[Campion]

I would imagine that the same rules apply re baptism?

Haven't we already done this discussion?

For baptism:

• valid minister == anyone
• valid matter == water, administered by immersion or pouring (certainly) or sprinkling (maybe a problem)
• valid form == something like "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Holy Trinity" The Trinity must be invoked.
• valid intent == the "intent to do what the Church does," that is, to administer Christian baptism in the name of the Trinity

Most conservative Protestant denominations meet all four requirements. (Some may baptize by sprinking, which may be an issue.)

Liberal Protestants who do stuff like baptizing in the name of the "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" may not be administering valid baptism, however. Mormon and JW baptisms are invalid because they reject the Trinity.

[Alex Murphy]

Haven't we already done this discussion?

We did, IIRC, which is why I pinged you out of courtesy. "Valid intent" appears to be a sacramental buzzword among Catholics - I've been seeing it raised on a number of threads recently, but rarely challenged or even defined. In the last year I haven't found two Catholics who can actually determine whether this or that Protestant baptism-as-sacrament was actually "valid". I suspect this is because (using your example) you've already denied the validity of virtually all Protestant ministers who would have administered said baptism.

So yes, I believe that you're correct - you and I have already had this conversation. But sitetest and I haven't. I'm interested in his opinion at this juncture, unless you're presuming to speak for him in this matter.