Do Sedevancantist give valid baptisms?

[JD27076]

One must give a valid Formular and intention.

Do they give one?

Thank you.

 

[DavidFilmer]

As long as the Baptism is performed using water and the Trinitarian form, and the minister has the intent to Baptize, the Baptism is valid, regardless of who the minister is. Thus, valid ministers of the Sacrament of Baptism could include:

• Sedevancantists
• Lutherans
• Muslims
• Hindu
• Atheists
• Satanists (yes, satanists)
• Young people who have reached the age of reason (ie, a 10-year old little girl)
• People who are not themselves Baptized
• And every other person on earth who has reached the age of reason (ie, anyone capable of forming valid intent).

 

[1ke]

One must give a valid Formular and intention.

Do they give one?

Thank you.

Yes. What prompts your question?

 

[thistle]

One must give a valid Formular and intention.

Do they give one?

Thank you.

Yes but none of the other Sacraments undertaken by them are valid.

 

[The_Holy_War_11]

As long as the Baptism is performed using water and the Trinitarian form, and the minister has the intent to Baptize, the Baptism is valid, regardless of who the minister is. Thus, valid ministers of the Sacrament of Baptism could include:

• Sedevancantists
• Lutherans
• Muslims
• Hindu
• Atheists
• Satanists (yes, satanists)
• Young people who have reached the age of reason (ie, a 10-year old little girl)
• People who are not themselves Baptized
• And every other person on earth who has reached the age of reason (ie, anyone capable of forming valid intent).

Doesn’t this mean I could baptize myself and skip the order of the Catechumens?

 

[Rich_C]

I think David here is trying to prove a point, but take it on principle, not literally; but which I mean, only the first two groups listed currently practice baptism in such a way that it could be valid, and none of the other groups have any likelihood of doing so.

As to the validity of other sacraments, it depends. There are only a few conditions that make validly ordained Catholic priest’s sacraments necessarily invalid and heresy isn’t one of them. Of course, confession and marriage require the sanction of the bishop and supposing the priest loses that for his views on the papacy, those sacrament will be ineffectual.

There is a big difference between invalid and illicit.

 

[Nita]

Yes but none of the other Sacraments undertaken by them are valid.

Since there are validly ordained bishops and priest in the SSPX I think their sacraments that are valid as well. I think the Church recognizes their Eucharist as valid. Also would think we recognize the validity of other sacraments. Intend to do some searching – but if you have some links that show the Church rejects the validity of their sacraments, would you please provide it?

 

[thistle]

I think David here is trying to prove a point, but take it on principle, not literally; but which I mean, only the first two groups listed currently practice baptism in such a way that it could be valid, and none of the other groups have any likelihood of doing so.

As to the validity of other sacraments, it depends. There are only a few conditions that make validly ordained Catholic priest’s sacraments necessarily invalid and heresy isn’t one of them. Of course, confession and marriage require the sanction of the bishop and supposing the priest loses that for his views on the papacy, those sacrament will be ineffectual.

There is a big difference between invalid and illicit.

With the exception of baptism is it not the case that priests who are sedevancantists have no valid faculties therefore all other Sacraments are invalid and not just illicit.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Doesn’t this mean I could baptize myself and skip the order of the Catechumens?

Good catch. Nobody may administer a Sacrament to himself. Thus, a Bishop (or priest) cannot absolve himself of his own sins, or administer Holy Unction upon himself.

This is consistent with the idea that the Church is a communion (ie, community) of believers, and nobody may obtain the Graces of the Church on his own - not even a Bishop (and not even the Pope - even the Pope has a Confessor - by tradition, a Dominican priest).

For the benefit of Latin Rite folks who might wish to jump on this response and cite the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony - I will point out that the Bride and Groom do not administer the Sacrament to themselves, but to each other. There are two ministers, and two recipients. Neither the Bride nor the Groom administer the Sacrament to themselves.

 

[lanshan75]

Hello,everybody,I am just a new member of this forum,I want to make more friends here,I hope you can like me.

---

Cheap WOW Gold|Buy WOW Gold

 

[roadsend]

Yes but none of the other Sacraments undertaken by them are valid.

They have valid Eucharist and Holy Orders. Penance is valid in danger of death.

 

[wasserfall]

They have valid Eucharist and Holy Orders. Penance is valid in danger of death.

Holy Orders is questionable for quite a few of them.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yes but none of the other Sacraments undertaken by them are valid.

False.

Validity and licitness or necessary faculties are two different things.

They aren’t any different than say the SSPX or E.O.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

I think David here is trying to prove a point, but take it on principle, not literally; but which I mean, only the first two groups listed currently practice baptism in such a way that it could be valid, and none of the other groups have any likelihood of doing so.

