If Protestants Have Two Sacraments

[Theophilus76]

My family is in the process of entering into full communion with the Catholic Church; I converted a few years back. My unbaptized son asked a question I can’t answer: If your baptism in a Protestant church is deemed valid, why can’t I just get baptized where we used to go?

Why not? Why wait until Easter? Why not get married, for that matter, anywhere if all marriages are deemed valid unless seriously questioned during an annulment process?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I think the key phrase here is “where we used to go.” You’re no longer a part of that community. Or to look at it another way, if you believe the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, why wouldn’t you want to be baptized as a Catholic. To believe the Catholic Church is the right way to go and then to be baptized as a Lutheran or Methodist is dishonest all the way around. You’re denying what you believe to be the truth and possibly deceiving the church where the baptism would take place by leading them to believe you want to be a member of their community.

 

[SMHW]

While the Catholic Church believes that (many if not most) baptisms performed by non-Catholic communities are valid, we also believe that your baptism specifically gives you “membership” in a specific Church or Ecclesial Community.

The process of coming into full communion with the Catholic Church is to leave your previous Protestant Ecclesial Community and join the (I’m guessing Roman) Catholic Church.

While it might be “valid” to be baptized at a non-Catholic Church, why would you want to join it, just to leave it to join another? At the very least, it seems disrespectful to both the Community you plan to leave as soon as you enter it, as well as to the Church you really plan to join.

 

[Titivillus]

While it is true that anyone may validly baptize, particularly when there is danger of death, the ordinary minister of baptism is the bishop, priest, or deacon. Because you are not ignorant of this fact, you should be baptized by one of the sacrament’s ordinary ministers.

 

[Titivillus]

And similarly for the hypothetical marriage. If you are ready to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, you should acknowledge that marriage should be celebrated according to the Church’s teaching and laws.

 

[Gorgias]

While it is true that anyone may validly baptize, particularly when there is danger of death, the ordinary minister of baptism is the bishop, priest, or deacon.

This holds for Catholics. Non-Catholic Christians are not bound by this canon.

We’re talking about someone prior to his entry into the Catholic Church. (For those in his family who are already baptized, this is a matter of “coming into full communion with the Church.” For those in his family who are not already baptized, this is baptism (and presumably First Communion and Confirmation), most likely at the Easter Vigil.)

One answer for the OP’s son is whether he himself believes in the teachings of the Catholic Church. If he does, then it doesn’t make sense to be baptized elsewhere. (If he doesn’t, then we have a potential problem: we’re not supposed to make someone Catholic against their will. It’s right in Canon Law. )

Another answer is along the lines of the comments given by @SuscipeMeDomine and @SMHW: baptism in the Catholic Church makes one a member of the Catholic Church and a member in this ‘family’ of believers. (Valid) baptism elsewhere only creates imperfect communion. Essentially, he’s asking, “why should I be in our family?”

Yet another answer might be that, while he technically could be baptized elsewhere, that would mean that he would not be able to receive Eucharist in the Catholic Church until he himself goes through the process his family is going through right now: the process by which they “come into full communion with the Church”. Does he really want to be baptized elsewhere, and then not fully participate each Sunday at Mass?

All things considered, his son’s question boils down to the question “aren’t these two (baptism at our old church and baptism in the Catholic Church) exactly the same thing?” The answer is no, they’re not exactly the same thing. There is a point at which the effects differ (namely, to what extent one can participate in the sacramental life of the Catholic Church).

 

[Gorgias]

Why not get married, for that matter, anywhere if all marriages are deemed valid unless seriously questioned during an annulment process?

Hmm… I think you’re asking why not marry anywhere, given that all people can get married anywhere. Your premise is mistaken. All people cannot be married anywhere. For a marriage of a Catholic person to be valid, it must be celebrated according to the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., in a church/chapel/oratory of the Catholic Church, presided over by a Catholic priest or deacon). Alternately, those to be married may ask for a dispensation from form, such that they might be married elsewhere or by a different officiant. (These types of dispensations are typically given, if only one of the spouses-to-be is Catholic and the other is either a non-Catholic Christian or an unbaptized person. These types of dispensations are typically not given, when both are Catholic.)

On the other hand, other non-Catholic Christian denominations do not have requirements of form for their valid marriages, so the Church does not impose any requirements on them with respect to form for validity. They, in essence, by virtue of not being Catholic, actually can marry anywhere (that their denomination allows).

So, the notion that anyone can be married anywhere doesn’t hold up. Perhaps you mean something else, such that you’d like to ask the question in a different way?

 

[johnnykins]

I think the easiest way to address these questions involves the difference between validity and liceity.

Validity means that the sacrament happened. Liceity means it happened as prescribed in accordance with the law.

