### The Background A baptized and confirmed Catholic married a Protestant in a Protestant church without permission. About the marriage: - The marriage covenant was made with the full understanding of what a Christian marriage meant in the eyes of God (*cf*. CCC 1601-1620): a solemn covenant between two baptized Christians, with full consent (*cf*. CCC 1625-1632), for life, for the purpose of procreation, etc. - The celebration of marriage was similar to CCC 1621-1624 and similar to the canonical form, except: - officiated by a valid Protestant minister instead of a Catholic priest/deacon - CCC 1621: instead of in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it's made in the presence of Christ in the Protestant ceremony - CCC 1622: instead of receiving the sacrament of penance, the couple confess sin to one another in Christ - The couple has lived honoring the marriage bond and obligations like a Catholic marriage should be (even without contraception), thus realizing The Effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony (*cf*. CCC 1638-1642), The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love (*cf*. CCC 1643-1654), and The Domestic Church (*cf*. CCC 1655-1658). - The couple is raising the kids as Protestants although in a denomination that is not hostile to the Catholic Church. The couple is also attending a conservative Protestant church regularly and bring up their kids there as good Christians who love the Lord. Let's say it's [ACNA](https://anglicanchurch.net/) , a more conservative Anglican denomination than the Church of England. **Now the Catholic has second thoughts** and wants to go back to being in a state of grace and receive the Catholic sacraments. But the spouse wants to remain in the Protestant church and does not allow the kids to attend the Catholic church, although the spouse gives full freedom for the Catholic to practice the faith EXCEPT to teach the kids one or two Catholic doctrines that the spouse doesn't agree, such as praying to Mary. **THIS IS TRULY A TESTAMENT TO THE WARNING GIVEN IN [CCC 1634](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1634.htm).** Therefore, although the spouse is more ecumenical than a typical Protestant, the Catholic cannot fully discharge the obligation spelled out in Can. 1125 §1 but made the best effort: > the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church; For sure, the Catholic has to receive absolutions for the following: - Have been away from the Catholic church - Have contracted a mixed marriage outside the church without exemption But I was taken aback at [Geremia's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90364/10672) that **fornication** needs to be repented. Is this true when the marriage is lived as described above? ### The Question Given the limitation that the spouse is not willing to convert and to raise the kids fully within the Catholic church (although she is not hostile to most of the teachings), **according to the Catholic Church**, what else does this Catholic need to do beyond confessing the two sins above and continue raising the kids in the Lord as Catholic as possible? Three related questions: 1. [CCC 1623](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1623.htm) says that > According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace **mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony** by expressing their consent before the Church. ... Although the "Church" here is a [Protestant ecclesial community](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pope-says-other-churches-not-churches-in-proper-sense-1.949220) , it appears that this Catholic can remain in this Protestant marriage (as described above) without committing fornication, or is this not true? 2. It DOES appear that the [marriage has to be convalidated](https://archden.org/marriage/marriage-convalidation/) since the Catholic married in a non-Catholic ceremony without an exemption from the Catholic church. But is the Protestant spouse consent / presence needed for the convalidation? A [*Catholic Answers* article](https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-i-do-about-my-invalid-marriage) suggests that this require radical sanation (Can. 1161 § 1) and in some cases the non-Catholic does not need to know (although it's preferable that the non-Catholic knows). But can radical sanation still be obtained even though the Catholic cannot perform Can. 1125 §1 to the full extent because of the spouse's opposition? 3. Modifying the case study a little, let's say the case is between a Protestant couple in which one wants to become Catholic but the other wants to remain Protestant and the kids need to be raised in the Protestant church. Is it an impediment for the would-be-Catholic to receive communion? Is marriage convalidation necessary / possible in this case? Is fornication committed without convalidation? ### Motivation for this question I believe there are many who are in this situation: who through Catholic evangelization effort now want to go back practicing Catholic but have a difficulty introduced by the Protestant spouse. Ultimately, this is an ecumenical question as all mainline denominations try to reconcile as much as they can without losing their distinctiveness.

