Am I officially Catholic?

[marbleartist]

In our parish, we have a class for baptized Catholics who are in need of confirmation and first communion. It is separate from RCIA- and much quicker to complete. I agree that you should talk to the priest or to the RCIA leader, who will, hopefully, steer you toward the baptized Catholic class if one exists in your parish. Welcome home!!!

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

By the way, Thomas, if you do go through RCIA you likely won’t be the only one who was baptized as a Catholic then never received the other sacraments of initiation. I’ve met a number of people in the same situation. And if you have a totally picky RCIA director (not naming any names here ) she’ll remind the pastor that you don’t have to make a profession of faith when you are confirmed since you’re already Catholic but this and that other person who were baptized as Protestants do make professions of faith first.

When I think of “officially Catholic” I think of consent as necessary. The practice of infant Baptism does not contain consent, while Confirmation does.

Baptism has the consent of the parents. They speak on behalf of the child. Since an infant can also be confirmed (in the Latin Church in danger of death, in the Eastern Churches infants are routinely confirmed) then the parents also give consent for that.

An example I will use is Matrimony. If someone is only Baptized (infant) in the Catholic faith, then marries a non Catholic in a non Catholic Christian Church, then is their marriage considered valid?

No.

As an example, I had someone in RCIA who was in the same situation as the OP – baptized as a Catholic but hadn’t received any other sacraments of initiation. She had also been married (outside the Church) and divorced. Since she thought she might consider remarriage in the future I encouraged her to speak with the pastor and get that straightened out while she was still preparing for the sacraments. It turned out to be basically a paperwork issue – a Catholic married outside the Catholic form means she was free to marry in the future.

But in the pre age of reason, one would be considered Catholic. And after the age of reason, one could be Catholic by desire until completed Confirmation. Confirmation being the binding Sacrament to the faith.

Read the Catechism about confirmation. That’s not what the sacrament is.

 

[FrDavid96]

So, what are Latin rite children before Confirmation? Protestants?

Strictly speaking, RCIA is for the un-baptized, although converts are often educated together with them.

Not so. RCIA is for any adult who needs a Sacrament of Initiation.

There is a form of the RCIA for the unbaptized and a form of RCIA for the already baptized, but not fully initiated. Both are RCIA.

 

[FrDavid96]

I was baptized as a baby, and throughout my childhood I recall going to Mass with my parents on a semi-regular basis. However, that was pretty much it. I never went to Sunday School, never had Confirmation/First Communion. When I was 12, my parents divorced, and we stopped going to Mass entirely. It was only recently (I am 35 now) that I decided to return to the Faith.

I really want to go to Confession, but I am a bit confused. Since I was baptized, does that mean that I am Catholic already, or is there another process I need to go through first?

First of all, it’s a great thing that you want to go to Confession!

By virtue of your baptism (presuming it was Catholic) you are a member of the Catholic Church.

You can go to confession to any priest who may hear confessions whenever you choose.

The other Sacraments of Initiation (Confirmation and First Communion) are something you need to discuss with your Catholic pastor. He will help you through RCIA for those in your situation.

 

[1ke]

Wow, I wasn’t expecting such a large response! Thanks for your advice, everyone!

You are most welcome.

Talk to your local parish pastor. He will guide you. The parish where you live now will need to locate and obtain your baptismal records and then proceed from there. Since you did not attend any religious education as a child, the pastor may want you to attend the education sessions that are part of the RCIA, for those who are not Catholics and joining the church.

 

[rcwitness]

What we think isn’t really the point. The truth of fact is what is important. It is a fact that one who is baptized Catholic is incorporated into the Body of Christ and is from that point forward also Catholic and subject to the authority of the Church.

Ok, if you say thats the official Teaching of the Church that even though a Baptized member has NOT gone to Confirmation, they are STILL bound by all of the Teachings of the Catholic Faith, then I dont argue.

It is the parents who give consent in infant baptism. Perhaps you are unaware that Eastern Rite Catholics are baptized, confirmed and receive the Eucharist as infants. They never give consent, ever. Same for any child confirmed in the Latin Rite before age 7 due to danger of death.

I understand that consent of Baptism of an infant cannot exist, yet it still completes what it is for, and that parents consent to Baptize their child. I never addressed Infant Confirmation or Infant Communion.

Consent is not necessary for either infant baptism OR confirmation.

I agree that consent is not necessary for infant Baptism. Confirmation after the age of reason would inevitably contain consent, right? (perhaps some individuals could wrongly be coerced into it.)

