Catholics can get Christened by any Christian pastor in any Church

[MarkThompson]

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Am I reading this wrong when I think it is saying that A good Catholic missionary who has lived by their faith faithfull in every way including preaching the Pope is Christs representative on Earth has as good a chance of making it into heaven as a Good Baptist missionary who believed and preached the Pope was the devils representative on Earth.

Yes, I think you’re reading it wrong.

Many people have said, for instance, that they have been drawn out of a life of atheism or dissipation by being brought to Christ in (for example) a Baptist or Pentecostal church, before ultimately realizing that their path had to lead to the fullness of Christian communion in the Catholic Church. It can hardly be denied, then, that in such a case the Protestant church was being used as a means to bring them toward salvation. So Unitatis Redintegratio says:
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.
This depends on how close to the Catholic Church a Christian community is – as the section you quoted puts it, the teachings of other churches “derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” Even something like a Pentecostal church teaches very many of the important truths about Christ and his role in salvation. The Anglicans do the same and also teach most of the same moral truths that we do. The Orthodox are closer still. Clearly, using the message of Christ to draw people to worship God (even if imperfectly) and lead moral lives is, in partial measure, the work of the universal Catholic Church.

Preaching that the Pope is the Antichrist is false and a message of hatred, so anyone who would do so separates himself in that measure from the Truth.

 

[thirddec]

With respect, yes I do believe you are reading it wrong. I see no clear indication of their relative chances in what you quoted, however, it would seem that someone from a church or community which is “deficient in some respects” would be at a disadvantage.

I take it with respect ; and I am using these statements to look at a bigger debate that I hope I can stirr people to look at more closely.

but the deficient in faith seems to be counteracted by the rest if you read carefully I think

have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

 

[thirddec]

Yes, I think you’re reading it wrong.

Many people have said, for instance, that they have been drawn out of a life of atheism or dissipation by being brought to Christ in (for example) a Baptist or Pentecostal church, before ultimately realizing that their path had to lead to the fullness of Christian communion in the Catholic Church. It can hardly be denied, then, that in such a case the Protestant church was being used as a means to bring them toward salvation. So Unitatis Redintegratio says:
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.
This depends on how close to the Catholic Church a Christian community is – as the section you quoted puts it, the teachings of other churches “derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” Even something like a Pentecostal church teaches very many of the important truths about Christ and his role in salvation. The Anglicans do the same and also teach most of the same moral truths that we do. The Orthodox are closer still. Clearly, using the message of Christ to draw people to worship God (even if imperfectly) and lead moral lives is, in partial measure, the work of the universal Catholic Church.

Preaching that the Pope is the Antichrist is false and a message of hatred, so anyone who would do so separates himself in that measure from the Truth.

Of course I agree with you completely but would contend that both our interpetations could be read from what a vague if not deliberately confusing set of words and given the inteligence of the writers the question is why?

If you read the rest of the document with the eye of like the Pepsi add “WHAT’S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?” and you might get to see my worries.

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

 

[jmcrae]

I dont want to labour on too much on this but the point I,m trying to get across how we are putting or doctrines on the line in these ecumenical events; while with other Christians there is a limit to whats on the line but what about the Gestures being made to other totaly alien religions like the last time when the Pope kissed the Quran.

There are people in the forum who think that critics of the pope are a risk to us ; maybe but what is the bigger risk?

If the Pope isn’t Catholic enough, then we are all in trouble, because our unity resides in his person.

 

[Ignatius]

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

WOW I read this and My hair stood on end; i’m not your lets all get back to latin ; or get the women in veils type but this is such a carte blanche to really get started on manipulating church docrines. It is so incideous that it will need deciphering. Already I am starting to cut for later pasting and following questioning in threads some very worrying passages. This is only the starting point as suggested by someone on another thread so It will be interesting what else this leads me too.

I’m begining to think all the discussions about superficial moves to traditional practice like encouraging Latin and changing the rites is a distraction from the real dangers.

I feel a torrent comming my way I hope I don’t drown

BTW I agree on working for better relations between Christians but not on these terms that look more like a dignified surrender than an honest discusion based on what we as catholics have always believed.

It’s from November 21, 1964 . This failed effort should be a primary target of the reform of the reform?

 

[thirddec]

If the Pope isn’t Catholic enough, then we are all in trouble, because our unity resides in his person.

