Doubtful Baptisms—the need for conditional sacraments
Can we presume the validity of baptisms administered in the Novus Ordo milieu?
Can we presume the validity of baptisms administered in the Novus Ordo milieu?
“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jn 3:5)
In late 2020, it emerged that two priests had been required to seek baptism, confirmation and ordination after being invalidly baptised as infants.
What are the potential consequences of the breakdown of sacramental practice in the post-conciliar Church? How does this compare to the sacramental security enjoyed in the Catholic Church prior to the Second Vatican Council?
The full scale of the crisis of sacramental validity—which will vary widely from place to place—is as yet unknown.
This paper was first published on LifeSiteNews and in Calx Mariae.
“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jn 3:5)
Part I: Moral certainty and conditional baptism
Basic principles
1. The sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. St Thomas Aquinas defines baptism is “the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words.”1 Baptism is valid when the required matter and form are used with the intention of doing what the Church does.
2. Baptism of blood and baptism of desire are extraordinary means of justification, whereby a person receives certain effects of the sacrament of baptism, but not the sacrament itself.2
3. Only baptism by water confers an indelible sacramental character upon the soul. Only baptism by water makes it possible for the other six sacraments to be validly received. A person who is not baptised will not be validly confirmed or ordained, and will not validly receive the sacraments of Penance, Holy Communion, or Extreme Unction. A non-baptised person does not and cannot enter into a sacramental marriage (although they may otherwise enter a valid natural marriage).
4. It is therefore of the greatest importance that each individual, and the Church as a whole, has moral certainty that a given Catholic has validly received the sacrament of baptism.
5. Moral certainty is that certainty which admits of no reasonable doubt. In this it differs from absolute certainty, which would exclude all possible doubt.
6. Prior to the Second Vatican Council the formation of priests placed particular emphasis on the valid administration of the sacraments. Priests knew the correct matter and form, and understood the far-reaching consequences of invalid sacraments. Clergy would be vigilant both of their own practice and that of others. The words and rubrics of the received sacramental rites helped ensure the valid celebration of the sacraments. Knowledge of the necessary matter and form of the sacraments, and especially of baptism, was widespread among the laity—who were often instructed how to baptise—and many would be able to identify invalid baptisms easily. Parish priests, religious superiors, local Ordinaries, and the Holy See were assiduous in securing sacramental validity and in taking appropriate action in the case of doubtful sacraments.
7. As a result of the above any individual who was baptised by a Catholic priest, and whose baptism was recorded in the appropriate register, possessed moral certainty of the validity of their baptism, of their membership of the Mystical Body of Christ, and of their ability to validly receive the other sacraments of the Church.
The current situation
8. Since the beginning of the prolonged period of crisis following the Second Vatican Council the conditions enumerated in section 6 no longer exist in many places throughout the world. It can no longer be assumed that clergy have received appropriate formation in the celebration of the sacraments. It can no longer be assumed that they accept or understand the Church’s sacramental theology or what is required for the valid celebration of the sacraments. Experimentation with sacramental and liturgical forms has been widespread. Lay people are much less likely to be able to identify invalid sacraments and take effective action. Bishops and superiors have neglected to govern the clergy and have not maintained discipline effectively.
9. There are a number of clearly documented examples of invalid celebrations of the sacraments, including baptism. Other cases will no doubt come to light. Many lay people and clergy have had personal experience of priests using invalid or doubtfully valid forms of absolution, and having failed to adhere to the words and rubrics of other sacramental rites.
10. A particularly disturbing example is that of Father Matthew Hood of the Archdiocese of Detroit. He was “ordained” to the priesthood in 2017 but discovered in 2020, after watching a home video, that his baptism had been invalid because the deacon, Mark Springer, used the words “we baptise” instead of the correct form “I baptise.”
The invalidity of his baptism—and of all the sacraments he thought he had received—was confirmed even by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He had to be baptised, confirmed, and ordained absolutely. All the Masses he had celebrated (more than 1000) and all the absolutions he had given were invalid.
