Being Catholic by Baptism/Confirmation and the Role of Consent

[dans0622]

…

From the Code of Canon law: "Canon 96: By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the ** duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition**

Hello,

I imagine that you are most interested in the meaning of the word “condition.” If so, that refers to a person’s “status”–lay, (single or married), religious, cleric. There are subsets of persons within those categories but those are the primary ones. Also, you could consider a person’s use of reason as an aspect of his/her “condition.” For an example, then, a married woman has different rights/duties than a monk.

As for the “rights and duties” themselves–these are too numerous to mention.

Dan

 

[Thorolfr]

1. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

Since the Catholic Church recognizes the trinitarian baptisms of individuals from other non-Catholic ecclesial communities and does not make such individuals get re-baptized upon conversion to Catholicism, does this mean that such individuals also are considered to belong to “the Body of Christ that is the Church through an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection”?

 

[FrDavid96]

Since the Catholic Church recognizes the trinitarian baptisms of individuals from other non-Catholic ecclesial communities and does not make such individuals get re-baptized upon conversion to Catholicism, does this mean that such individuals also are considered to belong to “the Body of Christ that is the Church through an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection”?

No.

United to the Church, yes. Not members of the Church.

The Baptism is still permanent and ontological (ie a change in the very soul of the person which lasts for all eternity).

 

[Vico]

Since the Catholic Church recognizes the trinitarian baptisms of individuals from other non-Catholic ecclesial communities and does not make such individuals get re-baptized upon conversion to Catholicism, does this mean that such individuals also are considered to belong to “the Body of Christ that is the Church through an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection”?

Unitatis Redintegratio, 22.
Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I refer you to this form the CDF which answers these questions:

1. 
   *]Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
   *]What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
   *]Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
   *]Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
   *]Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
   
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[masuwerte]

This might be slightly off topic, but what is the status, under canon law, of a victim of forced or fraudulent conversion? If this person was above the age of reason, is this person bound by canon law? Is there a process by which this person might have his conversion declared null? Much to its credit, the Catholic Church forbids conversion by force or fraud.

 

[rcwitness]

Hello,

I imagine that you are most interested in the meaning of the word “condition.” If so, that refers to a person’s “status”–lay, (single or married), religious, cleric. There are subsets of persons within those categories but those are the primary ones. Also, you could consider a person’s use of reason as an aspect of his/her “condition.” For an example, then, a married woman has different rights/duties than a monk.

As for the “rights and duties” themselves–these are too numerous to mention.

Dan

I wonder if a Catholic never receiving the Holy Spirit would be recognized as in a certain ‘condition’?

Acts 8 (RSVCE)

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samar′ia had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

I am also assuming that we consider this an example of Confirmation.

 

[dans0622]

This might be slightly off topic, but what is the status, under canon law, of a victim of forced or fraudulent conversion? If this person was above the age of reason, is this person bound by canon law? Is there a process by which this person might have his conversion declared null? Much to its credit, the Catholic Church forbids conversion by force or fraud.

Hello,

One who has the use of reason must consent to baptism in order for it to be valid. So, if that person actually did not consent to the baptism, it is not valid, he is not “a person in the Church” and so is not bound by ecclesiastical law. That being said, if the baptismal ceremony itself proceeded normally, it would be presumed valid.

There is not a particular process mandated by law to declare a baptism invalid. I have never heard of a person asking for this. Canon law contains processes which could certainly be used, however.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

I wonder if a Catholic never receiving the Holy Spirit would be recognized as in a certain ‘condition’?

…

Hello,

It is not a “condition” as that term is used in the canon I referenced. There is clearly a difference between one who is confirmed and one who is not but that difference is not described or quantified in canon law.

Dan

 

[1ke]

I wonder if a Catholic never receiving the Holy Spirit would be recognized as in a certain ‘condition’?

All Catholics have received the Holy Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

 

[rcwitness]

All Catholics have received the Holy Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

So was the Baptism of the Samarians in Acts 8 somehow valid, yet improper?

Is that considered Confirmation?

… Or Ananias laying hands on Paul to give him the Holy Spirit. It seems that Confirmation, or Laying on Hands, was the primary means of giving the Holy Spirit. But also that it was not necessarily any particular means for every case.

Acts 10:47

47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

I do hear what you are saying, considering it is the common practice of Baptism.

Acts 2:38

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then, Peter just gave instructions for a Baptism only in the name of Jesus Christ!

 

[1ke]

So was the Baptism of the Samarians in Acts 8 somehow valid, yet improper?

Is that considered Confirmation?

… Or Ananias laying hands on Paul to give him the Holy Spirit. It seems that Confirmation, or Laying on Hands, was the primary means of giving the Holy Spirit. But also that it was not necessarily any particular means for every case.

Acts 10:47

47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

I do hear what you are saying, considering it is the common practice of Baptism.

Acts 2:38

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then, Peter just gave instructions for a Baptism only in the name of Jesus Christ!

We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are strengthened in confirmation and we receive additional grace for living out our baptism. Confirmation completes baptism. Baptism and confirmation were sometimes separated by time, and one person may have baptized and another confirmed. Or, in other cases baptism and confirmation were done sequentially by one bishop or priest.

Yes, there are different ways of expressing this in scripture. Be careful not to fall in to a “sola scriptura” mentality. We have the Church’s teaching and practice to help us discern scripture and properly understand it.

 

[rcwitness]

We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

I know that I had received the Holy Spirit long before my Catholic Baptism/Confirmation

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are strengthened in confirmation and we receive additional grace for living out our baptism. Confirmation completes baptism.

Baptism and confirmation were sometimes separated by time

In the Latin Rite, Baptism and Confirmation are always separated by quite a bit of time concerning children.

