THE NEW RITE OF BAPTISM
by
W. F. Strojie
In other writings I have shown that the Paul VI rite of 'Mass' omits Catholic doctrine or distorts it, and that the whole Vatican II reform can best be summed up as Gnostic, which shifty doctrine always at least includes so-called ecumenism, something broader than the Catholic Church for salvation. Leaving aside dupes and mere dabblers, the present-day Gnostics, now calling themselves Theosophists, Rosicrucians, or Freemasons of the higher degrees, pretend to a direct knowledge of divine things, without the aid of the Church or Holy Scripture. Those of them who today pose as Catholics speak of the Spirit of Vatican II, of search and dialogue, pretending they have new insights, given by the Holy Spirit. Brotherhood and Community used in a special sense, the worship of Humanity as God (actually, worship of Self) is also part of Gnostic Ape-ofGod religion. This is the "updated" Vatican II religion which can be traced back into the dim past, before the time of Christ. Pope Pius X called it "Modernism", that is, Gnosticism, described as follows in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia:
When Gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw itself with strange rapidity into Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the world with apocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim... So rank was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stifling Christianity altogether... Though in reality the spirit of Gnosticism is utterly alien to that of Christianity, it then seemed to the unwary merely a modification or refinement thereof.
This is what I first noticed, that the "Spirit of Vatican II" and its modifications of Mass and sacraments were alien to the Catholic spirit and practice. I then, without knowing about the Gnostic sect and its doctrines, wrote a short series of articles (not very scholarly) titled "The Strange New Church of Vatican II". I had before this written "The Enemy Within The Catholic Church". I quoted freely from the Encyclical Pascendi, in which Pope St. Plus X thoroughly analyzed what he called "Modernism" -modern Gnosticism, for it bears all the marks of that Evil Intelligence. It was this Sect which, in the language of apocalypse, St. John saw as the Beast submerged upon the coming of Christ, but which would rise again in the Latter Days. We see this prophecy fulfilled in our time.
It is highly significant that the Vatican II Innovators, as did the Gnostics of old, threw themselves with "strange rapidity" into what had been Catholic practice, gradually altering doctrine. I' should add that the modern Gnostics have their openly destructive Left, so-called Progressives; their Middle, mostly 'moderate' dupes and compromisers; and both open and shadowy 'Traditionalist' operators who take in thousands of more or less well-intentioned Vatican II opponents.
Here I shall take a look at the Gnostic Vatican II rite of
BAPTISM
First we must understand that a sacramental rite is an entity, having a certain unity and meanIng as a whole. It must signify clearly what the Church intends to do. Form and matter are surrounded by ceremony to show this intention. If the rite as a whole is ambiguous the validity of the sacrament must be at least doubted. If it displays a counter-intention to what the Church Intends, it is certainly invalid. In either case we must not only reject it but stand clear of those heretics who administer these false sacraments. With this in mind, then, let us look at the New Rite of Baptism as it appears in a booklet called "Together at Baptism."
This booklet, so the publisher assures us, "contains the full, unabridged text of the revised baptismal rite... "-imprimatur, 1971, from the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana. Its purpose: "to help you take an active part in your child's baptism." From the Table of Contents "The Importance of the Community", and "Welcoming the Child into the Community", this refrain throughout the book. I shall string out some of that:
"There is much more to baptism... " - more, they say, than what the Church has always taught. "The whole community is affected... the community should be present... " This presence "is extremely important... "There is needed "the assistance of the godparents and the community too... they should be actively involved all the time... The community has gathered to introduce the child into new life. The people have come together to baptize this Infant... Now for the first time in the history of the Church, we have a real baptism for infants... the Christian community welcomes the child... we cannot ever lose sight of the community..." We once said of Baptism that "it washes away original sin... The baptism was a washing, and that's how we thought of it." Notice the weasel words, "We once said... that's how we thought of it." It is a carefully observed rule of these deceivers, seldom to deny Catholic doctrine directly.
