Baptism for the dead - Catholics believed it ?

[Religio71]

My cousin had a still born baby, and they baptized the baby even though she was technically dead. Is this maybe what the OP was talking about?

No it isn’t. The OP is referring to a practice by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called baptism for the dead or proxy baptism, where a living person is baptized in a temple for and on behalf of someone who is dead, so that they can receive the benefits of that (and other) ordinance.

Catholics do not have a similar practice, since all sacraments are for the living. If a still born baby was baptized, it was because of the thought that the baby might not be “fully” dead yet, and maybe the soul is still there. No sacraments can be done by proxy or given to dead people in the Catholic Church.

 

[Prince_Hal]

Prince Hal:

There is an article in which you might be interested. As to its source, it is indeed written by a Mormon scholar and has been "reprinted’ on the web by BYU. However, I think you will find that it is serious work of historical scholarship. Perhaps you will find an answer to your question in this article. The article is by Hugh Nibley and is titled “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times.” I am sure you could find it with Google but I believe the URL is: mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=67

Murdock

Much obliged to you my friend.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for the link. I think that the point that needs to be made is that that one verse in the bible is open to interpretation. The catholics claim one interpretation and the mormons another. It is unfortunate that the verse is vague. Much could have been avoided with more precise information.

One thing about the link: many baptisms are performed by the youth and they don’t need a temple recommend to do so, I believe. My daughter has done many baptisms for the dead and she doesn’t have a temple recommend to my knowledge.

She needs one. Not the same one she needs for her Endowments, but she was interviewed and given a recommend.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

That is debatable. A common (non-LDS) view of that passage is that St. Paul did not believe in baptism for the dead, but was referencing a practice done by non-Christians, especially when he does not include himself in practicing this, since he does not say “we” but “they”.

Hey Religio,

Okay. Let me start from the top. I deliberately try to steer clear of controversy much of the time in these places. I have learned that I must measure every word carefully. This time I thought I did so in part by saying, “It seems to me quite clear…” It is usually my intent to avoid debate because I almost invariably fail to convince my opponent of the truth of my position. The fact of the matter is that according to my unhappy experience at LDS internet sites, I continually fail to make the seemingly most modest, reasonable, and unthreatening gains for what I perceive to be the truth. I am one of those who, when they express their opinions, are frequently met with objections much stronger than yours. I am inclined to rejoice that my opinions have climbed to the level of debatable! My usual results are to make comments that according to those who read them, are absurd and ridiculous. Perhaps I should thank you for the compliment. Instead though, your tentative criticism inclines me to wax bold, although perhaps as a fool. Nevertheless, allow me to say that I, Mr. Absurd and Ridiculous, am supremely confident that it is undoubtedly true that I believe that “It seems to me quite clear that a Catholic, St. Paul the Apostle believed in baptism for the dead…” Surely my own word is sufficient to prove what I think I believe?

I understand that Protestants are forced to say that St. Paul is referencing an act unsanctioned by the true faith. I will only say that I am uncomfortable with that point of view, and if the position of St. Francis de Sales is debatable, it still seems not without some value to faithful Catholics, that the interpretation of a doctor of the Catholic Church on baptism for the dead, as referenced in I Cor 15, suggests an approved, legitimate act common among Christians of the first century.

Best to you Religio…and much better success than me in persuading Mormons of anything,

Rory

 

[PaulDupre]

It’s my birthday. I get to get away with murder. (figuratively and rhetorically speaking, of course!!!)

Happy birthday, Diana! Many happy returns!

