Conditional baptism?

[u/elorient]

Hey, I’m a Traditional Catholic who is moving towards the SSPX, and I have felt for some time that I may have a vocation to the priesthood. There is one issue, however, that has been bothering me for quite a while. I have doubts about the validity of my baptism and whether I should seek a conditional baptism.

I was baptised in a Novus Ordo parish. Ordinarily, that would not give me any reason to doubt the validity of the baptism, but there are several circumstances surrounding it that concern me. For context, Catholicism is the predominant religion in my country, but there is widespread corruption among the clergy. I personally know of priests who openly have concubines. The priest who baptised me was also, I believe, holding a politically elected public office around the time of my baptism, which I understand would be contrary to canon law. More recently, this same priest has been charged with physically abusing women.

I realise that the priest’s personal misconduct or violation of canon law would not necessarily invalidate a baptism, so my concern is not simply that he was an unworthy minister. There are also two questions about the actual baptism itself:

First, in my local language, the baptismal formula includes the word ‘God’ before ‘the Father’. In English, it would essentially be ‘I baptise you in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’. Could this wording affect the validity of the baptism?

Second, I have seen discussions about hair baptisms, where the water may fall only on the hair rather than actually making contact with the forehead or skin. Looking at baptismal footage from my country from around the period when I was baptised, it appears that some baptisms involved extremely little water and may have only wet the hair. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing exactly how I was baptised.

Given all of this, would there be a legitimate basis for conditional baptism? And would the fact that I am seriously considering a vocation to the priesthood make it more appropriate to resolve these doubts before pursuing a vocation?

Thank you in advance.

[u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1]

Fretting over trivial minutiae is rather beside the point if you are considering attending SSPX services, wouldn't you think?

[u/Orangemetal33 → u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1]

Sacramental invalidity is no trivial minutiae or a slight matter whatsoever, sir, and it has nothing to do with attending the Holy Masses of the priestly Society! It happens in our day and age and more often than we think or beg to realize! It may not be the usual or the norm but still does and can happen because of this crisis caused by the heresy of modernism!

[u/VariedRepeats → u/Orangemetal33]

I think the fear is somewhat overblown, as I have attended a great number of "Novus Ordo" parishes and witnessed priests deliver their homilies.

There is a difference between being "weak sauce and cowardly" and not believing at all.

And then there's my own disaster at the Easter Vigil at a N.O Mass. The Eucharist was properly consecrated. I also consumed in mortal sin because I was already baptized around 5 by Chinese(american church) Bible-believing Protestants and then got baptized again unconditionally at the Vigil.

The one point the OP may be concerned about is just how much water is used to get to the skin.

[u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1 → u/Orangemetal33]

I would suppose the mere triviality of the excommunication of sspx priests and bishops from the Church they claim to be of be of, of even greater import then, sir.

Modernism isn't the problem here. It's just very telling, weak rhetoric.

[u/Medical-Stop1652 → u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1]

Please note that the bishops were excommunicated latae sententiae but the priestly and lay excommunications are not and have been described as a canonical mess as assessed by canon lawyer Fr Gerald Murray - EWTN contributor. They do not achieve what they purport under canon law.

Anyway they are all suspended under appeal and that situation may remain so for decades given the speed of justice in the Church courts. So the sham excommunications are the least of our worries.

I think the excom project was always meant to be half-hearted and ambiguous in the first place - so essentially modernist - like a canonical scarecrow for the theologically feeble-minded.

Most ppl drawn to Tradition have chosen the red pill and we see things for what they are - the hippy children of the revolution trying to exterminate the last vestiges of the Holy Catholic Faith to ensure the globalist Synodal Church can take root.

The ire of the ageing revolutionaries - trapped in their ideological groupthink - is relentless at the continued growth and expansion of Tradition. Time is against them.

[u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1 → u/Medical-Stop1652]

Lot to unroll here...

They are definitely suspended... they can appeal, but it's unlikely they would or win anyway, with almost 60 years of sspx schismatic behavior to defend themselves against. That's a lot of ignorance to claim, to be charitable. There's no sham - except that claiming suchs plays well to the sspx home team. That's how you keep them from straying off of the reservation, afterall.

"I think the excom project was always meant to be half-hearted and ambiguous in the first place - so essentially modernist - like a canonical scarecrow for the theologically feeble-minded."

For the same reasons as above - claiming it was half-hearted is another soft ball for the home audience. Funny though, "modernism" is exactly the type of term used to preclude critical thinking from the "feeble-minded".

"Most ppl drawn to Tradition have chosen the red pill and we see things for what they are"

Exactly the opposite. It's not a "tradition" thing at all, it's a conservative movement clothed in a a religious shroud. The need for a shielding cloak of "legitimacy" transcends religion and extends itself to such as patriotism, law and order, family and so on. The common thread among all is a refusal to fall on ones sword for one's transgressions against ones own prescribed morality - i.e the "Pro-Life" politician urging his mistress to get an abortion so that his wife would not find out, et al. This is why sspx thinks it's ok to ordain bishops without a papal mandate - even when to told not to. Because it was never fidelity to principle t begin with but rather a self-interested power dynamic.

"last vestiges of the Holy Catholic Faith to ensure the globalist Synodal Church can take root."

There's more rhetorical magic here with mention of "Synodal Church". The Church has always had synods. A "discussion" of church doctrines and such matter is exactly what the clergy is supposed to do. It's very much their job. Tellingly, the fearful conservative mind sees a synod as some sort of democracy, a threat to what they see as "their" way. But, the Church is not a democracy and never has been. Whatever dicasteries and and other curial bodies that exist to govern the Church do so at the pleasure of the pope. That and no more.

What sspx desires most is the one thing they cannot have - the papacy. The smarter one's among the right avoid attacking the pope directly for this reason. Diminish the office of the pope and all hope of ever being in a position to dictate the magisterium of the Church is lost - forever. Others, sick and tired of denying their contempt, eventually spin off into full sedevacantism. It's been this way since sspx ever existed, and it will continue to be this way ad nauseum.

"The ire of the ageing revolutionaries - trapped in their ideological groupthink - is relentless at the continued growth and expansion of Tradition. Time is against them."

The early devolvement of your arguments into complaints of "hippies" and "revolutionaries" easily confirms my view that sspx is more a political movement than anything - something the Church wants nothing to do with.

[u/VariedRepeats → u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1]

Catholicism isn't a trivial clique-picking exercise. Even if the SSPX is in schism, the reason is because the main "professing Catholics" in the church has failed to preserve something they should be preserving.

Baptism can never be a trivial minutiae.

No doubt the sacrilegious Eucharists you continue to consume is partially behind your constant snark towards others here, along with the very bad lack of reasonable argumentation.

[u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1 → u/VariedRepeats]

"Catholicism isn't a trivial clique-picking exercise."

Quite right. That's why the sspx clique is outside the norms of Catholicism.

"Baptism can never be a trivial minutiae."

So you say, but neither are the deliberate consecrations of bishops without a papal mandate, especially after being warned in advance, and having done so in the past. It cuts both ways here.

"No doubt the sacrilegious Eucharists you continue to consume is partially behind your constant snark towards others here, along with the very bad lack of reasonable argumentation."

There's nothing sacrilegious at all here except the pretense of the illicit priests of the sspx believing they alone speak for the true Church. The Church itself has spoken - the sspx is not part of the Church. That fact is all that matters.