© Copyright 2020, revised 2026; T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
Introduction
In the Baptism of infants, as well as the baptism of adults who wish to become Catholic in these times, many have questioned what actually constitutes good reason to baptize someone who may already have been baptized before, but where certain circumstances prevent one from knowing the validity of that baptism. Therefore, it is essential to understand how and when we may determine these circumstances to the best of our ability and what to do when we can’t be certain about the need to baptize. Below we hope to examine all the reasons why both Novus Ordo and Traditionalist baptisms cannot be held as certainly valid, or, to be honest, valid at all, and why in the case of those coming to the pray-at-home position, any baptism in these sects should be conditionally repeated.
A look back
As William Strojie observed in the 1980s, the baptism of the Novus Ordo church cannot be trusted as true sacramental baptism, for many reasons. Some would argue that because even lay heretics and Jews can validly administer Baptism, then this means that we cannot question baptism as invalidly administered because the Church recognizes the baptism of these individuals. The caveat here is that the Church actually teaches that in baptizing others, even heretics and apostates must intend to “do what the Church does;” in other words even though they are not Catholics they must intend to do what true Catholics do in baptizing. Not so these Novus Ordo ministers. As Mr. Strojie notes, there is no mention of the bestowal of sanctifying grace or the removal of original sin in the new rite of Baptism, the sole purpose in every baptismal ceremony performed in the Church prior to the false Vatican 2 council. Instead the child is “initiated into the community” and is “empowered to sanctify creation.”
Strojie points out that the importance of the community is emphasized over and over again just as it was when eliminating the Latin Mass and promoting the NOM. We can relate this to a modernized form of communism — communitarianism — that has permeated society for decades, and as a form of heresy could scarcely be mentioned in the same breath as valid baptism. Also suspect here is the intent of using “Holy Spirit” vs. Holy Ghost. The Mormons use this form, but the “spirit” intended by them is Jesus’ “brother,” Lucifer! Strojie mentions the Theosophist Leadbetter’s baptism, identical to the Catholic form but intended to initiate the baptized into the mysteries of the Solar Deity.
The Church always has taught that one can never take chances where the Sacraments are concerned. If there is any doubt the Sacrament was invalid or would be invalid, it must either be performed again conditionally with the right intention or not performed at all until it can be performed validly. Those today who baptize, believing the NO is the true Church and intending to do what its ministers do, cannot convey the Sacrament to others. Traditionalists who believe that the juridical Church can exit on earth without a true pope and valid bishops and priests can issue from Her, cannot intend to make those they baptize members of Christ’s true Church on earth because they hold a conception of that Church that is heretical. These craven ministers fraudulently baptize their subjects into what only APPEARS to be the Catholic Church, and as the canonists T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis explain: “SUBSTANTIAL ERROR INVALIDATES AN ACT… Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void.” It must be remembered that as Can. 22 teaches: “A more recent law given by competent authority abolishes a former law if the new law explicitly says so or if it is directly contrary to the old law or if it takes up and re-adjusts the entire subject matter of the former law.”
Some have objected that the teachings of Pope St. Stephen validate these baptisms. But what Pope St. Stephen and the Council of Trent forbade was to repeat baptism absolutely, as though it was certain it had never been administered in the first place. This is known as the rebaptism controversy, and that is what Pope St. Stephen was forbidding even in the early days of the Church. But doctrine has developed since his day. According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Nor let anyone suppose that it is repeated by the Church when she baptizes anyone whose previous baptism was doubtful, making use of this formula: ‘If thou art baptized, I baptize thee, and not again; but if thou art not yet baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ In such cases baptism is not to be considered as impiously repeated, but as holily yet conditionally administered. According to the authority of Pope Alexander, the conditional form of baptism is to be used only when, after due inquiry, doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer baptism a second time, even conditionally” (Revs. McHugh and Callan, 1923). Later, in 1679, Bd. Pope Innocent XI condemned the notion that one can use a probable, not the safer, opinion to determine the value of the Sacraments, particularly the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Orders (DZ 1151).