Paul

 

[dianaiad]

Hey Religio,

Okay. Let me start from the top. I deliberately try to steer clear of controversy much of the time in these places. I have learned that I must measure every word carefully. This time I thought I did so in part by saying, “It seems to me quite clear…” It is usually my intent to avoid debate because I almost invariably fail to convince my opponent of the truth of my position. The fact of the matter is that according to my unhappy experience at LDS internet sites, I continually fail to make the seemingly most modest, reasonable, and unthreatening gains for what I perceive to be the truth. I am one of those who, when they express their opinions, are frequently met with objections much stronger than yours. I am inclined to rejoice that my opinions have climbed to the level of debatable! My usual results are to make comments that according to those who read them, are absurd and ridiculous. Perhaps I should thank you for the compliment. Instead though, your tentative criticism inclines me to wax bold, although perhaps as a fool. Nevertheless, allow me to say that I, Mr. Absurd and Ridiculous, am supremely confident that it is undoubtedly true that I believe that “It seems to me quite clear that a Catholic, St. Paul the Apostle believed in baptism for the dead…” Surely my own word is sufficient to prove what I think I believe?

I understand that Protestants are forced to say that St. Paul is referencing an act unsanctioned by the true faith. I will only say that I am uncomfortable with that point of view, and if the position of St. Francis de Sales is debatable, it still seems not without some value to faithful Catholics, that the interpretation of a doctor of the Catholic Church on baptism for the dead, as referenced in I Cor 15, suggests an approved, legitimate act common among Christians of the first century.

Best to you Religio…and much better success than me in persuading Mormons of anything,

Rory

Did you just say that you thought that St.Paul DID believe in baptism for the dead? Trust me on this, if that is what you intended to say, you won’t see me arguing with you.

But Rory, don’t be disappointed because you don’t have much success in “persuading Mormons of anything.” (especially if what you want to convince them of is that they believe something they know darned well they don’t believe, or vice versa.) I imagine that I have exactly as much success in persuading Catholics (or indeed, any other non-Mormon) of anything at all, except perhaps the rare person who is willing to accept my argument as to what we believe.

The best possible outcome, I think, is when your ‘opponent’ learns something new about your position, and you learn something new about his—and both of you take a new truth about your own position away with you.

The second best possible outcome is that the audience learns something new.

The third best? That you have kept your cool in the face of deliberate discourtesy, and thus take the moral victory.

The grand prize? All of the above.

But if you are looking for conversions, you are absolutely in the wrong place.

 

[dianaiad]

Happy birthday, Diana! Many happy returns!

Paul

Thank you, Thank you…I’m officially 60 (not just feeling old…I AM old. ) My greatest birthday gift as a result is: in California I can go to state universities for free from now on.

Mind you, I"m not all that certain that the added taxes don’t cancel that out, but I’ll take what I can get!!!

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Did you just say that you thought that St.Paul DID believe in baptism for the dead? Trust me on this, if that is what you intended to say, you won’t see me arguing with you.

But Rory, don’t be disappointed because you don’t have much success in “persuading Mormons of anything.” (especially if what you want to convince them of is that they believe something they know darned well they don’t believe, or vice versa.) I imagine that I have exactly as much success in persuading Catholics (or indeed, any other non-Mormon) of anything at all, except perhaps the rare person who is willing to accept my argument as to what we believe.

The best possible outcome, I think, is when your ‘opponent’ learns something new about your position, and you learn something new about his—and both of you take a new truth about your own position away with you.

The second best possible outcome is that the audience learns something new.

The third best? That you have kept your cool in the face of deliberate discourtesy, and thus take the moral victory.

The grand prize? All of the above.

But if you are looking for conversions, you are absolutely in the wrong place.

Hi Dianaiad.

You are right, I am sure, Dianaiad.

It almost seems like some people think ridiculous and absurd are synonymous with “whatever I don’t believe”. If I ever start a board, I think those two words will be a banning offense.

I am uncomfortable with the idea that St. Paul was referencing an illicit practice. Our practices inform our teachings. Why would the Apostle point to something that Christians are unbidden to do to prove what Christians are supposed to believe? He seems to be arguing from the undoubted legitimacy of the practice to the truth of the teaching on the resurrection. If the practice is illicit, why would it follow that the teaching of the resurrection would be true?

But as I said in a previous post, I hold to the arguments of a 17th Century Doctor of the Catholic Church who proposed that it was a legitimate practice connected with purgatory. According to St. Francis, St. Paul believed in a non-aquatic, non-ceremonial practice which did benefit those who have died. If there were no resurrection of the dead, the practice would be pointless.

