BAPTISM: Catholic and Protestant

[opus101]

I have a question. It is my understanding that many non-Catholic Christian baptisms are accepted as valid by the Catholic Church.

If some baptized Catholics do not hold Catholic faith on a number of points, and their beliefs coincide completely with those of another confession, how do they differ at all from those in the other confession, since both groups are validly baptized?

In this case, are the dissenting Catholics actually, for the sake of argument, Lutherans (or fill in the blank), or are they still Catholics, even though they don’t believe in what the Church teaches?

I’m aware that they are still Catholic by virtue of their Baptism, BUT…SO ARE THE OTHERS!!! (Or am I mistaken here?)

Morally speaking, if a person is completely convinced, and publicly argues, that the Church is wrong on a number of very important teachings, is it better for them to: A) Follow their conscience and join a confession that is compatible with their beliefs, or B) Continue on in the Catholic Church, going to Mass and receiving Communion, while still publicly disagreeing with the Faith?

It is my understanding that, under normal circumstances, non-Catholics are not to receive Holy Communion at Mass because it signifies unity of belief. How is it that it is okay for publicly dissenting Catholics to continue on , week after week, to receive Holy Communion when, in fact, many of the non-Catholics hold more Catholic faith than they do, and are not able to receive?

 

[brb3]

Morally speaking, if a person is completely convinced, and publicly argues, that the Church is wrong on a number of very important teachings, is it better for them to: A) Follow their conscience and join a confession that is compatible with their beliefs, or B) Continue on in the Catholic Church, going to Mass and receiving Communion, while still publicly disagreeing with the Faith?

It is my understanding that, under normal circumstances, non-Catholics are not to receive Holy Communion at Mass because it signifies unity of belief. How is it that it is okay for publicly dissenting Catholics to continue on , week after week, to receive Holy Communion when, in fact, many of the non-Catholics hold more Catholic faith than they do, and are not able to receive?

It seems to me, at this time, that the Catholics who are dissenting should really seek a place that is in conformity with their views. I say this for their own good - isn’t it better for them to follow their conscience, and hopefully eventually become reverts, than to “eat and drink judgement upon themselves”?

Depends on the items of disagreement. There were some major disagreements in the early days of the Church … and they discussed them at great length, by oratory and letter. Often the disagreements are due to ignorance of scripture or tradition. Once someone sees their error … they will reform their beliefs, if they are sincere.

Blind faith is not the object or desire for us. We need faith & reason to grow in maturity.
Give us some examples to consider.

 

[opus101]

Depends on the items of disagreement. There were some major disagreements in the early days of the Church … and they discussed them at great length, by oratory and letter. Often the disagreements are due to ignorance of scripture or tradition. Once someone sees their error … they will reform their beliefs, if they are sincere.

Blind faith is not the object or desire for us. We need faith & reason to grow in maturity.
Give us some examples to consider.

Of course we need faith and reason to grow in maturity. What I’m speaking of is any teaching that has been taught throughout the ages by the magisterium and is to be held with divine faith…anything that, if denied, would put the person in line with the basic teachings of another confession, but exclude them from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Take your pick. I didn’t mention anything specific, as certain people will derail the thread by turning my post into a discussion of this or that teaching ( or even “faith and reason”) , rather than the question at hand: If non-Catholic Christian baptisms are acceptable, how does a baptized Protestant differ from a baptized Catholic who has obstinately rejected important aspects of the faith?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have a question. It is my understanding that many non-Catholic Christian baptisms are accepted as valid by the Catholic Church.

If some baptized Catholics do not hold Catholic faith on a number of points, and their beliefs coincide completely with those of another confession, how do they differ at all from those in the other confession, since both groups are validly baptized?

In this case, are the dissenting Catholics actually, for the sake of argument, Lutherans (or fill in the blank), or are they still Catholics, even though they don’t believe in what the Church teaches?

I’m aware that they are still Catholic by virtue of their Baptism, BUT…SO ARE THE OTHERS!!! (Or am I mistaken here?)

Morally speaking, if a person is completely convinced, and publicly argues, that the Church is wrong on a number of very important teachings, is it better for them to: A) Follow their conscience and join a confession that is compatible with their beliefs, or B) Continue on in the Catholic Church, going to Mass and receiving Communion, while still publicly disagreeing with the Faith?

It is my understanding that, under normal circumstances, non-Catholics are not to receive Holy Communion at Mass because it signifies unity of belief. How is it that it is okay for publicly dissenting Catholics to continue on , week after week, to receive Holy Communion when, in fact, many of the non-Catholics hold more Catholic faith than they do, and are not able to receive?

I could be wrong, but I think that Baptism works by Itself, if done in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It does not depend on the faith of the giver.