The use of “spirit” in the Novus Ordo sect
Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo church has returned to those teachings about the Trinity condemned in the early centuries and now holds concepts concerning Three Persons in One God that calls even the validity of Baptism into question. In his The Emergence of Catholic Tradition, Jar Slav Pelican, commenting in 1971 on the teachings of the early Fathers in regard to the Trinity noted that the word spirit could be used for the Divine in Christ, effectively separating His Divinity from His humanity. This is a denial of the Incarnation, one of the heresies for which Antichrist will be specifically known. This heresy was condemned in 680 by Pope St. Agatho at the Roman Council, (DZ 288). As Pelican explains, Christ’s “spirit” and the Holy Ghost have nothing to do with each other. He cited such a distinction as suggestive of a “binitarian mode of thinking,” and ascribed it to “those early Christian writings, which still showed marks of the Jewish origins of Christianity.”
Early Hebrew heretics rejecting Christianity taught that the Holy Ghost was the “life-giving” or creative principle of the Trinity, a notion condemned in 451 by the Council of Chalcedon. The Hindu teaching of Kundalini is responsible for this identification, teaching the “sacredness” of sex for its own sake and equating the creative power with the Divine creative principle in God the Father. Some heretics even described the Third Person as a female. This can be traced to the Egyptian “trinity” of Osiris, Isis and Horus, where Isis is revered as “God the Mother,” spouse of Osiris, (Fire of Creation, by J.J. Vander Leeuw). Vander Leeuw provided the missing factor in the androgyny equation: “It is by giving the worship of Our Lady the proper place in the Christian religion… that we can actively insist in bringing nearer that religion of the near future, which in its ideals will show us the unity that binds what we call the masculine and feminine aspect in all things… This precious heritage… the worship of God the Mother… (will), in the Christianity of the future, be a great and splendid religious ideal.”
So here we have the reason why Theosophy reveres Our Lady, and New Age priestess Annie Besant is even featured in one photo holding a rosary. The Church had grave reasons indeed for mandating the use of Holy Ghost in the English language, particularly in prayer and the Sacraments when administered in English: to eliminate the possibility of error in reference to this blasphemous and heretical idea of spirit. The use of Holy Spirit versus Holy Ghost began to creep into Catholic missals and prayer books in English in the 1940s, 1950s. In his work New Age Bible Versions, G.A. Riplinger contrasted newly translated biblical texts to the King James and (in some instances) the Douay-Rheims versions. He concluded that all these modern translations have replaced “Holy Ghost” with “Holy Spirit” in key passages, a change arising, he said, “from ecumenical practices.” He cited the rebuke from Job 26:4 to those who were moved, not of the holy Spirit of God, but by their “human spirit;” and also referred these changes to Gal. 3:5 and Cor. 2:11 which mention “unclean spirits.” This affords us further insight into what may be intended by the Novus Ordo usage.
In “returning” to the primitive usage of Holy Spirit on the ruse that this return reflected a greater faithfulness to Tradition, the Novus Ordo church failed to explain to its members why the usage was suppressed in the first place. The Kabbalistic Jews believed in an ever-generating (and incestuous) quatrinity. They even represented Christ as synonymous with the pagan god Metraton and Samauel, the evil principle in Kabbalism, (The Kabbala Unveiled). And the Gnostics who infiltrated first Jewish then Christian ranks taught man’s divinity. Protestant author Texe Marrs provided a more sinister explanation of the term Holy Spirit along these same lines in his work, Dark Majesty. Quoting Rex Hutchins’ A Bridge to Light, Marrs wrote: “There is a Life-Principle of this world, a universal agent, wherein are two natures and a double current of love and wrath…It is a ray detached from the glory of the Sun…It is the Holy Spirit, the universal Agent, the serpent…”
Since spirit can refer to the soul of Christ excluding the Holy Ghost from the Trinity, or even to Satan as a “necessary” component of that same Trinity, can this ambiguous usage, so suggestive of Manichaean dualism, be accepted as innocuous, particularly in the administration of the sacraments? In condemning the errors of Michael Molinos, Pope Innocent XI taught that a probable opinion could never be used in administering the Sacraments, the safer opinion being abandoned, (DZ 1151). So if it is a matter of mere opinion (which it cannot be, since the Church has suppressed the usage to avoid the danger of a wrong conception of the Trinity) the safer opinion and that adhered to traditionally by the Church must be preferred. Other errors of Molinos condemned by Bd. Pope Innocent XI include the use of ambiguous words, (DZ 1177). The Sacraments convey the graces necessary for salvation and the Church tolerates no possibility of error or a false intention in their administration.
