How can this be, for although they Baptize in the Name of The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit, they do not worship the same Word of God Made Flesh, and thus are also not worshipping the same Spirit of Love between The Father and The Son. One may be moving closer to communion, but still, communion is not a matter of degree.

UCC? Are you kidding me? I can’t WAIT for the Common Agreement on Marriage. How can it be that we have so many good, faithful bishops and the USCCB is so stupid? Cardinal Dolan, I know you’ve got a lot on your plate, but…

While this agreement seemingly brings these groups together, it appears to be a very tiny overlap in their theologies.

Can they ever reach agreement on salvation? One (or all) of the disparate groups would have to deny their firmly held beliefs. Can the RCC change: no.

If salvation only comes through the Catholic Church, and we must be baptized in order to receive salvation, how can the baptisms of non-Catholic religions be valid? Just need some understanding. If anybody can explain this, please do.

For more details on the theological background, I’ve found this article from yesterday to be helpful:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16970

Nancy D: Why do you say they don’t worship the same “God made flesh?” Of course the mainline religions all worship Jesus come to earth as God. I was raised a protestant and we worship God and Jesus as the only way to salvation. The formula “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” shows their beliefs are not complete but are in the right vein. Remember when Jesus was out with his disciples and they said, “Others are doing works in your name” and Jesus said, “Do not stop them for whoever is for us cannot be against us.” Times are coming when we will have to put aside differences and present a united front. We cannot lose our doctrine (especially the eucharist) but we need to stand together as believers or the world will run us over quickly.

“We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”
I applaud the signing of this agreement! While divisions among Christian denominations are many, we are called to reconcile and recognize those differences, not to focus on divisions. Recognizing our common baptism through water and the Trinitarian formula reestablishes the roots of our oneness as Christ’s brothers and sisters. This ability to see each other anew opens up possibilities for formation, reconciliation, and ultimately reunification.

This has been going on for years anyway. I was baptized in the Presbyterian church and all I needed when becoming Catholic was a baptismal certificate. I’m not seeing the momentousness of this.

This is really nothing new. The Catholic Church has always recognized as valid any baptism done in the name of the triune God along with either the pouring of water or the immersing of the baptized one in water.

“In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of baptism for salvation.” CCC 1256

This new agreement refers only to the validity of baptismal rites not to the heretical teachings of these various protestant denominations.

Yes, the Catholic Church has recognized mainline Protestant Church baptism for a very long time. I was received into the church in ‘88 having been baptized a Southern Baptist. I was not re-baptized (ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins, which is their point).
However, it is possible that these churches do not recognize our baptisms. I would have to read more carefully and possibly other articles to figure that out.

JServorum: If they be heretics, no amount of baptismal rites shall save them and the USCCB are heretics for entering into agreement with heathens.

Oddly, sometimes the simplest explaination, makes the most sense. This explaination by ‘DeAnne’ helped me understand the reason why we can accept these protestant baptisms.

‘I was raised a protestant and we worship God and Jesus as the only way to salvation. The formula “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” shows their beliefs are not complete but are in the right vein. Remember when Jesus was out with his disciples and they said, “Others are doing works in your name” and Jesus said, “Do not stop them for whoever is for us cannot be against us.” Times are coming when we will have to put aside differences and present a united front. We cannot lose our doctrine (especially the eucharist) but we need to stand together as believers or the world will run us over quickly.’

I do have another question. Does that mean that these other ‘christian’ religions are also ‘saved’. And if so, why remain Catholic when some religions are much more ‘fun’ to be around. For example, the prosperity theology is more in tune with my selfish and greedy side. Once saved always saved allows me to sleep around and divorce as desired. Why be Catholic when it is so strict?

Personally, I feel it is ONLY through the Catholic church one can be saved. But I see so many Catholics joining ‘fun’ religions or just not bothering to go to church since they are ‘saved’ and ‘good people’ anyway.