 

[rcwitness]

Baptism has the consent of the parents. They speak on behalf of the child. Since an infant can also be confirmed (in the Latin Church in danger of death, in the Eastern Churches infants are routinely confirmed) then the parents also give consent for that.

I understand the consent of one’s child accompany’s them to Baptism. I never argued that a Catholic Infant Baptism does not enter one into the Catholic Community.

As for Infant Confirmation, all I’ll say is Im glad I dont participate in that rite.

As an example, I had someone in RCIA who was in the same situation as the OP – baptized as a Catholic but hadn’t received any other sacraments of initiation. She had also been married (outside the Church) and divorced. Since she thought she might consider remarriage in the future I encouraged her to speak with the pastor and get that straightened out while she was still preparing for the sacraments. It turned out to be basically a paperwork issue – a Catholic married outside the Catholic form means she was free to marry in the future.

Interesting. That comment from me was in the form of a question. So I stand corrected on my assumption.

 

[rcwitness]

This is wholly inaccurate. The reason parents should be serious about baptism and parents godparents should take their job seriously is because they are binding the children to the catholic faith and the church’s laws. They must diligently pass on the faith. What you describe is the protestant system of “just choose what you want”. Like a parent taking their kids to a doctor for a lifelong vaccine, they take their kids to the church for spiritual care.
[edited]

I do take the Baptism of Infants in the Catholic faith very seriously. I also consider Confirmation something Catholic parents should, considering all proper instruction, afford the candidate proper consent.

[edited]

 

[ChibiViolet]

Without arguing with you as though I have authority or canon law, I do tend to disagree with this.

When I think of “officially Catholic” I think of consent as necessary. The practice of infant Baptism does not contain consent, while Confirmation does.

A (Catholic) Baptized child, who has never been Confirmed, may be a true Catholic in heart, because he/she does in fact give consent to the Faith. But how can they be bound to the commands of the Catholic Faith if they have never given consent to this faith.

An example I will use is Matrimony. If someone is only Baptized (infant) in the Catholic faith, then marries a non Catholic in a non Catholic Christian Church, then is their marriage considered valid?

But in the pre age of reason, one would be considered Catholic. And after the age of reason, one could be Catholic by desire until completed Confirmation. Confirmation being the binding Sacrament to the faith.

The Sacrament of Baptism automatically makes someone* externally *Catholic because of the mark it leaves upon the soul. To be internally Catholic, one must believe what the Church teaches.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I do take the Baptism of Infants in the Catholic faith very seriously. I also consider Confirmation something Catholic parents should, considering all proper instruction, afford the candidate proper consent.

As for my signature, the red highlight should answer your questions. I have specifically NOT taught anything wrong in my posts. I have expressed having no authority or knowledge of canon law. And I have expressed questions regarding what I have been misunderstood about.

No the read highlighting does not answer anything. Why do you put Nihil Obstat in your signature?

 

[rcwitness]

No the read highlighting does not answer anything. Why do you put Nihil Obstat in your signature?

The Nihil Obstat in my signature means Nothing Obstructs. The symbol next to that is a cross. I am not a clergy and have noted so. It’s not the Nihil Obstat that means so much but who is claiming it.

Are you a moderator? Is it against forum rules?
If it is asked of me to remove it, I will comply. Otherwise, I will stick to the topic now.

 

[Vico]

I was baptized as a baby, and throughout my childhood I recall going to Mass with my parents on a semi-regular basis. However, that was pretty much it. I never went to Sunday School, never had Confirmation/First Communion. When I was 12, my parents divorced, and we stopped going to Mass entirely. It was only recently (I am 35 now) that I decided to return to the Faith.

I really want to go to Confession, but I am a bit confused. Since I was baptized, does that mean that I am Catholic already, or is there another process I need to go through first?

You have** rights** (and obligations) as a Catholic!

Proof in canon law (CIC):Can. 1 The canons of this Code concern only the latin Church.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who were baptised in the catholic Church or received into it, and who have a sufficient use of reason and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, who have completed their seventh year of age.

Can. 12 §1 Universal laws are binding everywhere on all those for whom they were enacted.

Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and constituted a person in it, with the duties and the rights which, in accordance with each one’s status, are proper to christians, in so far as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a lawfully issued sanction intervenes.

Can. 97
§1** A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age, has attained majority**; below this age, a person is a minor.
§2 A minor who has not completed the seventh year of age is called an infant and is considered incapable of personal responsibility; on completion of the seventh year, however, the minor is presumed to have the use of reason.

