That’s not what’s at issue. You’ve misunderstood the discussion.
Not talking about invalid baptisms here. We’re talking about the fact that a baptism can be done and yet the baptized does not automatically become Catholic thereby, even if they do become Christian. In fact, this happens all the time in protestant communities.I am completely out of my element when you pull out the Summa.
Are you referring to this section?
It looks like he is saying that lack of consent doesn’t necessarily make the Sacrament invalid but that it introduces an element of doubt.
I have only ever head of a conditional Baptism being done when there is doubt over form or matter and that’s usually when a person is baptized as a non-Catholic. But the good doctor was writing before the Protestant revolution and I am sure there has been many things written since then, especially with the objection from some Protestant groups to the validity of infant Baptism altogether.
Before we go too far out on this limb, it’s good to point out that any claim that the Baptism was invalid would mean that the person is not just “un-Catholic” but also “un-Christian”. And I don’t think that is anyone’s claim (at least on this thread).
Equivalent of a Catholic baptism. When a person goes through RCIA if they’ve been baptised using the proper set of words, they don’t have to be re-baptized as a Catholic. The act of becoming Catholic in that case consists of making an act of profession to the Church.
With respect, what you have stated is extremely speculative. There is nothing in my post that remotely suggests I was speculating on the OP’s baptism, or whether it has a lack of proper matter. I fail to see what in post could have prompted someone to draw this conclusion. I have no idea what you are basing this statement on. All I can say is you are way off here in relation to the manner in which I intended my post to be understood. My post had nothing remotely to do with the validity of the baptism.
No comment - I’ve never met the OP, know nothing about her and my point of inquiry had absolutely nothing to do with the validity of her baptism. Suffice to say I don’t see how any of this is relevant to anything I wrote.
I was under the impression the OP’s question related to a valid marriage. If baptism alone makes someone Catholic, all I can say is it’s the first time I’ve heard that. I was under the impression a person had to be admitted to Holy Communion and make their first confession and be Confirmed ‘sealed’ in order, for want of a better phrase, for a person to be fully admitted to the Catholic Church. Baptism is the first step in that direction, but not the last.
As I have never heard of the ‘un-baptism’ movement, I can’t comment. I apologize for repeating myself, but not in my wildest dreams did I envisage anyone on this thread interpreting what I stated as casting doubt on the validity of the OP’s baptism. I won’t say anymore as I have I attempted to make my point of inquiry clear in other posts, which had nothing to do with the validity of her baptism, and I don’t want to repeat it.
I am not making this up, nor am I having a temper tantrum; she is not my daughter.
Well, I don’t think it’s that hard to prove. I think that if the explicit statement of the adult in question doesn’t satisfy the requirement of proof, I’m not sure what would.
The statement would need to be taken in evidence at a Church Tribunal. It is not up to the pastor to say “oh, you had a lack of intent? Invalid it was, then!” He does not have that authority. Neither does a bishop. Intent is a canonically protected quality that enjoys the favor of law.
Which means it’s just done to you. And if you don’t like it, you can ignore it, just like the OP has decided to do. She can do that, according to what you’ve said here, and she is.
And yes, you saw my objection coming about this. We are not going to go out on the street anytime soon, grabbing pedestrians and baptizing them against their wills while they walk down the street. We don’t have the right to do this either. Like it would have any point to it at all…
The ones who didn’t retaliate physically or sue us would ignore us, and rightly so.I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of wishing-to-be-ex-Catholics being forcibly held in a Catholic church against their will.Except in the case of a person being baptized as a Baptist, who doesn’t become a Catholic as a result. This is demonstrable by the fact that if the same person shows up later in RCIA, they don’t have to be re-baptized but they do have to attain union with the Church before they can receive Holy Communion. Baptists cannot just waltz into Catholic churches and receive HOly Communion without going through RCIA, baptized or not.
I am aware of this. This is not what confirmation is for. Moreover, what makes someone truly Catholic may not have anything to do with a particular sacrament.
