I am an evangelical Christian but the answer given is that a Catholic can marry a baptized Christian, like a Baptist, if permission is granted from their bishop, while marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person is invalid according to Rome. It can only take place in the Church if the bishop agrees to grant a dispensation from the law.
However being married to an unbeliever is one of the many grounds (psychological abnormality, stubbornness, etc.) for possible annulment (another of which is entering marriage with the intention of never having children, although that is what Mary did according to Catholicism).
Yet in Scripture, marriage is covenanted “leaving and cleaving,” and all consummated marriages are called marriage, even ones that were between Israelites and pagans, or other things which are possible grounds for annulment. Where dissolution is allowed, it is divorce, not annulment.
As regards baptism, Rome allows non-Catholics to even baptize infants, providing they use the right matter (water; except in case of absolute necessity), form (Trinitarian forumla), and intention, that of intending to do what the Church does in baptism. This is apart from (the sometimes disputed) baptism of desire.
But pressed more precisely, “intending to do what the Church does” in baptism would exclude almost all Baptists and Protestants from having been “properly baptized,” as they do not intend baptize in order to have sins forgiven, versus expresses the faith that appropriates forgiveness and justification.
Thus whether a baptist is considered to have been validly baptized can be a matter of interpretation, as can whether the baptized Protestant will be saved even if he does not convert to Catholicism, which Lumen Gentium seems to affirm, but which is difficult to reconcile with some past EENS statements.
That's news to me.
Your post is correct in some areas, but wrong in many others. For example:
However being married to an unbeliever is one of the many grounds (psychological abnormality, stubbornness, etc.) for possible annulment
Wrong. A marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.
Where dissolution is allowed, it is divorce, not annulment.
And that makes it okay? Are you serious at all? How many divorced and remarried people in your congregation? Your "reformation" is what reduced marriage from a sacred covenant to a mere church-recognized contract. If you dispute that, study up on what Luther and Calvin had to say on the subject.
water; except in case of absolute necessity
Wrong again; water is always required.
But pressed more precisely, “intending to do what the Church does” in baptism would exclude almost all Baptists and Protestants from having been “properly baptized,” as they do not intend baptize in order to have sins forgiven
Wrong again. Sacramental intent in baptism consists in intending to administer Trinitarian Christian baptism. Belief in a specific theology of baptism is not required. For a cogent discussion of this, see this essay
...(another of which is entering marriage with the intention of never having children, although that is what Mary did according to Catholicism).Mary intended to "never have children"? Odd, and here I thought she is the Mother of Our Lord.