True but there are people who feel that Vatican II brought good into the Church but also allowed something not so good . A Pope started that process. I worry if the good intentions of the Popes good intentions with reaching out to other world religions if we are not on our guard could result in false ideas and doctrines slipping into our belief systems before we even spot the danger.

 

[MarkThompson]

Of course I agree with you completely but would contend that both our interpetations could be read from what a vague if not deliberately confusing set of words and given the inteligence of the writers the question is why?

If you read the rest of the document with the eye of like the Pepsi add “WHAT’S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?” and you might get to see my worries.

You’re right that it needs to be read in context, but part of the context is all the other documents of Vatican II, and indeed the other teachings of the Church. This is a document on ecumenism, which is why it discusses ecumenical issues and the positive things about our relations with other churches.

You know, from time to time I read some forums and blogs from the wildly progressive side of the Catholic world, and some from the radically paleotraditionalist side. It never fails: if the Pope gives a sermon during Lent about sin and repentance, the progressives lambaste him mercilessly as a mean old coot who does not give equal weight to salvation, forgiveness, and the resurrection. And then the other day the Pope gave a sermon in Easter time about the resurrection and salvation, and the consensus judgment on a paleotraditionalist forum was that it proved he didn’t believe in sin or repentance.

The same goes here. Unitatis Redintegratio is a decree on ecumenism, not a comprehensive catechism. That is why the introduction states:
The Sacred Council . . . has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.

 

[thirddec]

You’re right that it needs to be read in context, but part of the context is all the other documents of Vatican II, and indeed the other teachings of the Church. This is a document on ecumenism, which is why it discusses ecumenical issues and the positive things about our relations with other churches.

You know, from time to time I read some forums and blogs from the wildly progressive side of the Catholic world, and some from the radically paleotraditionalist side. It never fails: if the Pope gives a sermon during Lent about sin and repentance, the progressives lambaste him for not giving equal weight to salvation, forgiveness, and the resurrection. And then the other day the Pope gave a sermon in Easter time about the resurrection and salvation, and the consensus judgment on a paleotraditionalist forum was that it proved he didn’t believe in sin or repentance.

The same goes here. Unitatis Redintegratio is a decree on ecumenism, not a comprehensive catechism. That is why the introduction states:
The Sacred Council . . . has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.

Again I totally agree and in reality I applaud a move among Christians to move together and I am using this as a devils advocate for my real worries and that is How the Church proceeds in its gestures to other clearly alien religions to us and what subtle influences these talks may have on our doctrines that would be very dangerous in time. The picture of the Pope Kissing the Quran and budhist statues on Catholic Alters spring to mind.

 

[MarkThompson]

Again I totally agree and in reality I applaud a move among Christians to move together and I am using this as a devils advocate for my real worries and that is How the Church proceeds in its gestures to other clearly alien religions to us and what subtle influences these talks may have on our doctrines that would be very dangerous in time. The picture of the Pope Kissing the Quran and budhist statues on Catholic Alters spring to mind.

I think part of what happened at Vatican II was a realization on the part of the Council Fathers that several centuries of beating the drum about “heretics” and “apostates” had actually won very few converts to Catholicism from other churches (and I mean real churches of sophisticated peoples, like the Lutherans, not aboriginal tribes conquered by the Spanish in the 1500s). Constantly telling people who disagree with you that they are heretics just doesn’t tend to win them over, apparently.

Of course, the flip side of this is that constantly telling Catholics that other religions are heretical does tend to keep them on the Catholic side and prevent them from defecting. That, I think, it the greatest problem that can be identified with the (legitimate, not universalist) ecumenical movement in the Catholic Church. Please note that it is a question of emphasis, not of theology, so there can be no saying that the theology is incorrect. To give an analogy, it’s maybe a bit like the difference between telling a person who’s been struggling with their obesity “Hey fatso, you’re still an enormous cow” and telling her “Wow, you look a lot better since you’ve lost those ten pounds; I really hope you can keep it up.” The first message is obviously discouraging and mean, but spreading the second message risks making it seems like even a person who’s still very fat is entitled to think they’re totally perfectly and attractive just because they’ve lost a measly ten pounds.

Non-Catholics are still, inasmuch as they diverge from the Truth, theologically unattractive and spiritually unhealthy, but that doesn’t mean we have to gloat about it and constantly apply pejoratives rather than calling attention to the things they are doing right and trying to promote those. On the other hand, too much “promotion” in that vein and our own people start to forget why it’s bad to -]get so fat/-] become schismatic or non-Catholic in the first place.