Can. 98
§1 **A person who has attained majority has the full exercise of his or her rights.
**
Can. 213
Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.

Can. 214
Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Nihil Obstat in my signature means Nothing Obstructs. The symbol next to that is a cross. I am not a clergy and have noted so. It’s not the Nihil Obstat that means so much but who is claiming it.

Are you a moderator? Is it against forum rules?
If it is asked of me to remove it, I will comply. Otherwise, I will stick to the topic now.

I think you should remove it as it is misleading to people. A nihil obstat can be placed on anything written by anyone that’s reviewed by the Bishops Office. It’s use is not restricted to clergy. So for example, if you submitted your work to the Censer at your diocese they can stamp a Nihil Obstat on it so that people reading it know it is “safe” in regard to the catholic faith.

I see no reason to use it in any other way.

Information on it: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat

I am not a moderator, but will make them aware of it to get their (name removed by moderator)ut, perhaps they are ok with it.

 

[rcwitness]

Quote:
But in the pre age of reason, one would be considered Catholic. And after the age of reason, one could be Catholic by desire until completed Confirmation. Confirmation being the binding Sacrament to the faith.

1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace: (1262-1274, 2044)
—it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;117
—it unites us more firmly to Christ;
—it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
—it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118
—it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:119

This was what I was thinking as far as my comment. But I have acknowledged certain obligations provided by the Church. This passage from the Catechism is also an aspect which has formed my understanding of a necessary consent. But please understand that when I say necessary consent it is in the context of rendering God’s Sacrament beneficial.

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here. (13)

 

[Phemie]

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here. (13)

Post-baptismal catechesis is needed even if Confirmation is conferred in infancy - as it is if the child is in danger of dying. It has nothing to do with consent but with information about our faith.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Thanks, Phemie. I personally would like to see confirmation given to infants at the same time as baptism. It would eliminate some of these misunderstandings about what the sacrament actually is.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with the woman who leads the confirmation program in the parish. We had a 9-year-old who received all of her sacraments of initiation at the Easter Vigil. The confirmation director said to me that she couldn’t understand why this girl was confirmed. It made sense to baptize her and give her First Communion, but the confirmation director thought we should have stopped there and told her to come back when she was 15 for confirmation. “What’s she going to do now? She’s received all her sacraments so she won’t go to religious education classes.” Why in the world would anyone – let alone the confirmation director – think that confirmation ended the need for further education and growth? Both the girl and her mother understood that this was the beginning, not the end!

 

[rcwitness]

I guess I emphisize consent because that’s what is needed to render the Sacraments beneficial to us as opposed to a condemnation of laws.

As Catholics we recognize Mary’s true discipleship and participation in Him through her consent, right?

 

[Gorgias]

I guess I emphisize consent because that’s what is needed to render the Sacraments beneficial to us

Hmm… not sure I’d agree with that. Are you saying that, if a baby is baptized and then dies soon thereafter, his baptism is not “beneficial” to him because he did not consent?

As Catholics we recognize Mary’s true discipleship and participation in Him through her consent, right?

Different context, and therefore, an invalid comparison. Mary’s fiat enabled the Incarnation; yet, Mary’s “true discipleship” began with her Immaculate Conception … which had nothing to do with her consent, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[rcwitness]

Hmm… not sure I’d agree with that. Are you saying that, if a baby is baptized and then dies soon thereafter, his baptism is not “beneficial” to him because he did not consent?

The infant cannot give consent (their Baptismal grace is beneficial until they reach the age of reason and can reject it). So Im talking about when the Child becomes of age to understand what their Baptism brought, give consent to follow what Teachings are offered them and thus converting their hearts fully to the Faith. As it is, in the latin Rite, Confirmation allows the candidate to offer consent and thus eliminating those who protest. I do believe that the Spirit brings about conversion and Baptism brings forgiveness of sin. But what good is grace if we do not consent to its conversion and direction?

Hebrews 10

29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Different context, and therefore, an invalid comparison. Mary’s fiat enabled the Incarnation; yet, Mary’s “true discipleship” began with her Immaculate Conception … which had nothing to do with her consent, wouldn’t you agree?

I would understand Mary’s fiat as initiating her following the Messiah, and her motherhood to all Christians.

 

[rcwitness]

The Sacrament of Baptism automatically makes someone* externally *Catholic because of the mark it leaves upon the soul. To be internally Catholic, one must believe what the Church teaches.

This is probably the best answer here!