I recently [answered](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103715) my own question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103704 , and I'm noticing that each tradition seems to emphasize different aspects of Christian spirituality. In fact, I shamelessly provided all of the book references in the aforementioned answer to ChatGPT and asked it to give me a brief summary of the spiritual emphases in each Christian tradition, and this is what I got: > ### Eastern Orthodox > 1. **Mystical Union with God**: The focus is on achieving a transformative communion with God, often through contemplative prayer > and ascetic practices. *Theosis*, or becoming partakers of the divine > nature, is a central theme. > 2. **Hesychasm**: Silent, meditative prayer, especially the *Jesus Prayer*, is emphasized as a way to achieve inner stillness and unity > with God. > 3. **Tradition and Liturgy**: The liturgy itself is seen as a mystical encounter with the divine, integrating believers into the life of the > Church. > > ### Catholic > 1. **Contemplative Prayer and Mysticism**: Catholic spirituality often emphasizes the practice of contemplative prayer, especially as seen in > the works of mystics like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the > Cross. > 2. **Sacraments as Means of Grace**: The sacraments are seen as primary means by which God’s grace is imparted, fostering a spiritual > connection to the divine. > 3. **Service and Community**: Catholic spirituality includes a strong focus on service and commitment to the community, aligning with the > Catholic social teaching of *caritas* (love). > > ### Protestant > 1. **Personal Relationship with God**: A central Protestant emphasis is on the personal, direct relationship with God, often nurtured > through Bible reading, prayer, and individual faith. > 2. **Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)**: Protestants view Scripture as the highest authority and often emphasize daily engagement with the > Bible as a means of spiritual growth. > 3. **Practical Discipleship**: A focus on living out one’s faith through spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, solitude, and service, > is common, as seen in works by authors like Richard Foster and Dallas > Willard. > > ### Pentecostal/Charismatic > 1. **Empowerment of the Holy Spirit**: There’s a strong emphasis on experiencing the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, often through > gifts like prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing. > 2. **Miracles and Signs**: This tradition emphasizes the supernatural, viewing miracles and signs as evidence of God’s active presence in the > world. > 3. **Personal Revival and Witnessing**: Pentecostal spirituality focuses on personal revival, fostering a sense of urgency to spread > the Gospel and witness to others. I haven't fact-checked every detail, but overall the output appears consistent with the book titles. The main point, however, is that each Christian tradition emphasizes different aspects of Christian spirituality. My question, then, is: **would it make sense to attempt a synthesis of these spiritual insights from each tradition to create a "best of all worlds," so to speak? And if so, have there been any recent attempts within Christianity to propose a "hybrid" approach to spirituality that combines these insights?** For instance, could there be a theory of spirituality that integrates the Pentecostal emphasis on the Holy Spirit, the Eastern Orthodox focus on mystical union with God, and the Catholic emphasis on sacraments? Is such a synthesis even possible in principle, or are these perspectives fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable? I'm asking this question because it seems to me that if each Christian tradition has developed unique practices and doctrinal emphases that nurture different aspects of an individual's relationship with God, then perhaps a more comprehensive theory of spirituality could emerge by integrating these insights. After all, it’s the same God, the same Holy Spirit, the same Jesus, the same spiritual laws, the same universe—so at first glance, I don’t see why a combination of insights wouldn’t be possible. To make an analogy, it would be like Google and Microsoft joining forces to combine their expertise rather than competing, or if Pepsi and Coca-Cola were to collaborate to create an even better drink.

I came across a recent [*Christianity Today* article](https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2024/july-august/theological-unity-diversity-lausanne-covenant.html) highlighting the importance of the forgotten [1974 Lausanne Covenant](https://lausanne.org/statement/lausanne-covenant) for the unity of the many factions of evangelicalism WITHOUT requiring doctrinal uniformity. For example, no agreement on Baptism or on the issue of female minister is needed for its signatories. My question: Is there anything in the covenant that contradict a Catholic doctrine, or is it mainstream enough that a Catholic can sign it?

