|
|
 |
ConcernedAboutMyFaith wrote: |
|
Hi, guys —
I have a question that I was hoping you might be able to answer. Here it is:
I was baptized as an adult, as a Protestant, in a Second Congregational United Church of Christ. A while later, I went through RCIA and I converted to Catholicism.
However, at the Easter Vigil, I'm pretty sure I was never required to make a Profession of Faith, and I don't believe the priest ever said anything to formally receive me into the Church. I was
- conditionally baptized
- received Confirmation, and then
- received my First Communion.
That's it.
Now if I'm not mistaken, since I was a Protestant, shouldn't it have gone:
- Conditional Baptism (in my case because I wanted one due to my doubt of the validity of my previous Baptism)
- Profession of Faith (as well as the Act of Reception by the priest)
- Confirmation, and
- then First Communion?
I happened to see online that the Profession of Faith is required of non-Catholics for them to enter into the Church.
- I mean, if this isn't the case, then was it my Confirmation that made me a Catholic?
I know that Baptism usually makes a person a Catholic, but my Baptism was conditional . . . not actual . . . so it honestly might have been my Protestant baptism that was the valid one (as one cannot be baptized twice) but we will never know for sure.
So, to sum up, I'm now worried that I may not be a Catholic. If you could provide me with an answer, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
ConcernedAboutMyFaith
|
| { If a profession of faith wasn't required for a non-Catholic entering the Church, am I still Catholic? } |
Eric replied:
|
Dear Concerned,
I'm not familiar with the nuances of how such situations should be handled — we are lay people, not priests — but I think you can be confident that you are a Catholic.
If there was a defect, it didn't affect your Catholicity.
- Do you have a Catholic Baptismal or Confirmation certificate?
That should be sufficient to prove that you are Catholic so I wouldn't worry about it.
Eric
|
Concerned replied:
|
Hi Eric,
Thank you for responding so fast!
Yes, I do have both a Conditional Baptism and a Confirmation certificate. I asked a couple of priests about it, and they both said that I was probably fine. Still though, I keep being haunted by feelings that something's not right.
- Do you think I should ask another priest, or just let it go?
Concerned
|
Mike replied:
|
Dear Concerned,
You said:
- Do you think I should ask another priest, or just let it go?
Let it go, besides, assuming you are going to Sunday Mass on a weekly basis, you should be saying the Creed we believe as Catholics anyway. Also every Easter, and at many Baptisms in the Church, we renounce satan anyway.
- Renew your weekly covenant at Sunday Mass
- if you can, pray the Rosary on a regular basis, and
- don't be bothered by doubts, the evil one is probably putting on your mind.
Besides, if there was an issue with you joining the Church, the problem is not yours, but with the priest who brought you into the Church, so don't worry.
Finally, you said:
I know that Baptism usually makes a person a Catholic, but my baptism was conditional . . . not actual . . . so it honestly might have been my Protestant Baptism that was the valid one (as one cannot be baptized twice) but we will never know for sure.
Actually, any valid Baptism makes the person a Christian, as we are all striving to be followers of Jesus. The word Catholic means (in its totality), so the Catholic Christian faith is the Christian faith in its totality.
Some Protestant denominations do administer a valid Trinitarian Baptism, so your previous Protestant Baptism may have been valid. Nevertheless, when the pastor has room for concern that a Protestant has come from a congregation that doesn't administer a valid Trinitarian Baptism, because of the importance of Baptism (Mark 16:16), they administer a conditional Baptism.
Mike
|
Fr. Robert Miller, J.C.L. replied:
|
Hi, guys —
I stumbled upon your website while trying to search something.
There is a question on your website (I’m unsure how recent) from someone asking whether or not he was Catholic because the priest never had him make a profession of faith and didn't accept him into full Communion. Apparently, the priest conditionally baptized him, gave him his first Holy Communion, and confirmed him.
Several responses were given, and both (indicated/suggested) he was Catholic.
While these comments were given in good faith, they’re unfortunately incorrect.
As a canon lawyer, I can assure you the law is clear that one is received into the Church by:
- making a profession of faith, and
- the competent minister’s reception of that profession.
For the baptized non-Catholic, this profession of faith and its reception is what’s known as a juridic act. This means it’s a human act involving (will/intention), that must meet external legal requirements (form, competence, etc.), and produces legal effects.
In this situation, the individual would be received into the Church by his profession of faith and the competent minister’s act of reception, thereby making the individual subject to the Church’s law.
Analogously, think of someone entering a religious order. When they are admitted, they profess vows which are received by the competent superior of the order. That act of profession and reception gives rise to new rights and obligations for the newly professed.
All of this may sound complicated but, it could have major consequences if an individual in a similar situation (as the individual on your website) was in fact not received into the Church (marriage, religious life, diaconate, priesthood). And that’s entirely possible, because theoretically, a priest can give a Protestant Holy Communion, as well as confirm him. Neither makes the individual Catholic.
I hope this clarifies the situation and thank you for your good work!
Blessings,
Fr. Robert Miller, J.C.L.
