An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[JHow]

…I do know that in such instances of extreme need, a Mormon can baptize an infant. I have a friend who is a labor and delivery nurse who has done it–I think, twice–in her two decades-long service as a nurse. She only did it to comfort the mom. I can’t remember if she did it more than once, but those two I do remember; in both cases, though, the children survived and was eventually baptized by a priest…

Childbirth is the extreme example I hear most often cited. Preist may not be there, child may be in trouble, modesty may prevent male presence, midwive professional was/is often religious (nun), etc. In actual practice the “3x5 card scenario” is probably not as odd as it sounds.

According to the Original Encyclopedia: "Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. "

Here is an article that discusses the question of Mormon baptisms. They were accepted until recently. Many protestant baptisms are accepted. “Jesus name only” versions or in name of “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” (which I guess is a non-gender-specfic formula, which I personally had not heard of until very recently) are versions that are not accepted.

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

 

[JHow]

Thank you, JHow.

Just to be clear, the below was a quote from the Original Encyclopedia:

"From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs”.

I merely pulled out the conclusion, rather than cite the long-winded discussion that preceded it.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Catholics, on the other hand, claim to have the priesthood…yet seem to share with their Protestant descendents the idea that it’s not really necessary.

Uh, no.

They accept baptisms and other holy ordinances as valid when they are performed by people other than someone who holds it. They refuse to acknowledge the baptisms only of those folks who have annoyed them in some fashion.

No, we do not accept as valid Sacraments performed by people that do not hold the priesthood. In the case of baptism, we believe that God is the one that baptizes, and that because of this, a valid baptism can be found in any church that professes belief in God as has traditionally been believed in by Christianity. In the case of emergency (i.e. imminent death), it is lawful for anyone to baptize.

As far as not accepting baptisms by those that have “annoyed them”, well, the only response to that is .

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

This is too much - almost spit my herbal tea on the keyboard

So anybody off the street who reads the formula from a card can baptize, even if they have no clue about Jesus or what the Holy Spirit is, let alone the complex Catholic definition of trinity?

In an emergency (i.e. imminent death), anyone can baptize someone. We believe that it is God that is doing the baptizing.

But an LDS who believes in God and the bible, but not the Nicene definition, will be ignored by God for this error, and thus damn the falsely baptized soul to hell?

You need to explain this one to me

The LDS God is not this vindictive and cruel.

No one has claimed that the “falsely baptized” will be damned to Hell.

 

[dianaiad]

Uh, no.

No, we do not accept as valid Sacraments performed by people that do not hold the priesthood. In the case of baptism, we believe that God is the one that baptizes, and that because of this, a valid baptism can be found in any church that professes belief in God as has traditionally been believed in by Christianity. In the case of emergency (i.e. imminent death), it is lawful for anyone to baptize.

As far as not accepting baptisms by those that have “annoyed them”, well, the only response to that is .

Sir, that argument (that God is the One Who baptizes) is the argument used by the Protestants who espouse the 'priesthood of all believers," and who do not share the Catholic/LDS view that the priesthood is a very real authority that must be passed on by those who have the authority to pass it down.

Catholics point to apostolic succession as the reason that they are the True church, and have the true priesthood authority. LDS’s say that the church apostasized–and that this authority had to be restored. Either way, it’s a very real thing that not everybody has.

But if it is 'God that baptizes," so that anybody CAN do it, it seems, at least to me, that you are saying that there doesn’t need to be that authoritative priesthood.

It’s a question that really needs to be looked at; either the priesthood is required, or it isn’t.

 

[dianaiad]

In an emergency (i.e. imminent death), anyone can baptize someone. We believe that it is God that is doing the baptizing.

No one has claimed that the “falsely baptized” will be damned to Hell.

What DOES happen to those who are not baptized, CatholicGuyNY? Really?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

What DOES happen to those who are not baptized, CatholicGuyNY? Really?

**1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. **

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Sir, that argument (that God is the One Who baptizes) is the argument used by the Protestants who espouse the 'priesthood of all believers," and who do not share the Catholic/LDS view that the priesthood is a very real authority that must be passed on by those who have the authority to pass it down.

I’ve never heard a Protestant use the “God is the One Who Baptizes” argument. In fact, what specific version of Protestantism are you talking about?

Catholics point to apostolic succession as the reason that they are the True church, and have the true priesthood authority. LDS’s say that the church apostasized–and that this authority had to be restored. Either way, it’s a very real thing that not everybody has.

But if it is 'God that baptizes," so that anybody CAN do it, it seems, at least to me, that you are saying that there doesn’t need to be that authoritative priesthood.

Last I checked, Baptism is only one of the 7 sacraments celebrated in the Catholic Church.