Be careful not to fall in to a “sola scriptura” mentality. We have the Church’s teaching and practice to help us discern scripture and properly understand it.

Im not worried about that.

Edit: I mean I am not worried about falling into Sola Scriptura. But Scripture is Sacred and I am trying to understand all these things together.

 

[1ke]

I know that I had received the Holy Spirit long before my Catholic Baptism/Confirmation

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Can you expand?

rcw:

itness;1295567In the Latin Rite, Baptism and Confirmation are always separated by quite a bit of time concerning children.

I was referring to the early church.

 

[dans0622]

…
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age. …

FYI, and the information of other readers, the canon actually says “sufficient”, not “efficient.” That’s an error on the Vatican website, not your fault…

Dan

 

[1ke]

FYI, and the information of other readers, the canon actually says “sufficient”, not “efficient.” That’s an error on the Vatican website, not your fault…

Dan

hahahaha, I never even noticed that before now. my brain autocorrects to “sufficient”!

 

[rcwitness]

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Can you expand?

I was raised non Catholic Christian. I remember being moved to conversion and belief as a very young person. I believe that I did receive the Holy Spirit who led me to accept conversion to the Catholic Faith. I did not receive “special” signs or abilities, just knowing Him and constantly being converted/convicted toward Him.

 

[jmcrae]

In another thread titled “Am I officially Catholic” a poster posed the question because he had only been Baptized in the Church as an infant. The answer was given to him that, by his Catholic Baptism, he is Christian and also received into the Catholic Church. I certainly wouldnt argue with that, and wish I had left things simple for the sake of the simple question. But there are important factors which come as the child grows into maturity and adulthood. We are Taught that Confirmation completes Baptism. We know that infant Baptism requires the consent of the parents or legal guardians which includes the duty to raise the child in the faith through instruction, formation and fullfilled by Confirmation. In the Latin Rite Confirmation is given at the age of reason and accountability. So can is a person who has only been only Baptized Catholic as an infant and NOT been given the necessary formation and Confirmation be bound to the whole Catholic laws and obligations as an adult?

It’s the same as being born into a nationality. You become a citizen at birth. You have no choice. When you start working, you have to pay your taxes. When you start driving you have to follow the local rules of the road. The fact that they have “better” rules in a different country is of no relevance whatsoever. If you are being pulled over for a traffic infraction, try saying to the police officer, “But this is allowed in Bangladesh!” He will probably laugh at you.

Nobody gets mad that they have no choice about what nationality they are. Why get so upset about what religion you are? Especially if you have the privilege to be a Catholic.

 

[jmcrae]

I was raised non Catholic Christian. I remember being moved to conversion and belief as a very young person. I believe that I did receive the Holy Spirit who led me to accept conversion to the Catholic Faith. I did not receive “special” signs or abilities, just knowing Him and constantly being converted/convicted toward Him.

The technical term for this phenomenon is “prevenient grace.” It is a great gift.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It’s the same as being born into a nationality. You become a citizen at birth. You have no choice. When you start working, you have to pay your taxes. When you start driving you have to follow the local rules of the road. The fact that they have “better” rules in a different country is of no relevance whatsoever. If you are being pulled over for a traffic infraction, try saying to the police officer, “But this is allowed in Bangladesh!” He will probably laugh at you.

Nobody gets mad that they have no choice about what nationality they are. Why get so upset about what religion you are? Especially if you have the privilege to be a Catholic.

Frankly I’m unfamiliar with steps involved in renouncing citizenship of a nation. But if one renounces citizenship lets say in Canada and becomes a US citizen or visa versa or fill in any countries, are they still considered a citizen of their birthplace? If they no longer are a US citizen and reside and work in another country are they still required to file a tax return with the IRS? I only ask because I had nothing to do with my baptism but it has caused me such inner conflict and according to what has been said here, I technically at least according to the CC can’t escape being bound. I was even confirmed I believe too early as a preteen. It wasn’t until I was older that I understood better what the CC teaches. What if someone does not want to be Catholic? I’m more at peace now, considering myself at least to be a Christian, if not in communion with Rome. But another poster too spoke of a friend who did not want to be Catholic and chose to convert to Islam. Not everyone is fed in the same way or sees the joy or privilege in which many faithful Catholics do in the CC.

 

[jmcrae]

Frankly I’m unfamiliar with steps involved in renouncing citizenship of a nation. But if one renounces citizenship lets say in Canada and becomes a US citizen or visa versa or fill in any countries, are they still considered a citizen of their birthplace? If they no longer are a US citizen and reside and work in another country are they still required to file a tax return with the IRS?

I’m not sure. I heard somewhere that former American citizens are required to file American tax returns, but I’m not sure how that would be enforced, or whether that’s really true. My formerly British father-in-law receives a British pension, even though he’s a Canadian citizen.

I only ask because I had nothing to do with my baptism but it has caused me such inner conflict and according to what has been said here, I technically at least according to the CC can’t escape being bound. I was even confirmed I believe too early as a preteen. It wasn’t until I was older that I understood better what the CC teaches.

That’s true; you are technically bound by the laws of the Church.

What if someone does not want to be Catholic? I’m more at peace now, considering myself at least to be a Christian, if not in communion with Rome. But another poster too spoke of a friend who did not want to be Catholic and chose to convert to Islam. Not everyone is fed in the same way or sees the joy or privilege in which many faithful Catholics do in the CC.

I think it only causes material issues if the person leaves the Church and then tries to return after, say, marrying outside the Church. Even in that case, it would simply be a matter of having the marriage blessed in the Church.

If you are honestly convinced that the Church isn’t real, then I don’t see what difference it would make to you, one way or the other. It’s not as if there are “Church cops” who are going to come after you. It would only become an issue for you if you later decided to come back to the Church, and you had taken up a lifestyle that is contrary to Church teaching or Church law.