Let's say a Christian grew up in a non-Baptist Reformed church and was baptized as an infant. This Christian went through a catechism and confirmation during his youth (12-15 yr. old) and in the process came to a *personal conviction* and *personal decision* to make Christ his Lord and Savior. The pastor (the catechist) knew this and because of that he decided that the candidate is ready for confirmation. In the confirmation ceremony he declared his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ publicly to the congregation and by that ceremony became a full member of the church and was allowed to take communion. (See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90330/10672) for the meaning of Confirmation for a pedobaptist Reformed church). This Christian now goes to another church, a Baptist church that practices adult full immersion, which also holds the same Reformed theology apart from baptism. Knowing the personal history of this Christian, **what is the typical Reformed Baptist church policy on this?** I can think of a few options: 1. Ignore the infant baptism and the confirmation completely, and treat this person like other baptism candidates 1. Consider the infant baptism invalid since an infant cannot make a conscious declaration of faith, so have him re-baptized 1. Do not require adult baptism, but require the person to do the remaining important element, such as making a public confession and taking a class (to update the theology) so he can then become an elder later 1. Recognize the combination of Infant baptism + Confirmation ceremony to be equivalent to adult baptism since all the elements (baptism using Trinitarian formula, declaration of faith, public announcement, admittance to membership + communion) were believed and performed within the same Reformed theology framework. In implementing the policy, can you also give an **overview of pastoral approaches** in Baptist churches for people who fit the case study above, i.e. were baptized as infants, catechized, confirmed, and became member of a pedobaptist Reformed church?

Although the earliest Christians were Jews who, like Jesus, kept the Passover feast, the Christian church during the Roman empire did not keep this feast and even forbade Christians from celebrating it. Emperor Constantine I, famous for legalizing and supporting Christianity, acted to end reliance on the date of Passover to determine the date of Easter. In so doing [he declared](https://jewishcurrents.org/emperor-constantine-and-the-jews) : > It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most > holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have > impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin. . . Let us then have > nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd. . .” Various [Church councils](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/church-councils) prohibited Christians from celebrating Passover with Jews, eating with them etc. The Church Father [John Chrysostom](https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_04_homily4.htm) , who taught that the Jewish Passover was no longer valid, famously declared: > Do you Christians not see that what the Jews are doing [in the Passover feasts] is mockery > rather than worship? I blame the Jews for violating the Law. But I > blame you much more for going along with the lawbreakers, not only > those of you who run to the synagogues but also those of you who have > the power to stop the Judaizers but are unwilling to do so. These days, many churches not only allow Christians to celebrate Passover with Jewish friends in homes and synagogues, but even welcome rabbis or Jewish laypeople to lead Seders in church. Some churches warn against "Christianizing" the Seder by conflating it with the Last Supper but encourage members to join with Jews in celebrating the holiday. For example, according to [US Catholic](https://uscatholic.org/articles/202304/should-catholics-celebrate-passover/) magazine: >Both Nostra Aetate (On the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions) and the U.S. > Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document “God’s Mercy Endures Forever” > prohibit Christianizing the Seder. These documents do encourage > Catholics to observe a Passover Seder, along with other Jewish > liturgical forms, at the invitation of Jewish communities. My question is: do any denominations still forbid Christians from celebrating Passover with Jews?

Is there some doctrinal, historical or political reason that prevented this natural alliance from taking place? Are Protestants against the notion of the [Pentarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy) in general and not just against the Papacy? If so, does this mean they see the Church as corrupt *already* before Emperor Justinian formed the Pentarchy?

There are various versions of the Bible, each with its own set of books considered canonical. For instance, the Catholic Bible includes books that are not present in the Evangelical Bible. Additionally, there are historical texts such as the Ethiopian version of the Book of Enoch and the Nag Hammadi scriptures that are recognized in some traditions but not in others. My question is as follows: Why don't different religious denominations and scholars come together in a council to review and unify the biblical canons? The idea would be to discuss and decide which books should be included or considered apocryphal, based on the latest archaeological, linguistic, and theological evidence. I believe that a thorough and well-founded review could clarify doubts and unify understandings about the sacred texts. Would such unification be feasible? What might be the potential theological, cultural, and academic consequences of an initiative like this?

