Vatican Commentary Distorts Baptism’s Sacramental Reality

Vatican News portal (January 10, 2026) presents a commentary by “Abbot” Marion Nguyen on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, emphasizing baptism as “anointing to overflow” through three ointments of contrition, devotion, and piety. The text reduces the sacrament to subjective spiritual experience while omitting its dogmatic foundations.

Naturalization of the Sacramental Order

The commentary claims baptism gives “life in the Spirit — already a foretaste of heaven,” yet deliberately avoids stating that this grace flows ex opere operato from valid administration. Nowhere does Nguyen mention the Trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) or flowing water as essential matter and form – requirements defined at the Councils of Florence (Session 8) and Trent (Session VII, Can. 2). This omission becomes diabolical when considering that post-conciliar “baptisms” often use invalid formulas like “We baptize you…” condemned by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947).

Saint Robert Bellarmine’s De Sacramentis (Bk.1, Ch.9) demolishes this Modernist reductionism: “The sacrament is not perfected by the piety of the minister or recipient, but by the fulfillment of the sign instituted by Christ.” Nguyen’s focus on “interior unction” echoes the Modernist heresy condemned in Pius X’s Lamentabili (Proposition 41): “The sacraments merely serve to remind man of the presence of the ever-benevolent Creator.”

Counterfeit Spirituality Replacing Dogmatic Truth

By framing baptism primarily as “anointing” rather than regeneration (John 3:5), the commentary commits multiple theological crimes:

“The baptism of Jesus reveals what baptism truly gives: not only forgiveness or belonging, but life in the Spirit.”

This equates the sacramental efficacy received by sinners with Christ’s hypostatic union – a blasphemous parallel. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Part II, Ch.2) emphasizes baptism’s chief effects as “remission of original and actual sin, infusion of sanctifying grace, and imprinting of the indelible character.” Nguyen replaces these objective realities with subjective “ointments” – a Gnostic distortion.

His reference to Bernard of Clairvaux is particularly treacherous. While the true Doctor Mellifluus wrote De Baptismo emphasizing the sacrament’s necessity, Nguyen cherry-picks allegorical interpretations from the saint’s Sermons on the Song of Songs to advance the Modernist agenda. This fulfills Pius X’s warning in Pascendi §12 about heretics “distorting patristic texts to give appearance of antiquity to novelties.”

Omission of the Church’s Militant Reality

The commentary’s most damning silence concerns baptism’s role in the Church Militant. Absent is any mention of:

The necessity of baptism for salvation (Mark 16:16)
Baptism as incorporation into Christ’s Mystical Body (1 Cor 12:13)
The sacramental character configuring souls to Christ the Priest

Nguyen’s “reservoir” analogy dangerously suggests grace can be accumulated through spiritual techniques rather than received through sacramental and moral life. Contrast this with the Thomistic principle: “Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit” (Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it – Summa Theologica I, Q.1, A.8). Nowhere does the text warn that receiving “communion” in invalid sacraments constitutes sacrilege (1 Cor 11:27).

Psychological Reductionism

The triad of “contrition, devotion, piety” reduces sacramental theology to therapeutic self-improvement. Nguyen claims:

“When baptism is reduced to an external rite, its power is missed.”

This inverts Catholic teaching. Pius XII’s Mediator Dei §25 condemns those who “contend that the sacred liturgy is little more than a collection of rites and ceremonies… when in reality it possesses the power to nourish supernatural life.” The commentary’s emphasis on “fragrance” and “scent” reveals its anthropological inversion – replacing sacramental efficacy with emotional experience.

Silence on Baptismal Vows

Most grievously absent is baptism’s renunciation of Satan and profession of faith – the ancient abrenuntio and credio guarding against apostasy. Nguyen’s omission mirrors the conciliar sect’s abandonment of missionary imperative, fulfilling Our Lord’s warning: “But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:33).

The 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 737) explicitly required sponsors to reject Modernist errors during baptism. Nguyen’s failure to mention this oath exposes the commentary’s true aim: not to restore sacramental consciousness, but to habituate souls to the conciliar revolution’s demolition of Catholic identity.

Source:
Lord’s Day Reflection: Living the grace of Baptism (vaticannews.va)
Date: 10.01.2026