So much for the Bishops, successors to the apostles, the Church Militant and the One True Faith in the USA. We silly laymen must have gotten that “ecumenism” thing wrong. Oh, we silly, suffering faithful Catholics..we actually thought the purpose of “ecumenism” was to evangelize the fallen away, heretical brothers and sisters (Christian or otherwise) to RETURN to the RCC. Now where did we get such a quaint notion. Silly us! That requires tooooo much work and sacrifice. Besides, those at the USCCB have too much heavy lifting to do to insure “social justice” for the poor. After all, visiting the halls of congress, entertaining at the hotels, the endless meetings at the restaurants, beer gardens and private clubs, is taxing and time consuming work. We can’t afford to offend any scandalous “CINO” politician. That might reduce the government funding for our “social justice” programs (and our party invitations?).  Can’t we all just get along? No one will like “Church Nice” if we actually speak Truth to power. After all it’s the DC way..“Go along to get along”. As to the One True Faith? Well don’t be a “silly”, silly! Most people believe all religions are pretty much the same and that one baptism is as good as another. Our post V2 priest is just another presider, minister, preacher,pastor,presenter, etc. Baptism today, contraception and abortion tomorrow and the Mass/Eucharist next year. After all bread is bread and wine is wine…Right, boobie? Can’t beat them? Too much effort to fight them? Too much effort to evangelize them? Really don’t believe the RCC is The One True Faith founded by Jesus Christ…well if we can’t beat them then we must join them! Is that what you believe boobie?

Is there any wonder that the RCC in the USA is in such disarray and retreat?  USCCB has absolutely no ecclesiastical power whatsoever. It can only recommend. Period. The power is with the individual Bishops as leaders in their Diocese. They can’t unilaterally transfer it to any 3rd party organization such as the USCCB which has become little more than a secular lobbying group. With leadership like this we don’t have to worry about evangelizing outside the Church, we need to concentrate on conversions within the Church…beginning with the Bishops. God Help Us. With leadership like this we don’t have to worry about fighting the secular politicians. Pray for the Bishops.

The Catholic Church has always recognized baptism and marriage of other Christians.  Even marriage between non-Christians is recognized.  This was just a formal agreement with some churches.  I think Catholics and other Christians need to work together on the issues in our culture that we agree on.

While this may not be ‘new’ from our Catholic perspective, I am acquainted with Protestants of varying stripes that do not acknowledge Catholic baptism as valid.  Former Catholics are often ‘re-baptized’ (even though we do not believe in such a thing) when converting to a Protestant denomination. I find it encouraging that their is more public acknowledgement of Catholicism as a “Christian Church” as opposed to Catholicism as cult and heresy.  Bravo! well done.

Christ was Baptized into His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and promised to be with His Church until the end of the Age. Those who broke away from Christ’s Church changed, added to, or deleted some element(s) of The Word of God as Revealed in The Deposit of Faith.

There is very little new here, and it strikes me as very odd that the US Bishops’ reps and these denominations even thought it necessary to make a formal declaration about this. The validity of most Protestant baptisms has been accepted by the Church from the time of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century.

The mutual recognition of each other’s baptism is indeed the sacramental foundation of the fact of any kind of unity with one another in the Body of Christ.  I would question, however, the omission in the statement of mention of the practice of re-baptism and the repudiation of the notion that the sacrament of baptism is by nature unrepeatable and any mention in that same statement that any baptism has to be administered with the intention of being the ecclesiastical sacrament of baptism with all the meanings, graces and benefits supplied in and through that sacrament.

This is news ??

The bottom line is that there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.  (Ephesians 4:5).