Spirit is an ambiguous word that could be interpreted as man sharing literally in Christ’s divinity, Satan’s long-coveted ambition, and many today believe such a thing is possible. Such a conception of the Mystical Body is in direct contradiction of all Church teaching on the matter; for while Catholics are granted a share in the Church’s earthly, spiritual upbuilding, they are invited to heed only the call to be “other Christs,” not THE Christ. To avoid any confusion on this matter, Pope Pius XII specifically proscribed any idea of membership in the Mystical Body that passed “beyond the sphere of creatures and wrongly enter(s) the Divine, were it only to the extent of appropriating to themselves but one single attribute of the eternal Godhead,” (Mystici Corporis). As stated above, these heretics wish to limit the identification of the Holy Ghost with a “Christ-spirit” emanating from His soul — a spirit they say we share with Him. So in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII went to great lengths to identify the Holy Ghost as a separate person in one God, not an indistinct extension of Christ Himself.
To pervert the Holy Ghost’s action in the Sacrament of Baptism or any of the Sacraments, or to omit His existence at all disfigures the intention requisite for sacramental validity. Depending on the minister and his understanding of theology, it could refer to the “holy spirit” of Christ indwelling (a heresy), which is entirely separate from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The indwelling of the Holy Ghost is lost through commission of mortal sin, but this spirit referred to in Novus Ordo usage is bestowed on recipients as a constantly abiding principle. This would explain why the form in Novus Ordo baptism no longer refers to taking away original sin. For if all are divine by nature, who can sin?
The apostate priest Abbe Roca puts this usage into context by predicting, in his work Glorious Century, that “The convert of the Vatican…will rest content with confirming and glorifying the spirit of Christ, or Christ-spirit [divine humanity], seed of the Word, in the public mind.” The Catholic Encyclopedia under Holy Ghost explained that in the works of St. Paul the word spirit, particularly the use of the term “spirit of God, [can] signify at times the soul or man himself.” In denying the existence of the Holy Ghost as a Divine entity, some ranked Him among the highest choir of angels. Others identified Him as the female principle, or “feminine side” of God. And evidence that these heresies still exist is readily available.
Rev. Leeming verified the Church’s condemnation of the above interpretation for spirit. “St. Irenaeus tells us that certain of the Gnostic sects taught that the ‘Father’ whom Christ revealed was different from the Creator of the Universe, and that the spirit who came upon Jesus was really Christ. They carried out their false beliefs in the ceremonies of Baptism, for Iranaeus says they baptized ‘in the name of the unknown father of all, truth, mother of all and in him who descended into Jesus,’” (#597). Others, St. Epiphanius says, baptized “’in the name of the uncreated God, the created Son and in the name of the spirit of sanctification, created by the Son.’” The Fathers were suspicious of the use of the names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit by these sects because they could be understood in a sense different than that of the true Trinity. The Paulinists used the above formula and were condemned by the Council of Nicaea, (DZ 56). The Sacraments of Baptism and Orders administered by the Paulinists were to be entirely repeated for this reason, since the correct Trinitarian formula must be used for both Sacraments.
Illicit Baptism
This topic, to the best of the author’s knowledge, has never been addressed. But it is important to address it because like all the other Sacraments, Baptism can be validly but illicitly given and/or received, and if this is the case then the graces it is meant to convey are absent. This is true anytime one who is not a priest (for whatever reasons, including invalid and/or illicit ordination) attempts to perform Solemn Baptism, not the simple baptism performed by the laity; or when one who may be validly and licitly (or illicitly) ordained and does not possess jurisdiction performs Solemn Baptism.
