bergoglio or Ratzinger as if they were popes is spiritually deranged and harmful to souls. Fellay & Co. have always been sell-outs, and weasels in their own right, but this problem comes from way back due to the ambiguous nature of Lefebvre's character who also consorted with heretics. Light cannot coexist with darkness. The Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church and its remaining bishops do not enter into negotiations with heretics, do not receive jurisdiction from heretics and do not recognize heretics as holding any office in the Church.

[Warwick]

Im intrested in the SSPX but there canonical sitiuation is oretty confusing and makes me weary of them.