What Is Novatianism And Who Are Carthaginian Schismatics? There Are Some Carthaginian Schismatic Ideas And Heresy Among Traditionalists

Pope St. Cornelius 

Persecution of Christians and Martyrs under Decian the Pagan Roman Emperor

Novatian was an Antipope who lived on 251 until 258 AD on Decian Persecution's Period. He opposed the Election of Pope Cornelius to be a Pope. He opposed Pope Cornelius because for the grounds that Cornelius was too liberal in accepting lapsed Christians. Novatian held that lapsed Christians, who had not maintained their confession of faith under persecution, may not be received again into communion with the church. He was consecrated bishop by three bishops of Italy and declared himself to be the true Pope. He and his followers were excommunicated by a synod held at Rome in October of the same year. 

As reprisal, He held the rival synod who condemns Pope Cornelius and also Pope Stephen I later. Antipope Novatian in his writings defended the doctrine of the Trinity , He also supported The Trinity concept against Sabellianism, Monarchianism, Docetism, and many other heresies. 

But, He was fallen into a Heresy about Baptism which He rejected Baptism from Lapsed Christians and after that, He proposed his teaching for Carthaginian Bishops to reject Baptism from Heretics although Baptism which conferred by Heretic is Valid with True Form and True Matter. 

From this, there is a Council of Carthage which was condemned by Pope Stephen I because Novatianism is contradicted with Ephesians 4:5-6 :

" One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. " 

" Unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma. Unus Deus et Pater omnium, qui est super omnes, et per omnia, et in omnibus nobis. " (Ephesians 4:5-6 on Latin Vulgata) 

Novatianism Schismatics rejected Baptism which conferred by Heretic although Heretics used Trinitarian Form : " I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit " 

" Ego Te Baptize In Nomine Patris, Et Filii, Et Spiritus Sancti " In Latin words. 

Pope St. Stephen I

“Heretics who have been baptized by a heretic who does not have valid priestly ordination, when they (the heretics) wish to enter the Catholic Church, they need not be rebaptized.” (Source: “Pope Stephen I on letter to St. Cyprian of Carthage” and "Against Novatianism" in “The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 14 New York: Robert Appleton Company) 

Novatian also defended the unity of the godhead and humanity in Jesus, and wrote about a distinction between the Son and the Father, to combat Marcionites, Modalists and Adoptionists. Novatian believed that the role of the Holy Spirit was solely to be the source of blessings given during Baptism. But, St. Cyprian of Carthage mentioned that Novatian should not be confused with one Novatus, a priest of Carthage, who advocated re-admitting the lapsi without an enforced penance. St. Cyprian of Carthage came to a position opposed to both and advocated a council be held to establish a policy under which former idolaters could be once again admitted to communion with the church. 

But, from this mistakes, St. Cyprian was influenced by some Novatian views about Baptism if Heretic cannot only receive the faith confession without Rebaptism, which would be condemned by Pope St. Stephen Later. And after that, St. Cyprian corrected his previous view and agreed with Pope St. Stephen I and condemned Novatianites. 

This Council would be condemned by Pope St. Stephen I : 

The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian.

Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics.

Prooemium.— When Stephen, Bishop of Rome, Had by His Letters Condemned the Decrees of the African Council on the Baptism of Heretics, Cyprian Lost No Time in Holding Another Council at Carthage with a Greater Number of Bishops. Having Therefore Summoned Eighty-Seven Bishops from Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, Who Assembled at Carthage in the Kalends of September, a.d. 258, This Third Council on the Same Matter of Baptism Was Then Celebrated; At the Beginning of Which, After, the Letters on Either Side Had Been Read, Cyprian, by Implication, Condemns the Assumption of Stephen.

