Valid Baptism vs Belonging To True Church

[TheIrishman]

I’ve read a lot on these forums and in others that many churches have a “valid” baptism in the eyes of Christian churches. So my question is, If someone is a Protestant with a valid baptism, what’s stopping them from becoming Catholic? I don’t see a difference in a valid baptism between Protestants and Catholics. If the Catholic Church is the true church, shouldn’t only baptisms performed within that church be considered valid? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.

This was discussed in my RCIA class.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The standard baptism “in the name of the Father and in the Son and in the holy Spirit” by a layman [in cases of emergency] is sufficient for Catholics and most Protestants.

 

[Sirach2]

I’ve read a lot on these forums and in others that many churches have a “valid” baptism in the eyes of Christian churches. So my question is, If someone is a Protestant with a valid baptism, what’s stopping them from becoming Catholic? I don’t see a difference in a valid baptism between Protestants and Catholics. If the Catholic Church is the true church, shouldn’t only baptisms performed within that church be considered valid? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.

This was discussed in my RCIA class.

Yes, they are valid baptisms, which is why the Church does not re-baptize anyone who has validly been baptized in another denomination.

The difference is in doctrinal beliefs. It would require studying Catholic doctrines and having faith from God to believe our truths, which are not generally accepted by non-Catholics. Baptism is minimal, but it does make a person part of Christ’s Mystical Body, but not in fullness of beliefs.

 

[glendab]

Hello Irish.

I’ve read a lot on these forums and in others that many churches have a “valid” baptism in the eyes of Christian churches. So my question is, If someone is a Protestant with a valid baptism, what’s stopping them from becoming Catholic? I don’t see a difference in a valid baptism between Protestants and Catholics. If the Catholic Church is the true church, shouldn’t only baptisms performed within that church be considered valid? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.

This was discussed in my RCIA class.

Gee, what is stopping them? NOTHING. And of course, everything.

Some folks even though they are licitly Baptized don’t believe what they are supposed to and that stops them from coming home to Rome. For example, if a person is a Baptist, got Baptized at 17 after receiving some instruction and accepting Baptism and all that goes with belonging to that particular denominations beliefs and the actual Baptism was given using valid matter and followed the correct formula, they are members of the Church by their Baptism, but they are separated by the things they believe and accept in their particular denomination. It is* those things *that they must part with to become FULLY Catholic. Baptism is a Sacrament of Initiation and it gives a person, no matter who, a place in the true Church. So, in the extreme, ALL validly Baptized persons are already members of the one true Church. They just live this apart from the rest of it mostly by choice.

Does that make sense? Hope it helped.

Glenda

 

[PJM]

=TheIrishman;11849888]I’ve read a lot on these forums and in others that many churches have a “valid” baptism in the eyes of Christian churches. So my question is, If someone is a Protestant with a valid baptism, what’s stopping them from becoming Catholic? I don’t see a difference in a valid baptism between Protestants and Catholics. If the Catholic Church is the true church, shouldn’t only baptisms performed within that church be considered valid? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.

This was discussed in my RCIA class.

Great question; THANKS!

The answer is that Baptism is one of THREE sacraments [four if one has already been Baptized as a Christian; and is now above the age of reason], for entry into the Roman Catholic Church.

1. Christian Baptism
2. Sacramental Confession for those all ready Baptized
3. The Most Holy Eucharist
4. Confirmation

I hope this answers your question? Thanks for asking:thumbsup:

Patrick

 

[GKC]

The standard baptism “in the name of the Father and in the Son and in the holy Spirit” by a layman [in cases of emergency] is sufficient for Catholics and most Protestants.

And water. And a valid subject. And intent.

GKC

 

[Rin]

I’ve read a lot on these forums and in others that many churches have a “valid” baptism in the eyes of Christian churches. So my question is, If someone is a Protestant with a valid baptism, what’s stopping them from becoming Catholic? I don’t see a difference in a valid baptism between Protestants and Catholics. If the Catholic Church is the true church, shouldn’t only baptisms performed within that church be considered valid? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.

This was discussed in my RCIA class.

In a sense, you could say that any individual who receives valid, Christian baptism become Catholic when baptized. However, when they reach the age of reason (or, in the case of adult baptism, soon thereafter), and adhere to Protestant doctrine, they cease being so.

That’s why, in the older liturgy, converts were formally absolved from any excommunication they might have incurred previous to their conversion, after formally having abjured their heresies. If I understand it correctly, this is also why a letter from the bishop is required, since only a bishop can lift excommunications except in emergencies (death bed conversions). In the case of an unbaptized individual, such permission from the bishop is not needed; they can’t possibly have incurred excommunication, since they were never in communion.

I think the above still is correct, even though the formal lifting of excommunication has been removed from the rite of conversion (sadly, in my opinion). The lifting of excommunication is in that case implicit in the bishop’s permission and the absolution given during the convert’s first confession. I’m sure I could be disagreed with, though.

 

[Sirach2]

In a sense, you could say that any individual who receives valid, Christian baptism become Catholic when baptized. However, when they reach the age of reason (or, in the case of adult baptism, soon thereafter), and adhere to Protestant doctrine, they cease being so.

That’s why, in the older liturgy, converts were formally absolved from any excommunication they might have incurred previous to their conversion, after formally having abjured their heresies. If I understand it correctly, this is also why a letter from the bishop is required, since only a bishop can lift excommunications except in emergencies (death bed conversions). In the case of an unbaptized individual, such permission from the bishop is not needed; they can’t possibly have incurred excommunication, since they were never in communion.

I think the above still is correct, even though the formal lifting of excommunication has been removed from the rite of conversion (sadly, in my opinion). The lifting of excommunication is in that case implicit in the bishop’s permission and the absolution given during the convert’s first confession. I’m sure I could be disagreed with, though.

This is not the question the OP asked, and I seriously doubt he has been “excommunicated.” That was a bit harsh, for it is not the current practice in RCIA, nor do new converts have to renounce so-called heresies.

 

[Rin]

This is not the question the OP asked, and I seriously doubt he has been “excommunicated.” That was a bit harsh, for it is not the current practice in RCIA, nor do new converts have to renounce so-called heresies.

I am sorry if it seemed harsh - that was not my intention.

However, the OP asked:

If the Catholic Church is the true church, shouldn’t only baptisms performed within that church be considered valid?

What I wrote explains that - Christian baptism is essentially Catholic; it makes the baptizand Catholic. I further explained the background through how the rite of conversion used to happen (and still does - I assisted in such a conversion less than three years ago), which also explains a lot about how Catholicism (still) relates to other Christian faiths.

Also note that I said excommunications which might have incurred. We can never know - I did certainly not say anything about the OP, I think you’re reading more into what I wrote than is there. Lastly, I am well aware the current rite of conversion does not have the abjurations, for ecumenical reasons; it is one of many tragedies of the last few decades. I’ve met too many converts of the “I don’t renounce my past” type; they tend to go on to greener pastures a few years later. Thankfully, an increasing number of converts seem to want the abjurations to come back.

But I’m sorry if this seemed harsh, it was absolutely not my intention; it actually didn’t cross my mind it could be taken as such. I’m sorry. It was neither my intention to derail the thread; I tried to explain how baptism of non-Catholics is still actually related to the Church, even if neither the baptizand nor the minister are aware it is.