Has anyone here gone through the "vetting" process to be received into the Churches served by the priests of the Roman Catholic Insitute (RCI) under the leadership of Bishop Sanborn? By "vetting" process I mean they will investigate whether one's Novus Ordo Baptism and other sacraments such as Matrimony have been validly performed. My question is how are they going to investigate the validity of one's Baptism being validly done especially when there are not witnesses or no video recordings/ photos. Any feedback will be appreciated.

I have not had any experience with them directly.  However their policy is that any baptism after 1990 is repeated conditionally.  If yours was prior to 1990, they will investigate.  I had my own investigated by SSPV/CSPV clergy some years ago.  They looked up the priest and when they saw that he was involved in ecuмenical groups and other expressly modernist things, they decided to conditionally baptize me.  I would imagine the process with RCI is similar.  With no direct evidence one way or the other, they will look into the priest/parish etc.  I hope this helps. God bless you.

However their policy is that any baptism after 1990 is repeated conditionally.  If yours was prior to 1990, they will investigate.

Interesting cut-off year.  I am curious why 1990.

Have not read this, but this might answer your questions:

Novus Ordo Baptism Sept. 1 (mostholytrinityseminary.org)

Thank you.

The year 1990 was chosen for the reason that most of the clergy who had been trained in preVatican II seminaries were dead or retired by that time. As well, reports of invalid or doubtful baptisms started at that time to become more common.

I'm not sure I buy this.  Some of the WORST Modernists at the time of V2 were those ordained prior to Vatican II, those who were active in the 1960s and 1970s.  There was actually a bit of a swing in the pendulum back toward the right after the initial "Catholic Hippie" era.  I believe that all NO Baptisms should be investigated, not just those after 1990.  Corollary almost seems to be that they presume all pre-1990 Baptisms to be valid, and I don't agree in making such a presumption.  Since a valid priest is not required to validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism, it isn't a question of Holy Orders.

Given the general Conciliar chaos, I personally hold that it would be permissible and even advisable to just conditionally baptize anyone who had been baptized in the Conciliar Church, since you should also supply the various other ceremonies that were excised by the Novus Ordo anyway.  I would treat this similar to an emergency Baptism (with just the essential form) carried out by, say, a nurse at a hospital, where you would solemnize it and also include a conditional Baptism if you had no assurances that it was done correctly.

I was baptized as an adult so thankfully I know that mine was valid.

Good. You don't need any uncertainties.

Thank you.
I'm not sure I buy this.  Some of the WORST Modernists at the time of V2 were those ordained prior to Vatican II, those who were active in the 1960s and 1970s.  There was actually a bit of a swing in the pendulum back toward the right after the initial "Catholic Hippie" era.  I believe that all NO Baptisms should be investigated, not just those after 1990.  Corollary almost seems to be that they presume all pre-1990 Baptisms to be valid, and I don't agree in making such a presumption.  Since a valid priest is not required to validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism, it isn't a question of Holy Orders.

Given the general Conciliar chaos, I personally hold that it would be permissible and even advisable to just conditionally baptize anyone who had been baptized in the Conciliar Church, since you should also supply the various other ceremonies that were excised by the Novus Ordo anyway.  I would treat this similar to an emergency Baptism (with just the essential form) carried out by, say, a nurse at a hospital, where you would solemnize it and also include a conditional Baptism if you had no assurances that it was done correctly.

It's not that they presume pre-1990s baptisms to be valid.  They investigate those.  But if its 1990 or after, no investigation is done.  They are simply conditionally baptized as a matter of policy in that case. 

I respect the RCI in many ways but don't agree with their strict rules about the "non unc cuм".

Interestingly...  I was doing some research about Archbishop Thuc yesterday and came across an article by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers where he specifically mentions the "Una cuм" issue:


"Those who submerge every doctrinal norm under the satanic slogan "we must change nothing" are not authentic witnesses to the Faith. Nor are those who flock to every location where the traditional form of worship is established in order to recruit partisans; who attack those who, because they have no alternatives, assist at a Mass which is said "una cuм Wojtyla" and declare that such are guilty of sacrilege - at least objectively, and who then, in one way or another, induce said partisans who become fanatically faithful followers to nourish attitudes of duplicity in themselves every time they participate in the most sacred of realities. Such sectarians are not authentic witnesses to the Faith because they are not pure reflections of the Witness who is the Truth (John XIV)"

https://web.archive.org/web/20080305062917/http://catholic.shrineofsaintjude.net/homec081.html

It's not that they presume pre-1990s baptisms to be valid.  They investigate those.  But if its 1990 or after, no investigation is done.  They are simply conditionally baptized as a matter of policy in that case.

I guess what I was saying is that I find no real reason to distinguish between pre- and post- 1990s Novus Ordo Baptism and to treat them differently.  I find that date rather arbitrary.  One reason they gave is that many pre-V2-ordained priests had died by then.  How many?  I have a list of about 30+ priests in the Cleveland diocese alone who were ordained in the Traditional Rite who are still living in 2024 (34 years after 1990), and many are still active.  Surely in 1990 there were many more left, especially given that the seminaries largely emptied out in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II.  Let's say that 50% of the priests in 1990 were post-V2 ordained, whereas in 1980 it was 75%.  Why does that make a difference?  It's really just a stat.  And some of the pre-1990 priests were more rabidly Modernist than some of the post-1990 priests.  Not to mention that valid Holy Orders doesn't necessarily figure in, since they're not required for the valid administration of Baptism.  So I would think they should all be treated the same, so either investigate them all or just offer conditional Baptism for anyone baptized after the New Rite was introduced.  I think that the Rite is important because anyone using the Traditional Rite would have been trained not to deviate from it, whereas the mentality of ad lib Rites and Sacraments was an entirely Novus Ordo mentality.  Given the pervasiveness of the Conciliar mindset to improvise Rites and the "administrative" burden of having to research every priest involved (often with lack of sufficient information to make a judgment), I'd probably lean toward just conditionally baptizing everyone baptized in the New Rite.  After all, since it's conditional, there's no sacrilegious repetition of the Sacrament.  "If you have not been baptized, I baptize you ..."  If the person is validly baptized, then no baptism takes place.  Due to the conditional formula, I've never really understood the notion that there's something wrong with offering a conditional if there's any positive doubt whatsoever, and I think that the overall Novus Ordo mentality creates positive doubt.  If there were a group of, say, Old Catholics who were known to have a mentality of letting the "priests" improvise Rites, to me that creates enough doubt to confer the Sacrament conditionally.  In other words, I'm not sure that doubting the Conciliar baptism in general would be a merely negative doubt, as a whole.