When, in the kalends of September, a great many bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, had met together at Carthage, together with the presbyters and deacons, and a considerable part of the congregation who were also present; and when the letter of Jubaianus written to Cyprian had been read, as also the reply of Cyprian to Jubaianus, about baptizing heretics, and what the same Jubaianus had subsequently rejoined to Cyprian — Cyprian said: You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

Caecilius of Bilta said: I know only one baptism in the Church, and none out of the Church. This one will be here, where there is the true hope and the certain faith. For thus it is written: One faith, one hope, one baptism;  Ephesians 4:5 not among heretics, where there is no hope, and the faith is false, where all things are carried on by lying; where a demoniac exorcises; where one whose mouth and words send forth a cancer puts the sacramental interrogation; the faithless gives faith; the wicked bestows pardon of sins; and Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ; he who is cursed of God blesses; he who is dead promises life; he who is unpeaceful gives peace; the blasphemer calls upon God; the profane person administers the office of the priesthood; the sacrilegious person establishes an altar. In addition to all these things, there is also this evil, that the priests of the devil dare to celebrate the Eucharist; or else let those who stand by them say that all these things concerning heretics are false. Behold to what kind of things the Church is compelled to consent, and is constrained without baptism, without pardon of sins, to hold communion. And this thing, brethren, we ought to flee from and avoid, and to separate ourselves from so great a wickedness, and to hold one baptism, which is granted by the Lord to the Church alone.

Primus of Misgirpa said: I decide, that every man who comes to us from heresy must be baptized. For in vain does he think that he has been baptized there, seeing that there is no baptism save the one and true baptism in the Church; because not only is God one, but the faith is one, and the Church is one, wherein stands the one baptism, and holiness, and the rest. For whatever is done without, has no effect of salvation.

Polycarp from Adrumetum said: They who approve the baptism of heretics make void our baptism.

Novatus of Thamugada said: Although we know that all the Scriptures give witness concerning the saving baptism, still we ought to declare our faith, that heretics and schismatics who come to the Church, and appear to have been falsely baptized, ought to be baptized in the everlasting fountain; and therefore, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, and according to the decree of our colleagues, men of most holy memory, that all schismatics and heretics who are converted to the Church must be baptized; and moreover, that those who appeared to have been ordained must be received among lay people.

And many more citations from 87 Bishops who rejected Heretic Baptism although it uses Trinitarian Form, Right Subject, and True Matter. 

For more know you can read it : https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

For know more information about How the Valid

Baptism is, you can read it :  https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/07/true-baptism-of-water-which-is-valid.html?m=1

St. Cyprian of Carthage

St. Cyprian of Carthage, although he was a Saint on Catholic Church, he could be false and could be corrected by Pope St. Stephen I until St. Cyprian reconciled with Rome after his false view fallen into Schism in Carthage with Novatianism writings Influence. St. Cyprian later left his view and joined with Rome. But, Novatian was died with His Heresy which influenced Donatism (Donatus Magnus as its Founder) with same policy, where they (Donatists) baptized Lapsed Christians and Heretics too (Note: who Donatists claimed to be out of Catholic Church other than them, because Donatists claimed themselves as Catholics). 

And then what is the relationship with Traditionalist Groups like " RCI " For This Modern Times?

Yes, if you read their website (for example : https://inveritateblog.com/2023/09/01/can-novus-ordo-baptisms-be-trusted-as-valid ) , they taught some problem which are not wisely : 

Ok, we want to continue to respond this fringe website from "Roman Catholic Institute" which is under Bishop Donald Sanborn who embraced Sedeprivationism, where many Catholic Priests like Fr. Valerii from Eastern Catholic (Sedevacantist who uses Slavonic Rite in Eastern Ukraine) and Fr. Vilii Lehtoranta from Saint Gertrude The Great Roman Catholic Church has similar views with us, had responded to the Fringe of "RCI" Theological about Validity of Water Baptism. So, We take the position with Tradition and Magisterium from what Catholic Church has taught about Baptism. 

For the First, RCI wrote : 1) the common practice of the Novus Ordo ministers to pour water on the hair only. 

We answer :  that to pour water onto the top of your head or crown (not directly onto your forehead), the water will naturally flow down your forehead, even if your forehead is also wet with the front of your hair, and the water will also flow down your neck. So, whatever it is, it is valid and will always remain valid while with True Water which is Clean and Pure, and with spell the Form : "  I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit " Or " I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost ", it's still valid. 

