Author Topic: Valid Baptism= Roman Catholic? (Read 1042 times)

roscoe · « **on:** March 15, 2010, 09:10:22 PM »

I do not believe that being the subject of a valid baptism into the Church necessarly means one is a Roman Catholic. If apostacy, heresy or blasphemy has crept into the soul then this is no longer the case.

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2010, 12:27:07 AM »

This has been brought up because another poster has alleged under Gen Dis that all who have been the recipient of a traditional RC baptism are necessarily Catholics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2010, 08:02:07 AM »

In a sense, all those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism are subject to the Church, but you're right that heretics and schismatics are no longer in the Church, despite having received the character of Baptism. Those who have been baptized without having reached the age of reason (infants baptized by Protestants) are really Catholics until they reach the age of reason, when their lack of the formal motive of faith causes their faith to disappear. Again, the cooperation between the grace and the dispositions or will (as taught by Trent). So if a person were baptized Catholic, then raised in the jungle among animists, the person would lose the supernatural virtue of faith upon reaching the age of reason and not confirming the infused virtue with a cooperation of the intellect and will.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2010, 08:08:22 AM »

Are you saying that the pop singer from Italy that took Our Lady's name isn't a Catholic?

Sure, she's engaged in countless blasphemies, practiced the Kabbalah, and been a clarion call to impurity for decades.

But does that erase the baptismal character? According to Catholic theology, "NO".

Sure, it would be nice to excommunicate someone like that, but the fact remains that she would be referred to as an "Apostate" or "Bad Catholic".

Her scandalous life would justify a priest denying her communion, until she made a public repentance.

But she wouldn't have to be re-baptized if she converted.

Matthew

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2010, 08:20:16 AM »

Of course all who have been baptized retain the baptismal character and are thus rightfully subjects of the Catholic Church, but heretics and schismatics are not Catholics (and I'm prescinding from the question of when we can know and judge people to be heretics--which IMO is a separate issue). Assuming that someone has met these established criteria for being considered heretics, then they would no longer be Catholics. Not all who have the baptismal character are actually Catholics. Protestants, for instance, are clearly not Catholics (and, again, I won't get into the formal-material distinction here).

SJB · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2010, 09:12:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Those who have been baptized without having reached the age of reason (infants baptized by Protestants) are really Catholics until they reach the age of reason, when their lack of the formal motive of faith causes their faith to disappear.

Source for this?

Caminus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2010, 09:21:45 AM »

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange commenting on the Summa.

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2010, 09:28:26 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange commenting on the Summa.

Except the Code of Canon Law does not presume guilt until age 14. This does not mean they cannot be guilty before age 14 nor remain guiltless after age 14.

clare · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2010, 10:04:56 AM »

I'd say that validly baptised Protestant children are Catholic until they know they are not and consciously decide not to be.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2010, 10:39:34 AM »

One need not be "guilty" of anything in order to lose the supernatural virtue of faith. It can disappear through a kind of "atrophy". Once someone reaches the age of reason, an active assent of the intellect is required in order to sustain, as it were, the infused theological virtue of faith.

I hold the opinion that one need not actively sin against the faith in order to lose it. Pertinacious formal heresy uproots the faith precisely because one thereby loses the formal motive of faith, which is the authority of God revealing as proposed by the Church. But the formal motive of faith can also simply be absent, as in the case of someone raised by animists (after having been baptized) or someone raised among Protestants. Protestants lack the formal motive of faith. While they may hold certain beliefs materially (such as in the absolutely necessary articles--the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation), they do not believe them formally. Of course, some of this might be extremely vague in their minds, but as soon as any of the Protestant attitudes and mentality start infiltrating the mind, those squeeze out the true formal motive of faith and extinguish the supernatural virtue. God only knows exactly when that happens in the case of each individual.

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2010, 12:08:14 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Are you saying that the pop singer from Italy that took Our Lady's name isn't a Catholic?

Sure, she's engaged in countless blasphemies, practiced the Kabbalah, and been a clarion call to impurity for decades.

But does that erase the baptismal character? According to Catholic theology, "NO".

Sure, it would be nice to excommunicate someone like that, but the fact remains that she would be referred to as an "Apostate" or "Bad Catholic".

Her scandalous life would justify a priest denying her communion, until she made a public repentance.

But she wouldn't have to be re-baptized if she converted.

Matthew

If U are referrring to Madonna, she is not from Italy but Michigan. If Madonna( or the SSPX for that matter) is Catholic then I quit.

roscoe · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2010, 12:39:23 PM »

Something else to consider when discussing Madonna-- she is an MK slave and quite possibly not responsible for her actions. The Jesuits refer to this as philosophical sin although Raoul will consider this 'Jesuit laxity'.