Once upon a time on a sunny Saturday afternoon during the New Springtime following the Second Vatican Council, a well-meaning Catholic man worked up the courage to invite his Methodist neighbor to join him for Holy Mass.
After Mass the following morning, while enjoying coffee and donuts in the multi-purpose room (sponsored by the Knights of Columbus), the Methodist talked about how at home he felt and how comfortable the entire “service” was for him.
The Catholic wasted little time in seizing the opportunity to suggest that perhaps his neighbor might wish to avail himself of the unity for which Our Lord prayed by converting to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The Methodist, unfazed, wiped a dollop of Bavarian cream from his chin and replied, “Thanks for the offer, friend, but as you know, I am validly baptized. In other words, I received the Holy Spirit just as you did in your baptism, and it’s the Spirit that brings us into intimate union with Christ, so that He is the principle of the Church’s unity. Clearly I am not lacking in unity!”
Disarmed but not discouraged, the new evangelist laid hold of the big guns, firing back, “Yes, but the Catholic Church is the solitary means of salvation established by Christ.”
“Yes, I seem to recall seeing something to that effect on FaceBook one day,” the Methodist replied, “but surely the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using the United Methodist Church, and other Christian communities, as a means of salvation.”
Taken aback by his interlocutor’s confidence, the Catholic party felt it wise to turn the conversation back to common ground, Sacred Scripture.
Quoting from the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, the would-be fisher of men attempted to articulate the uniqueness of the Lord’s presence in the Mass, and how apart from one’s full participation therein, one risks “having no life within themselves;” i.e., no salvation!
At this, the Methodist, meaning no disrespect, guffawed; nearly expelling the lukewarm coffee from his mouth.
“Well, whatever the Lord meant by this, one thing is certain, the liturgical actions carried out by brethren divided, such as in the United Methodist Church, must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.”
Exasperated by the raw cockiness of his Methodist neighbor, the Catholic abandoned all formality, and raising his voice, demanded of him, “Precisely by whose authority do you proclaim such preposterous things?”
Casually reaching for the last remaining French cruller, the Methodist wryly replied, “Why the Second Vatican Council, dear neighbor. Please forgive me, I shouldn’t have assumed you had read it.”
This New Springtime moment has been brought to you by Unitatis Redintegratio: Where dialogue and the search for unity lead to dialogue and the search for unity.
Thank goodness it was only a pastoral council and did not issue any dogmatic statements?
I meant to ask this question long before: the guy’s first premise, that he is validly baptized. Isn’t that true only in cases of imminent death? Otherwise, musn’t it be done by a priest?
And then the Catholic looked up from the deep hole he was in and thought to himself, “How will I ever get out of this one?”. If we stop trying to convert because of what Church leaders say, will we still be held accountable, or will the resposibility be on the shoulders of those who mislead us?
Thanks for your question, Janet. The Church recognizes protestant baptisms as valid provided the proper matter and form are used; the pouring of water over the head (or immersion) and the Trinitarian formula, (I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.) It’s also necessary that the intent be the same as the Church intends.
In cases of doubt, a convert receives “conditional baptism” as valid baptism is never repeated.
Good post Louie, and so correct. This document has been used to toss tradition and the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church, and dogmatic statements of previous councils out the window as though they never happened.