If he had not viewed that particular home video, this situation could have continued for many decades. If he had become a bishop he may have “ordained” dozens of “priests” who would have perpetuated the invalid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and of the sacraments of Penance, Confirmation and Extreme Unction, not to mention a whole range of other deleterious spiritual consequences.
Springer had been invalidly baptising for a decade. How many of those who received invalid baptism will now rectify the sitation and be baptised validly? How many souls might be eternally lost? How many other priests and deacons have followed the same practice as Deacon Springer, but have not been identified—and perhaps will never be so?
11. On 16 September 2020 it was revealed that Father Zachary Boazman, of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, had been baptised, confirmed, and ordained after it was discoverd that he too had been invalidly baptised in the diocese of Fort Worth in 1992. As in the case of Fr. Hood, the form “we baptise” was used in place of “I baptise,” and Fr. Boazman only realised after watching a home video.
How many other priests are in the situation of Fr. Hood and Fr. Boazman? It is highly unlikely that they are the only two examples.
12. Another instructive example is that of the parish of St. Mary’s in the Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia. In 2004 the Archdiocese announced that invalid baptisms—“in the name of the redeemer, the liberator, and the sustainer”—had been taking place for the last ten years in the parish and admitted that hundreds of children in the Archdiocese were in fact not baptised.
Despite this the parish priest was not removed until 2009, after the Archbishop admitted (in August 2008) that he was still unsure “whether they baptise the correct way” in the parish.
The breakdown of teaching, practice, and discipline in the post-conciliar Church is such that for 15 years invalid baptisms could take place publicly, close to the centre of one of Australia’s largest cities, without any effective action being taken.
The problem facing Catholics
13. As a consequence of this disintegration of teaching, practice, and discipline, there are many Catholics who may find it difficult to attain moral certainty that they have been validly baptised on the basis of an entry in a baptismal register alone.
There may seem to be reasonable grounds for considering, as a result of the factors enumerated above, that something may have occurred to render their baptism invalid. The existence and degree of doubt will vary very widely based on the time and place of the baptism.
14. In many cases, moral certainty will only be attained by further investigation.
15. This moral certainty may be attained because of factors including the following:
An adult convert has a clear recollection of his own baptism
Parents, godparents, or other adults present at an infant baptism are morally certain of what they witnessed
The individual person has later, personal knowledge of the character and practice of the priest—viz. that he would have adhered to the correct matter and form of the sacraments—and it is known that this was the case at the time of the putative baptism3
Other reliable individuals can testify to the character and practice of the priest in this sense
The priest has a well-established reputation in this sense
Some other means (this list is not intended to be exhaustive).
In cases where these factors apply, the factors enumerated in sections 8-12 above may no longer offer grounds for reasonable doubt; and as such, moral certainty will have been attained in amother way.
How moral certainty may be attained
16. In a small number of cases, clear evidence will be found of practices that render baptism invalid or doubtfully valid. In these cases, it should be relatively easy for the individual concerned to receive absolute or conditional baptism as required.
17. However, it will often be the case—especially after many years have passed—that there is no reliable witness who can testify to what took place. There may also be no priest or lay person who can give reliable testimony of an individual priest’s character and practice.
18. In such a case the individual concerned may lack moral certainty as to the validity of his baptism.
He may presume, almost certainly correctly, that the overwhelming majority of baptisms have been valid; but he may also have reasons to believe that, at the time and place of the baptism, a minority of priests and deacons could not be relied upon to have baptised validly, because of the disintegration of doctrine and discipline.
Thus, when this is the case, and in the absence of positive evidence of validity, a reasonable doubt may remain, with the validity of the baptism remaining a probable opinion only.
19. The fact that the vast majority of baptisms are highly likely to have been valid in no way removes the reasonable grounds for doubt provided by the facts related in section 8-12. These can only be removed by the kind of verification specified in section 15.