I was raised Catholic. I raised my family Catholic. I made sure they as well as myself did all the sacraments as we were supposed to: we were baptized as babies, had our first holy communion around age 7, and finally the sacrament of confirmation around age 15. We went through all the steps because we were Catholic. Now at the age of 56 I realize I did these things because they were "tradition" and that these were expected from us. We lived on Long Island for 40 years. Moved down South for 16 years. The Catholic church here feels lonely. They don't talk to you if you are not in their clique. After going for 6 straight months every Sunday, sitting in the same seat, still no one said "hello" or "welcome to the church". Then we started attending a Baptist church. The very first day I sat down people came up and said "hello", "welcome", "how are you?" They made me feel they wanted me to be there. Attending the Baptist church, I now understand God and Jesus. I have fully accepted them into my life and heart. I want to do the believers baptism at that church to let every one know that I now have God in my life and heart. Am I allowed? The pastor says yes. I will always be a Catholic in my heart but I consider myself "born again Catholic".

This is a **historical** question. I'm interested in **the earliest instance that the Catholic Church** (whether by the Vatican or by a bishop) **accepted a Protestant baptism for a catechumen** (a convert), thus the Confirmation sacrament **did not have to be preceded by even a *conditional* sacrament of Baptism**. Was this before Trent, after Trent but before Vatican II, or only after Vatican II? Which bishop did it first? **What was the occasion, the rationale?** Was the *original* rationale back then the same as the current rationale? Maybe the council of Trent itself addressed this? Was there a document? A related question that does not need to be answered, but only to sharpen the issue to be addressed in the rationale. By the same rationale to accept Protestant baptism for catechumens, **what if these *same* Protestants did NOT become catechumens?** Was it *possible* for them to be saved (since baptism is only a factor) while remaining in their Protestant churches because the Catholic church teaches that by any valid baptism they would have received the Trinitarian life (born again)? If the answer is yes, wouldn't this contradicts the (older) Catholic notion that Protestants who denied certain Catholic-specific dogmas were not saved? Or perhaps only Protestants who through no free and conscious act of denials were saved? For example: they live in a country whose prince is Protestant ([*cuius regio, eius religio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio)) so they were not free to convert to the Catholic Church, **OR** they were open minded about these dogmas?

Let's say a Protestant couple has a child who has been raised in a Protestant church that believes in adult baptism. So the child has not yet been baptized. The husband then becomes Catholic and desires his child to be baptized and raised Catholic. But his wife strenuously objects, is very hostile toward the Catholic faith, insisting that the child is raised Baptist, for example. Can the husband, out of the spiritual welfare of the child, requests a Catholic priest to baptize his child without the child and the wife knowing about it, and receives a certificate of baptism in the hope that in the future when the child becomes adult he/she can decide for himself/herself whether to be confirmed as Catholic? If secret baptism, or a dispensation can be given for this unusual form of baptism (similar to radical sanation of marriage when the hostile spouse doesn't know), is there an age limit for the child? The consideration here is that just as an infant is not aware that he/she has been baptized, the child doesn't need to know either.

Let'say I was baptized in a Protestant church (for example, Presbyterian) that is in the list of churches whose baptism is recognized by the Catholic church (such as [this list](https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/15206/documents/2017/4/Valid%20Baptisms%20Reference%20List.pdf)) . But let's say I'm increasingly desirous to be Catholic and through self study came to believe all the doctrines of the Catholic church. **Main question:** Can I go to the sacrament of reconciliation to confess my mortal sins and receive absolution before being confirmed? *Related questions*: 1. How about if my status changes to be a catechumen (through the RCIA program) but not yet confirmed until next Easter. Does it make a difference? 1. If the two situations are different, what is the explanation? 1. Is the answer up to a particular bishop's discretion / policy, or is it governed in global Canon Law?

I want to know what Evangelical Christians (ECs) believe regarding ecumenism and how they practice it. A very practical example is when a person converts interdenominationally. How do ECs make the convert feel like his/her conversion to EC does not imply that his/her entire faith journey up to that point was invalid since they used to believe different to what they now do? Another practical example is where an EC wishes to not make Christians from other denominations feel like they are belittling their faith because they, as an EC, hold to their views while fellowshipping with them.

