It is OK to ask for communion in faith before allowing communion in the sacraments, I agree. Specifically, a Catholic must be baptized and confirmed in faith before receiving the Eucharist, and whenever he is burdened by mortal sin, he is to confess that sin before receiving. (Or intend to confess at first opportunity when confession is not available prior to Communion). In addition, a Catholic recites the Creed prior to Communion, although not necessarily at every Mass. However, there is no test of purity, and in fact the Church understands herself as a ministry to the sinners. When a criminal, an addict or an adulterer comes to Church, she rejoices all the more because her obligation is to serve that man and assist him in reaching holiness.
Donatism is the notion that baptism is invalid unless the minister of the baptism is morally upright -- has fruits of the faith, as I put it. Since baptism is acceptance into the church, it means that the church membership is restricted by circumstances other than the will of the baptizee or his sponsors. My understanding of the Baptist theology is that the baptizee must profess faith whereby he is saved. That means that a sinner who does not consider himself a regenerated, sainted person cannot enter the communion of baptists. I admit that the considerable difference is that the baptists do not have priests, so while donatists place the restriction on the person of the priest, the baptists place the restriction on the baptizee, who is sort of his own priest at baptism. But the outcome is the same: the church membership is barred to those who desire regeneration but have not achieved it.
Meant to ping you.
I probably need to clarify this. Baptism is a sacrament that involves water touching the baptizee and is done with a Trinitarian formula on either an adult who wishes to become Christian or an infant whose sponsors wish him to become Christian. It remits the original sin but (unlike the baptist belief) does not confer ultimate salvation. The baptizee, in all probability will sin and whether or not he is justified at the end of his life remains an open question. The Orthodox may wish to modify my statement regarding remission of original sin; our differences here are not material in discussing church membership issues.
Confirmation is a sacrament that prepares one to begin receiving communion. It is done differently in the West and in the East. It does not confer membership in the Church (baptism does that). It advances one on his road to holiness, just like the Baptism that preceded it and the Eucharists that follow do, but it does not make one "saved" forever.
There is no sacrament of the Church that bestows the status of accomplished salvation on a living person.
The Catholic Church recognizes baptism when performed by a lay person, as long as water us used in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. In an emergency, valid baptism can be performed by a non-Christian. Certainly, baptisms done in a baptist church are valid. However, baptism is valid when it is validly performed, not when, if at all, a conversion of the heart happens. If Jake, 20 years of age, experiences a conversion to Christ, and is baptized in a baptist church, he is baptised when the baptismal prayer is said and the water touches his forehead. A baptist would say that Jake is baptized at the time of the conversion, while the water and the prayer are outward symbols. So, we agree that Jake ends up a Christian, but we disagree on the exact mechanism of becoming a Christian.
One thing that might amaze you is that, counter intuitively, Baptists actually believe that baptism has nothing to do with salvation! Get a load of that! :) We actually believe that baptism as a believer is very important, and is required for church membership, but the issue of salvation is no where in the picture. We see it as an outward and public sign of an obedience to God. Jesus did it, said we should do it, so we should do it. I think it's pretty funny myself, because it is perfectly reasonable for any non-Baptist to assume the opposite.
Hi Forest, Harley: how does the idea of an "elect" square with the idea that "heaven rejoices each time a sinner is saved"? If there is an elect then there would be no sinners -- there'd be only "the elect" and "the non-elect".