Replies

Your argument is based on one fallacy after the other.

I am not arguing anything in that post. I am clarifying an explanation so that you are not left with a sense that I contradicted myself. I did not.

it remains that Prot baptism is a denial of Rome

Such that are, are of course not baptisms at all and converts need to be baptized properly. No Holy Spirit has entered such ant-baptized "Prot" (your expression).

"Irregular?"

For example, not using the Trinitarian formula.

we go to Prots being Catholic at baptism

Because plenty of time a Protestant baptism is done correctly and has the correct intention of entering the convert or a baby (that, rarely in your environment); it does not have the perverse intention of combating the Church. This is how my wife was baptized in a Baptist church and she did not need a conditional baptism when she came into the Church. Her baptism was already deeply felt, quite Catholic, and valid in the eye of God. I, too, was baptized in a Church outside of communion with Rome, but that church being Orthodox it was already fully valid universally.

Is it clearer now?

Because of the hysterical anti-"Rome" attitudes of the Evangelicals, more Protestant baptisms are brought into question when people thus baptized come into the Church. Those are baptized conditionally: that is, we ask God that the soul that was baptized be blessed in the full communion of Christ in the Catholic Church, and the soul not baptized be baptized. Understand, dear convert, that if you are asked to be conditionally baptized while you feel baptized in your heart onto the Church Universal, that is not done to deny your original baptism but due to the impossibility to know that it occurred for all the Evangelical noise.