@Nancy D:  [“How can this be, for although they Baptize in the Name of The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit, they do not worship the same Word of God Made Flesh, and thus are also not worshipping the same Spirit of Love between The Father and The Son. One may be moving closer to communion, but still, communion is not a matter of degree.
.
Nancy, Please re-think your comment.  Why would a “Christian” church baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit if they did not have faith in Christ?  We’re not talking about baptizing Buddhists, Taoists, Islamics, Scientologists, et al,

Perhaps that now that this is all on paper, and there is a starting point of agreement, more people will be truly drawn and taught to the Fullness of Truth contained in Holy Mother Church.  I think it is step 1. 6 steps to go…
To quote Fr. Z, B16 is the pope of Christian Unity…

Does this mean that it doesn’t matter which religion I belong to as long as I am baptized correctly? So I can join any religion that makes me feel good? I still haven’t gotten an answer to this question. I am a revert after 30 years and honestly don’t know.

I married in the church in 1965. At that time my Priest told me I did not have to be baptized again because I had been baptized in the Methodist church as a child.  Before I married I converted to Catholicism. I was confirmed.  It is the same to this day, according to my Parish Priest.  I remember my baptism when I was in third grade, and I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  I do not understand why this is new, unless the other churches somehow have not recognized a Catholic Baptism?

There is only One Word of God, Jesus The Christ

Pàulos
I understand your point but again this agreement does not validate any heresy or heretical denomination. It is a simple statement of long-standing Catholic theology that there can be valid baptisms outside of the Church.
However, since all who will be saved will be saved only through Christ and his Catholic Church, their baptism alone will certainly not save them.
If Christ saves them it will be through his Church, even if we cannot understand how that will happen.

The repudiation of the concept that Holy Baptism is by nature unrepeatable, as it (1) makes one a member of the Church, (2) makes a person a member of Christ the Head of the Church; (3) is the normal manner of entering the Church; (4) makes a person a child of the Kingdom of God; and (5) is a means of that actual grace by which and in which and through which the Lord forgives our sins, including original sin, as heretical by the Church because it put too much emphasis on human virtue and belief and not enough on the free forgiving grace of God through His Son Jesus Christs’s Cross and Resurrection.  The sources of this stance are numerous, and a great deal of them are listed in the “Enchiridion Symbolorum,” citing as its chief authority Ephesians 4:5 and Hebrews 6:4 ff.

The Sacrifice of The Holy Eucharist is The Sacrifice of The Most Holy and Undivided Blessed Trinity, “for God so Loved us that He sent His Only Son…” The Sacrament of The Eucharist is The Source and Summit of our Catholic Faith. It is a false ecumenism to suggest that those who are not in communion with Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, have been Baptized into Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I am wondering whether these churches believe or deny The Word of God in regards to The Sanctity of Human Life, and The Sanctity of Marriage and The Family?

Baptism in the Trinitarian formula with flowing water has always been accepted by the Catholic Church. Other Christian denominations have not accepted Catholic baptism, even those faiths who use the same formula. While this declaration is not new to those who work with canonical matters, it is newsworthy educationally and ecumenically.
... As for the matter of practicing any faith: feeling good or entertained may initially draw you in, but ultimately only the multi-sensory practice of the Mass and the reception of the Sacraments, especially Christ in the Eucharist, will satisfy the human soul. Faith isn’t a feeling. Faith is choosing to practice regardless of feelings.

@Nancy D:  Please come to terms with the broader aspect of Christian faith.  It’s de facto a person undergoing baptism accepts the Triune Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Why else would someone agree to be baptized?  Your comments suggest that you personaly want to impose Catholic catechism into this matter.  The Catholic church has long accepted valid any Christian baptism be one sprinkled on, poured on or fully immersed.  Check with your parish RCIA Director if you don’t believe this.
.
Furthermore, water baptism is an outward act in which you make a public declaration before the church concerning faith and it is often but a first step in one’s relationship with Christ.  It’s troubling that you expect the individual to instantly know and accept all sorts of Catholic doctrine.  Baptism is not legalism.
.
Are you some kind of arbiter who decides that your Catholic baptism is more valid?  Refer to apostle Paul’s writing to the church at Ephesus:  “There is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.  (Ephesians 4:5).
.
John the Baptist predicted that Jesus would come and baptize with the Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Acts 1:5, Jesus recalled John’s words, and told His followers that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit.  It is the Holy Spirit which leads a man (or woman) into all truth.  It’s not the water event.

