FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: URGENT!! Which rite of baptism to use? Help a convert!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
A good friend of mine will be entering the Church in a week. But he has jjust made the discovery that the old rite of baptism is noticeably different from the new. He intends to ask his priest to baptize him according to the old rite. However, the priest has never done this before, so it's up to my friend to do the necessary research.

Is the rite of baptism on Fisheaters from the  Rituale Romanum? If so, which edition, and can you provide a source? Link: http://www.fisheaters.com/baptism2.html 

It appears truncated when compared to this one, which says it "does not necessarily supplant the old, is such a vast improvement that it practically renders the old one obsolete."  http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/...-rite.html

The one on Fisheaters has four parts, whereas the 1964 rite has seven stages -- or have some of those been combined? Are both of them "complete," but just different?

In Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict allowed the use of the 1962 rite of baptism. Does that render the 1964 Rite of Baptism invalid, or is that one STILL validly in use (thus no need to mention it)?

Lastly, what is considered "the" current rite of baptism, and has it been significantly changed since even the 1964 rite?

Thanks for any advice! Sources would be very helpful, too.

Oops -- typo, should have said "The one on Fisheaters has four parts, whereas the one on Sancta Missa has seven stages."
The 1962 Rite is the last traditional rite of Baptismapproved by the Church, which is what the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei priests use, and it is fully legal to use as per Summorum Pontificum. This is the gold standard rite of baptism for traditional Catholics.

Every other Roman rite of baptism promulgated after 1962 is a reformed rite, and would not be considered traditional by traditional Catholics. The current reformed rite is the only reformed rite which can be licitly used ( I am not sure which year it was promulgated). 'Interim rites' such as the 1964 rite of baptism are not therefore approved for use; they have been abrogated...

The same principle with Mass: the only approved rites are the 1962 Rite and the Novus Ordo Missae of 1970 - all other 'interim rites' of Mass promulgated in between these dates (such as the 1965 Mass) are not approved for use.

This is what you want:

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/...-rite.html
Kells is correct that the 1964 liturgical books are not approved for use pursuant to Summorum Pontificum.

I refuse to comment upon what can "be considered traditional by traditional Catholics." Spare me. The permissions in force for the rite of baptism in 1962 themselves involved various reforms, some of them of then-quite-recent vintage.

Kells is also correct that the text presented on the Sancta Missa website is of the rite that is usable pursuant to S.P. That said, it's in English, and the rite of baptism as it was authorized in 1962 could not be said entirely in English. Moreover, the portions that could (and therefore can) be said in English were (and are) to be said according to a particular translation.

The Rituale Romanum was revised in the 1950s. There was then prepared, based on that revision, a book called the Collectio Rituum that contained certain rites and blessings for use in the United States. Similar books were compiled for other jurisdictions. The Collectio Rituum you need is the 1961 version. It included permissions to say many of the parts of the Rite of Baptism in English. Basically everything except the exorcisms and the actual formula of the baptism itself is permitted (not required) to be said in English pursuant to the approved translation. The 1961 Collectio Rituum itself is exceptionally rare. I have never seen a copy in person or available for sale on the internet. I have never seen the text online. The English translations remain under copyright by the USCCB.

A number of handbooks were prepared from the Collectio. These had titles like "Sanctuary Manual," Sacristy Manual," and "Parish Ritual." They came out in 1961 and 1962. If the internet gods favor you, you can sometimes find a copy of Frederick McManus's Parish Ritual (Benzinger, 1962) on ebay or some other bookselling website.

What about the 1964 Collectio Rituum (seen here:http://www.ebay.com/itm/COLLECTIO-RITUUM-English-Latin-1964-Catholic-Book-Publishing-signed-by-Priest-/321614449390?nma=true&si=CVnOqglw43jNzexZGhSYCja%252B7l8%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)? Insofar as baptism is concerned (I have not reviewed other rites), the only difference between this work and the 1961 Collectio is that it extends permission to use English for the entire rite. The translation, however, is the same, and it includes the Latin. SO, if you know the parts for which you have to use Latin (exorcisms and the baptism), you can use the 1964 book to say the 1961/2 rite. The 1964 book is much more widely available than the books based on the 1961 Collectio Rituum, often for much cheaper than that ebay listing.

ALL THAT SAID, that only matters if you want the priest to say part of the rite in English. If you think you can answer the interrogatories in Latin, there's no need for the English, necessarily. If that is the case, you can just go straight to the Rituale itself. There is Fr. Weller's book (http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Ritual-Sacraments-Processions-I/dp/B001AN4E8K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418773665&sr=1-3), available at that link and from lots of other online booksellers. I think Preserving Christian Publications may have its own edition. Look around; you'll find stuff available. Note that Fr. Weller's English translation is his own, not the Holy See's. It is not approved for use in the sacred rites but is for purposes of reference only.

