Ex-Sedevacantist, Unbaptized Wife, Will I Ever Become Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter erich.k
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

erich.k

Guest
Hi folks.

About 10 years ago, I started going to a Sedevacantist sectarian parish. This was my first exposure to Catholicism, and I was eventually sucked up into their ideology and dogma. I was re-baptized (original baptism was Lutheran at infancy), took Communion, went to confession, etc. A few years later, I moved away and ultimately stopped going and stopped worrying about church. I lived a pretty worldly life, met a girl, got married, etc. The marriage was done at the venue, non-religious. This year I moved back to the area where the parish was and began attending again, and after doing some research of my own, I realized I had been severely duped.

I reached out to a FSSP priest nearby, began attending Mass, and had a meeting with him. He balked at me having been baptized a second time, and expressed concern regarding my wife, who has never been baptized, and that we were married despite me being more or less a heretical Catholic.

He now has to confirm with the Diocese whether or not I was considered a Catholic at the time the marriage took place, in which case if they consider I was not, I can continue on joining the Church properly. Otherwise, things will “become more complicated.”

Despite my best efforts, my wife is quite stubbornly nonreligious and mostly atheist. She doesn’t understand any of what I explained to her about my meeting with the priest, or Catholic doctrine, and sees me as just going through a “religion-hopping” phase.

Am I at potential risk of being forever barred from entering the Church? Does anyone have any similar experiences to share? What is the worst case outcome of my situation, and how can I explain to my wife how serious marriage is in Catholic doctrine and why Baptized couples make it just as serious?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I find that odd as Lutherans have a valid baptism. (I think the OP said he was Baptized Lutheran)
 
Yes, for the reasons that there was no paper record of my infant baptism, and because they speculated that the baptism could have been illegitimate. I’m bitter at their errant doctrines and lies.
 
Harder doesn’t mean impossible.

Take it one step at a time. You may fully join but have to abstain from communion for a time. Do not let this hinder you, just keep following your priest and taking the advice of those who know your situation face to face.
 
You won’t be “forever barred.” Worst case scenario, it might just take longer.

It will be interesting to see what the diocese says. But honestly, I don’t think there is much of a chance that your confirmation and reception into the Church through the sedevacantist group is valid. They are not in communion with the Church. They consider the Church to be apostate and think they are the true church. Basically, they are just super “high-church” Protestants. It is extremely likely that you will be able to go through the normal process of being received into the Church through RCIA or a similar program.
 
Why was there no paper record? My dad was Lutheran, baptized in 1961 (not an infant, as he was born in 1952), and I’ve seen his baptismal certificate. I don’t doubt you, but that just seems a bit odd.
 
Sorry you are going through such a mess just to be welcomed back into the Church; It sounds like a giant cannon law or some kind of very convoluted problem that will take a catholic lawyer to figure out. The priest though should not be giving you a hard time about the process and I would personally wager a guess he is probably more frustrated at having to do the leg work than he is with you or your wife personally.

The problem is really minor in nature and can be solved if not by this priest just find another one who is more understanding and has the time to help you. ( you are not a heretical catholic, if you are, then so are millions of other catholics for various reasons big or small ) .

If this priest is not more out going to welcome you into the parish, or diocese, I would just suggest talking to your diocese directly , schedule an appointment with the bishop or one of his secretaries or find another parish and priest who isn’t fearful of having to do paper work and leg work.

An none of this should cost you a single penny to do, if anyone tries to charge you any money, I would seriously question whom ever tries to give you any kind of bill. An I only mention this because in this day n age you never know who is going to try and pull a fast one.

( Hi guys, again we are on an open forum, this post is for the original poster erich, nothing I have stated is a personal attack on the original poster or anyone on this forum. if you disagree that is fine, feel free to say you disagree, just dont expect me to come rushing back to converse with you because i am not going to. )
 
@superblue: There is nothing in the OP to indicate that the priest is “giving him a hard time.” From what he said, it sounds like the priest is currently checking with the diocese on the OP’s behalf and is waiting to hear back. It’s an uncommon situation, and the OP will have to go through the same process regardless of which priest is working with him.
 
Last edited:
My parents are amazing people. I can’t imagine or desire having an upbringing any other way. Religion was relatively unimportant to them, and my baptism was only performed in order to appease my Lutheran grandmother.

It may have been a non-denominational baptism, as well. Neither of my parents remember, and the more I asked my mother about it, the more she started doubting her memory as to whether or not it even happened. I remember seeing a photograph way back supposedly of me getting dunked in a fount, but I can’t find that photograph. Neither did they retain any paper record, and if they did, it was misplaced very badly.

It is what it is. The Sedevacantist priest just shrugged and felt it would be better to remove all doubt and baptize me again.
 
Last edited:
I understand. I know a guy raised Baptist that had a conditional baptism because no one could find evidence of his.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top