Many traditional paintings on Pre-Reformation until After Reformation while Rome was still on Catholic Church, used Baptism of Cornelius Scene and Baptism of Eunuch Scene with these pictures :

Baptism of Cornelius by St. Peter, according to Painting on 1709 (before Second Vatican Council) , by Francesco Trevisani The Catholic Painter. Cornelius was baptized by Saint Peter with pouring water onto the crown of Cornelius Head

Baptism of Eunuch with sprinkling by St. Philip the Apostle, by Pieter Lastman the Catholic Painter from Dutch,  on 1615 (before Second Vatican Council) 

Baptism of Ethiopian Eunuch by St. Philip the Apostle, which painted St. Philip was baptizing Eunuch with Sprinkling Method on the top of Head which is received as One of Baptism Methods in Catholic Church, by Pieter Lastman as Catholic Painter and Rembrandt on 1615 (before Second Vatican Council) 

So there is no problem, because hair is different from the roof of a house that can accommodate water without falling to the surface, the water that falls on the hair by flowing, of course it is absorbed into the surface of the scalp, both the top of the head and even down to the neck and forehead, wetting it. It's still valid, sprinkling method is Valid, and then Pouring onto the top of Head is Valid, and then Submerging / Immersion exactly during it uses True Form. 

If "RCI", including Bishop Sanborn and Father Desposito themselves, knew that this type of baptism was indeed valid, as in Renaissance paintings from the period before Vatican II, then they would certainly know that the Catholic Church before Vatican II was commonplace and had no problem using such a method. So why do they have a problem?

If it's because of something like Fr. Desposito's thinking, "Oh, Eunuch and Cornelius, even though they were baptized with water poured on their heads, not on their foreheads, they were exorcised, and the purpose of their baptismal vows was clearly to convert them to Catholicism. And saints like Saints Peter and Philip baptized in this way, it's clear their purpose was to convert them to Catholicism, not to convert them to heretics by abolishing the rite of exorcism, as Saint Michael did."

Whatever, Whether that's the thinking of Fr. Desposito and Bishop Sanborn, let's address to point 2 until point 4, which are stated on the RCI website were disputed by Arguments from Magisterium, from Pope St. Stephen I about Baptism of Heretics like what we have delivered before. 

Second until fourth, RCI wrote: (2) Novus Ordo contempt for the traditional sacramental theology; (3) The Novus Ordo culture and practice of ad-libbing and of personal innovation in the liturgy; (4) the lack of adequate training among Novus Ordo clergy

We answer : According to Magisterium on the Church, The Council of Trent (1545-1563) definitively settled the issue in the 16th century AD, teaching infallibly that a heretic could validly baptize as long as it followed the Trinitarian formula: "If anyone says that baptism, even that administered by heretics in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him anathematize those who say such baptism is not true."

Council of Trent

Pope Eugene IV

Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence, in Exultate Deo (1439), also emphasized, "However, if necessary, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman, let alone a woman, even a heretic or pagan, may (may is Licitly) baptize, provided they use the Church's formula and have the intention of doing what the Church does."

Pope Innocent IV gave a letter to Ascelin of Lombardia, and remitted it to Baichu Noyan

Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) wrote:

" Note that for someone to be baptized, it is necessary that the minister intend to baptize and not merely to bathe or to wash the body; but it does not seem necessary, as regards the effect of Baptism, that he should know what Baptism is, or that in it grace is infused, or that it is a sacrament; nor is it needed that he believe this. Indeed, even though he believes the contrary and thinks the whole thing (about Baptism) as nonsense and deception, nevertheless Baptism produces its 

effect. Likewise, it is not necessary that he who baptizes should know what the Church is, or from

where the Church or the person baptized is, nor that

he mentally intends to do what the Church does.

Even if he in his mind should wish to perform the

contrary, that is, not to do what the Church does,

nevertheless he does it, because if he keeps the

form, the person nevertheless is baptized, as long

as the minister intends to baptize. That’s why,

if someone in the case of necessity, or even outside

of necessity, were to go to a Saracen and say: “Baptize me,” and teaches him the form, and the Saracen baptizes him, not believing that through the immersion anything happens except a soaking, and does not intend to baptize him, or even to soak him according to the intention of him who asks the Baptism, namely, that Baptism should effect whatever it can effect, and the person baptizing intends to confer whatever the other ministers who confer Baptism intend, although he does not believe it can effect anything, then the Baptism is still valid. But if he does not intend this to practice it, of course he will not baptize, and it is unnecessary that he knows anything else what the Church understands about these things, or even

what he knows or believes to be the Church. " (De Baptismo et ejus effectu. Innocent 1570, 459-460)

St. Thomas Aquinas

" The person baptizing, therefore, even if he’d be a

non-Catholic, confers a valid Baptism, as long as

he wills to baptize, even though he doesn’t un-

derstand or believe what the Church is, or does

not know anything about what the Church does.