The Baptism of desire is to desire to follow The Christ. Although it is true that The Catholic Church has recognized the Baptism of a convert, that is not the same as recognizing as valid the Baptism of those who are not converts and thus members of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and APOSTOLIC Church.

@Grok Hadrian—it matters. First a few words, then a little advice. If you were baptised (except by Mormons, long story) and you can say the Nicene Creed at least in its original form, you’re a member of the Christian Religion—perhaps you’re Merely Christian to steal shamelessly from CS Lewis, but you’re not (say) an Aztec. Maybe it would make you feel good to sacrifice virgins on top of pyramids, but it matters that you are not an Aztec. Since you say you’re a revert I’ll assume you say the Nicene Creed as revised at the First Council of Constantinople in the year 381—this is what’s used at Holy Mass on Sundays and says “In one holy catholic and apostolic Church”. Protestants have different theories about what the Church is, so many of them used this creed too, but they don’t understand it the way Catholics do (and sometimes the way other Protestants do). It is important to understand the meanings of these words just as Christians did in the year 381—we can’t assume they meant the same thing then as people take them to mean now. This little formula contains what we call The Four Marks of the Church—the way we can identify a truly Christian Church: if it bears all four marks, it is Christian. So Roman Catholics can recognize the Byzantine Church as a Christian Church (for example) because it bears all four marks. If you are a Christian, you will want to join a community you are convinced by intellectual exercise bears all four marks. So it matters which one you join. Warning: joining a Church that bears all four marks might not make you feel good. But this should be temporary. A little article by friends in St. Louis on the four marks is given below.

It is unsurprising you have not gotten a good answer: the teaching of the Faith has been absolutely horrendous for more than 100 years: Saint Pope Pius X complained about it in his great 1907 Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. But if you’re a subscriber to the Register, you can begin to help yourself by reading it, and by reading books you see reviewed or advertised in it. My favorite book to recommend to people is Catholicism for Dummies but it does not address your specific question really beyond what I’ve outlined here. If you have other specific questions, you can contact Catholic Answers or just browse their website. They’re an apostolate devoted to apologetics—the art & science of explaining the Faith. Their website is below too.

I don’t know what diocese you live in, but most of them have some kind of adult formation. The quality (unfortunately) varies quite a lot, and even when the diocese provides something solid, what you find at the level of an individual parish (like RCIA) may not be. The best things you can do are 1) pray, 2) talk to people you think are trying to think with the Church, and 3) find some kind of adult formation for yourself. But if it takes a tone at variance with the Register or with Catholic Answers, you should probably find a different program. 4) Read GK Chesterton, or if you can at least watch the best program on EWTN: The Apostle of Common Sense. If you can’t you can buy the DVDs. That’s cheaper than cable TV anyway.

Vivat Jesus,

  t

http://wf-f.org/08-3-Gareis.html
http://www.catholic.com/

@Nancy D:  Anyone who professes Christianity is presumed to be that of following Christ.  How one demonstrates and lives their life in Christ is another topic.  “Ye will know them by their fruit.” 
.
Since you persist with the [“those who are not converts”] avenue,—I remind you that many Catholics themselves hold and support various positions which the Holy See and the Bishops do not including mandated celibacy for clergy, gay marriage and reproductive choice.  Is their Catholic baptism any less valid than your own Catholic baptism?
.
Your personal view of baptism is disobedient to what the church teaches.  Thus, using your own argument, since you also are in rebellion how are you any different from those who are not converts to Catholicism?  You should have a talk with your Pastor and perhaps your local Bishop so they can help you to understand.  The event of baptism has nothing to do with legalism.

