It is my understanding when a Protestant converts to the Catholic faith, they are always conditionally Baptized. This is the way it was prior to VII.  

True anyone can Baptize, but they must do it correctly.  I heard  about Baptism in novus ordo, where the priest said, I Baptize you in the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, or just a sprinkling of water instead of pouring it; or pouring it after the words were spoken, not during.  

Has always been customary to administer conditional baptism to Protestants converting to the Catholic faith fearing there might be a  defect in form, matter, or intention when baptism was administered to them in their original Protestant church.

As you know conditional baptism is not the same as "re-baptizing".

Conditional baptisms respect the validity of the Protestant baptism by using formulas such as "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . " CMRI follows this custom.  

Better to be safe than sorry!

That's simply not true.

Exactly what part of my note is not true?

Besides, it's hardly on point unless you consider the rest of the Catholic Church to be tantamount to a protestant sect.

What do you mean "the rest of the Catholic Church"?
None of the Catholic Church is equal to a Protestant sect.

This just begs the question and introduces even more problems.

More problems as in.........?

Indeed, the apparent simplicity of sedevacantism is very deceiving.

Not at all!    

Has always been customary to administer conditional baptism to Protestants converting to the Catholic faith fearing there might be a  defect in form, matter, or intention when baptism was administered to them in their original Protestant church.

As you know conditional baptism is not the same as "re-baptizing".

Conditional baptisms respect the validity of the Protestant baptism by using formulas such as "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . " CMRI follows this custom.  

Better to be safe than sorry!

Myrna your last sentence is the important one. Better to be safe than sorry. It is a sad FACT that many in the Novus Ordo do not have the intention's of the Church. Therefore they improvise with words. I have heard people call into Relevant Radio and say that the "priest" said the words Mother, Son and Holy Ghost. They have called in and said that water was not used. Ihave heard it with my own ears that the community baptizes you and you are now a memeber of our "name of Parish now said" community. What is that? So, even if the externals are their the intention is in question. And, since most do not remember their baptism it would be a foolish and prideful person indeed who did not follow the priests advice to conditionally baptize.

Just wanted to add that for myself I was conditionally baptized by the SSPX, so I understand its need. I'm not differing there.

Myrna said:
Sometime majority means most of the people are on the wrong side.  

Luke 14:23-34

Excuse me.  That should have been Luke 13:23-24.

Quote from: wallflower

Just wanted to add that for myself I was conditionally baptized by the SSPX, so I understand its need. I'm not differing there.

So if SSPX conditionally baptizes,  where is the argument here?

Wallflower in my own words to explain SV position; try to imagine a clean piece of paper representing the Catholic Church, and tear off the corners one at a time, representing the Protestants leaving the Church, the remainder, and larger portion is still what remains of the Church for centuries.  Vatican II comes along so now imagine tearing off most of the paper and all you have left in your fingers would be a small portion.  That  small portion represents those who are keeping the Faith intact.  One such Catholic order is CMRI, not a movement but what remains.  

Novus ordo is the movement.  Sometime majority means most of the people are on the wrong side.  

Luke 18; 8 However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth? ...

I understand the need for conditional baptism, that was never a question for me. What I questioned was why the SEDES would *conditionally* baptize. If there is no possibility whatsoever (from the sede standpoint) that any NO could possibly be Catholic, then it seemed to me that the logical thing to do would be to flat out baptize them, not conditionally baptize them.

The whole premise of the conditional baptism is doubt. The person may have been properly baptized or they may not have been, we don't know. That's why it fits with the SSPX's MO. Each individual NO priest and person needs to be taken on an individual basis because there are vestiges of the Faith left. In spite of the horror stories that we hear, many NO, if not millions, still were properly baptized and still hold the truths of the Faith as well as they know how. They are just ignorant of the politics going on right now; culpably or not, it's not for me to presume to know. So for the SSPX to conditionally baptize, therefore admitting that this person may have been properly baptized but we don't know for sure, makes sense.

My understanding of the sedes though, is that there is a blanket statement or judgment made across the board that no NO is or could possibly be Catholic. In that case there would be no doubt that their baptism was invalid (beyond whatever year the sedes believe the NO started). In that case a conditional baptism would not make sense. It would have to be an all out baptism. I know it's a technicality but there is a lot of meaning behind it which was why I was confused. The "conditional" baptism doesn't seem to fit in the sede MO, unless maybe the NO person is much older.