Another interesting analogy: in Marriage, the Sacrament goes between the couple who promise fidelity to each other. It does not depend on the Minister who is simply a witness.

 

[1ke]

Those baptized via a valid, Trinitarian baptism into the Body of Christ are Christians. Those baptized into the Catholic Church are furthermore canonically Catholic. Those baptized into other ecclesial communions or particular Churches are not canonically members of the Catholic Church.

 

[opus101]

Those baptized via a valid, Trinitarian baptism into the Body of Christ are Christians. Those baptized into the Catholic Church are furthermore canonically Catholic. Those baptized into other ecclesial communions or particular Churches are not canonically members of the Catholic Church.

Thanks. This is what I wasn’t sure about.

So, would it be right to say this:

Those who are baptized in the Catholic Church, but publicly and obstinately dissent from important teachings, are Canonically Catholic but not Catholic in belief?

Here is another scenario that I wonder about:
If a baptized (canonical) Catholic ends up “becoming” a Lutheran (or any other of the Christian denominations) , and is living out his/her life as such, how does that person differ from someone with similar beliefs who has rejected important Catholic doctrine, but continues to go to Mass and communion?

Also, what is the term for those who are canonical Catholics, but nevertheless do not hold Catholic faith?

 

[opus101]

Also, what is the term for those who are canonical Catholics, but nevertheless do not hold Catholic faith?

I know this sounds harsh, and I’m looking for a better sounding word, but at present cannot find one. This is all I can find:thefreedictionary.com/heresy

 

[pgepps]

If some baptized Catholics do not hold Catholic faith on a number of points, and their beliefs coincide completely with those of another confession, how do they differ at all from those in the other confession, since both groups are validly baptized?

I’m aware that they are still Catholic by virtue of their Baptism, BUT…SO ARE THE OTHERS!!! (Or am I mistaken here?)

Morally speaking, if a person is completely convinced, and publicly argues, that the Church is wrong on a number of very important teachings, is it better for them to: A) Follow their conscience and join a confession that is compatible with their beliefs, or B) Continue on in the Catholic Church, going to Mass and receiving Communion, while still publicly disagreeing with the Faith?

I’m going to address the three questions I’ve quoted above, noting well that I’ve trimmed your comments down to those. (including by skipping bits)

1. as someone else has already said, Baptism is efficacious because God gives us and works in us through Baptism–through the faith of the Church, though not without the faith of the believer (or sponsor), still not by virtue of the baptizand’s correctness, but by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s configuring the baptizand to Christ, a work definitively begun (the “character” or “indelible mark”) in Baptism–not a work that culminates in Baptism, but the work initiated in Baptism.
2. when I was baptized as a Baptist, 27 years before I came into full communion with the Church and received Confirmation as a Catholic, I was not Catholic. I was not in communion. From the point of view of the Church, I was Christian, and by baptism I was within the jurisdiction of the Church, as one who “belongs to” the Church, but I was “separated from” the Church (a term my Baptist and Catholic friends would agree in using). It is definitely incorrect to say that anyone whose baptism is valid is Catholic; in fact, Baptism does produce an “indelible mark” by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s work, but Baptism may not “bear the fruit of salvation” in all who receive it. Regarding those baptized who are separated from the Church, we may have more hope of God’s mercy than regarding those who remain utterly outside, unbaptized and unevangelized; and we have more hope still when we see the measure of God’s grace at work through their fidelity to a form of communion, teaching of the Trinitarian faith and the “mystery of faith” in the Gospel, works of charity and support of their Christian brothers and sisters, etc. But we are still praying for God’s mercy on those separated from Him, in some measure, so we hope they will come into full communion with Christ’s Body for their own souls and for our sake, too.
3. this is a false dichotomy. The proper response to the teaching of the faith is “the obedience of faith,” and where that is not possible there is no right answer to what follows. However, there is the possibility that someone has failed to understand (and should avoid public statements while they study), or has failed to submit some area of willful ignorance or obstinacy in sin to the Spirit’s work (and should confess this sin). It is possible that such vincible ignorance or stubborn unbelief may rise to the level of heresy, but also possible that it may be a sin of temperament (making rash statements, even stubborn arguments, before finally realizing the error–I’m prone to this, actually). In any case, the responsibility of the believer is to approach the Eucharist in a state of grace, and the responsibility of the confessor, Eucharistic minister, and their bishop is to ensure that the sacramental reality does in fact conform to the theological and ecclesial purposes for which the teaching and the sacraments are given to the Church, and to that believer. Thus someone who through vincible ignorance or stubborn unbelief opposes the teaching of the Church publicly should be told this privately, in time to confess before Communion; and should be expected to at least be honestly struggling against their sin, and be willing to do penance, before they receive the Eucharist. If that believer’s pastor is not doing this, the Church will be wounded by the defects in its performance of its Apostolic mission, and God will hold the bishops accountable for it, and we will all be part of the penance for it, as we are all intentionally “in the unity of the Holy Spirit” and “with our bishop, and all the bishops” in our Eucharistic celebration; this is the beauty and the seriousness of the “communion of the saints.”