I, an "evangelical" "social justice" "protestant" have many theological disagreements with many of my brothers and sisters in Christ. For example, I reject a portion of the Catholic church's teachings. I also can't entirely agree with any church that denies our call to social justice and evangelism. And yet, of course, I admire the faith of many of my catholic or conservative or liberal friends. Many of them know Christ and trust in his death and resurrection for their redemption. I rejoice that I shall spend eternity with them in the presence of the Lord. So my question is this. How do we, all believers, do a better job of being both firm in our theological positions and their importance while also not belittling others' faith? Or even to go further, how do we allow "interdenominational-conversion" to be allowed/encouraged while never maintaining that someone was previously outwith Christ? (Unless they clearly were.)

Inspired by GratefulDisciple's comment under Geremia's answer https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90361/multiple-marriages-and-divorces The Catechism says: > The ordinary ministers of baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. 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) The *Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism* says: > a) Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books or established customs of a Church or ecclesial Community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of hisher own Community or Church > > b) The minister's insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid. Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does. However, as Geremia pointed out, > Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are **valid** which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2. Why is it that sacramental baptisms are possible for non-Catholics, but not sacramental marriages?

I have noticed some denominational Christians (Episcopalians, Lutherans) engaging in joint community oriented prayer services for Thanksgiving in the United States that involve Islamic, Hindu and other religious leaders. What is the Catholic position on holding joint “Thanksgiving” prayer services - especially with non theistic religions? If it’s ok to pray with non theistic religious leaders, how would that justification be grounded in an understanding of Acts 17? Would only prayers couched in the form of Paul’s Easter oriented speech on Mars Hill be appropriate?

I have seen Wikipedia discussion of Pope Pius IX's 1848 Epistle to the Easterners, and while the discussion mentions a now removed link to catholicencyclicals.net which apparently was a resource on the encyclical but did not include its text, I haven't been able to obtain the Latin wording of the encyclical's title, nor pin down the text. What is a URL to the full text of the encyclical, preferably on vatican.va? Thanks,

I was having a discussion with someone and I said that if a Catholic priest took a Protestant service, it would not be bona fide Protestant service. They replied that Catholic priests *can* become Anglican members. Which makes me wonder if I was wrong: can a Catholic priest lead Anglican services; and which services (if any) would not be bona fide Protestant when performed by a Catholic priest? Please do answer based on whichever Anglican church would say the service really was Protestant.

Most denominations recognize baptisms in other denominations. (See, for example Eph 4:4-6), "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".) The World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission published Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry in 1982. Are there major Christian denominations (in the 21st century) who don't go along with this, and who require members to be rebaptized?

Are there any of the large groups of believers in Jesus that would object to praying with other denominations, non-denominations or sections of Christianity? Example: Catholicism, Protestant, etc?

[Porvoo communion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porvoo_Communion) is the full Eucharistic communion of Lutheran churches of Northern Europe, but the Lutheran Church of Latvia is only observer in this communion. I understand that the Lutheran Church of Latvia does not recognize the Eucharist and Priesthood of Porvoo Communion (mainly because Porvoo communion admits woman to the priesthood and recognizes diversity in marriage), but what about the reverse order? **Does Porvoo communion recognizes the Eucharist and Priesthood of Latvian Church?** One can argue that the "stricter" character of the Latvia Church may make it "more sacred" and hence its sacraments should be recognized by the "less sacred" Churches (please, forgive me mentioning this somehow graphic and ironic argument). Or maybe Porvoo Communion is more open to the Christian practices and agrees to recognize the Eucharist even without reciprocal recognition? I belong to the Church of Sweden and I have no possibility to attend the local Anglican Services (both Church of Sweden and Church of England belong to the Porvoo Communion) and there are no Church of Sweden Services but there are Latvian services. So - maybe I attend those Latvian services? I know that this site is not for discussions about lifestyle and about righteousness, but my question is more judicial one - I am not arguing about superiority of one or other Church, I just wanted to know more about the practices and the documents of mentioned Churches concerning my question. And just a note - I feel more comfortable with reformed Churches of Porvoo (than Catholic and more conservative Latvian Church), because Porvoo Churches are more open to the theological/rational research of their faith and this openness allows to adapt the true message of Jesus to the current state of the World. And yes - the current scientific and technological development has empowered people and the people should take advantage of this power and I feel that Reformed Churches are more willing to make practical works for the benefit of the society. Some unreformed Churches are not aware of this progress and are more willing to just pray and do nothing beyond what they have done forever. Reformed Churches are more energetic.