Yes, a baptism in an Episcopal church is presumed valid - the matter, water and the form, the Trinitarian invocation with intent to Baptize effects a valid Baptism. Normally, for a born Catholic or catechumen, liceity (the law) calls for this to be done in accordance with the rules - by a Catholic bishop, priest or deacon in a Catholic Church according to the prescribed ritual. Exceptions to the general law are allowed with dispensations and/or emergency. Assuming no emergency or dispensation, the law calls for the timing and location. Same deal on marriage…note presuming a valid marriage is not the same as deeming a marriage valid…but semantics are another issue.

So, the simple answer is, yes it may well be valid, but as a Catholic you are called to also conform to the legal requirements set forth by the Church. To flout liceity is a sin on its own despite the sacrament actually being confected - it’s what’s behind all the angst over “abuses” in the Mass that get talked about so often on the forum.

Note, too, once one moves outside the licit confection of the sacraments, the risk of invalidity increases as often the essential matter or form is changed…so liceity is a guard against invalidity.

 

[Theophilus76]

The talk of legality of a sacrament is new to me. One should simply have the willingness to receive, then the sacrament freely performed; too much legalistic navigating. Didn’t Jesus condemn the Pharisees for this?

In the Churches of Christ, a person is baptized for the remission of sins and enters into the larger community of the church (Christ’s body). One is not baptized into a specific faith tradition, but into Christ, wherever it may be found.

The root of my conundrum lies with the Catholic Church proclaiming the body of Christ may well extend beyond the bounds of the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, para 15). So if the body of Christ incorporates all true baptized believers, why can’t the sacraments among this expanded body of Christ be interchangeable?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

So if the body of Christ incorporates all true baptized believers, why can’t the sacraments among this expanded body of Christ be interchangeable?

Does your church have all seven sacraments? The Catholic Church does generally accept the validity of Churches of Christ baptism and marriages, even though your church does not itself recognize Holy Matrimony as a sacrament.

The key issue is that Christ left us one Church, not multiple churches with competing theologies.

 

[anon65111186]

If your baptism in a Protestant church is deemed valid, why can’t I just get baptized where we used to go?

Key word “used to go”, you don’t go there any more.

There is difference between valid and licit.

The Protestant baptism is valid, but illicit, the ministers have no right to do it.
Only the local Priest or ordinary can baptize licitly.

Basically as a Catecumen you agree to be bound by the law of the Catholic Church, and to get sacraments elsewhere just because they are valid would be breaking that law.

Same reason why Catholics can’t normally get Sacraments from Eastern Orthodox, many still have valid Sacraments, but it is not licit to receive them in ordinary circumstances.

 

[Gorgias]

The Protestant baptism is valid, but illicit, the ministers have no right to do it.

Only the local Priest or ordinary can baptize licitly.

You’re missing the point: your statement holds for Catholics, but not for all humans. So, if Catholic parents take their baby for baptism to a Protestant minister, you’re correct.

However, this young man is beyond the so-called “age of reason.” More to the point, he’s capable of making the decision himself. Therefore, in a certain sense, he really is taking himself for baptism. He, then, could take himself to the Protestant minister, licitly, for baptism.

As I pointed out upthread, though, this would not complete the process: he’d have to go through the process his family is going through, in order to come into full communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, while his baptism would be valid and licit, it would not be identical in effect to a baptism in the Catholic Church.

 

[anon65111186]

our statement holds for Catholics, but not for all humans.

True, but he is a Catechumen, which is an agreement or stated intention to become Catholic. That would place him and any other Catechumens in his family under Church law, wouldn’t it?

 

[Gorgias]

True, but he is a Catechumen, which is an agreement or stated intention to become Catholic. That would place him and any other Catechumens in his family under Church law, wouldn’t it?

That’s a great question! Now… Where’s a Canon lawyer when we need one?!?

 

[anon65111186]

Right Canon lawyer please clarify , if you are reading this!

 

[Theophilus76]

So, the short answer is: It’s against the law, cannon law. Getting baptized outside the Catholic Church (even in the river Jordan) will save your soul from eternal damnation, but you are supposed to do it according to the norms and forms of Cannon Law. If you don’t, the biblical act of Jesus saving your soul will be a sin.

Surely not!

 

[steve-b]

My family is in the process of entering into full communion with the Catholic Church; I converted a few years back.

congrats!

Are they coming into the Church on Easter via RCIA?

Theophilus76:

My unbaptized son asked a question I can’t answer: If your baptism in a Protestant church is deemed valid, why can’t I just get baptized where we used to go?
Why not? Why wait until Easter? Why not get married, for that matter, anywhere if all marriages are deemed valid unless seriously questioned during an annulment process?

Is you son really on board with coming into the Church?

Not sure what you are really asking?
Is there a marriage question here before an official annulment?