@NancyD The Baptism of Desire is to desire to receive the grace transmitted by the Sacrament of Baptism, which incorporates one into the Church.
.
Any valid Baptism (matter, intent, form) incorporates the baptized into Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We assume that anyone who receives a valid baptism desires what it gives, and we know that the sacraments “work” by virtue of their being performed and the promises of Christ. This is true even when done by our separated brethren, and even when the newly baptized mistakes the separated community for the True Church. We can say the same thing about Christian Marriage, because Baptism and Matrimony are sacraments that do not require Holy Orders to confer. But I don’t want you (or anyone else) to rely on combox answers. A few answers up I mentioned Catholic Answers, and recommend them to you as well.
.
    t

@Casting Crowns
.
St. Francis de Sales once remarked that a spoonful of honey catches more flies than a barrel of vinegar.  Although Nancy D is mistaken, it isn’t at all clear that she is “disobedient” or “in rebellion”. And even if she were this kind of accusatory language is like vinegar.
.
Thanks for reminding me about the “period as paragraph” convention.

Tom Leith,

I very much appreciate your lengthy answer but I fear it doesn’t really answer my question. I know the Catholic Church may be God’s true Church on Earth but I left the Church for more ‘fun’ churches BECAUSE a priest told me that many none Catholics would be saved. Then when I met much more zealous evangelicals who seemed more ‘Christian’ than most of the Catholics I knew, I didn’t see any reason to stay Catholic. I have a sister who continues as a fundamentalist, I need to give her and others who are leaving the church a good reason to stay. When the Catholic Church itself tells me that people are saved and these Churches are friendlier and many of their members seem more Christian, what reason do I have for not joining them.

No doubt there are some who have been Baptized into Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church who are no longer in communion with His Church and are thus no longer following The Christ.(Catholic Canon 750)

Casting Stones, that should read: ...the Baptism of those who are not converts and thus not members of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church because they are not in communion with His Church, The Catholic Church.(Catholic Canon 750) Faith and Works

Casting Stones, that should read: ...the Baptism of those who are not converts and thus not members of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church because they are not in communion with His Church, The Catholic Church.(Catholic Canon 750) Faith and Remaining in communion (Works)

@Tom Leith:  I can see how you might see that as vinegar.  It was not intended to be.  Please accept my apology.  Her position is that non coverts to the Catholic church have an “inferior” baptism—which puts her in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.  Nancy D. has persisted in her argument that her Catholic baptism is somehow more important than anyone non-Catholic.  The Catholic church does not agree with Nancy D.‘s position.  This is why I suggested she speak with her parish RCIA Director, her Pastor or the diocese for true understanding.

@Nancy D:  How do you reconcile that your view is not Catholic teaching? 
.
At Easter Vigil, why are RCIA candidates previously baptized in the Protestant or Evangelical church not baptized again as Catholic?

@Grok Hadrian Oh, OK then. You’re asking if it possible to be saved even though one is not visibly a member of the Catholic Church, and if some other Christian community offers more “fun” as you put it, and besides that their members (on average) act more like one would expect Christians to act, then why remain a Catholic.
.
There is only one reason to be a Catholic: that is that one is convinced that the claims of the Catholic Church are true. This conviction comes through faith, evidence, and reason. Anyone who is convinced the claims of the Catholic Church are true simply must enter the Church and remain no matter how bad the music is, or how petty our fellow parishioners. Our Lord said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”—truth itself (or Himself) has a claim on our behavior.
.
Anything else I might say flows from this. For example, if your sister says “I know the Catholic Church may be or might be the True Church, but I like the style of worship/people/atmosphere better over here” what’s operative is that she must work to discover whether or not the Catholic Church is in fact the True Church. If she thinks the claims of the Catholic Church may be or might be true and she will not make the effort to find out, her salvation is in grave doubt because God expects us to use the tools He gave us, one of which being our intellects which are ordered to the discovery and apprehension of truth. To refuse to apply ourselves is to refuse God’s gift.
.
If she has applied herself diligently and has concluded that the Catholic Church is not in fact the True Church, she may be saved in spite of not being visibly united to the True Church. (This is denied outright by some Fundamentalist Catholics, and constrained such that it is practically impossible by others.) Even so, 1) her salvation still comes from Jesus Christ through the sacrament of baptism which properly belongs to the True Church, and 2) it will be harder for her to secure salvation because she hasn’t access to the sacraments of the Eucharist and what we used to call Penance. You can still hope and pray for her salvation, and that might include her reversion(?) too.
.
Catholic Answers will have lots of great resources for you—this kind of thing is their day job. But one of my projects is Credo of the Catholic Laity in St. Louis, and our spiritual adviser wrote a pair of articles addressing this, which may be found at the link below. Maybe it will help you too.
.
Vivat Jesus,
  t
.
http://credostlouis.org/2012/06/03/outside-the-church-no-salvation-fr-feeney/