Best,
PGE

 

[brb3]

What I’m speaking of is any teaching that has been taught throughout the ages by the magisterium and is to be held with divine faith…anything that, if denied, would put the person in line with the basic teachings of another confession, but exclude them from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If non-Catholic Christian baptisms are acceptable, how does a baptized Protestant differ from a baptized Catholic who has obstinately rejected important aspects of the faith?

Ok … I take it you mean the 7 Sacraments. I was a Trinitarian baptized Protestant at age 11, later confirmed in Holy Spirit @ age 18 … remained solid protestant for 8 years, then gradually stopped going to church, for several decades. Had plenty of excuses for my error, none were valid. Fell deep into the Prodigal Son life. Periodically, God would judge me & I’d repent and I’d return to my faith for a while, then fall back into deep sin again. The 3rd time, I was judged so severely … I was utterly broken and desperate. This time I was recovered via the Cath. Church & the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist !!!

All the Sacraments are Faithful & True. Each has a purpose. As Protestant I had valid Baptism and had been confirmed in H.S., but had only received an ‘unblessed’ Protestant Eucharist.

My baptism was so long ago… the memories are remote. Confirmation was very dramatic and life-changing for me. But, the Eucharist is our Elixer of Immortality. It is nothing short of miraculous. Certainly cleanses us of past [venial] sins, and preserves us from future MORTAL sins. It is Christ’s ‘real presence’ to us ! Amazing grace is INFUSED into us. Just like the Manna in the Wilderness, sustained the Hebrews. But, also, just like the Manna … the Eucharist needs to be frequently received. At least weekly !! This is one MAJOR way a Catholic’s experience differs from a Protestant’s.

All Catholics should question and study their faith daily … but, obstinancy is being ‘bull-headed’, and not what Christ desires of us. Paul said it best in 2 Tim 2:15.
Question our teachings ? Always, … but respectfully. Unless we know them fully, we can’t passionately proclaim them. There is alot to learn … but, everyday we need to be learning a new truth. A true seeker will always be rewarded. Thats scriptural, …per Christ.

 

[MarkThompson]

Here is another scenario that I wonder about:
If a baptized (canonical) Catholic ends up “becoming” a Lutheran (or any other of the Christian denominations) , and is living out his/her life as such, how does that person differ from someone with similar beliefs who has rejected important Catholic doctrine, but continues to go to Mass and communion?

The first person is an apostate.

 

[1ke]

Those who are baptized in the Catholic Church, but publicly and obstinately dissent from important teachings, are Canonically Catholic but not Catholic in belief?

I would not phrase it that way, no.

They are Catholic, period.

If a baptized (canonical) Catholic ends up “becoming” a Lutheran (or any other of the Christian denominations) , and is living out his/her life as such, how does that person differ from someone with similar beliefs who has rejected important Catholic doctrine, but continues to go to Mass and communion?

That person would be in formal heresy. The Catholic who doubts but remains faithful by assent is not.

Also, what is the term for those who are canonical Catholics, but nevertheless do not hold Catholic faith?

Heretic, apostate, or schismatic depending upon the circumstance. I suggest reading that section of the Catechism.

 

[opus101]

I would not phrase it that way, no.

They are Catholic, period.

That person would be in formal heresy. The Catholic who doubts but remains faithful by assent is not.

Heretic, apostate, or schismatic depending upon the circumstance. I suggest reading that section of the Catechism.

1ke, I’ve done some reading since I posted the thread, and I think you have it backwards. As MarkThompson said, the apostate is the one who left the Church and became a Lutheran. The other is the one who holds heretical beliefs.

Thank you so much, everyone, for your replies. Now I’ve come up with another question related to the OP: if a person obstinately persists in dissing Church teaching that has been taught throughout the ages, is it worse for them to leave the Church, as in example one, or to stay , and continue to go to communion?

In my thoughts, the only way to go would be to attend Mass every Sunday, but NOT go to communion. But, of the two options listed above, which is worse?

 

[brb3]

1ke, I’ve done some reading since I posted the thread, and I think you have it backwards. As MarkThompson said, the apostate is the one who left the Church and became a Lutheran. The other is the one who holds heretical beliefs.