Rev. Stanislaus Grabowski, in his examination of St. Augustine’s idea of the Church, (“The Church,” 1957), notes: “Without the Holy Ghost are such as have been baptized in heretical and schismatic factions… Baptism so administered produces in the soul of the recipient an effect which Augustine calls a form or ‘forma,’ [the indelible mark?]. However, since it is produced outside the Church, it is irregular and illicit and consequently it does not convey a life of grace, it does not bring a rebirth of the soul, it does not effect a participation in the Holy Ghost,” and unfortunately this includes Traditional sects because they are not Catholic and not in communion with the pope. Grabowski says such a Sacrament from heretics and schismatics “is not worthless. Because it is valid it impinges a ‘form’ on the recipient… On account of the sacramental ‘form’ impressed on the baptized one, when such a person returns from heresy and schism… to the fold of the Church,” he becomes a member of the Mystical Body, returns to grace and receives the Holy Ghost.
“The sinner administering it in the Church does not hinder the Sacrament from producing that life which he himself does not have, for it is Christ who is the principal minister. The sacrament is not affected by the sinfulness of the dispenser,” and this is the entire thrust of the Donatist heresy fought by St. Augustine and mistakenly applied by Traditionalists to the situation today. Sinfulness is one thing; lack of membership in the Church quite another. “…The sacrament, however, does not produce the supernatural life it is intended to convey…[when] administered or received outside the pale of the Church of Christ. This Church is the sole legitimate possessor of the sacraments. Just as they are said to be the sacraments of Christ, they are the sacraments of the Church.”
“After irregular baptism, received at the hands of heretics or schismatics, the recipients should be reconciled to the Church and receive the baptism of the Spirit… Theodori Poenit. li. il. 13, a.d. 673, in Haddan & Stubbs, in. 192 : “If an ordained priest discovers he has not been baptized let him be baptized and reordained, and all whom he previously baptized be re-baptized. The same is repeated i. ix. 12, Ibid. in. 185, with this addition: It is stated that another decision has been given on this point by the Roman Pontiff, according to which the grace of baptism is not conferred by the man who baptizes, although he be a pagan, but by the Spirit of God. See note 110 above. Nicolaus l. a.d.865, ap. Gratian in. Dist. iv. c. 24: You say that many in your country were baptized by a Jew who may have been a Christian or may have been a pagan, and ask what ought to be done.
“If such have been baptized in the name of the Trinity… they ought not to be re-baptized…Theodori Poenit. li. ix. 3. 1. c. p. 197: Whoever has a doubt about his baptism let him be baptized. Alexander in. a.d. 1180, in Decret. Lib. in. Tit. xlii. c. 2 : Concil. Westminster, a.d.1200, Can. 3: We charge according to the holy canons that the sacraments of which there is a doubt be conferred. Const.1, Langton, a.d. 1223 ; Const. 11, Edmund, a.d. 1236: If he find by full evidence that baptism was given in the form of the Church let him approve the fact, whether he did it in Latin, French, or English. But if not let him baptize the child.” (From: The Complete Manual of Canon Law, by Oswald J. Reichel, M.A., B.CAL., F.S.A.; author of The See of Rome in the Middle Ages, 1923).
Traditionalists and intention
We have seen above how Traditionalists, in performing Solemn Baptism, not only baptize illicitly but fraudulently. For while a simple lay baptism by their pseudo-priests might be argued to be valid, given the right intention can be proved, a Solemn Baptism, to be administered only by validly ordained priests, is fraudulent and sacrilegious. And as taught in Can. 104, such acts by laymen pretending to be priests are therefore null and void, both under Can. 104 and Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. But does a Traditionalist, whether a pseudo-priest or not, even when baptizing privately, have the right intention to baptize? For they must intend to baptize the individual as a member of the Catholic Church in “the same sense and understanding” of that Church as it has always existed (Pope St. Pius X). They can call their baptism Catholic, and claim the church they are baptizing such a person in is Catholic, but is this the actual truth? No, because the clergy and faithful of the one, true Catholic Church must always be in communion with and obedient to a head bishop, the Pope, to be Catholic.
One cannot claim to possess hierarchy and constitute the Catholic Church without the pope. Is it different than any other heretics or schismatics baptizing people into their sects, meaning if the proper matter and form is used it could be valid? Yes, it is different; for never before have sects such as the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists insisted they were CATHOLIC and possessed valid hierarchy and Sacraments. Again, their very insistence constitutes fraud and nullifies and invalidates all their acts.
