I was asked the question about the validity of baptism conferred by heretics and schismatics, like the conciliar ones of Vatican II.
First, let’s look at baptism by all heretics and schismatics, then we will consider the situation in the conciliar sect of Vatican II.
I. Baptism Conferred by a Heretic and/or Schismatic
Here are some authorities on this subject:
I.1. The Sacrosanct Council of Trent – Session VII
On the sacraments:
Canon XI: “11. Si quis dixerit in ministris dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia: a[nathema] s[it].”
– “If anyone says that in ministers, while they confect and confer the sacraments, the intention at least of doing what the Church does is not required: let him be anathema.”
On baptism:
Canon IV: “Si quis dixerit baptismum qui etiam datur ab haereticis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti eum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia non esse verum baptismum: a[nathema] s[it].”
– “If anyone says that the baptism which is also given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not a true baptism: let him be anathema.”
Therefore, it is not automatically the case that baptism given by a heretic is invalid. The intention of the Church being to erase original sin, and all other sins, it is possible that heretics, like most Protestants, have this valid intention.
Thus, those who are baptized among them before the age of reason are ipso facto (by that very fact) attached and united to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But, upon reaching the age of reason, if they do not leave their heretical and/or schismatic sect, they become guilty of the sin of heresy and schism!
I.2. Saint Cyprian Was in Error on This Point
Saint Cyprian was corrected by Pope Stephen (Denzinger n°110). Rohrbacher, in Universal History of the Catholic Church, considers that he died reconciled with the Holy See on this point.
I.3. The Most August of the Fathers of the Church, Saint Augustine, in his work De Baptismo in Book II, dealt with Cyprian and this controversy. He mentions that the Church kept, regarding heretics and schismatics, the custom of not reiterating what had been given. According to him, this custom, like many others, came from the tradition of the apostles (2.7.12: Quam consuetudinem credo ex apostolica traditione venientem), which as customs were kept throughout the entire Church (et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur ecclesiam).
These are then the strongest arguments:
– What comes from the apostles is infallible;
– And what has been taught and practiced everywhere, always, and by all (“quod ab omnibus, ubique et semper creditur in Ecclesia”) is infallible.
Saint Augustine on the validity of baptism given by heretics and schismatics – two links:
http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/saints/augustin/polemiques/donat/bapteme/livre1.htm#_Toc511549649
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/c2s.htm
Yet Saint Augustine recognized the principle of the necessity of intention, of course: “the minister is a rational being and must act as such; his ministry must therefore consist in a conscious and willed act, so one cannot presume the existence of a sacrament because of the mere presence of the rite, when there is no corresponding intention” (De sacramentis, II, 6, 13, P.L., CLXXVI, 460).
I.4. Pontifical Documents of H.H. Pius XII, volume 1949, pp. 549-550.
Declaration of the Holy Office concerning the validity of Baptism conferred in certain sects (December 28, 1949).
“A certain number of bishops from the United States have posed the following questions to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office:
In order to judge marriage cases, can baptism conferred in the sects of the Disciples of Christ, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, with the necessary matter and formula, be considered invalid on the grounds that the minister would not have the intention of doing what the Church does and what Christ instituted?
Or, on the contrary, should this baptism be presumed valid, unless, in a particular case, it is proven invalid?
On December 21, 1949, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals charged with the guardianship of faith and morals, after having taken the advice of the Consultors, decided to respond to the questions:
– No, to the first.
– Yes, to the second.
The next day, the 22nd of the same month and year, H.H. Pius XII approved this resolution, confirmed it, and published it.
It is known that every sacrament is valid provided that the matter is employed and the formulas of the sacrament are pronounced, and that the minister has the intention of doing what the Church does. This is the doctrine of faith, and as soon as any sect substantially changes the matter or the formulas, there is no longer a sacrament. This can be easily ascertained. But the problem is much more delicate when it comes to intention. Theologians have discussed whether, with a fundamental error on the effects of the sacrament, the minister still has the intention of doing what the Church does. They agree in affirming that, in the case where the minister manifestly pursues an end opposed to that of the Catholic Church and makes this opposition explicit, the rectitude of intention is lacking. Consequently, the sacrament does not exist.”
Following this declaration, one should not conclude that, ipso facto, every baptism administered by Presbyterians, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, etc., is valid. It is important to examine in each case whether the general conditions of validity have been observed. It simply means that one should not a priori decree that baptisms given in these sects in the United States are invalid.
I.5. The Catechism of the Council of Trent gives even more explanations:
“In third and last place, come those who, in case of necessity, can administer this Sacrament without the usual ceremonies. Of this number are all humans, men or women, even the lowest of the people and of whatever religion they may be. Indeed, Jews, infidels, heretics, when necessity requires it, all can baptize, provided they have the intention of doing what the Church does in administering this Sacrament. Thus had already been decided several times by the Fathers and ancient Councils. But the holy Assembly of Trent has moreover pronounced anathema against all those who would dare to maintain that the Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not a valid and true Baptism.
And certainly, this is for us a beautiful occasion to admire the perfect Goodness and infinite Wisdom of our God. Because Baptism is necessary for all, He has chosen and instituted for matter of this Sacrament water, which is found everywhere, and at the same time He has not wanted to refuse to anyone the power to administer it. Only, as we have already said, all do not have the right to confer it with the ceremonies established by the Church; not that these rites and ceremonies are something more august than the Sacrament itself, but because they are less necessary.
