Author Topic: The phrase "non-Catholic Christian" (Read 1999 times)

Jehanne · « **on:** February 09, 2011, 07:36:29 AM »

Since Vatican II (or before), has the phrase "non-Catholic Christian" ever been used in any Magisterial text? I hear the phrase all the time from American Catholics but has the Pope, Cardinal, or any Bishop ever used it?

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:59:22 PM »

In my Father McGuire's New Baltimore Catechism No. 1,
The term non catholic christian is not recognized. And
in article 91, page 59 that a Catholic sins against the
faith by not believing what God revealed, and taking
part in non-Catholic worship.
In the Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion,
by Joseph Deharbe S.J. on pages 148-149, in summary,
the term heretics, schismatics are used.
Article 69 points out that those that are heretics, and
schismatic without their own fault, and sincerely searches
for the truth, and in the meantime do the will of God to
the best of their knowledge, although they are
separated from the church, remain, however, united to
the soul of the church, and partakes of her graces.
The term non catholic christian is uniquely vatican 2.

Jehanne · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2011, 06:26:00 AM »

I know that Vatican II uses the term "Christian" to refer (barf) to our "separated brethren." However, it is de fide that heretics and/or schismatics have valid baptisms, which means that the baptized in those sects who are younger than the age of reason are fully Catholic. So, using the word "Christian" is one thing, but using the phrase (so very common, btw, among American Catholics -- barf) non-Catholic Christian is another. It seems to me that such a phrase has not been used in any Magisterial text, so far as I can tell.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2011, 09:00:42 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

I know that Vatican II uses the term "Christian" to refer (barf) to our "separated brethren." However, it is de fide that heretics and/or schismatics have valid baptisms, which means that the baptized in those sects who are younger than the age of reason are fully Catholic. So, using the word "Christian" is one thing, but using the phrase (so very common, btw, among American Catholics -- barf) non-Catholic Christian is another. It seems to me that such a phrase has not been used in any Magisterial text, so far as I can tell.

Jehanne, it is certainly not de fide that the baptisms of heretics and schismatics are always considered valid. Even in those cases where the matter and the form are met (and this is of course only to be understood as a baptismus necessitatis as it lacks the accompany rites or the sanctification of the matter), there are in the case of the many Protestant heretics very grave doubts concerning the intent of the administrator of the Sacrament. Now, where canon law addresses sacramental theology it is generally assumed that when one utilizes the correct form and matter, that the desire is to do as the Church does, which is the definition of sacramental intent. However, in those cases of baptisms performed by Protestant heretics, especially those that reject any sacramental structure as is the case with members of the Evangelical sects, there is an open and pertinacious disbelief in the sacramental nature of baptism or its necessity in the removal of original sin; that is to say that in those cases where the member of a heretical sect, whose admitted theology explicitly denies the necessity or spiritual efficacy of baptism, performs a baptism it may be reasonably assumed that the sacrament was invalid. Of course, the preparation for conditional baptism involves the research of these contingencies.

Jehanne · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2011, 10:28:10 AM »

I agree with everything that you say; however, denial of original sin is not enough to invalidate a baptism.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2011, 10:38:01 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

I agree with everything that you say; however, denial of original sin is not enough to invalidate a baptism.

Of course it is; the Church utilizes the "laver of salvation" to remove the stain of original sin. That is its function, and the intent to remove it is by definition the sacramental intention to "do as the Church does." A Protestant heretic, lacking belief or denying that baptism is the means by which original sin is removed, does not intend to remove it with baptism, and thus the intent is in this case defective.

Per the Catholic Encyclopedia: "For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful."

Jehanne · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2011, 08:14:16 AM »

How about Methodist baptisms? Those are valid, or so I have read, and yet they deny original sin.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2011, 08:35:35 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

How about Methodist baptisms? Those are valid, or so I have read, and yet they deny original sin.

Read this where, precisely?

JohnGrey · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2011, 09:13:21 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

How about Methodist baptisms? Those are valid, or so I have read, and yet they deny original sin.

Firstly, one needs to make clear that by definition Protestantism allows for different denominations, even parts within denominations, to hold conflicting views regarding any point of faith. Traditionally, Wesleyan Methodism did and does uphold the concept of original sin, as stated in the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church:

Quote

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.

Moreover, John Wesley affirmed the laver as the supernatural means of removing original sin, though it does not argue its exclusivity in this regard. That coupled with a valid form (aspersion) makes it less doubtful but still lacks certainty.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2011, 11:34:59 AM »

Can the theology of the minister affect the intent if he intends to do what the Church does? Really intends to do it?

Because if it can then how can one believe a baptism by a modernist priest is valid if he conceives of baptism as being something entirely different than the remission of original sin?

