CathInfo.com

Can the theology of the minister affect the intent if he intends to do what the Church does?  Really intends to do it?

Because if it can then how can one believe a baptism by a modernist priest is valid if he conceives of baptism as being something entirely different than the remission of original sin?

A believing Baptist is less of a heretic than a modernist.  Isn't that obvious?

How could the underlying theology regarding a sacrament not change the sacrament by its defection?  Leo XIII in Apostolicæ curæ declared the Anglican rite of ordination was no longer valid because of a defection of intent, that its purpose was no longer to produce a member of the sacerdotal priesthood capable of confecting the bread and wine into the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary.

Moreover, you can't compare heresies as being more or less heretical.  It has been the teaching of the Church since the Fathers that any who deny the slightest degree of dogma is a heretic.  There's no difference between a Baptist and a modernist; they're both members of a false and perditious religion.  If you could make such an argument, then a modernist would be the greater heretic of the two.  He has the history of the Church and the truth of her sacraments at his fingertips, and denies it; at the very least it's possible the Baptist has no understanding of sacramental theology.

There's a huge difference.  A Baptist believes in the account of the New Testament, a Modernist does not.  That's a huge difference.

Belief in the historicity of the New Testament, or any part of the Bible for that matter is not indicative of one's orthodoxy.  So long as one assents with faith those doctrines revealed in it and interpreted infallibly by the Church to be divinely inspired, that is sufficient.

False religions have elements of truth.  A Baptist who accepts the account of the Gospels as history has a great deal more truth than a modernist.

Have elements of truth?  Yes.  Can be salvific?  Nnnnnope.  Again, the historicity of it is not at issue here.

Obviously such an argument can be made, and it turns out you're willing to make it after all.

It is heresy to deny that heretics can have valid Baptisms.

But some Feeneyites have a tendency to try to cast doubt on all such Baptisms.  It is definitely a heretical tendency on their part.

I'm not a follower of Father Feeney, nor do I deny the doctrine of the Baptism of Blood.  Also, I stand by my assertion that such argument of whose more a heretic is irrelevant; my assertion concerning modernists had to do with their culpability, not their degree of error.  Lastly, I, in no way denied that members of heretical sects can have valid baptisms; I've addressed the case with Methodists, and the same can be said for the Orthodox, the Lutherans, and some Presbyterians.  I delivered not a single definite statement supporting the negative.  I merely pointed at the Jehanne's position that all baptisms, by virtue of form and matter, are automatically valid is theologically incorrect.

Quote from: Moral Theology, Koch-Preuss

I. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.

Quote from: Woywod, commentary on CIC

585. Private Baptism may be given by any one who uses the proper matter and form and has the right intention. As far as possible two witnesses, or at least one, should be present at such a private Baptism, by whom the conferring of Baptism may be proved, (cf. Canon 759.)

If a priest is present he should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless decency demand that the woman be preferred, or in case the woman knows better the form and manner of Baptism.

The father and mother are not allowed to baptize their own child except in danger of death if there is no one else at hand who can baptize. (Canon 742.)

I guess I'm missing the point.