We have “Solemn Baptism,” (irregular) received at the hands of heretics and schismatics (Traditionalists, Novus Ordo ministers) and we are not sure if they had the intention of baptizing “in the name of the Trinity.” Or if, in the case of Traditionalists, they intended to baptize into the true Catholic Church which, if it claims to possess bishops, must always be under obedience to a head bishop, a canonically elected pope. One cannot proceed on doubt concerning a matter involving the Sacraments. When possible, one must always be certain to have received Baptism by water. It is not lawful or prudent to ever rely on Baptism of desire when valid water Baptism is available.
Conclusion
Because Baptism is a Sacrament necessary for salvation, there cannot be any doubt concerning its validity for it to take effect. It is the common opinion of theologians that any time there is any question in our minds about the validity of any of the Sacraments, we are not to partake in them or presume they are valid if we have done, without realizing the dangers. Since the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists are non-Catholic sects just like any other sect, and because we have no bishops or pope to put this question to, in my opinion it is wise to conditionally baptize anyone who has been baptized in the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects. This since the minister’s right intention cannot be proved.
We should inquire carefully concerning any previous “baptisms,” but when inquiry fails to prove validity, we should not hesitate to baptize conditionally. Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey writes in his Dogmatic Theology: “In case of necessity, anyone who has the use of reason can baptize, even licitly. This is certain: first, from the declaration of the Lateran Council IV (‘The sacrament of baptism, rightly performed by anyone in the form of the Church, is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults’ — DZ 430); from the Council of Florence (“In the case of necessity, however, even…a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan or a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the Church does.’ — DZ 696); also Canon 742; secondly, from the practice of the Church…thirdly, it is most fitting that Baptism, so necessary for salvation, be able to be easily conferred — hence that it be able to be conferred by all.”
The following on Baptism is taken from A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod and revised by Rev. Callistus Smith, Vol. 1, (Imprimatur and Copyright 1943, pages 353 and 354):
“Of the Time and Place of Baptism”
“668. Infants shall be baptized as soon as possible. Pastors and preachers shall often remind the faithful of this grave obligation.” (Canon 770) …It is considered to be within the power of the Bishop to demand that the Baptism be conferred within eight days after birth, making due allowance for circumstances where that regulation would impose undue hardship.In an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 31, 1902, to the missionaries among the Nestorians, it states that Baptism shall be conferred on the infants at least within eight days after birth, and if necessary, Private Baptism should be given rather than wait longer for Solemn Baptism.
“669. … One may hold with Noldin and Vermeersch-Creusen that one cannot delay Baptism over a month without sinning gravely against the law. If circumstances are such – and they certainly exist in the scattered districts of the United States — that the priest cannot be had within a month — some layperson should be asked by the parents to baptize the child, rather than delay the Baptism. The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda approved an Instruction given to the catechists and other well-instructed Catholics to baptize any of the infants of the Christians, though they are in good health, if the priest is absent or it is difficult to go to him. We saw that the Instructions to the missionaries among the Nestorians insisted that Baptism should be conferred within eight days, and that, when necessary, the infants should be baptized privately rather than delay Baptism and expose the infants to the danger of dying without it.
“670.Private Baptism may, in case of necessity, be given at any time and in any place (Canon 771).
One further note
All baptisms by Catholic adults when no priest is available are valid as long as the intention to baptize the child into the Catholic Church as she existed up to pope Pius XII’s death is present and the proper form is used. This is a matter of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and has been for centuries. In his Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics (Catholic University of America Press, Sacred Theology Dissertation, 1943), Rev. John Bancroft, C.S.S.R., J.C.B, S.T.L, notes that the approved theologian Lemkuhl believes that heretic, apostate and schismatic priests are the equivalent of vitandi. Merkelbach and several others are quoted as believing that to allow anyone but a Catholic layman, that is a heretic, infidel, apostate, or vitandus to baptize is a mortal sin. Bancroft quotes a decision of the Holy See that seems to indicate that even when there is a question of Baptism by either lay Catholics or even lay non-Catholics versus a non-Catholic priest, the lay Catholics or non-Catholics are to be preferred! He concludes: “What has been said has referred to the administration of Baptism by a [valdily ordained] non-Catholic priest. The doctrine applies a fortiori to a non-Catholic [non-ordained] minister. He has no consecration to act as a minister of the Sacraments [so is] really only a layman.”