That is how I see the issue, at least.

 

[po18guy]

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Am I reading this wrong when I think it is saying that A good Catholic missionary who has lived by their faith faithfull in every way including preaching the Pope is Christs representative on Earth has as good a chance of making it into heaven as a Good Baptist missionary who believed and preached the Pope was the devils representative on Earth.

We are not condemned by our ignorance, only by our sin.

 

[pnewton]

Consider this. If one wished to be a witness to one’s neighbor, the way things are worded can make a huge difference in whether you get a response or a defense. It will never do any good to win an argument and lose a soul. I would not begin with a Baptist by telling him that he might well be going to Hell for being outside the Catholic Church. That does nothing. A positive wording of the same doctrine is far better. It is a shame so many Catholics who are critical of Vatican II choose to see an indifferentism where there is none.

We all know only one sin bars us from Heaven. That is what Jesus told us - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, or ultimate unrepentence. There is no one for whom heaven is barred except the unrepentant.

 

[MikeDunphy]

True but there are people who feel that Vatican II brought good into the Church but also allowed something not so good . A Pope started that process. I worry if the good intentions of the Popes good intentions with reaching out to other world religions if we are not on our guard could result in false ideas and doctrines slipping into our belief systems before we even spot the danger.

I have the same concerns that you do. But if a document needs clarification, there is very likely more teaching on the same subject elsewhere. The Church has been teaching for centuries. Some people talk about a pre-conciliar Church and a post-conciliar Church, as if there were two Churches, but there is one Church through the ages, and she is rooted in the truth. As long as she is not cut off from her roots, she will be protected from error.

 

[guanophore]

You are correct ; the question I want to get the forum focused on is the real threat to our doctrines and faith an approach that is driving for ecumenism by trying to massage all the faiths into one message even if it means to sacrifice our beliefs rather that Ecumenism that looks at what we already hold true together and appreciating that without the need for any church especially the church thats supposed to hold all the depository of truth to start drop or manipulate its beliefs to sound better . Could the drive for more unity amoung Christians also be used by satan to cause the Church to drop its standards. And as I read through this document Alarm bells are ringing.

You are new here, so you may not realize that you will not find any faithful Catholics here at CAF that approach ecumenism with this attitude. There are some “cafeteria Catholics” that do, but you won’t find those here in Traditional either.

I suggest the Apologetics forum.

 

[guanophore]

I am just showing you how vague and easily read to mean a lot of things this document is for instant I agree with what you say above but read further.

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

In the above scenario the child has had a true Babtism and is accepted as a brother by the catholic Church MMMH not step brother but brother ; we are brothers in the catholic church this document makes them a brother too so why the need for further courses if he is raised as a catholic by his parents from then.

The parents have acted wrongly by seeking baptism outside of their Catholic community. Celebrating sacraments implies unity, and Catholic parents that do this in a Baptist Church are not likely to return to the Catholic Church to raise the child in the faith. There are probably other reasons they have left and sought baptism elsewhere. If the parents were interested in raising their child in the faith, they would not do such a thing.

 

[guanophore]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
thats the document I quoted from why not read it with an attitude of whats the worst that could happen and see what you think.

I dont want to labour on too much on this but the point I,m trying to get across how we are putting or doctrines on the line in these ecumenical events; while with other Christians there is a limit to whats on the line but what about the Gestures being made to other totaly alien religions like the last time when the Pope kissed the Quran.

There are people in the forum who think that critics of the pope are a risk to us ; maybe but what is the bigger risk?

While I don’t agree with JP kissing the Quran, Islam is not a “totally foreign religion”. They are children of Ishmael, and also call upon the God of Abraham. They believe in the same One God that we do.

 

[guanophore]

True but there are people who feel that Vatican II brought good into the Church but also allowed something not so good . A Pope started that process. I worry if the good intentions of the Popes good intentions with reaching out to other world religions if we are not on our guard could result in false ideas and doctrines slipping into our belief systems before we even spot the danger.

It sounds like you don’t really trust Jesus’ promise that the HS will lead the Church into “all Truth”.

 

[Luke65]

Preaching the pope is an antichrist will most certainly bar you from Heaven:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ~ Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam)

But you don’t want to be one of those who “grumbles” about those Our Lord calls at the “eleventh hour” (Matt. 20). Remember, St. Paul didn’t just say nasty things about Christians, he actively persecuted them - until Jesus opened his eyes. And Our Lord was merciful to Saul precisely because he sincerely believed he was serving God. Do you expect any less from our all-merciful God for all those who sincerely try to serve Him? I don’t. God bless.

