Posted on 01/08/2014 2:34:23 AM PST by markomalley
As I read those prayers silently, somehow Max Von Sydow supplied the voice.
You’ve received some very accurate responses to your question TC. I hasten to point out, however, that differing concepts of the Sin of Adam/Ancestral Sin/Original Sin have little to do with dealing with demons at baptism.
Here’s a link to our Baptism rite. You’ll see that Ancestral/Original sin really doesn’t enter into it. but dealing with demons and airy and invisible specters does. We take demons very seriously, TC.
http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism
“To see what the effect of dropping most of the exorcism prayers at baptism was, let us ask ourselves this question: “Is a man baptized after 1969 more likely or less likely to revert to godlessness at some point in his life, compared to the man baptized prior to 1969?”
You gotta be joking?
The sacraments function “ex opera operato”. Baptism removes the stain of original sin. The normal form is through water and the Trinitarian formula. There is NO stain or sin left and no more or less sanctifying grace given. We are all left with concupiscence but no other incantations can change how we use the grace given.(ex opere operantis)
This statement begs the question, “Do you trust the new rite?”
Yes, definitely bring them back.
There are spiritual realities involved here. Combat in the spiritual realm is a reality, and man’s nature has a spiritual component. It is absolutely necessary that the Church, speaking as the body of Christ, claim what is hers and preserve it pure and safe.
I can’t answer that question, but am grateful I received the benefit of the prayers in my case.
All unbaptized children are not necessarily possessed of the devil. But they are open to possession because of original sin. So it does no harm to use these rites.
Presumably, as Monsignor Pope says, the Sacrament of Baptism will do the job anyway, but it does no harm to include specific language in the surrounding rite.
Thank you all for the informative responses. The whole thing is much clearer now! (Everything’s clearer when it’s not 5:30 a.m.)
Dear Biggirl, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question, but let me try to answer a bit before vlad (who will probably have a good insight to share.)
The Church teaches that a dualistic understanding of the soul and the body as strictly separate things, is mistaken. You are one person, an embodied soul; equally true, an ensouled body. One person can't, for instance, have two souls, one now and another one later. Neither can souls migrate from one person to another, as in the false doctrine of reincarnation.
The same soul you had when you were conceived in your mother's womb, is "you" born or unborn, baptized or unbaptized, in sin or in grace, in heaven or in hell! Your soul will separate from your body at death (a very unnatural thing), but will be reunited to your resurrected body on the Last Day. It's you, forever! So no, God does not create a new soul for a person being baptized--- if that's what you meant.
Msgr Pope explains about souls here, when explaining about the resurrected body,and as usual, does a great job.
http://blog.adw.org/2010/11/what-will-our-resurrected-bodies-be-like/(LINK)
It chills me to the bone to think, for instance, that most of the priests who were involved in pedophilia or pederasty in the 1970's-80's (the decades when most of these heinous, foul offenses were committed) were baptized, I suppose, in the 1940's and '50's.
Thank-you and God Bless! I learned something new today! :)
Thank-you for the link and bookmarked it. :)
I’ll take all the help I can get.
First, I proposed an empirical study. The answer could be "no difference". Where do you see anything funny?
But I believe that while the Novus Ordo rites (as well as 1969 baptism rite) are valid sacraments, this should not be an argument for Protestant style reductionism. As soon as a catechumen is baptized and reaches age of reason, deadly struggle begins between him and the Satanic forces. This is how the same source describes it:
The Grace of God protects man. He must, however, invoke God's help. Constant prayer and fasting, devoted meditation, regular Bible reading, following the two great commandments of God (love of God and love of neighbor) are the weapons of the Christian against temptation from demons. The inclination of the individual toward sinful desires, the so called consupisentia [sic], is not sin in itself; it is the weakness which needs protection; it is weakness which evil spirits try to exploit.
This is from an Orthodox site, but I don't see any difference on that with Catholicism. So, yes, I firmly believe that we should employ every weapon the Holy Church proposes for our salvation: fasting and prayer, and especially every kind of prayer of our Church for our soul.
The same of course applies to any rite, not just baptismal rite. While grace falls on everyone, it is the disposition of the soul, that is strengthened by much prayer and fasting, that allows the saving grace to work in us.
I remember a long time ago Agrarian (remember him?) wrote to me how important it was that I received the prayers and chrysmations of the Orthodox Church at baptism. And indeed — I am very happy to be Catholic — I believe my baptism deep in my infancy was the most important event in my life, and I am very grateful to my parents for bringing me to it, even despite the marginal character of their own faith.
They also received communion every day, being priests. Someone killed, or nearly killed their souls nevertheless.
All the more reason to not take our blessings for granted.
“Protestant style reductionism”
My apologies for making lite of your comments. There was nothing funny. It was uncharitable. And my answer to your question you surmised well: “no difference”
However, I see no “Protestant style reductionism” in anything from the Novus Ordo rites. My assumption was that many “traditionalists” DO see the Novus Ordo rites as “Protestant style reductionism” and that I DO have a problem with.
Rites have changed, slowly, but consistently since the beginning. That makes them NO LESS efficacious in terms of God’s grace imparted. The unfortunate thing with the human condition is that we can and do fall from grace easily.
The best preventative is living a life of virtue starting with the foundation of all laws, as you stated from the Orthodox site, “love of God and love of neighbor”. We can debate all day long the theological value of the “prayers of exorcism” within any of the rites pre-Novus Ordo, but none of that would be, IMO, of value without that foundation, which Christ commanded and has been stated over and over in scripture.(Jn 15:12, Rom 13:8-10, Gal 5:14, 1 Th 3:12, James 2:8)
I cannot speak for SSPX or other distinct traditionalist communities, but from my arguments with them., many quite bitter, I know that many of them agree with us on the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. I myself attend Novus Ordo Mass with my family, although it is not a choice I would have made alone.
Now with this background established, I absolutely agree with the Traditionalist and the Orthodox that Novus Ordo Mass is reductionist: it is an attempt to get away with the minimum of ritual while still staying valid. That is very unfortunate. Man is not a spiritual being only: we are also creatures of sensual abilities. Those are very poorly fed in the Novus Ordo Mass; and indeed, not surprisingly there was such a rich opportunity for liturgical abuse embedded in the new rite. It is not an issue of validity but of the proper formation of the entire person through the liturgy; that formation is since Vatican II lacking substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.