What the Catholic Church teaches is that for the validity of all of the sacraments (and for them to be lawful or licit), it should be ordinarily done by a priest or bishop (or a deacon in some cases). The case of baptism is different because we believe that God is the one that is baptizing, which allows for emergency baptisms to be performed by anyone with the correct formula and intent. On the other hand, we can look at perhaps the most important sacrament in Catholicism, the Eucharist. It is absolutely necessary to have a validly ordained priest or bishop to celebrate the Mass. This is why we do not accept the validity of the Eucharist of Lutherans or Anglicans, for example. This example makes it quite clear that your assertion that we’re saying that there doesn’t need to be an authoritative priesthood, false.

It’s a question that really needs to be looked at; either the priesthood is required, or it isn’t.

Obviously it’s required, just not in the way that you want it to be.

 

[dianaiad]

**1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. **

then why bother with baptism at all?

Why the angst about baptizing infants? Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that an infant, if he or she knew about the benifits of baptism, would then desire it–and so the blessings would be given?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

then why bother with baptism at all?

Why the angst about baptizing infants? Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that an infant, if he or she knew about the benifits of baptism, would then desire it–and so the blessings would be given?

Catholicism teaches that baptism saves. However, in some cases, it is not possible for someone to be baptized. We therefore believe that in those cases (which are not the norm or “ordinary”), God can save such a person in a way known to Him. We believe that anyone can be baptized, whether infant, child, or adult. It is a matter of accessibility, not withholding something. In Catholicism, God is not bound by the sacraments, since they come from Him.

 

[Esdra]

I’ve never heard a Protestant use the “God is the One Who Baptizes” argument. In fact, what specific version of Protestantism are you talking about?

Hi

in fudamental evangelicalism (Baptists or Pentecostals etc.) there is a completely other view of baptism itself.
Baptism there is only an outward sign that you have accepted Jesus as your saviour and that you have confessed your sins to God (repentet) and that you are now willing to live according to God’s commandments. (cf. John 14:15 “If you love me, you will obey my commandments.” NLT)

This means that baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. Necessary for salvation is ONLY the true belief to Jesus. He is the only way. (cf. John 14:6)

So we are not talking about fundamental evangelicalism!

Esdra

 

[dianaiad]

I’ve never heard a Protestant use the “God is the One Who Baptizes” argument. In fact, what specific version of Protestantism are you talking about?

It is a logical restatement of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ viewpoint.

Last I checked, Baptism is only one of the 7 sacraments celebrated in the Catholic Church.

What the Catholic Church teaches is that for the validity of all of the sacraments (and for them to be lawful or licit), it should be ordinarily done by a priest or bishop (or a deacon in some cases). The case of baptism is different because we believe that God is the one that is baptizing, which allows for emergency baptisms to be performed by anyone with the correct formula and intent. On the other hand, we can look at perhaps the most important sacrament in Catholicism, the Eucharist. It is absolutely necessary to have a validly ordained priest or bishop to celebrate the Mass. This is why we do not accept the validity of the Eucharist of Lutherans or Anglicans, for example. This example makes it quite clear that your assertion that we’re saying that there doesn’t need to be an authoritative priesthood, false.

It’s a question that really needs to be looked at; either the priesthood is required, or it isn’t.

Obviously it’s required, just not in the way that you want it to be.

No sir. Either it is required, or it is not. This isn’t a grey area or a false dichotomy. If there is, at any time, a situation in which the priesthood is NOT required for something that is ordinarily reserved to the priesthood, then it’s—not required.

Seems simple enough to me, anyway.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

It is a logical restatement of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ viewpoint.

See Esdra’s comment. Also, you previously stated that “God is the One Who Baptizes” is the argument used by Protestants. Now you’re claiming that it is a restatement of “priesthood of all believers” viewpoint. So do they use the argument or not? The priesthood of all believers viewpoint has nothing to do with “God is the One Who Baptizes”, and I’ve never heard such a thing come from one that believed that. In fact, they have a very different view of what baptism actually does (if anything).

No sir. Either it is required, or it is not. This isn’t a grey area or a false dichotomy. If there is, at any time, a situation in which the priesthood is NOT required for something that is ordinarily reserved to the priesthood, then it’s—not required.

Seems simple enough to me, anyway.

Sorry, this is not logical. We believe that an authoritative priesthood is necessary and exists, but you want to tell us what it is necessary for. You’re trying to impose your LDS beliefs on the matter on Catholic teaching, which does not work. As already demonstrated, the example of the Eucharist proves that Catholicism believes that an authoritative priesthood is necessary and required. What you want to do is tell us that because in your religion the priesthood is required for all baptisms, if this isn’t the case in another religion, then they don’t really believe in the necessity of the priesthood, which is illogical, since the way in which we believe the priesthood to be necessary is not the same as the way you do.