Right off, in chapter one, "The Importance of the Community", the reader is told that "When the community is present at baptism, it becomes immediately obvious why it should be so. There is spirit expressed there that is not present at a private ceremony, and it is felt by everyone". The Catechism of the Council of Trent, devoting thirty-five pages to Baptism, says nothing of this unidentified "community", nor of any spirit that must be felt, seen, or heard. "Baptism", the Trent catechism reads, "may be rightly and accurately defined as: "The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word. By nature we are born from Adam children of wrath, but by Baptism wé are rögeneraTed in Christ, children of mercy." And the Council of Florence, 1439: "The effect of baptism is the remission of all sin, original and actual sin." So it is that we Catholics have had throughout the centuries a concise, accurate definition and understanding of this Sacrament which, through a right intention, the pouring of water on the head and the saying of the required words, those prescribed by Christ our Lord Himself, immediately and completely has its effect. Not more or less or depending on the presence of any community. The minister of the Sacrament is always a single person, ordinarily parish priest of the parents, a lay person in cases of emergency. But in this new rite it is said: "Baptism isn't for the benefit of the child only. We have to enlarge upon the traditional idea of the sacrament... There is much more to baptism than this, and the whole community is affected. The child is going to affect the community, and the community is going to affect him." But of course all this has nothing to do with the baptism. "There is much more to baptism", so they say, than what the Church has always taught. "The whole community is affected... the community should be present... "This presence "is extremely important... " There is needed "the assistance of the godparents and the community too... they should be actively involved all the time... The community has gathered to introduce the child into new life." Now the clear explicit heresy in all this: "The people have come together to baptize this infant," to which is added, "Now for the first time in the history of the Church, we have a real baptism for infants." And, "The Christian community welcomes the child.., we cannot lose sight of the community"... whose "power comes from their sharing in the priesthood... the community together, to create a unity."
Now, these hucksters of a new religion will be aware that even the dullest of Catholios will have a correct idea of baptism as a cleansing, or purgation, having to do with Original Sin. So how to get around that awareness? The usual way - mention it and quickly pass on. Deny the doctrine by a slight false reference to it, so that you seem to be merely discussing it. The Father of Lies will help in this, as in all else of the kind.
There follows some doubletalk; then, partly as diversion, St. Paul's word's about baptism in Christ's death and resurrection, which word's are twisted into a denial of the simple basic doctrine. I quote here the tricky main paragraph by which St. Paul is made to appear a heretic:
Special notice should be taken of what was read in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans about baptism and what it really means. Most of us were brought up to think of baptism as a "washing". We said "lt washes away original sin." There are many reasons why we thought this, but principally because the sign of baptism - pouring water - looks more like a bath than it does a burial. We were also taught this because it seemed like a simple way of stating it. The baptism was a washing, and that's how we thought of it. St. Paul has something quite different to say about it.
What did St. Paul mean by these words of his about baptism and Christ's death and resurrection? Fr. Fernand Prat in his "The Theology of St. Paul", vol. 1, page 222 comments as follows: "For one who has once become thoroughly imbued with the Apostle's thought, his mode of reasoning is very simple. Baptism applies to us the fruit of Calvary. In it Jesus Christ associates us, in a mystical yet very real way, with His death and His life." St. Paul, then, as is common practice among good preachers, was leading his hearers to a deeper understanding of a particular doctrine. But we are told by the New Order simulators of sacraments that St. Paul "has something quite different to say" about baptism. He is said to explain what it "really, signifies".
Quickly, then, having hoaxed those In attendance in this manner, back to community. "We die. to all that is opposed to God's idea of community, all that is not love, because -only love promotes community." "And that's what happens in baptism, because baptism is initiation into this community ... That is really what baptism is about." I pass over additional parts of "community", which is never defined. There is no mention in this "Together at Baptism" of the Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, or other such Catholic doctrine. "Christian" appears throughout (forty or so times), "Catholic" not at all.
As mentioned above, the Church's doctrine on Baptism, as it appears on thirty-five pages of the Catechism of Trent, contains not a word on "community". From whence, then, does this "community" doctrine come and what is its purpose? It comes from those Pope St. Plus X called Modernists (modern Gnostics). The community heresy was explicitly condemned in the Decree Lamentablll, 1907, by Plus X, as follows: It is an error to say that "The Christian community brought about the necessity of baptism by adopting it as a necessary rite and joining it to the obligations of a Christian". By these words and false doctrine, the "Modernists" deny baptism, as of divine institution, making of it a merely human rite.
How can I be sure Pope Pius X, when he spoke of Modernists, had the Gnostic sect in mind? Because he described their doctrines in detail, and called the system a "synthesis of all the heresies," come alive as never before with Vatican II.