The necessity of conditional baptism
20. As baptism by water is necessary for salvation (leaving aside extraordinary circumstances relating to baptism of blood and of desire), for membership of the Church, and for the valid reception of all other sacraments, Catholics who lack moral certainty not only may, but must, receive conditional baptism followed by conditional confirmation, and, if necessary, conditional ordination.
The moral theologians McHugh and Callan make clear that the conditional repetition is
Lawful “when there is a slight reason of law or fact for fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament”—by which they mean baptism, holy orders, absolution/anointing of the dying, and the consecration o the Eucharist)
Gravely obligatory “when there is a prudent fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament.”4
Practice of the Church
21. The contention of sections 8-20 is supported by the traditional practice of the Church of conditionally baptising the majority of converts from Protestantism, including from denominations which possessed a baptismal rite that was certainly valid.
Rome has made clear that it is unlawful to confer conditional baptism on converts from heresy in an indiscriminate way: some level of due diligence must be applied in the form of an individual investigation. This investigation must consider:
The question of fact—whether a baptismal rite took place as a matter of fact; along with
The question of validity—including
Whether the sect’s rite, in the recognised books, was sufficient for validity, and
Whether this rite was actually applied—and applied correctly—in the individual instance.
As such, the validity of the recognised rite was not considered sufficient grounds to end the investigation. Goodwine, quoting Shenk, makes clear that the use of a valid rite only gives rise to a presumption, the purpose of which is to direct the next stage of an investigation:
“Only those Baptisms, therefore, which are conferred in those sects that repudiate Baptism are under an initial presumption of doubt.
“On the other hand, those sects which prescribe Baptism must first be examined with regard to their ritual before forming any presumption.
“If the ritual prescribes a valid matter and form, the initial presumption will be for the validity of the Baptism.
“If the rite prescribed is of doubtful validity or of manifest invalidity, the initial presumption will bear the corresponding character of doubt or of invalidity.
“The term ‘initial presumption’ is used advisedly, for the Church does not permit the investigation to stop with a presumption regarding a sect. Each individual case must be examined to determine the value of the initial presumption.”5
He also cites Waldron:
“The initial presumption is of use only in determining the nature and extent of the future investigation to be made.”6
If neither validity nor invalidity are established, the presumption is that conditional baptism will follow. This is because the absence of evidence after a diligent investigation into an individual baptism administered outside the Church can give rise only to probabilities and presumptions, which must be resolved.
22. This is clear from the 1878 Holy Office decree. It was asked whether conditional baptism should be conferred indiscriminately and on principle to converts from heresy. The response stated that baptism should be conferred conditionally if a diligent investigation left either probable doubt, or if nothing was established either way.
“[I]n the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from whatever sect they come, inquiry should be made regarding the validity of the baptism received in heresy that was adopted.
“Then, after the examination has been established in individual cases, if it is found either that none was conferred or that it was conferred in a null manner, they shall have to be baptized absolutely.
“But if, according to circumstances and by reason of the localities, after the investigation has been completed, nothing is discovered in favor either of validity or invalidity or if probable doubt still exists regarding the validity of the baptism, then let them be baptized conditionally, in secret.
“Finally, if it shall be established that it was valid, they will have to be received only for abjuration or the profession of faith.”7
The Westminster Synod of 1852 referred to the long practice of the Vicars Apostolic, and decreed that the presumption should be in favour of conferring conditional baptism:
“As the reasons have grown stronger that moved the minds of the apostolic vicars at the beginning of this century to decree that all those born after the year 1773 and baptized among Protestants, upon their conversion to the faith, should be baptized conditionally, we absolutely reaffirm this rule, ordering that all converts from Protestantism are to be baptized conditionally unless it is most certainly established, from indisputable evidence, that everything was properly carried out in their baptism with regard to the application of both matter and form.”8
In England and the United States, conditional baptism was generally performed very freely, with validity needing to be proved, rather than doubt. For example, in 1957 in the diocese of Salford, England, priests were instructed that:
“All converts must be baptised at least conditionally, unless it is certain that they have already been validly baptised. Priests shall not decide in favour of the validity of a Baptism conferred in heresy without consulting the ordinary.”9
In Ireland, the Synod of Thurles (1850) and the Synod of Maynooth (1875) determined that:
“Converts to the Catholic religion in our territory are conditionally baptised because it is evident that there are very many among the Protestants who disregard (“nihili faciunt”) baptism and others who administer it without using the proper matter and form. This usage we wish to be maintained unless it is quite evident (“nisi plane constet”) from trustworthy testimonies that the person in question has been validly baptised.”10
Resolution of apparent contradictions
22. Writing in 1964, Fr Boylan explains why this practice did not contradict the rulings of the Holy See:
“[I]f our practice amounts to indiscriminate conditional rebaptism, then it is contrary to the common practice required by the Holy See.