[Maybe some Catholics are not aware of how many non-Catholics visit Catholic churches and get into Communion lines without understanding what they are doing. Happens all the time and twice as often on Christmas.]
In the Latin Rite, it is true that infants don’t receive Holy Communion. Not the case in the East. Infants cannot consent also, so not sure how this works. Perhaps they receive at the behest of their parents, in whose care they are until they can consent.
Yes, this is the Catholic opinion, but not the opinion of non-Catholics. The OP does not hold this opinion, so it’s rather pointless to tout it to her in a forum. She doesn’t believe it.
Bingo! Now, we’re getting to the point, by whatever you want to call it.
Nevertheless, to quote you, “she has the ability to choose to accept her Catholic faith or renounce it in part or in whole.”
You can tell better than she can what she intended…in an internet forum, yet? I doubt that.
I really do think that infant baptism can have some of the properties of forced conversion. For that reason I personally think that it’s possible for a person to choose not to be Catholic as an adult. And I think that should be respected.
I also think that Catholics make a huge mistake desperately trying to hang onto people who don’t want to be Catholic. It’s not right because people can “the ability to choose to accept her Catholic faith or renounce it in part or in whole,” as you said above. That’s the meaning of assent.
As far as I know, there aren’t squads of Catholic enforcers going door to door with a list. The OP - who sounds like a delightful, intelligent and thoughtful young woman - is, of course, free to worship and marry wherever she wishes. However, none of that changes the way she is regarded by the Catholic Church of her baptism.This is exactly were I was coming from.
Yes, this was exactly the OP’s question.
Very interesting information which helps explain the position of the Catholic parents of OP.
I know about this issue. It is a BIG MISTAKE for the Church to fight these cases when people want to leave. The Church should just let them sign and leave, creating some sort of legal class for them. They do have a right to leave if they desire to do so of their own explicit free will, aka uncompelled signature.
Are you saying that the Church was supposed to support the protestant reformation? Are you saying that the Church should accept and formalize heresy and/or schismatic behaviors? The Church is not fighting anyone, the Church simply displays sadness to schism or apostasy.
No, it’s not what happens in RCIA. A person who shows up in RCIA whose been previously baptized is NOT considered Catholic UNTIL they make their profession of faith at Easter. This is why they are not allowed the sacraments until Easter. I’ve been there and experienced this personally. That’s how it works.
This simply is not true about baptism in general. Catholic baptism apparently has this added expectation added to it. My contention is that the child is brought in at the behest of the parents under their blanket consent until they are old enough to give consent for themselves… See my last paragraph.
The priest and the bishop might not, but the person in question does. They know what they intend. They have free will.
Interesting argument. The JW’s demand the same. If you want to leave you must write a letter stating your intention not to be known as a JW any longer. Alternatively you can get yourself kicked out. I didn’t bother. Neither did I bother to go before their elders for one of their ‘courts.’ I remember asking the priest who catechized me if I needed to inform them, and he told me it was none of their business and the Catholic Church didn’t care what their rules were.
They aren’t equivalent. Baptism in the Catholic Church accomplishes two things; Baptism in a non-Catholic community only accomplishes one. That’s why the person goes to RCIA and doesn’t just jump into the Communion line. That’s why a profession of faith is required. A person Baptized as a baby in a Catholic ceremony but who never had any other contact with the Church would not be required to make a profession of faith.
The OP was Baptized as an infant. She didn’t receive the Sacrament “against her will” since an infant cannot form, let alone express, an intention to deny the Sacrament. By extension, it would seem that you are saying that all Catholics who were Baptized as infants are not “truly Catholic” unless they do something extra.
Which is why priests often won’t baptize babies unless there is a reasonable chance they will be brought up in the faith and why it is so wrong for “grandma” to secretely Baptise a baby against the parents’ wishes. There are real, life long, (name removed by moderator)lications to being Baptized.
Are you aware of the Church “fighting these cases”? I am not. The Church can’t force them to come to Mass or partake of the sacraments (there are, sadly, plenty of “practicing” Catholics who don’t always attend Mass…) There is, however, no formal defection process, since approximately 2010.