The reason is that the minister does not need to

perform the same thing what the Church intends

but what the Church does. St. Thomas Aquinas

summarizes: “If the form is kept, and nothing

outwardly done which expresses a contrary in-

tention, the Baptism is valid.” (Source: Thomas Aquinas 1947, 237. Distinctio VI, Q. 1, Art. II) 

Pope St. Pius V

The Church has ever since, both in theory and 

in practice, emphasized that doubts about the 

validity of baptisms based upon the minister’s 

intention are imprudent and scrupulous. The 

Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the 

Inquisition (later the Holy Office) of 30 January, 

1833, is of particular interest. A convert to the 

Catholic faith said that he was worried about his 

Baptism, because a schismatic Bishop, who also 

had recently converted to the true faith, had de-

clared, that while he was still in schism, he had 

never had the intention of truly baptizing when 

he baptized the children of Catholics. This was 

because he had hated the Catholic religion before his repentance. The instruction referred to St. Pius V’s declaration that Calvinist Baptism was valid, because the private belief of the minister against baptismal regeneration does not annul his general prevailing intention of doing what Christ instituted,

or what is done in the true Church of Christ. A

generic intention of doing what the Church does,

or of doing what Christ instituted, or what

Christians do, is sufficient. And the Instruction

rejected the doubt about the validity of the Baptism in question as being imprudent and without

sufficient foundation. (Leeming 1956, 472) 

In 1872 the following question was presented

to the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition:

“Whether Baptism administered by heretics is doubtful, because of lack of intention of doing what Christ willed, if an express declaration were made by the minister before Baptism, that Baptism produced no effect upon the soul.” The answer was: “In the negative, because, notwithstanding the error about the effect of Baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded.” ( Note: In France, during the religious wars between Catholics and Calvinist Huguenots in the 1500s, the question arose whether to rebaptize those baptized by the Calvinists who wished to convert to Catholicism. The question was taken 

to Pope St. Pius V, who answered that they shouldn’t. The council of Embrun, in 1576, therefore decided, that since the Pope had defined that Baptism done by the Calvinists was valid, because they used correct matter and form, and had the general intention of doing what Christ instituted,

those who were baptized by the Calvinists are not to be baptized again conditionally. (Mangenot 1910, 340)) 

So,  Protestant Baptism is still Valid on Catholic Church although they not use Exorcism rite, not use oath for Catholic Faith, but they still keep true form when they perform the baptism, that Baptism is Valid. Moreover for Novus Ordo Baptism, the Novus Ordo Baptism is valid as long as the form is true and the material is true. Yes, we know on some case like in Arizona, they (Novus Ordo "Priests" Who are laymen) changed Baptism Form. They change the Baptist Subject on the Form became : " We Baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ", yes it's Invalid Baptism. Because they change the Baptist subject became " We " Instead "I". But, it doesn't mean that all Novus Ordo Baptism is Invalid or doubtful. We must have a wisdom to value it. 

There are some case where Protestants also use Wrong Form until make their baptism Invalidly, like " I Baptize you in the name of Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Spirit of Creator " , which was in some of Presbyterian or Lutheran Churches as what Fr. Vilii had experienced when he was grown on Lutheran Family when he was young. But, finally Fr. Vilii maybe was baptized again with Conditionally on Roman Catholic Church with Old Rite of Baptism. But, it doesn't mean that all Protestant Baptism is Invalid. We must have a wisdom to value it. 