“However, whereas elsewhere such practice would be clearly unlawful, in England the practice is nothing more than the way in which particular law is commonly interpreted.”11
In other words, the fact of the general situation is what gave rise to this practice, which was nothing more than the application of the law in a concrete situation, whilst nonetheless still requiring some form of due diligence, where this was possible.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) explained why this was so:
“If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church.
“For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful.
“As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated… If it be uncertain whether the convert’s baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: “If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name”, etc…
“Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized.
“Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.”12
In the period since the Second Vatican Council there has been a similar lack “of unity of teaching and practice” in the post-conciliar Church similar to that which prevails in many Protestant denominations. It is this which may necessitate individual examination of a person’s baptism, rather than an unquestioning reliance on baptismal registers.
The practice of the Church to confer conditional baptism upon converts from Protestantism, when nothing can be found to establish the validity or invalidity of their baptism, provides a clear and convincing precedent for clergy to confer conditional baptism on those who, due to the crisis prevailing in the Church, lack moral certainty regarding the validity of their baptism.
Part II: Reply to potential objections
Many of these objections have already been substantially dealt with above but it will be useful to consider them in more detail here.
1. Lack of positive probable doubt
It may be suggested that conditional baptism would only be appropriate if there is concrete evidence that a particular baptism, or the routine practice of a particular priest, indicated invalidity and that in the absence of such evidence the doubt raised is merely “negative” and therefore cannot be grounds for conditional baptism.
This argument could be rendered: “If there is a record of the baptism, and it was performed by a minister within the Catholic Church, it must be regarded as valid unless evidence comes to light that it is otherwise.”
This has already been answered above. It was a perfectly reasonable position to hold prior to the Second Vatican Council because, as argued above, structures existed to protect sacramental integrity and provide the required moral certainty.
It is the breakdown of these structures that provides grounds for reasonable doubt. It is certainly true that the scale of abuses will differ from place to place. In some parts of the world, it is likely that there have been thousands of cases; in other parts of the world there may have been very few or even none. The argument contained in this paper is therefore not equally applicable in all parts of the world.
And yet, baptism is so essential to salvation, and the very existence of the Church, that those responsible for the salvation of souls should be assiduous in arriving at moral certainty and not merely assume that no problem exists in their locality.
The crisis in the Church, which provides the grounds for doubt, is universal, even though the way it manifests is not uniform.
There were undoubtedly baptismal records for Fr. Matthew Hood and Fr. Zachary Boazman, and on that basis, they were “confirmed” and “ordained.” Yet, the recorded “baptisms,” and many like them (we know of hundreds), never in fact took place. The consequences of relying on a certificate—and thus failing to acknowledge the potential impact of the ecclesiastical crisis on sacramental integrity—were devastating for hundreds of men and women who received invalid sacraments—including at the moment of death. If Fr. Hood or Fr. Boazman had been “consecrated” as bishops, the situation would have been even more catastrophic.
In some parts of the world, it may no longer be safe or reasonable to assume the validity of a baptism simply because a record of it exists. In such cases, there must also be (i) reliable witnesses to the event or (ii) moral certainty that the specific priest or deacon concerned could be relied upon to baptise validly.
Only when the unity of teaching and practice has been restored will it be possible once again to assume that all registers will always give an accurate account of valid sacraments.