Thanks,

Rory

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Dianaiad.

You are right, I am sure, Dianaiad.

It almost seems like some people think ridiculous and absurd are synonymous with “whatever I don’t believe”. If I ever start a board, I think those two words will be a banning offense.

I am uncomfortable with the idea that St. Paul was referencing an illicit practice. Our practices inform our teachings. Why would the Apostle point to something that Christians are unbidden to do to prove what Christians are supposed to believe? He seems to be arguing from the undoubted legitimacy of the practice to the truth of the teaching on the resurrection. If the practice is illicit, why would it follow that the teaching of the resurrection would be true?

But as I said in a previous post, I hold to the arguments of a 17th Century Doctor of the Catholic Church who proposed that it was a legitimate practice connected with purgatory. According to St. Francis, St. Paul believed in a non-aquatic, non-ceremonial practice which did benefit those who have died. If there were no resurrection of the dead, the practice would be pointless.

Thanks,

Rory

I’m not familiar with these writings. If you wouldn’t mind pointing me to where I might find them, my lazy self would truly appreciate it!

I have been thinking that it is odd that Catholics would be so very adamant against this idea of proxy baptism, when they, among all other Christians, believe that praying to the saints and to Mary for intercession on their behalf is efficacious.

 

[Religio71]

I’m not familiar with these writings. If you wouldn’t mind pointing me to where I might find them, my lazy self would truly appreciate it!

I have been thinking that it is odd that Catholics would be so very adamant against this idea of proxy baptism, when they, among all other Christians, believe that praying to the saints and to Mary for intercession on their behalf is efficacious.

I found this website of a Catholic having a discussion with Protestants on this verse:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/1-corinthians-1529-and-baptism-for-dead.html

**St. Francis de Sales:

This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in Luke 12:50 . . . and in St. Mark 10:38-9 . . . -- in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].

This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44: "It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . ." Now it was not for those in Paradise [heaven], who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did St. Ephraim [d.373] expound it.**

I’m not sure of your comparison between proxy baptism and prayer to Mary and other canonized saints. The idea behind that is that as a Church, we are a communion of saints. Therefore, all Catholics are termed “saints”. On earth, we can ask our earthly saints, like parents, friends, etc., to pray for us. So, I could ask my roommate to pray for me that I pass a test, or something like that. Since we believe that death was destroyed by Christ, the Church, being the Body of Christ, is eternal, and extends beyond this earthly life. Therefore, we can not only ask earthly saints to pray for us, but Heavenly saints as well. Those on earth, in Purgatory, and in Heaven are still part of the Body of Christ, the Church. This is the reasoning (very basic) behind why we pray “to” Mary and the saints, asking them to pray for us.

What I think you were referring to is prayer FOR the dead, as in those in Purgatory. While there may be some basic similarities between that practice and proxy baptism, there are some important differences. With proxy baptism (and other proxy ordinances), one is attempting to change the salvation of the dead. Of course, they must choose to accept or reject it, however they are attempting to change what happens to the dead (or more appropriately, the dead, by accepting or rejecting the proxy ordinances, can change what happens to their souls).

With Catholic prayer for the dead, the salvation of the soul in question is already set. Prayer for the dead is only effective for those that are in Purgatory, and thus will go to Heaven after purification. Thus, all in Purgatory are already going to Heaven. There is nothing to change about that. We do believe that the “time” of purification can be shortened through prayer for the dead, Masses for the dead, and indulgences. So, we do not believe that one can be “saved” after death if they are not already saved. We do believe that if someone is being purified before Heaven, we can pray for those in Purgatory that they may have the vision of God sooner.

 

[dianaiad]

I found this website of a Catholic having a discussion with Protestants on this verse:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/1-corinthians-1529-and-baptism-for-dead.html

**St. Francis de Sales:

This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in Luke 12:50 . . . and in St. Mark 10:38-9 . . . -- in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].