And from RCI other website like it : https://romancatholicinstitute.org/pastoral-directory-of-the-roman-catholic-institute

We found it : 

We Answer : Investigating the Protestant baptism form is correct, as long as it uses the Trinitarian Form, well, that's enough, then the Baptism is Valid unless the subject of the baptism is changed to "We" and does not use the subject word "I" for example, then Conditional Baptism or Re-Baptism can be carried out because using the words "we baptize you" is not valid since the baptist is individual and singular or with simple answer for example if it changes essential form like " Father, Son and Holy Spirit " with " I Baptize You In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, namely In The Name of Jesus ", yes of course it's Invalid because The Father and The Holy Spirit are not same with Lord Jesus Christ absolutely. This Baptism is not only Invalid, but has Sabellianism Tune. Although The Father, and The Son (Word Of God or Jesus Christ Himself), and The Holy Spirit are One God, of course it makes difference between three persons. 

And then RCI wrote : 29. Baptisms conferred by protestant sects are always considered doubtful, and the sacrament of Baptism must be conferred again sub conditione. 

We Answer : When we look at point 1 of the Novus Ordo Baptism which is said to only be poured on the head or looks like it only touches the hair, it is doubtful according to the RCI's view. Then what about the Baptism of the Protestant Baptist Church which uses Immersion even though the immersion method is only once and the baptismal form of the Baptist Church is correct, namely "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" even though there is no true Intention such as the exorcism rite, baptismal promise, promise to become a member of the Ark of St. Peter, where all the texts in the Baptism of the Baptist Church are just flat and do not have all of that, but all the baptized bodies are exposed to water. Isn't that also Valid? or for the RCI it is far invalid (whether Baptist Baptism is Invalid for RCI?) because it is Heretical and definitely doubtful?

Regarding point 29,

The same thing happened to Bishop Richard Williamson, an SSPX Resistance Bishop (holding the position of R&R), and Cardinal John Henry Newman, both of whom were originally Protestants and were baptized by Anglicans. When they became Catholic, were they rebaptized, or did they simply or only confess the Faith of the Council of Trent for joined with Catholic Church?

Anglican baptism is far worse, with some using sprinkling, while others don't use candles or baptismal vows. Moreover, the Anglican Church openly identifies itself as Protestant or at least "Anglo-Catholic." However, Anglican ministers are far worse and inferior in baptizing than lay Catholic men and even Catholic women. It's even clear that in cases of necessity, if a Catholic priest is not available, lay Catholics are far more licit in baptizing than Anglican presbyters. Moreover, lay Catholics use the Rite of Exorcism, even without chrism oil, far more licit than being baptized as an Anglican heretic by an Anglican heretic who also baptizes. Because even Anglican ministers are considered inferior laymen than Lay Catholics, and their ordinations are null. (For know more about why Anglican Ordination is Invalid, read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/05/history-of-anglican-heretic-sect.html ) 

Regarding John Henry Newman, was he rebaptized by a Catholic priest when he was deemed invalid for his ordination in Anglican Sect when he wanted to become a Catholic priest and was ordained by Giacomo Filippo Fransoni on May 30, 1847? Or was he only chrismated?

You can find that answer : 

Bishop Richard Williamson wasn't rebaptized or baptized again with sub conditions when he joined the Catholic Church when Archbishop Lefebvre received him, He was only chrismated and ordained as Priest and then was consecrated as Bishop by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. 

Likewise, Cardinal John Henry Newman, who was elevated to the rank of Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII, was not rebaptized. He simply confessed the faith of the Council of Trent and then received confirmation. After receiving confirmation, he could be ordained as a priest.


And then, RCI wrote : 30. Baptisms conferred by Eastern schismatics are considered valid, unless they have been conferred by clergy who are not subject to the schismatic hierarchy, or have been conferred by those subject to the Russian patriarchate, in which cases positive eyewitness proof of validity must be provided.

31. Confirmations done by Eastern rite uniates and by eastern schismatics must be conferred again sub conditione, unless they have been performed by a bishop.


We answer : What's wrong with Schismatics submitting to their Patriarch, such as the Greek Patriarch of the Byzantine Schismatics?

Or what's wrong with Schismatic priests submitting to the Russian Patriarch?

I'm surprised by the cases where Russian Schismatics, whose baptism was only sprinkling and immersion like a jumping boat, were conditionally baptized as seminarians at the MHTS (Most Holy Trinity Seminary) .

As well as like I have delivered about Arguments from Pope St. Stephen I, don't be Novatianist or resemble with Carthaginian Schismatic. 

