Do Sedevancantist give valid baptisms?

[Rich_C]

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.

I think I missed the would *could *in “could include:”

Obviously as a rule only the first two groups give valid baptisms, although potentially any of them could. I was just trying to watch out for the uninformed, but I misread your post. My bad.

 

[DavidFilmer]

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?

Canon Law is binding only upon Catholics who are subject to the authority of the Pope by their free-will consent. Other groups which reject that authority are not bound by Canon Law, although they might have their own version of Canon Law (or perhaps use an early version of Catholic Canon Law).

Does it matter whether or not the person performing it has ever been in communion with the church before?

No. The only thing that matters as far as the minister is concerned is whether s/he has valid intent (ie, intends to Baptize). Just going through the motions without valid intent does not confer Baptism (so actors doing a baptism in a movie would not really Baptize).

The farther one is removed from the Catholic Church, the less likely it would seem that s/he would possess valid intent. An atheist, for example, might do an emergency baptism for a dying person - but maybe his intent is to comfort the person’s family. That would not be valid intent, and the baptism would not be valid.

But an atheist might instead think, “I don’t believe in God, but just in case…” This (barely) demonstrates valid intent, despite his own personal disbelief.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

Canon Law is binding only upon Catholics who are subject to the authority of the Pope by their free-will consent. Other groups which reject that authority are not bound by Canon Law, although they might have their own version of Canon Law (or perhaps use an early version of Catholic Canon Law).

No. The only thing that matters as far as the minister is concerned is whether s/he has valid intent (ie, intends to Baptize). Just going through the motions without valid intent does not confer Baptism (so actors doing a baptism in a movie would not really Baptize).

The farther one is removed from the Catholic Church, the less likely it would seem that s/he would possess valid intent. An atheist, for example, might do an emergency baptism for a dying person - but maybe his intent is to comfort the person’s family. That would not be valid intent, and the baptism would not be valid.

But an atheist might instead think, “I don’t believe in God, but just in case…” This (barely) demonstrates valid intent, despite his own personal disbelief.

I wasn’t asking about the validity of the baptism, but the catholicity – infants who are baptized in the Catholic church are considered forever bound by canon law, so, for example they cannot validly marry outside the rules of the Catholic Church. Baptisms performed outside the church do not have the same effect. It’s not clear to me whether someone baptized in a sedevacantist church (i.e., by a priest who accepts canon law to be binding but believes the current pope is a heretic) would then be bound by Catholic cannon law.

 

[DavidFilmer]

infants who are baptized in the Catholic church are considered forever bound by canon law

A person may formally renounce his faith and be free from Canon Law (all except the bit about marriage - your example happens to be the only exception).

But the question concerned people who were Baptized outside the Catholic Church (even in a Church which is very, very similar).