Metropolitan Tribunal
Archdiocese of Oklahoma City |
Richard replied:
|
Mike,
I think the issue comes down to this:
The questioner wrote that he wasn't required to make a profession of faith, and the priest didn't do an Act of Reception; but I wonder if perhaps he really did make one.
In the Easter Vigil, it would be strange for a priest to omit the Baptismal promises.
If they were done as usual, then the man's brief responses to the questions were enough: those are the normal way we do a Profession of Faith now with Baptism.
— Richard |
Richard followed up:
|
Hi, Mike:
Here's the reply I received from my Canon Law friend (Fr. Thomas). He has a JCL degree and is currently the judicial vicar for his diocese.
He starts with the point that the sacraments can be associated with specific language, which is required for validity, but a legal act such as reception into the Church is distinct from the sacraments, and it can be accomplished in various ways.
Fr. Thomas replied:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for this question.
I tend to agree with your friend Mike. Here is how I would reason it out:
Reception into the Church comes about through an act of consent before competent authority; it is not a sacrament in itself.
- By responding to the Creed questions with "I do";
- by receiving Baptism conditionally;
- by receiving Confirmation; by receiving Holy Communion;
- indeed, by being there and going through all these rites both as one intentionally present and as one welcomed among those present for that purpose,
that consent was effectively expressed and received, even if they didn't go through the exact formula. The Church provides formulae and acts like those described in the liturgical books to give us an ordinary way to do the thing and to have security about having done it. But that does not mean that things do not come about in extraordinary ways also.
(There is also the possibility that, given how intricate the Easter Vigil is [and long] and given also factors like partial memory or emotion, it's entirely possible that he actually did make the profession of faith and just doesn't remember that part.)
Therefore, granting the premise that he didn't make a proper profession of faith ("I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims...") nor was his consent then met with an act of reception ("Name., the Lord receives you into the Catholic Church...."), yet that consent and reception were still adequately manifested, as I stated above.
Furthermore, I would wager the guess that they also recorded the whole thing in the Baptismal register of the parish, indicating his membership in that way also.
Fr. Thomas |
I hasten to add also that none of this calls into question the sacraments he has received, nor was he receiving them in bad faith. He does NOT need to go back and do a full life Confession or confess to having received communion unworthily or anything of the sort.
Allowing a sort of "conditional" profession of faith now is meant only to correct any defect with that — and I do not believe it truly to be necessary.
I hope that helps.
Richard |
Fr. Miller replied:
|
Hi Mike,
Sorry for the late reply.
I agree entirely that reception into full communion is not itself a sacrament and that canon law ordinarily favors the validity of juridic acts when consent is sufficiently manifested (cf. Canon 124 §2). I also agree that the individual’s participation in the rites, reception of Confirmation and Eucharist, and evident intention to enter the Church are all highly relevant facts and strongly indicative of subjective intent.
My concern, however, is that the issue here is not merely whether consent to become Catholic was morally or psychologically present, but whether the juridic act by which the Church receives a baptized non-Catholic into full communion actually occurred in the manner contemplated by the Church’s law and liturgical discipline.
The governing law here is not simply the general norms on juridic acts, but the specific law regulating reception into full communion, particularly the liturgical law contained in the:
The rite itself consistently treats
- the profession of faith, and
- the act of reception by the minister
as distinct constitutive acts immediately preceding Confirmation and Eucharist. The structure of the rite is not incidental. The Church does not present the profession merely as devotional ornamentation or as one optional manifestation among many of a broader intent.
Rather, the Profession of Faith is the juridic expression by which the candidate publicly adheres to what the Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God, and the minister’s reception is the corresponding ecclesial act by which the Church receives the person into full communion.
That distinction is important canonically. Otherwise, the boundaries of incorporation become uncertain.
- If participation in Catholic worship,
- recitation of the Creed,
- reception of Confirmation and Eucharist, and
- general manifested intent
are themselves sufficient apart from the (profession/reception) envisioned by the rite, then the juridic act established by the Church becomes effectively unnecessary.
Canon 124 seems relevant here:
| “For the validity of a juridic act, it is required that the act be placed by a person who is legally capable and that it contain those things which essentially constitute the act itself…” |
The question, then, is whether the Profession of Faith and reception are among those elements that “essentially constitute” reception into full communion according to the Church’s own liturgical and canonical norms. Given the structure and wording of (OCIA|RCIA), it’s clear that they are.
I would also distinguish this from cases where the Church supplies for defects in accidental ritual form. Here the concern is not merely that a rubric may have been omitted, but that the very acts identified by the Church as constituting reception may not have occurred at all.
I agree that the register entry is evidence of the Church’s intention and of how the parish understood the event. But sacramental and juridic registers are evidentiary, not constitutive.
They record ecclesial acts; they do not create them.
For that reason, I do not think the safest canonical conclusion is to presume with certainty that reception unquestionably occurred despite omission of the profession and formal reception.
Rather, given the doubt surrounding whether the constitutive juridic acts took place, it seems more consonant with canonical tradition and pastoral prudence to supply the profession of faith and reception now, at least "ad cautelam", so that the person’s juridic status is no longer doubtful.
So, I agree with your last comment.
Thanks!
Fr. Miller
|
|
|
|