Then, with the MHTS or RCI's suspicions of Eastern Rite or Eastern Schismatic Confirmation, their theology is incredibly confused.

What about those people who departed from Schism or reconciled with the Roman Church from among Eastern Schismatics at the Council of Ferrara and Florence? What about those Eastern Catholics who had Eastern Schismatic Backgrounds on long ages when they reconciled and joined with Holy Roman and Catholic Church ? 

The Pope of Rome considers not only the baptism of Schismatics are valid (as long as they use the correct Form and Matter), but also their Confirmation and the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Although their Sacraments are illicit due to the Church's schism since the East-West Schism of 1054 and the Oriental Schism since the Council of Chalcedon in 451, all their Sacraments are valid and not like Novus Ordo Sacraments which has Invalidated 5 Sacraments (note : because 5 Sacraments had been changed, and must be conferred by Valid Priest and Valid Bishop. For know more about Problem of Sacraments on Novus Ordo Sect, read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/06/problem-with-new-rites-of-vatican-ii.html ), except Baptism and Matrimony during it's not changed and has no annulment without reason. This includes Baptism, especially since Eastern Rite Baptism is the same as Tridentine Baptism or the Old Roman Rite Baptism, which uses Exorcism and Baptismal Promises. Is such a thing also doubtful and questionable????

Where is the logic in the thinking of RCI Seminarians?

First Council of Constantinople

In the First Council of Constantinople, there were Heretics, such as the Arians, when they became members of the Catholic Church, they were more worthy of just chrismation at that time. As proof, we quote from the First Council of Constantinople:

" Canon No. 7 :

(Return to Table of Contents) 

Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians-these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: “Seal of the gift of the holy Spirit”. But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects — since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians — we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them. " 

Like explanation above, Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians were only Chrismated, because they used True Form of Baptism, " I Baptize You in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and The Holy Spirit " or " The Servant of God, N, baptized in the Name of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit ", so made their Baptism validly before became Catholics. Although they deny that The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit as One God or The Holy Trinity, but if form of Baptism isn't changed, Their Baptisms are Valid. 

Exception for Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, who had changed form differently about The Father and The Son, and made the new Form of Baptism, their Baptisms are Invalid and when They became Catholics and want to hold the Orthodoxy, they must learn the Catechism in the Church, must be exorcised, and after that, would be baptized with Valid Baptism from Holy Catholic Church. 

In conclusion from what we have learned from many Teaching from Traditions and Magisterium, So, Baptism carried out by anyone even if it does not use the Exorcist Text in the Traditional Old Rite or there is no intention to become a member of the Catholic Church even in the text, or the baptism is flat without a baptismal oath, or again if it violates the understanding of baptism and does not believe in the Triune God, as long as the person who actually practices Baptism says "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit", whether by pouring Water on the head or forehead, or sprinkling it on the forehead, or by sprinkling water on the crown of the head that flows down the neck, or by immersion either three times or once, then the Baptism is Valid, even if it is Illicit.

We can take the Simple Conclusion :

Novus Ordo baptism is illicit because it omits the baptismal intention, such as the baptismal vows, especially the Rite of Exorcism, the Exorcism Text, and the Promise of St. Peter's Ark. And their Baptists are layman, Invalid Priests for modern condition now. 

Protestant baptism is highly illicit. Because this is worse than Novus Ordo Baptism and is ministered by Layman or Lay woman, because Protestant Ministers are Invalid ordained.

Eastern Schismatic baptism, despite its similarities in the use of the Exorcism Text with the Catholic Church, is also illicit because its purpose is not to become a member of the Catholic Church.

Illicit does not mean invalid or doubtful, during it uses True Form, it's Valid but forbidden. Licit Baptism, on the other hand, is exclusive to the Catholic Church.

So, to both RCI and MHTS, please be wise in Baptism's detail. We respect their Bishop, Bishop Donald Sanborn. But regardless, he and his seminarian colleagues can be wrong and fall into error; he is not infallible. So, sincerely, we write this to correct what he did wrong. Because if the error is serious, it can be fallen into heresy, even as what the Novatianism-influenced Carthaginian Schismatics did to heretics who wanted to become Catholics at that time.