A believing Baptist is less of a heretic than a modernist. Isn't that obvious?

JohnGrey · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2011, 12:01:15 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Can the theology of the minister affect the intent if he intends to do what the Church does? Really intends to do it?

Because if it can then how can one believe a baptism by a modernist priest is valid if he conceives of baptism as being something entirely different than the remission of original sin?

A believing Baptist is less of a heretic than a modernist. Isn't that obvious?

How could the underlying theology regarding a sacrament not change the sacrament by its defection? Leo XIII in Apostolicæ curæ declared the Anglican rite of ordination was no longer valid because of a defection of intent, that its purpose was no longer to produce a member of the sacerdotal priesthood capable of confecting the bread and wine into the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary.

Moreover, you can't compare heresies as being more or less heretical. It has been the teaching of the Church since the Fathers that any who deny the slightest degree of dogma is a heretic. There's no difference between a Baptist and a modernist; they're both members of a false and perditious religion. If you could make such an argument, then a modernist would be the greater heretic of the two. He has the history of the Church and the truth of her sacraments at his fingertips, and denies it; at the very least it's possible the Baptist has no understanding of sacramental theology.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2011, 12:16:49 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Moreover, you can't compare heresies as being more or less heretical.

That is obviously not true.

Quote

It has been the teaching of the Church since the Fathers that any who deny the slightest degree of dogma is a heretic. There's no difference between a Baptist and a modernist;

There's a huge difference. A Baptist believes in the account of the New Testament, a Modernist does not. That's a huge difference.

Quote

they're both members of a false and perditious religion.

False religions have elements of truth. A Baptist who accepts the account of the Gospels as history has a great deal more truth than a modernist.

Quote

If you could make such an argument, then a modernist would be the greater heretic of the two.

Obviously such an argument can be made, and it turns out you're willing to make it after all.

It is heresy to deny that heretics can have valid Baptisms.

But some Feeneyites have a tendency to try to cast doubt on all such Baptisms. It is definitely a heretical tendency on their part.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2011, 01:47:17 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

There's a huge difference. A Baptist believes in the account of the New Testament, a Modernist does not. That's a huge difference.

Belief in the historicity of the New Testament, or any part of the Bible for that matter is not indicative of one's orthodoxy. So long as one assents with faith those doctrines revealed in it and interpreted infallibly by the Church to be divinely inspired, that is sufficient.

Quote from: Telesphorus

False religions have elements of truth. A Baptist who accepts the account of the Gospels as history has a great deal more truth than a modernist.

Have elements of truth? Yes. Can be salvific? Nnnnnope. Again, the historicity of it is not at issue here.

Quote from: Telesphorus

Obviously such an argument can be made, and it turns out you're willing to make it after all.

It is heresy to deny that heretics can have valid Baptisms.

But some Feeneyites have a tendency to try to cast doubt on all such Baptisms. It is definitely a heretical tendency on their part.

I'm not a follower of Father Feeney, nor do I deny the doctrine of the Baptism of Blood. Also, I stand by my assertion that such argument of whose more a heretic is irrelevant; my assertion concerning modernists had to do with their culpability, not their degree of error. Lastly, I, in no way denied that members of heretical sects can have valid baptisms; I've addressed the case with Methodists, and the same can be said for the Orthodox, the Lutherans, and some Presbyterians. I delivered not a single definite statement supporting the negative. I merely pointed at the Jehanne's position that all baptisms, by virtue of form and matter, are automatically valid is theologically incorrect.

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2011, 01:58:35 PM »

Quote from: Moral Theology, Koch-Preuss

I. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.

Quote from: Woywod, commentary on CIC

585. Private Baptism may be given by any one who uses the proper matter and form and has the right intention. As far as possible two witnesses, or at least one, should be present at such a private Baptism, by whom the conferring of Baptism may be proved, (cf. Canon 759.)

If a priest is present he should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless decency demand that the woman be preferred, or in case the woman knows better the form and manner of Baptism.

The father and mother are not allowed to baptize their own child except in danger of death if there is no one else at hand who can baptize. (Canon 742.)

JohnGrey · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2011, 02:01:00 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Moral Theology, Koch-Preuss
I. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.

Quote from: Woywod, commentary on CIC
585. Private Baptism may be given by any one who uses the proper matter and form and has the right intention. As far as possible two witnesses, or at least one, should be present at such a private Baptism, by whom the conferring of Baptism may be proved, (cf. Canon 759.)

If a priest is present he should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless decency demand that the woman be preferred, or in case the woman knows better the form and manner of Baptism.

The father and mother are not allowed to baptize their own child except in danger of death if there is no one else at hand who can baptize. (Canon 742.)

I guess I'm missing the point.