What I would NOT do is attempt to have a priest say any rite by presenting him a text printed off a website, unless Sancta Missa or the FSSP is hiding the Latin somewhere I don't know about or the Rituale itself is on Googlebooks. As noted previously, the approved English isn't online because it's still under copyright. Get a copy of an approved book in his hands quickly. It is not a hard rite to say if you can pronounce Latin. Remember he'll need salt, which is no longer a standard part of the modern rite.

As for the other question, the rite of baptism was completely redone in or immediately following 1970 along with all of the other liturgical rites in the Church. What you see in any given parish is the "Novus Ordo" found in the awful "Book of Rites and Blessings." It's a perfectly valid, unnecessarily silly, and rather insipid ritual. If I were being baptized, I would certainly want to have it done via the Extraordinary Form, as all my children have been.
It seems wise to me to either find a priest used to the EF to do the baptism, or just use the OF, rather than tracking down books from ebay and shoving them into the priest's hands, saying "do it like this!".
In my initial post, I inexplicably attributed comments by Miles Immaculatae to the original poster, kellsangel85. Please read "Miles" in places of "Kells."

As for whether it is preferable to have a priest who is familiar with the EF, it certainly is. But IF one wishes to ask for the EF to be said, as one has the right to do, one would be better off having the right liturgical book available. Your everyday priest will not have the proper book himself. And a book---as opposed to a printout from the web---will show that it was published at a particular date, with ecclesiastic approbation, and pertains to a particular ritual. Thus, a priest who is willing to say the EF despite his lack of familiarity will be in a better position to assure himself that he is following the Church's law if he has a book.

Of course, it may be that one's priest simply is not willing to say the EF. They sometimes aren't. But the chances of there being any priest familiar with the rite available are very slim. And it never hurts to ask. But if one is going to ask, one has to be able to facilitate it.
The ordinary form of the Rite of Baptism is every bit as salvific as the 1962 form of the Rite of Baptism.  If a person is baptized according to the current Rite, then that person is just as baptized as someone who was baptized according to the 1962 form of the Rite. 


Do you and this person really think that the the current Rite is deficient and puts souls in peril?
(12-28-2014, 07:51 PM)lumine Wrote: [ -> ]The ordinary form of the Rite of Baptism is every bit as salvific as the 1962 form of the Rite of Baptism.  If a person is baptized according to the current Rite, then that person is just as baptized as someone who was baptized according to the 1962 form of the Rite. 


Do you and this person really think that the the current Rite is deficient and puts souls in peril?

I've heard exorcists say that is preferable to baptize in the old rite because there is more weight to the exorcisms within it. The new rite hardly has an exorcism at all, or at the very least the words used are mild compared to the old rite. Baptism truly makes one an adopted son of God and heir of eternal life either way, but why not pull out out the stops if you are able to do so. 

If it were my child I'd want the old rite for him unless there was danger of death.
(12-28-2014, 08:06 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-28-2014, 07:51 PM)lumine Wrote: [ -> ]The ordinary form of the Rite of Baptism is every bit as salvific as the 1962 form of the Rite of Baptism.  If a person is baptized according to the current Rite, then that person is just as baptized as someone who was baptized according to the 1962 form of the Rite. 


Do you and this person really think that the the current Rite is deficient and puts souls in peril?

I've heard exorcists say that is preferable to baptize in the old rite because there is more weight to the exorcisms within it. The new rite hardly has an exorcism at all, or at the very least the words used are mild compared to the old rite. Baptism truly makes one an adopted son of God and heir of eternal life either way, but why not pull out out the stops if you are able to do so. 

If it were my child I'd want the old rite for him unless there was danger of death.

Another possibility, if this is the concern, rather than simply attachment to the old Latin rite: get a Byzantine Catholic priest to do it.
(12-28-2014, 07:51 PM)lumine Wrote: [ -> ]The ordinary form of the Rite of Baptism is every bit as salvific as the 1962 form of the Rite of Baptism.  If a person is baptized according to the current Rite, then that person is just as baptized as someone who was baptized according to the 1962 form of the Rite. 

Do you and this person really think that the the current Rite is deficient and puts souls in peril?

Sure it is.

Not that the new rite does not confer the same Sacramental grace, and effect. It does, when performed validly, of course. Sacraments cause their effect ex opere operato. Matter, form, intention, minister -- valid Sacramental effect.

But the new rite of Baptism is just like the new Mass and any of the new rites. They are not deficient in their essential Sacramental element, but deficient in their accidental elements. Thus some of the graces beyond the Sacramental grace which come from the disposition of the subject -- like those that come from sacramentals, ex opere operantis -- do not come, because the elements missing, the subject is not properly disposed for these.

These accidental elements include the exorcisms, prayers, and annexed ceremonies.

It is very possible that some, including the attendees, stand in need of these auxiliary graces, and by not receiving them, they are put souls in peril, by robbing them of graces they should and would have had if they had these accidental ceremonies.