The year 313 is an important one in the history of the Church, for it was in that year that Constantine, Emperor of the West, and Licinius, Emperor of the East, issued the Edict of Milan that granted official tolerance to the practice of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

The edict brought to a close almost three centuries of terrible persecution of Christians by the Empire.  The worst of these persecutions had taken place just a few short years before, during the years 303-305 under the Emperor Diocletian.

It had been perhaps the most bloody, most violent, and most widespread persecution that the Church had faced.  And there were many, many Christians who had renounced their faith, betrayed other Christians to the authorities, and even handed over religious texts – Scriptures, missals, prayerbooks, etc. – to the government, which were then publicly burned.  The ones who handed over people and texts were called traditors (those who hand over).  Among them were laity, deacons, priests, and bishops.

When the persecution ended, most of those folks wanted to come back to the Church.  So they sought forgiveness, did penance, and were accepted once more into the Church.

Some people – called Donatists after their founder Donatus Magnus – did not like that.  They believed that a crime like that could not be forgiven in penance.  Moreover, they held that sacraments administered by those priests and bishops who had defected could not be considered valid.  In order to reenter the Church, they said, a person would have to be baptized again. 

The Church has always taught that a person can only be baptized once.  That teaching flows from what the Church understands baptism to be – a sacrament that incorporates a person into the Body of Christ, configures him or her to Christ, and permanently changes him or her.  To say that it is possible to rebaptize is, in essence, to deny what baptism is and what it does.

So, while the Donatists insisted on rebaptism, non-Donatist Catholics did not.  When the traditors wanted to rejoin the Church, Catholics did not rebaptize them.  Moreover, when folks who had been initially baptized in Donatist churches wanted to join the Catholic Church, neither were they rebaptized. 

To this day, the Church does not rebaptize those who have received a valid baptism, even if they be from Protestant denominations.

Now, if my own baptism 27 years ago in a Baptist congregation is considered by the Catholic Church to be a valid baptism, as indeed it is, then logically that has to mean that the grace of Christ is operative in that congregation and that at least some of the means to salvation are present there.

I bring all of this up to demonstrate how some have misinterpreted and misunderstood the recent document from the Vatican, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.”

“The Catholics are saying that those who aren’t Catholic are going to hell,” some have cried.  The document says nothing of the sort.  In fact, it says:  “It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.”  Furthermore, “It follows that these separated churches [refers to the Orthodox] and Communities [refers to Protestants], though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation.  In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation….”

I think that some have honed in on that word “defect” and misinterpreted what it means.  In this context, it is a technical theological term that means simply “a lack,” or, in other words, “something someone does not have.”

What are these “somethings” that other churches and communities do not have?  The document identifies them.  In the case of the Orthodox, while they have valid sacraments and the apostolic succession, they do not have union with Rome.  Now that is just a simple fact, and not one that they deny – they are not in union with Rome.  In the case of Protestants, it is the lack of union with Rome and the lack of a sacramental priesthood.  Again, those are simple facts.  Protestant thought on sacraments varies widely across denomination lines.  But to take the Baptist pastor who baptized me 27 years ago as an example, he would affirm the fact that he is not in union with Rome and that he is not a priest.  He’d probably be insulted if you were to call him a priest.  He doesn’t believe in priests, nor in sacraments, nor in being in union with Rome, nor, for that matter, in being in union with the Baptist congregation down the street.

Basically, in issuing this document, the Church is trying to do two things.  The first is to guard against religious indifferentism (the erroneous belief that all religions are basically the same), particularly amongst Catholics.  There are differences among the Christian churches and ecclesial communities.  If they were not different from us, then they would not be there.  And if we were not different from them, then we would not be here.  Dishonestly pretending that differences do not exist is not useful to anyone.

That brings up the second thing the Church is trying to accomplish – to open further and expand the dialogue between us and other churches and communities.  Some have said that this document would close dialogue.  Not true.  Dialogue must be based on honesty, else will never bear good fruit.  Truth about what one thinks and believes is the sine qua non of useful and fruitful dialogue.

In his response to the document, Orthodox Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad said, “for an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side.  It helps to understand how different we are.”