 

[qOcOp]

I personally don’t see a problem with this. Provided that they are baptized with the correct formula this could only benefit the individuals that are in heretical Churches in their journey to the Catholic Church. When someone expresses the desire to be Christian they are expressing the desire to be Catholic (even if they don’t know it yet. ) We should not hinder this desire but rather help them. Baptism will open these people up to graces from the Holy Spirit that will greatly help their conversion to the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. Any person with a true desire to be a Christian is not against us but for us and should be allowed to be baptized.

"And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you." Luke 9:50

Recognizing the validity of baptisms done by heretical churches is not a new practice but a very old one that dates back to the Church Fathers. In any case I didn’t see anything in this document that gave the impression that I should just walk down to a local Protestant Church and be baptized by them if I desired to be Catholic. Rather I see this document as a statement saying that we Catholics recognize the validity of the baptisms done by those who are protestant (provided they are done with the correct formula) and that there is no reason to have them be baptized again if they become Catholic.

Maybe I missed something so I will read it again.

 

[JReducation]

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

For men who believe in Christ and have been** truly baptized **are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

Am I reading this right that according to this document any Baptism is a true baptism so if I can’t get a good date at the local Catholic Church and theres a free spot at the local Baptist Church thats fine as the are all true baptisms. ?

If this is wrong then surely there is confusion in this sentence in the Decree

You asked about this in another thread and I suggested that you begin a thread on this subject. However, I expected you to take an honest approach to the subject. I even encouraged you to look at the directives on Ecumenism as a good source to start the dialogue. Instead, you have chosen to pluck out one statement from a document that has several hundred paragraphs and two encyclicals that follow.

This shows an intent on your part to prove something, rather than an invitation to an honest understanding of what the Church is saying. You must make it clear for these ladies and gentlement that your intent is not to understand, but to “prove wrong” something that you have already judged and condemned.

Had you had an honest interest in understanding the Catholic Church’s position on ecumenism you would have started with the first paragraph of this document, which clearly states the place of the Catholic Church in salvation history.

The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council’s call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation. These brothers and sisters of ours, united in the selfless offering of their lives for the Kingdom of God, are the most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel.

**Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. **

Together with all Christ’s disciples, the Catholic Church bases upon God’s plan her ecumenical commitment to gather all Christians into unity. Indeed, "the Church is not a reality closed in on herself. Rather, she is permanently open to missionary and ecumenical endeavour, for she is sent to the world to announce and witness, to make present and spread the mystery of communion which is essential to her, and to gather all people and all things into Christ, so as to be for all an ‘inseparable sacrament of unity’ ".

There are three parts to ecumenism:

1. Recognizing that many men and women of different Christian traditions have given their lives for the name of Christ.
2. Putting aside misunderstandings and hostilities between Christians in order to work toward unity.
3. Bringing all men into unity in Christ through the Church, which is the sacarament of unity.

There is no compromising on the place of the Church. What we’re being asked to do is to put aside prejudices on both sides, Catholics and non-Catholics. But you chose to isolate one passage to promote the very same negative attitudes that keep Christians separated from each other and in so doing, you’re promoting further division, this time within the Catholic Church. That’s not the way that we study the Church’s position on ecumenism.

The proper way to study it is to look at what she says about herself first, then what she says about others. When we do this, we find that she does not give up anything that she has always said about herself, except to give up on the hostility and the anger that has kept all of us separated for so many hundreds of years and she asks non-Catholics to do the same, to set aside the bitterness of the past and walk through the dialogue on the things that we have in common and the things that still separate us.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Critics of the Pope often use the tactic of taking a document that says one thing and applying it to something else. This document is not addressed to Catholics seeking baptism. That simply isn’t what it does. It address non-Catholic baptism. The idea of a Catholic who seeks baptism in a Protestant Church isn’t even addressed in this. If you wish to try and apply it to this situation, then yes, you still have a valid baptism, even as you would if a layperson baptized with the proper formula. The way this thread is titled it looks like the document is giving permission for this to happen, which it does not. To give it another twist, a person could get baptized in a schismatic Church in the Catholic tradition of some kind. This is perfectly valid. Yet this document is hardly granting permission for such an action.