What are you thoughts on a baptism done this way: I baptize you in the name of the Father (then pouring then water), and of the Son (then pouring the water), and of the Holy Ghost (then pouring the water)
The water was poured three times but it was poured AFTER each innovation of the Names of the Holy Trinity.
Surely, if someone has an invalid bapitism but does not know, then invincible ignorance applies so they are not lost? What concerns me is how many are baptised and not raised in the faith, effectively leaving them half-in and half-out, easy meat for the beast.
Doesn't this imply that we cannot automatically presume that traditional bishops and priests have valid orders until it is established that each individual and everybody in their preceding lineage were validly baptized? This seems to be the case given the fact that many traditional clergy were baptized in the Novus Ordo. Further, a growing number were baptized in the N.O. after 1984, which is the cutoff after which presumption of validity is no longer given under RCI policy. Others may not adhere to this exact cutoff, but this is a problem nonetheless.
On the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, how are they coherent with John 3:5, the Council of Basel-Florence, etc.?
Thanks for your message. May I ask whether you are asking from a position of already being sure that they are not coherent?
From already being sure they are not coherent
Thanks for that. If you don't mind, if you're already sure, then I'm not inclined to try to convince you otherwise at the present moment.
Thank you for your time
God bless
What are you thoughts on a baptism done this way: I baptize you in the name of the Father (then pouring then water), and of the Son (then pouring the water), and of the Holy Ghost (then pouring the water)
The water was poured three times but it was poured AFTER each innovation of the Names of the Holy Trinity.
Please let me know your thoughts on it.
Surely, if someone has an invalid bapitism but does not know, then invincible ignorance applies so they are not lost? What concerns me is how many are baptised and not raised in the faith, effectively leaving them half-in and half-out, easy meat for the beast.
Doesn't this imply that we cannot automatically presume that traditional bishops and priests have valid orders until it is established that each individual and everybody in their preceding lineage were validly baptized? This seems to be the case given the fact that many traditional clergy were baptized in the Novus Ordo. Further, a growing number were baptized in the N.O. after 1984, which is the cutoff after which presumption of validity is no longer given under RCI policy. Others may not adhere to this exact cutoff, but this is a problem nonetheless.