2. Baptism cannot be repeated without sacrilege
It may be objected that repetition of the sacrament of baptism is sacrilegious and therefore great caution must be applied before having recourse to conditional baptism.
It is certainly true that the three sacraments which confer an indelible sacramental character—baptism, confirmation, and holy orders—cannot be repeated.
However, in conditional baptism there is never any intention to repeat the sacrament, or to confer for a second time that which has already been received, and the possibility of doing so is deliberately excluded by the form used.
We have already seen that the traditional practice of the Church in regard to converts has been to confer conditional baptism very freely in order to eliminate any reasonable doubt of invalidity, including when the convert comes from a denomination which officially uses a certainly valid rite.
3. “Trust in God”
A lay person who raises concerns about the validity of their baptism might be accused of being scrupulous and be encouraged to simply “trust in God.”
A faithful Catholic will trust that God will always impart sacramental grace when the correct matter and form is used with the correct intention. He will not blindly trust in men, when the evidence of his own experience teaches him that a significant number of the post-conciliar clergy cannot be trusted to act correctly when it comes to celebrating the sacraments.
Nobody who has experienced the frequency with which post-conciliar clergy alter the form of absolution, or liturgical texts, or express positively contrary intentions to the primary essence of a sacrament, could reasonably be expected to trust, without further information, that any given cleric used the correct matter and form at their baptism.
To ask any individual to accept without question that a post-conciliar cleric, of whose personal integrity they know little, certainly baptised them validly, is unreasonable.
4. “Baptism of desire”
Concerned lay people may also be told that they have nothing to worry about because, if they were not validly baptised, they will benefit from the effects of what is called “baptism of desire.”
Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of justification. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that it was possible that
“a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance” (ST III q.66. a.11).
In this baptism of desire (or of flame, or of repentance), man cooperates with God and receives sanctifying grace prior to receiving the sacrament of baptism.
However, as stated above, baptism of desire does not confer an indelible sacramental character, and does not allow the valid reception of the other sacraments.
Every Catholic must have moral certainty that they have received valid baptism by water.
5. “The sacraments cannot be so easily invalidated” OR “The Church supplies”
Each sacrament has matter and form. The matter of baptism is the washing of the body with water. This can occur by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. In the Roman rite the form of sacrament is “I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” In the Byzantine rite the form “The servant of God [N] is baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” is used.
If invalid matter and form is used the sacrament will not be conferred. The Church cannot “supply” anything to make up for the lack of the required matter and form. Only jurisdiction—which is required for the valid celebration of certain sacraments—can ever be supplied by the Church, in certain circumstances, to enable the celebration of sacraments that would otherwise be rendered invalid by its lack.
6. “If we conditionally baptise lots of people it will cause scandal and confusion”
The sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. The hierarchy of the Church has the responsibility to guard those entrusted to it and ensure that not one is lost (cf Jn 6:39).
As we saw from the statements of McHugh and Callan, if there is a even “slight reason of law or fact” about the validity of a particular baptism (or confirmation or ordination), then it is lawful for the clergy to administer conditional baptism (and conditional confirmation or ordination).
If there is a “prudent fear” about such validity, then they are “gravely obliged” to do so.
Conclusion
For the past sixty years the Catholic Church has been enduring the worst crisis in her history. Many clergy, poorly formed or adhering to heretical doctrine, have failed to ensure the integrity of the sacraments. There are many documented cases of sacraments, including baptism, having been celebrated invalidly. The full extent of the problem is unknown, in large part because of the breakdown of ecclesiastical discipline.
This crisis, in and of itself, may create reasonable doubt as to the validity of many baptisms when they cannot be verified by reliable testimony of either (i) what took place on a particular occasion, or (ii) the established integrity of the celebration of the sacraments by the particular minister involved.
All Catholics who have a prudent fear or a reasonable doubt, which still remains after a sufficiently diligent investigation of the facts, ought to receive conditional baptism and conditional confirmation and, where relevant, conditional ordination.