So far, then, we see the heresy of Community strongly implied as all-important to baptism; and the community as collective minister of baptism, in the new rite. Further: "Initiation into community", which is a denial of the true purpose of baptism, a cleansing from Original Sin. We read of a notion, too, that baptism can be more or less effective, depending somewhat on "environment" (page 35), and of course community. What, then, of the essential act of baptizing, the pouring of water on the head (or immersion) while saying the correct words, (Name), "I baptize thee In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"? In the new rite matter and form are correctly given. Is the baptism then valid; that is, is it a true sacrament as performed in this new rite? Can it be valid because, even though the intention of the heretical innovators be false, the particular priest administering the sacrament intends to do what the Catholic Church does? The Church teaches that "Sacraments must contain what they signify and signify what they contain." Pope Leo XIII, in his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), taught that "this signification, though it must be found in the essential rite as a whole, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs chief lyto the form." With regard to that:
1. The new rite of baptism signifies falsely, as a thing of community, with the community as collective baptizer, which shows a wrong or counter intention, and which collective-ministry heresy the New Order priest at baptism himself pronounces.
2. As to the correct words, the form, in the Gnostic book "The Science of the Sacraments" by occultist Bishop Leadbeater, chapter on Baptism and Confirmation, the essentials are correctly given - the pouring of water and the form "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But two pages further on appears, "the Three Persons of the Solar Deity." And in "Masonic Morals and Dogma", page 538, "Question: What are the symbols of the purification necessary to make us perfect Masons? Ans.:. Lavation with pure water, or baptism; because to cleanse the body is emblematical of purifying the soul... " Paul VI wore the symbol (twelve jeweled squares) of Royal Arch Masonry, and he put aside the strict condemnations of the sect by ten Popes.
So, you have had your child baptized in the new rite. Is he really, validly baptized? A Catholic would be a fool to count on it. If I had had a child baptized in this new rite, I would conditionally rebaptize him. This is the 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" - meanwhile, of course, pouring water on the child's head, as prescribed. It is the well known rule of the Church that in the matter of the sacraments, especially baptism, we must have nothing to do with what is doubtfully valid or heretical - take the safe course.
Quoting again from the Trent Catechism, on baptism: "And here indeed let us admire the supreme goodness and wisdom of our Lord. Seeing the necessity of this sacrament for all, He not only instituted water, than which nothing can be more common, as its matter, but also placed its administration within the power of all. In its administration, however, all are not allowed to use the solemn ceremonies; not that rites and ceremonies are of higher dignity (as the Modernists strive to make us think they are, WFS) but because they are less necessary than the Sacrament."
A last caution: I once supposed that most of the clergy of these post-Vatican II years were, though material heretics, somehow mainly deceiving themselves. I fear now that all too many, perhaps most of them, are conscious Gnostics, mostly come in through the Gnostic main door of our time, Freemasonry.
Anyway, as I quote from St. Thomas Aquinas in another short paper, we must not receive the Sacraments from heretics of any kind, or attend their Masses. Not that the New Order liturgy for All Religions is a true Mass.
CONFIRMATION
At hand the booklet on the new rite of Confirmation also. I have no patience left for analyzing this disgusting farce but put down here just a few things noted at a quick glance. First, of course, the booklet - latest printing noted, 1979, same imprimatur as for "Together at Baptism" - is titled "Together at Confirmation". From' its "Contents" - "A Step Into The Community", "The Gathering of the Parish", "The Gathered Community", and dozens of other peculiar listings. I quote here from page 16: "The church might be described as the people in whom the Spirit dwells. It is the gift of the Spirit which constitutes the church," and so on. What spirit? What church? There follows the usual questioning, the updating us back to what supposedly was doctrine and practice in the early centuries. And these hypocrites have the gall to try to use Pope St. Pius X to support their dirty work. Anyway, the thing goes on and on for ninety-six pages, with the usual photos, one of which shows a bishop and priest, and a bearded old coot, deacon perhaps, administering their deadly confirmation. Based on appearances, I wouldn't hire any one of the three as a bartender.
I could write a few paragraphs about deliberate omissions, distortions, suppressions in the 'Ordination' rite. But why bother? The same men who emptied the Mass of Catholic doctrine, going beyond the early Protestants in this, and who, as I've shown, have foisted on Catholics who yet attend the old parish churches a Communist rite of baptism, will not neglect the Priesthood. Speaking of these modern Gnostics (behind which sect stands the Jew with Talmud and Kabbalah), Pope Pius X warned that "there is nothing in all Catholicism on which they do not fasten".
Not excluding infants who, in the name of Community and Humanity, the devil Johns and Pauls, Vatican II false popes, would snatch from eternal life with God.
W. F. Strojie, 41695 Clark Smith Dr., Lebanon, OR 97355
|