For the rest, if it is permitted to all to baptize, the faithful should not imagine for that reason that proprieties do not oblige establishing a certain order among the various ministers of this sacrament. A woman, for example, should not permit herself to administer baptism if a man is present; nor a layperson, if a cleric is there; nor a cleric, if a priest is there. However, midwives who are accustomed to baptizing are in no way reprehensible if, in certain cases, and in the presence of a man who does not know how to confer this sacrament, they themselves take on this function, which in other circumstances seems much better suited to a man.”
I.6. Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII (no. 1318 in Denzinger, Enchiridion):
“Valet baptismus collatus a ministre, qui omnem ritum externum formamque baptizandi observat, intus vero in corde suo apud se resolvit : Non intendo, quod facit Ecclesia.”
“The baptism conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing is valid, but who decides in his heart: ‘I do not intend what the Church does.’”
Since this proposition is condemned, that baptism is therefore NOT valid.
I.7. A practical example: because of the systematic negligence with which the Anglican sect has conferred baptisms (by sprinkling from afar, etc.), the Catholic Church in England had the custom, well before Vatican II, of reiterating in all cases the baptisms of converts. This is quite particular, but understandable and prudent.
But in other cases, the responsible pastor must of course study and investigate the validity of baptized converts case by case.
Conclusion:
The Church has long settled this matter; let us therefore follow her Doctrine: baptisms conferred by heretics and schismatics with the required form, matter, and intention are illicit but valid.
* * *
II. Baptisms Conferred in the Conciliar Sect
Before 2007…
If we apply this doctrine to baptisms conferred in the conciliar sect, we must note that in the (misnamed) Catechism of the Catholic Church of John Paul II in 1992…
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9chisme_de_l%27%C3%89glise_catholique…
they write that baptism erases sins. The intention required for validity is therefore present.
After 2007…
But in the 2007 document of the INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION, on “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Baptism” signed by Benedict XVI, they hope – against the bimillennial teaching of the Church, among others by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas – that children are all in heaven. This means that original sin no longer represents an important sin or no sin at all, that it is not a mortal sin that deprives of the beatific vision and… that the baptism of children without reason therefore does not remove original mortal sin, since there is none. And there have been very few or no reactions in the conciliar sect. Therefore, it must be assumed that this false doctrine is accepted almost universally there.
On the official French site, they state that baptism is “a rite of initiation into the Church,” and nothing else.
Therefore, we must assume that baptisms conferred by the conciliar sect at least from that date are all invalid due to an official and thus general intention throughout the sect, contrary to the intention required by the Church for validity.
For even if the conciliar ministers claim to have “the intention of doing what the Church wants,” this intention is concretely and really “the intention of doing what the anti-church” of apostate Rome wants. And since the aforesaid decree, this intention is clearly compromised.
The anathema of the Council of Trent is not applicable in these circumstances, for it obviously applies only to baptisms conferred by heretics and schismatics who do not have an intention contrary to that of the Church, like most Protestants. Otherwise, they would fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII.
Indeed, we have seen above (I.4.) that Pope Pius XII had declared that “in the case where the minister manifestly pursues an end opposed to that of the Catholic Church and makes this opposition explicit, the rectitude of intention is lacking. Consequently, the sacrament does not exist.”
The Church also teaches that a doubtful sacrament must be considered invalid, for one must be certain regarding sacraments.
Recent example : to “respect” the new norms of social distancing on the occasion of Covid-19, a conciliar minister in Detroit, United States, used in May 2020 a water gun, filled with “baptismal water,” to “baptize” a baby in the Saint-Ambrose Church.
If baptism is reiterated in case of doubt, the priest says “if you are not baptized, I baptize you,” and God knows whether the first baptism was valid or not. Therefore, there is certainly no risk of sacrilege from reiterating a sacrament that can be received only once.
Practically, to verify the validity of doubtful baptisms, one must question the baptized (if they were at the age of reason during the baptism) and – if possible and useful – the parents, godfather and godmother, the family, and all those who were present at the baptism:
on the matter of the baptism:
which must be water
which must flow
on the forehead (and not on the hair only, which is doubtful and thus invalid according to all moral theologians)
on the form:
the same minister who pours the water must pronounce at the same time these words: “(First name(s)), I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Latin is obligatory in the Latin rite for liceity, but not for the validity of the form.
on the intention: if the minister is living, and one can speak to him, ask him what he thinks of baptism: “is it only a rite of initiation or something else, or does it also erase all sin and original sin, especially in babies as was believed before Vatican II?” If the answer is negative, the intention was contrary to that of the Church.
Personally, I have had, in several cases, the minister on the phone and received answers that allowed me to act accordingly.
If the minister is no longer living, one can inquire about and through everything that could be useful to know the intention, for example a booklet or a “baptism sheet” given to the attendants with the texts and explanations of the baptism. If the doubt cannot be lifted, one must proceed to conditional reiteration.
AMDG ESA
Ad maiorem Dei Gloriam animarumque salutem!
To the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls!
Abbé Eric Jacqmin +