“See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36)
Read next:
See the full index on this matter here:
See also:
Bishop Donald Sanborn’s study Can Novus Ordo Baptisms be Trusted as Valid? (available in a more readable format at his blog), along with…
A YouTube interview on the subject.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Is there a problem with your baptism?
If you think that you or someone you know was baptised in a defective manner, then take action and speak to a traditional Catholic priest.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for others.
Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material!
Thank you!
St Thomas Aquinas, ST III q.66 a.1.
Cf ST III q.66 a.11
It is not unheard of for priests to become more conservative over time; for example, a priest who was baptising in a doubtful or invalid way in the past may now be offering the traditional rites. The present is not necessarily a sound guide for the past.
John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, n. 2682
Shenk, Mixed Religion and Disparity of Cult, p. 129, nn. 197, 198. In Goodwine, 43.
Waldron, The Minister of Baptism, p. 154. In Goodwine, 43.
Decree of the Holy Office (Under Leo XIII), November 20, 1878. In Henrici Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals (DH), n. 3128. Ed. Peter Hünermann, with Fastiggi and Nash, 43rd ed., Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2010.
Cf. also the Instruction of the Holy Office (July 20, 1859):
“In the conversion of heretics there must first be an inquiry into the validity of the Baptism received in heresy.
“After a diligent examination has been made, if it is found that no baptism was conferred, or that it was conferred invalidly, they are to be baptized absolutely.
“But if, when the investigation is completed, there still remains a probable doubt concerning the validity of the Baptism, then Baptism is to be repeated conditionally.
“Finally, if it is established that the Baptism was valid, they are to be received only to the Abjuration, or Profession of Faith.”
7. Cum magis invaluerint causae quae animos vicariorum apostolicorum, ineunte hoc saeculo, impulerunt, ut decernerent, omnes post annum 1773 natos, et inter protestantes baptizatos, conversos ad fidem, esse baptizandos sub conditione, hanc regulam absolute innovamus, praecipientes, omnes a protestantismo conversos esse baptizandos conditionate, nisi ex indubiis probationibus certissime constet in ipsorum baptismo omnia rite fuisse peracta, quoad materiae et formae applicationem.
Decreta quatuor conciliorum provincialium Westmonasteriensium, 1852-1873, Editio Secunda, p 15. London, Burns and Oates. Available at Archive.org
Michael Hurley, ‘Ecumenical Chronicle: Conditional Baptism,’ pp 90. In The Furrow, Feb. 1966, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp 87-92
Decreta Synodi Plenariae Episcoporum Hiberniae apud Thurles (Dublin 1851), p. 19. Acta et Decreta Synodi Plenariae Episcoporum Hiberniae habitae apud Maynutiam An. MDCCCLXXV (Dublin 1877), p. 7. In Hurley 91-2.
Hurley also states in his footnote:
76. The only earlier statute I know of is that of the Dublin Diocesan Synod of 1831 which reads as follows: “As often as there shall be no sufficient proof that a person about to become a Catholic had been validly baptized, we order that he be conditionally baptized.” (Synodus Dioecesana Dublinensis [Dublin] 1879, p. 96).
The emphasis here would seem to be somewhat different from that of Thurles and more in line with our 1890 and later Maynooth Statutes.
In Hurley, 90
Fanning, W. (1907). ‘Baptism’. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
What are you thoughts on a baptism done this way: I baptize you in the name of the Father (then pouring then water), and of the Son (then pouring the water), and of the Holy Ghost (then pouring the water)
The water was poured three times but it was poured AFTER each innovation of the Names of the Holy Trinity.
Please let me know your thoughts on it.
Doesn't this imply that we cannot automatically presume that traditional bishops and priests have valid orders until it is established that each individual and everybody in their preceding lineage were validly baptized? This seems to be the case given the fact that many traditional clergy were baptized in the Novus Ordo. Further, a growing number were baptized in the N.O. after 1984, which is the cutoff after which presumption of validity is no longer given under RCI policy. Others may not adhere to this exact cutoff, but this is a problem nonetheless.