Is Arian Baptism Valid or Not?

[Askmea]

According to this Catholic Answers article Arian Baptism is invalid. However in this Vatican document it says, “Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.” They can’t both be right so what gives?

 

[Inbonum]

I don’t know what you are talking about but Catholic Answers article says this

Actually, the baptisms of both the ancient Arians and the modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) are invalid, because neither group believed/believes in the divinity of Jesus and the reality of the Trinity. Indeed, the JWs are modern-day Arians.

And the second source also says that baptism in form of today’s sects is invalid.
Intention for baptism is right but baptism for itself in it’s form isn’t valid.
Short answer: Arian baptism is not valid.

 

[Bithynian]

They can’t both be right so what gives?

The Vatican document is referring to the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon (381). In it, the Council Fathers discussed the reception of people from different heretical communities into the Church.

In the first grouping, Arians (amongst others including Appolinarians) were accepted without rebaptism and only conferral of chrismation was necessary. The second grouping encompasses other heretical communities, including Sabellians. They council declared that these were to be treated as non-Christians and must undergo catechesis and baptism.

One issue I wish to highlight: “Arian” and “Arianism” are somewhat ambiguous terms. Because most ancient Christians - quite understandably - did not care to preserve Arian theological texts, we only have an approximate understanding of what Arius taught and what 4th century Arians believed and practised (which in all likelihood was different from what Arius himself actually taught). For example, the phrasing of the Council of Chalcedon’s 7th canon suggests that 4th century Arians did, apparently, practice baptism using triple immersion and the Trinitarian formula.

An additional complicating factor is that, over time, “Arian” and “Arianism” have become catch-all terms for a large number of newer non-Trinitarian heresies, most of which differ from one another but are otherwise characterised together by being non-Trinitarian. Many of these, apart from being non-Trinitarian in a general sense, only have the remotest connection to 4th century Arians.

 

[Genesis315]

According to this Catholic Answers article Arian Baptism is invalid. However in this Vatican document it says, “Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.” They can’t both be right so what gives?

I think the author of the Catholic Answers article may be misapplying to historical Arians the reasoning from the Church as to why Mormon baptism are invalid in the link you provided.

Arians were intending to do what the very Christ who walked the earth, did and commanded His Church to do, even though they erred regarding His divinity. They had the form, matter, and intention to do what Christ’s Church does or what Jesus commanded. Even an atheist can baptize someone validly if they intended to do what the Church does (even if they are just intending to do what the Christian Church does to humor the person requesting baptism).

Mormons and JWs err mostly on the last part (plus Mormons don’t even believe in God, but rather their god is considered a created being). Mormon baptism is not intended to be what the historical Christ commanded, but rather is intended as something instituted by Adam. It is a distinct rite.

JWs err in form and also intention, denying the Holy Spirit’s existence as a person and instead intending to do what St. Michael the archangel supposedly commanded (who they confuse with Christ). They also do not intend to do what the Church of Christ has always done as the historical Arians did and modern Protestants do (even if they err on certain points about said baptism and said church).

With regard to form, my understanding is a a JW person enters the water, but his name is not called out. No words or formula are pronounced while the person is submerged or immersed in the water. This is invalid form.

 

[porthos11]

The Catholic Answers Q&A is wrong. Errors in belief, by themselves do not invalidate baptism.

For as long as the Arians used the proper formula, matter, and intention, their baptisms are valid. The Arians, despite their errors, most likely baptized with the same intention as the orthodox Christians: to do whatever it is that Christians did, that is to intend to do whatever the Church does.

The document on Mormons clearly treats why Mormon baptisms are invalid and where their defects lie.