I have a Muslim friend who worked in a neonatal intensive care unit of a Catholic hospital. On several occasions, she baptized infants in danger of death. Certainly, sedevacantists perform valid baptisms. The more interesting question is if an individual baptized by a sedevacantist priest enters into communion with the Catholic church.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I have a Muslim friend who worked in a neonatal intensive care unit of a Catholic hospital. On several occasions, she baptized infants in danger of death. Certainly, sedevacantists perform valid baptisms. The more interesting question is if an individual baptized by a sedevacantist priest enters into communion with the Catholic church.

Why is this “more interesting?” It seems to me to be much “less interesting” than your Muslim friend, whose intent might be subject to particular scrutiny.

In either case, the validity of the Baptism hinges predominately on the valid intent of the minister - which cannot be objectively determined by an observer. An emergency baptism by a non-Christian is potentially valid, but (if possible) would normally be followed by a conditional Baptism according to Catholic norms.

But I am not aware of any sedevancantist Baptism which would prompt such a precaution - any person Baptized by any sedevancantist priest would be accepted into Communion with the Catholic Church without any doubts about the validity of his Baptism.

It would be a very “ho-hum” and rather routine and non-interesting situation.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I think David here is trying to prove a point, but take it on principle, not literally

No, I mean it quite literally. Each and every person on earth (who is capable of forming valid intent) is capable of being a valid minister of the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions.

This is one of the very first doctrinal questions that the Church faced - long before the first Ecumenical Council (Nicaea). The very early Church was challenged by a number of heresies (notably the Arian Heresy). These heretics and their followers attracted pagan converts, who were Baptized by these heretics.

When these heresies were suppressed, their followers sought communion with the Church. A great dispute arose regarding the validity of their Baptism at the hands of heretics - were such Baptisms valid, or did these “converts” need to be validly Baptized in the Catholic Church?

My favorite Early Church Father is St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in Northern Africa (sometimes called the “African Pope” on account of his great influence). He passionately argued against the validity of Baptism by heretics. In fact, he would not even use the word “Baptism” in this context - he referred to “those made wet by heretics.” I think that’s funny.

But he lost. The Church ultimately declared that ANYONE (and I do mean ANYONE) is a valid minister of the Sacrament of Baptism, provided that the other four requirements (intent, form, matter, and recipient) are met (and the recipient is also ANYONE who is not already Baptized).

This Doctrine is older than the Nicene Creed. It is one of the oldest Doctrines of the Church (if not THE oldest) which is not explicitly found in Holy Scripture.

So I was being quite literal.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Sedevacantism does not invalidate sacraments! To be hyperliteral, think about Sacraments you received after JP2’s death before BXVI’s election. Obviously the see really was vacant then! But even the other sedevacantists can have valid Holy Orders and Eucharist. (The poster who said their orders are questionable: c’mon, that’s not because of sedevacantism - questionable orders are questionable for other reasons).

As to intention and baptism: you just have to intent to do what the Church does. An emergency baptism by a Muslim might be later “conditionally” redone, which makes sense. But if the child died, he would be treated as a baptized child who died. The muslim only has to have the intention of “doing what the Catholic Church does, even if I don’t believe any of it myself.”

 

[wasserfall]

(The poster who said their orders are questionable: c’mon, that’s not because of sedevacantism - questionable orders are questionable for other reasons).

I didn’t say that their orders were questionable because they are sedevacantists.
I just said that their orders are questionable.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I didn’t say that their orders were questionable because they are sedevacantists.
I just said that their orders are questionable.

I re-read what you wrote, I agree. Sorry for misrepresenting you.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

Why is this “more interesting?” It seems to me to be much “less interesting” than your Muslim friend, whose intent might be subject to particular scrutiny.

In either case, the validity of the Baptism hinges predominately on the valid intent of the minister - which cannot be objectively determined by an observer. An emergency baptism by a non-Christian is potentially valid, but (if possible) would normally be followed by a conditional Baptism according to Catholic norms.

But I am not aware of any sedevancantist Baptism which would prompt such a precaution - any person Baptized by any sedevancantist priest would be accepted into Communion with the Catholic Church without any doubts about the validity of his Baptism.

It would be a very “ho-hum” and rather routine and non-interesting situation.

It’s not clear that the child would become Catholic, and thus subject to canon law, by virtue of such a baptism. Is a sedevacantist baptism more similar to a Catholic baptism or a Protestant baptism? Does it matter whether or not the person performing it has ever been in communion with the church before (many sedevacantists have, some have not)?