Illicit Baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PapaMattK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting post going on here.

I did some research to see what is revelant to this inquiry. It seems there is a widespread deformity of praxis within the Novus Ordo.

I read this post and thought so much (I was thinking of my nephew’s baptism - which I have questions about) that I decided to get a book on the matter. I recommend all who desire to be a good Catholic to obtain the book Praxis Obnoxia: A Moral-Theological Conclusion On The New Modernist Rite of Baptism, which you can obtain at this link:

lulu.com/content/3824207

It seems from what I read that the New Rite was engineered by Annibale Bugnini and so there are innovations in the rubrics that cause a deformity to the point of invalidity. Yes - many new baptisms are considered invalid, and even the CDF is now (after 40 years!) starting to admit this and have declared some baptisms null and void (worthless). With that said, this book shows the other examples where the Novus Ordo baptism is dubious or invalid, and its implications. It’s a good scholarly work with ton’s of quotes from approved sources and uses the scholastic art of logic throughout. In the end, I think this book “Praxis Obnoxia” is a book all should read because we all need a valid and doubtless sacrament of baptism to enter the kingdom of God (Read John 3:5); and someone dubiously baptized cannot receive validly the other sacraments without doubt. So there are many dubious priests and dubious bishops because of the dubious baptism of Vatican II. That’s right - I agree the “Illicit baptism” is so wicked and so widespread that if you study the matter you will see it was Bugnini who created this deformity within the rubrics itself, so all new baptisms of Bugnini-Vatican II are dubious or invalid! And therefore these are also illicit.

Final note: Anyone in the traditional Byzantine Rites should not worry because the complete immersion into water is a sure thing as long as the minister uses the form approved by the Church (at the Council of Florence or through Benedict XIV) to do what the Church does.
 
I disagree with you. As I stated before water is not necessary in case of emergency.
Baptism by desire or baptism by blood are both possibilities, but if possible, the sacrament as provided by the Church must be received.
 
A week ago I attended the Baptism of my 8th Grand Child have a question regarding the validity of some of the Baptisms that were performed.

There were 15 children presented for Baptism. The parents were given the option of “Immersion” or Infusion" (pouring water over the head). My Gand daughter was Baptized by Infusion however, several other were Baptized by a “modified” Immersion method. That is, the Deacon held the head and feet up and simply dipped the childs butt into the baptismal font once. Never pouring water or submerging the child’s head in the water. Were those Baptism valid or do those children have to be Baptized again?
How silly. Does the deacon perform the sign of the cross over a baby’s butt or on his/her head? You don’t baptize a baby by immersing the infant’s rear end in the baptismal font. I don’t have any idea if the baptism is valid or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top