A convert’s Baptism becomes valid when they convert to Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church. Prior to Vatican II, The Catholic Church did not recognize denominations as churches because there is no division in The Word of God, and thus The One Body of Christ, His Church.

@Nancy D.  We are now living in post-Vatican II, not prior.  One is either “in” Christ or one is not.

@Tom Leith, very nice answer. I think you hit it on the head for me. I do have another question that follows this line of reasoning but again refers back to Baptism etc. I am on fire for Catholicism but am concerned about the post Vatican II teaching about ‘Invincible Ignorance’. I want to help others come to the only true Church of Christ but I fear that I may in fact be the cause of them going to hell if I do teach them. For example, I recently read about the thousands of Catholics who lost their lives in the effort to evangelize Chinese in the 1800s. Given that the church today recognizes Invincible Ignorance as a ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card as far as salvation goes, why would Catholics risk their lives to tell them about Catholicism. Given that these Chinese were truly ‘Invincibly Ignorant’, why put their souls in jeapardy by now telling them what they should be doing. Of course, I know that this is what Jesus commanded us to do, but now the Chinese that remain pagan but have heard the word by these missionaries are in a place where they will go to Hell because this missionary told them about Christ. Why not just focus on converting Protestants etc here where they have no ‘Invincible Ignorance’ and thus really save them from damnation?

@Grok Hadrian I am glad you are on fire for Christ and His Church. The teaching on invincible ignorance is (emphatically) not a post Vatican II teaching in the sense that it was not also a pre Vatican II teaching. And it is wrong, wrong, wrong to think of invincible ignorance as a `get out of jail/hell free card’. We have the Church’s word that salvation is more difficult and less certain as a pagan than as a Catholic (or a Mere Christian) so evangelization is still necessary, and even (as you note) commanded by Christ Himself.
.
The other thing to remember is that you can’t “teach them”. You can provide an example and be ready with an answer but the question has to come from them. St. Francis of Assisi said “Preach the Gospel always. When necessary, use words”. What some Catholic Fundamentalists seem to think is that if one has ever been within earshot of a Christian preacher, then one’s ignorance can’t be invincible. This isn’t true. Words don’t speak nearly as loud as actions and attitudes. Had St. Francis been preaching poverty and chastity but had been living large and fornicating with St. Clare, nobody could be blamed for thinking his preaching was bunk and Catholicism untrue. It isn’t enough that his hearers “heard” the Gospel. They hadn’t really had it preached to them in this hypothetical—they could not have heard it. In order for them to have heard they have to have a good reason to think it might be true. I recommend you pray a lot, live your life, talk when the opportunity presents itself and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. And read those two papers of Fr. Harrison’s.
.
Catholic Answers has a ton of resources about evangelization and they’ll even talk to you on the phone about specific problems.
.
@Nancy D A Baptism is valid when the matter, form, and intent are all present during a Baptism. The Baptism does not “become valid” later on. Even after Vatican II, the Church does not recognize denominations as churches—they’re called “Ecclesial Communities” or “Church-Like Communities”. But their members are still recognized as Christians having a connection to the True Church by virtue of their quite-valid Baptisms.
.
Vivat Jesus,
    t