[Originally written July 18]
When I was
first thinking about the Catholic Church, there was one sticking point that would
have kept me from joining. It wasn’t transubstantiation, or confession, or
Marion theology. It was baptism. While I hadn’t given much particular thought
to what baptism does as a sacrament, I still held is as important. I was
strongly paedo-baptist. I held my baptism as sacred and would not accept any
discrediting of my baptism, even from the Catholic Church. I would align with
my baptism before any other theological beliefs. Even though I believed in the
real presence and longed for the Eucharist, I wasn’t joining a church that
didn’t acknowledge that I was baptized.
Fortunately,
in her great wisdom, the Church agrees with me. My baptism was acknowledged as
a proper and valid baptism, and I joined the Church not as a convert but as a
Christian reaching full communion. It’s an important distinction to make.
Although I talk about my conversion or refer to myself as a convert, that word
is inappropriate for me. I was a Christian, as a four-month-old baptizee and as
a twenty-two-year-old Presbyterian, and I am a Christian now, as a
twenty-five-year-old Catholic. My understanding of Christ and his Church has
evolved, but I’ve never been not-Christian. I feel complete now as a Catholic,
but that isn’t a denial of what I previously held; Catholicism is the continuation
and fulfillment of what I learned about Christ in a Protestant background.
It’s easy to
point out the major differences in catholic-orthodox belief and Protestant
belief, because there are some very major differences. But it’s important to
realize that both sides still fit under the Christian umbrella. There are major
similarities as well. Trinitarianism, Christ dying for our salvation, and
belief in the Resurrection are shared across Christian lines. While I find
error in Protestant theology and believe the Catholic Church has the fullness
of truth, I would never deny that Protestants are Christian. I pray for the
unification of schismatic and heretical fractures, and I hope all Christians
(and all people really) find the fullness of truth.
I think that
hope is what led to a lot of the ecumenical language of Vatican II. I have a
love/hate relationship with Vatican II. The hate part is really directed at the
“spirit of Vatican II” and the interpretations of the council that seem to go
far beyond what the council actually said. The “spirit of Vatican II” says form
and function doesn’t matter as much, as long as God is present. Think holding
hands during the Our Father. Think stripped down churches. Think happy-clappy
worship songs and liturgical dancing. Think clown masses. Basically, the
“spirit of Vatican II” takes all the history and beauty out of the Church in an
effort to make it hip and personalized. If I wanted to find Jesus at a rock
concert/ coffee shop, I would have just become evangelical.
Fortunately,
the actual documents of Vatican II don’t diminish history or beauty. The
council got a lot done, including calling for greater emphasis on scripture, restoring the permanent
deaconate, and renewing the liturgy of the mass, the liturgy of the hours, and
the liturgical calendar. This was not to diminish or change what existed before
the council, but to revitalize the Church and make the laity greater
participants in their faith. Another result of Vatican II was the reinstitution
of the baptismal catechumenate. This meant a formation process (RCIA) for
adults seeking baptism and Church membership.
Since the
fracturing of the many Protestant sects, Catholics were not sure what to do
about baptized Protestants that sought to join the Church. Protestantism was a
heresy, so were Protestant baptisms valid? Did Protestants need to be
rebaptized? There was a formula in place for conditional baptism. This was done
if the baptism status of a person was unsure. That person could be baptized
with a caveat (“If you are not already baptized, then I baptize you in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”). In many places, particularly the South,
conditional baptisms had become the de facto formula for Protestants joining
the Church. Protestants and the unbaptized were treated pretty much the same. Vatican II
stressed the importance of points of unity between Christian sects. All
Trinitarian baptisms are valid baptisms. Protestants are Christians, even if
they are missing key theological points. Therefore, Protestants seeking
communion with the Church must be treated differently than non-Christians
joining the Church. For small parishes in particular, they might still be in
the same faith formation class as the unbaptized and receive confirmation at
Easter Vigil. But it is only in appearance that the two groups look the same.
Baptism is a sacrament; it makes a difference. The relationship between
Catholic and Protestant is still unsure. At least with the Orthodox, we know we
are in schism, but with Protestants it’s more complicated. For the most part it
seems that the movements are heretical but the people within the movements
aren’t necessarily heretics. So Protestants are Christians who are missing the
fullness of faith, but Christians nonetheless. And a baptism (done properly) is
accepted as valid.
I don’t
remember my baptism, so maybe it’s strange that it means so much to me that the
Church acknowledges it. It’s as if I have this little ball of grace entrusted
to me, and I have to hold onto it. When people dismiss it (credo-baptists), that
just makes me hold on tighter.