Thank you so much, everyone, for your replies. Now I’ve come up with another question related to the OP: if a person obstinately persists in dissing Church teaching that has been taught throughout the ages, is it worse for them to leave the Church, as in example one, or to stay , and continue to go to communion?

In my thoughts, the only way to go would be to attend Mass every Sunday, but NOT go to communion. But, of the two options listed above, which is worse?

stay … and work thru your [their] issue. To leave … is to leave Christ …

 

[opus101]

stay … and work thru your [their] issue. To leave … is to leave Christ …

I think they should stay as well. But not to go to communion, since they are not “in communion” with the Church, and especially if the issues that they have with the Church are moral ones. Also, if the person is public about his/her dissent, it could cause scandal.

 

[opus101]

So, this is what I’ve learned, and correct me if I’m wrong:

1. A baptized Catholic who is seriously at odds with important official Church teaching is still canonically a Catholic, but may hold heretical beliefs.
2. Validly baptized Christians of other confessions are not considered Catholic by virtue of their Baptism, the are simply considered Christians.
3. A baptized, canonically Catholic person who leaves the faith for another confession is considered an apostate.

It is my understanding that none of the above may receive holy communion. Does that sound correct?

 

[brb3]

So, this is what I’ve learned, and correct me if I’m wrong:

1. A baptized Catholic who is seriously at odds with important official Church teaching is still canonically a Catholic, but may hold heretical beliefs.
2. Validly baptized Christians of other confessions are not considered Catholic by virtue of their Baptism, the are simply considered Christians.
3. A baptized, canonically Catholic person who leaves the faith for another confession is considered an apostate.

It is my understanding that none of the above may receive holy communion. Does that sound correct?

1 & 3 only need confess to God and his priest … and receive the Eucharist at once !!

2 . Need to complete RCIA, make first confession to priest, receive Confirmation, and then Eucharist.

 

[opus101]

I should have been more specific about #1. I guess I will have to use a “for instance” in order to clarify what I mean. If someone does not hold Catholic faith on an issue (such as the use of abortifacients), and obstinately and publicly sticks to that position and provides these to others (or uses them personally), and does not see the need for confession because their conscience is okay with it…should that person, recognizing that he/she is at odds with official Catholic teaching, refrain from receiving communion?

Or, if a Catholic doctor or nurse performs or takes part in abortions, and this does not go against their conscience, so they do not confess it… do they not need to refrain from receiving communion?

 

[1ke]

I should have been more specific about #1. I guess I will have to use a “for instance” in order to clarify what I mean. If someone does not hold Catholic faith on an issue (such as the use of abortifacients), and obstinately and publicly sticks to that position and provides these to others (or uses them personally), and does not see the need for confession because their conscience is okay with it…should that person, recognizing that he/she is at odds with official Catholic teaching, refrain from receiving communion?

Or, if a Catholic doctor or nurse performs or takes part in abortions, and this does not go against their conscience, so they do not confess it… do they not need to refrain from receiving communion?

Yes, they need to refrain from receiving communion. In the case of those who perform abortions, they receive automatic excommunication. This means they may not participate in any sacraments until they ammend their lives and turn away from sin.

 

[1ke]

1ke, I’ve done some reading since I posted the thread, and I think you have it backwards. As MarkThompson said, the apostate is the one who left the Church and became a Lutheran. The other is the one who holds heretical beliefs.

I encourage you to study further.

An apostate is one who denies God and Christ-- one who turns to atheism, agnosticism, or a religion such as Hindu, Buddist, etc.

A heretic is one who denies one or more doctrines that must be believed by the faithful. So, a Catholic who leaves the Church for a non-Catholic ecclesial communion (i.e. lacking valid apostolic succession and holy orders) would properly be termed as in formal heresy.

A schismatic is one who rejects the authority/headship of the Pope and leaves the Catholic Church for a non-Catholic, but true particular Church such as the Orthodox who have valid aposotlic succesion and sacraments but who have separated themselves from the unity of the Body.

 

[opus101]

I encourage you to study further.

An apostate is one who denies God and Christ-- one who turns to atheism, agnosticism, or a religion such as Hindu, Buddist, etc.

A heretic is one who denies one or more doctrines that must be believed by the faithful. So, a Catholic who leaves the Church for a non-Catholic ecclesial communion (i.e. lacking valid apostolic succession and holy orders) would properly be termed as in formal heresy.

A schismatic is one who rejects the authority/headship of the Pope and leaves the Catholic Church for a non-Catholic, but true particular Church such as the Orthodox who have valid aposotlic succesion and sacraments but who have separated themselves from the unity of the Body.

Thanks. I’m finding conflicting information on the internet.