Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I agree with everything that you say; however, denial of original sin is not enough to invalidate a baptism.
-
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."
-
How about Methodist baptisms? Those are valid, or so I have read, and yet they deny original sin.
-
How about Methodist baptisms? Those are valid, or so I have read, and yet they deny original sin.
Read this where, precisely?
-
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:
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Moreover, you can't compare heresies as being more or less heretical.
That is obviously not true.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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. 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.
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.
-
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.
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.
Are you assuming I'm arguing with you?
-
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.
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.
Are you assuming I'm arguing with you?
No, not at all. It's just that there was no supplemental writing that I wasn't quite positive.
In addressing the question of intent, the Angelic Doctor states the following concerning heretical ministers:
But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good.
Now, it would seem on the surface that the preceding would argue against a necessity of intent on the part of the minister. However, the final line is clear that it is the character of one acting as a minister of the Church, in persona Christi by virtue of his office as the ordinary minister of the sacrament. A member of a heretical sect by definition does not enjoy the charism imparted by Holy Orders.
Moreover, Thomas Aquinas asserts:
But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament.
Even in those cases where a performer of the sacrament is outside the bounds of the Church on account of heresy, it may be possible that the sacrament is enacted, but its effect is not conferred.
-
Moreover, you can't compare heresies as being more or less heretical.
That is obviously not true.
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.
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.
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.
Father Feeney, of course, never taught or held to such a view.
-
I merely pointed at the Jehanne's position that all baptisms, by virtue of form and matter, are automatically valid is theologically incorrect.
I should have added "intent" to the list. (Ooops.)
-
Even in those cases where a performer of the sacrament is outside the bounds of the Church on account of heresy, it may be possible that the sacrament is enacted, but its effect is not conferred.
It would seem that a heretic baptizing an infant (of say, Catholic parents) in danger of death is valid and the effect conferred if the correct matter and form is used. I would think the intention to "do what the Church does" is fulfilled here. In other cases, it is not as clear.
If I'm not mistaken, weren't some converts from heretical sects NOT conditionally baptised when they converted?
-
It would seem that a heretic baptizing an infant (of say, Catholic parents) in danger of death is valid and the effect conferred if the correct matter and form is used. I would think the intention to "do what the Church does" is fulfilled here. In other cases, it is not as clear.
Eh, that's a contentious question, which is really why such situations should be avoided by any means possible. Could the sacrament be coferred validly? Sure, I believe so. Does it necessarily follow that it would always be conferred validly? I would say in the case of baptism, so long as either there was a compatible interior assent (i.e., the minister's theology held baptism to be salvific) or the minister had the sacerdotal charism, I would accept conference as being likely, or at least less than gravely doubtful. I would posit that the barrier of proper conference in the second quote of Thomas Aquinas has to do with the willful act of receiving sacraments from one formally in schism (in the case of receiving the Eucharist or an adult baptism). However, I would consider the case of an atheist or one denying original sin or the necessity of baptism, to be suspect in the conference of a baptism in the abstract. Of course, it seems to me unlikely that someone denying original sin or its remittance by baptism would bother, especially in an emergency setting, to baptise the child. If they did so, it would logically follow that they believed there was a grave spiritual need to do so, and that the baptism fulfilled that need. It's probably a moot consideration.
If I'm not mistaken, weren't some converts from heretical sects NOT conditionally baptised when they converted?
Sure, conditional baptism is examined on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the form, matter and intent of the original minister was sufficient to confer the sacrament. For those baptised by a minister who possessed the intent properly formed by the theology of original sin and the laver of regeneration (Orthodox or other schismatics, Lutherans, Methodist, some Presbyterians, etc.), or have the sacerdotal charism necessary to correct the defect of faith by virtue of acting in persona Christi, the baptism is probably going to be considered valid.
-
As atheists can baptize validly, it seems clear that explicit, personal desire (on the part of the minister) to remove the guilt of original sin is not necessary.
-
As atheists can baptize validly, it seems clear that explicit, personal desire (on the part of the minister) to remove the guilt of original sin is not necessary.
I find this statement odd, and at odds with both the teachings of Aquinas, and this remark which I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding sacramental intent:
The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation.
It seems that while a virtual intent is sufficient to confer the sacrament, this intent would by definition have to be ratified by a previous volition that the minister understood and assented to the effect of the sacrament being conferred.
-
It would seem that a heretic baptizing an infant (of say, Catholic parents) in danger of death is valid and the effect conferred if the correct matter and form is used. I would think the intention to "do what the Church does" is fulfilled here. In other cases, it is not as clear.
Eh, that's a contentious question, which is really why such situations should be avoided by any means possible.
In danger of death is not usually something that can be avoided of postponed. :smile:
Could the sacrament be coferred validly? Sure, I believe so. Does it necessarily follow that it would always be conferred validly? I would say in the case of baptism, so long as either there was a compatible interior assent (i.e., the minister's theology held baptism to be salvific) or the minister had the sacerdotal charism, I would accept conference as being likely, or at least less than gravely doubtful. I would posit that the barrier of proper conference in the second quote of Thomas Aquinas has to do with the willful act of receiving sacraments from one formally in schism (in the case of receiving the Eucharist or an adult baptism). However, I would consider the case of an atheist or one denying original sin or the necessity of baptism, to be suspect in the conference of a baptism in the abstract. Of course, it seems to me unlikely that someone denying original sin or its remittance by baptism would bother, especially in an emergency setting, to baptise the child. If they did so, it would logically follow that they believed there was a grave spiritual need to do so, and that the baptism fulfilled that need. It's probably a moot consideration.
Are you calling into question what the Church clearly instructs in a situation where there is a danger of death? Are you sure this really never happens?
If I'm not mistaken, weren't some converts from heretical sects NOT conditionally baptised when they converted?
Sure, conditional baptism is examined on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the form, matter and intent of the original minister was sufficient to confer the sacrament. For those baptised by a minister who possessed the intent properly formed by the theology of original sin and the laver of regeneration (Orthodox or other schismatics, Lutherans, Methodist, some Presbyterians, etc.), or have the sacerdotal charism necessary to correct the defect of faith by virtue of acting in persona Christi, the baptism is probably going to be considered valid.
Yes, but you seem to be applying this to other situations in which the Church seems to have already decided.
Can you quote some text that explains it the way you interpret it?
-
In danger of death is not usually something that can be avoided of postponed.
Certainly, but historically in hospitals, especially Catholic institutions, priests have been present to perform this function as needed. Naturally, there are, as you say, cases of unavoidable necessity. I suppose in those instances, we must simply trust to hope.
Are you calling into question what the Church clearly instructs in a situation where there is a danger of death? Are you sure this really never happens?
I'm not sure I follow what I'm calling into question. As for the frequency of such a thing, happening, I find it odd in the extreme, at least from a logical standpoint. If the child had parents that were Catholic, then they would baptise the child, not their atheist acquaintance. I just find it difficult to imagine that an atheist, having no impetus, would choose of their own volition and desire to perform on a dying child a spiritual rite of a religion they don't believe it. I'm afraid that doesn't seem likely to me.
Yes, but you seem to be applying this to other situations in which the Church seems to have already decided.
Can you quote some text that explains it the way you interpret it?
Can you clarify what you're asking?