National Catholic Register (May 21, 2026) reports that Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, speaking at a gathering hosted by King Abdullah II of Jordan, called for the baptism site at “Bethany Beyond the Jordan” to remain “a living place of encounter with God” as preparations begin for a 2030 Jubilee commemorating the 2,000th anniversary of Christ’s baptism. The initiative, embraced by the Jordanian monarchy and UNESCO-inscribed since 2015, envisions infrastructure upgrades, interdenominational cooperation, and a global spiritual event centered on “rediscovering the depth of one’s baptism” and promoting “reconciliation and hope.” What is presented as a pious celebration of sacred history is, upon examination, a concentrated distillation of every error the conciliar revolution has unleashed upon the Church: the reduction of sacramental theology to subjective experience, the subordination of divine truth to political diplomacy, and the transformation of holy sites into platforms for ecumenical indifferentism.
The Sacrament Dissolved Into “Encounter”
The central theological claim of the article — and the most revealing — is Cardinal Pizzaballa’s assertion that the baptism site must remain “a living place, where visitors do not simply come to see but encounter God and rediscover the depth of their baptism.” This language is not Catholic. It is the vocabulary of the conciliar anthropological turn, in which the objective, supernatural reality of the sacraments is replaced by the subjective, psychological category of “encounter.”
The Catholic Church has always taught that baptism is not a symbol of encounter but a sacrament that actually effects what it signifies: the remission of original sin, the infusion of sanctifying grace, the imprinting of an indelible character, and incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ. The Council of Trent, in its Decree on the Sacraments (Session VII, Canon 8), anathematized anyone who would say that grace is not conferred ex opere operato but that faith alone in the promise is sufficient to obtain grace. The sacrament is not a “living place” of subjective experience; it is an act of Christ operating through His Church, infallibly and objectively, independent of the feelings or dispositions of the recipient.
When Pizzaballa speaks of “rediscovering the depth of one’s baptism,” he reveals the modernist presupposition that the sacrament is something to be perpetually re-experienced rather than something that was once and for all accomplished. This is the theology of the “permanent Easter” that the conciliar sect has substituted for the objective reality of sanctifying grace. The Church before 1958 taught clearly: baptism confers grace ex opere operato, and its effects are real, permanent, and supernatural — not dependent on the pilgrim’s capacity for “encounter.” As Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis (1943), through baptism “we are made members of His Body, ‘are of His Flesh and of His Bones’ (Eph. 5:30) so that we can say with the Apostle: ‘I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me’ (Gal. 2:20).” This is not a matter of “rediscovering” but of living in the state of grace — a concept conspicuously absent from the entire article.
Silence on the Supernatural: The Gravest Omission
What does the article not mention? It says nothing about the necessity of baptism for salvation, nothing about the mortal sin of sacrilegious baptism conferred by heretical ministers using invalid matter or form, nothing about the state of grace, nothing about original sin, nothing about the damnation of the unbaptized, and nothing about the exclusive right of the Catholic Church to confer the sacrament validly. This silence is not accidental; it is systematic and doctrinal.
Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence (1439), taught with the full weight of the extraordinary Magisterium: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined with Her.” The baptism that saves is the baptism of the Catholic Church — conferred with valid matter (true water), valid form (the Trinitarian formula as the Church has always used it), and valid intention (to do what the Church does).
Yet the article describes a site where “Christian churches of various denominations have each been allocated land to construct religious buildings” and where the jubilee is meant to “strengthen Christian unity.” “Christian unity” — not the return of heretics and schismatics to the one true Church, but the mutual recognition of all “denominations” as equally valid expressions of faith. This is the ecumenism condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928): “The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.” The baptism site jubilee, as described, is not a call to conversion but a celebration of division — a monument to the very indifferentism that the pre-conciliar Magisterium condemned as heresy.
The Political Subordination of Sacred Things
King Abdullah II of Jordan — a Muslim monarch ruling over a territory that includes sites sacred to the true faith — is presented as the protector and promoter of the baptism site. The article notes that “the Jordanian government will adopt and support an initiative to commemorate the 2,000th anniversary of Christ’s baptism” and that the king “emphasized his personal commitment to overseeing preparations, underscoring Jordan’s role in protecting holy sites and supporting the Christian presence in the region.”
Pizzaballa responds: “In this blessed land, we see in your leadership a living example of how faith can become a bridge between peoples and a foundation for peace in the world.” This is not merely naive diplomacy; it is a theological scandal. The Cardinal of the Church — or rather, the occupant of a patriarchal see within the conciliar structure — holds up a Muslim king as a model of leadership through which “faith becomes a bridge between peoples.” But there is only one bridge between God and man: Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. There is only one faith that saves: the Catholic faith. There is only one peace that endures: “the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ” (Pius XI, Quas Primas).
The article’s language of “peace,” “coexistence,” and “reconciliation” is the language of the United Nations, not of the Church of Christ. Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei (1885), taught that “the Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, each the highest in its kind, each fixed within certain limits, and certain limits defined by its own nature and special object.” When a cardinal praises a Muslim sovereign as a model of faith-based leadership, he inverts this order entirely, subordinating the supernatural mission of the Church to the political interests of a secular state — and an Islamic one at that.
UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Laicization of Sacred Space
The article notes that UNESCO inscribed the baptism site on its World Heritage List in 2015. This detail, presented as a mark of prestige, is in reality a symbol of the laicization of sacred space. The baptism site is not a “world heritage” belonging to humanity in general; it is a place sanctified by the action of Christ God-Man, reserved by divine right for the worship of the true God. To submit it to the authority of a secular international organization — one that has repeatedly promoted policies antithetical to the Catholic faith regarding life, family, and religious liberty — is to profane it.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), condemned the proposition that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Proposition 55). The UNESCO framework treats the baptism site as a cultural artifact — a “heritage” — rather than as a sacred place where the Holy Trinity manifested itself visibly: the voice of the Father, the Incarnate Son in the waters, and the Holy Spirit descending as a dove. By accepting this framework, the conciliar structures implicitly deny the supernatural character of the site and reduce it to a museum piece for interfaith tourism.
The Invalidity of Conciliar “Baptism” and the Farce of “Rediscovering” It
Perhaps the most damning silence in the entire article concerns the validity of baptism as conferred by the conciliar sect. Since the introduction of the new rite of baptism under Paul VI (the antipope Montini), the form of the sacrament has been altered in ways that raise grave doubts about its validity. The traditional form — “Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti” — was replaced with “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” in a ritual context that emphasizes community celebration over the objective conferral of grace.
Even setting aside the question of validity, the article’s call to “rediscover the depth of one’s baptism” presupposes that the baptism in question was validly conferred and that the recipient is in the state of grace. Yet the conciliar sect, by its denial of original sin (implicit in the new catechism), its promotion of sacrilegious “communion” for the non-Catholic, and its systematic destruction of the sacramental system, has created a situation in which the vast majority of those who claim to be “baptized” are either sacramentally mutilated or spiritually dead — or both. To invite such people to “rediscover their baptism” without calling them to repentance, confession, and the true faith is not pastoral care; it is spiritual fraud.
The 2030 Jubilee: A Counterfeit Celebration
The article envisions the 2030 jubilee as “a global spiritual event inviting believers everywhere to rediscover the depth of their baptism and to see the baptism site as a symbol of reconciliation and hope.” A true jubilee in the Catholic sense is a year of remission of sins and punishments, granted by the authority of the true Pope to the faithful who fulfill certain conditions — confession, communion, prayer for the Pope, and visits to designated churches. The conciliar sect has no authority to grant indulgences, because it has no authority at all. Its “jubilees” are public relations exercises, not acts of the Supreme Pontiff.
Moreover, the article’s vision of the jubilee as a symbol of “reconciliation and hope” is indistinguishable from the language of the World Council of Churches or the United Nations. True reconciliation is reconciliation with God through the sacraments of the Catholic Church. True hope is the theological virtue of hope, founded on the promises of Christ to His Church — not the “hope” of interfaith dialogue and political coexistence. Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught that “the Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men” and that “rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” The 2030 jubilee, as described, does the opposite: it honors a Muslim king, promotes interfaith “unity,” and reduces the baptism of Christ to a symbol of human solidarity.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Baptism Site
The article from National Catholic Register presents a vision of the baptism site that is, in every particular, the antithesis of Catholic teaching. The sacrament is reduced to “encounter.” The necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation is denied by silence. A Muslim sovereign is held up as a model of faith. A secular international organization is given authority over sacred space. And a counterfeit jubilee is proclaimed in the name of “reconciliation and hope” — the very language of the Antichrist, who will come in the guise of peace and unity to deceive the elect themselves.
The baptism of Christ was not a symbol. It was the sanctification of the waters, the manifestation of the Most Holy Trinity, and the inauguration of the public ministry of the Redeemer. To treat it as a platform for ecumenical tourism and political diplomacy is not reverence; it is blasphemy. As Our Lord cast the money changers from the Temple, so must the faithful reject this profanation of sacred things and cling to the unchanging doctrine of the Catholic Church: “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) — and that name is invoked only in the valid sacraments of the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, no “encounter,” and no hope.
Source:
Christ’s Baptism Site Must Remain Living Place of Encounter With God, Cardinal Pizzaballa Says (ncregister.com)
Date: 21.05.2026