This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44: "It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . ." Now it was not for those in Paradise [heaven], who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did St. Ephraim [d.373] expound it.**

I’m not sure of your comparison between proxy baptism and prayer to Mary and other canonized saints. The idea behind that is that as a Church, we are a communion of saints. Therefore, all Catholics are termed “saints”. On earth, we can ask our earthly saints, like parents, friends, etc., to pray for us. So, I could ask my roommate to pray for me that I pass a test, or something like that. Since we believe that death was destroyed by Christ, the Church, being the Body of Christ, is eternal, and extends beyond this earthly life. Therefore, we can not only ask earthly saints to pray for us, but Heavenly saints as well. Those on earth, in Purgatory, and in Heaven are still part of the Body of Christ, the Church. This is the reasoning (very basic) behind why we pray “to” Mary and the saints, asking them to pray for us.

What I think you were referring to is prayer FOR the dead, as in those in Purgatory. While there may be some basic similarities between that practice and proxy baptism, there are some important differences. With proxy baptism (and other proxy ordinances), one is attempting to change the salvation of the dead. Of course, they must choose to accept or reject it, however they are attempting to change what happens to the dead (or more appropriately, the dead, by accepting or rejecting the proxy ordinances, can change what happens to their souls).

With Catholic prayer for the dead, the salvation of the soul in question is already set. Prayer for the dead is only effective for those that are in Purgatory, and thus will go to Heaven after purification. Thus, all in Purgatory are already going to Heaven. There is nothing to change about that. We do believe that the “time” of purification can be shortened through prayer for the dead, Masses for the dead, and indulgences. So, we do not believe that one can be “saved” after death if they are not already saved. We do believe that if someone is being purified before Heaven, we can pray for those in Purgatory that they may have the vision of God sooner.

Indeed…and we have somewhat similar beliefs about proxy baptism, as well. Do you remember the constant kerfufle about doing proxy baptism for Adolf Hitler? Such an outcry…such horror! Yet we don’t believe that doing the proxy work for the man is going to help him any. Quite the opposite. It’s very much a ‘coals of fire’ sort of thing for those who are in the situation he is in.

Someone who is headed for hell anyway, who has already decided to reject Christ and all that He offers, isn’t going to accept the offer. Only someone who is ‘already going to heaven’ is likely to accept it, and in a way it only does for them what your prayers for the dead, Masses for the dead (and isn’t that somewhat in the same spirit, so to speak, that baptisms for the dead have?) and indulgences do.

Oh, it’s not an exact match, of course, but in a very real way the idea is the same; we both believe that death is not the end of free will, or growth, or learning, and that things we do here CAN help those who have died.

If they let us.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is no belief that Catholic prayers for the dead are given to the deceased soul in order for them to make a decision to accept those prayers, or not.

The prayers are to God. Those in purgatory are already judged as attaining Heaven. Purgatory is a time of purification and we pray for their souls, believing that this is of a benefit to them. The same as we pray for those who are living.

Further, Catholic belief is that a person is judged immediately after death. A post-baptism, as well intentioned as it may be, is too late. The person is judged at the moment of their death, and if God has judged them as going to Heaven, a proxy baptism is not going to add, or change, that judgment. The same for being judged as going to hell. It’s done.

St. Paul never expressed or taught that judgment was delayed. The Church certainly does not teach this today, and never has.

CCC

**1021 **Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

**1022 **Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,–or immediate and everlasting damnation

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.

---

St. Francis de Sales also taught that we are judged at death:

"Finally, my beloved child, I intreat you by all that is sacred in
heaven and in earth, by your own Baptism, by the breast which Jesus
sucked, by the tender Heart with which He loves you, and by the bowels
of compassion in which you hope–be stedfast and persevere in this most
blessed undertaking to live a devout life. Our days pass away, death is
at hand. “The trumpet sounds a recall,” says S. Gregory Nazianzen, “in
order that every one may make ready, for Judgment is near.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Indeed…and we have somewhat similar beliefs about proxy baptism, as well. Do you remember the constant kerfufle about doing proxy baptism for Adolf Hitler? Such an outcry…such horror! Yet we don’t believe that doing the proxy work for the man is going to help him any. Quite the opposite. It’s very much a ‘coals of fire’ sort of thing for those who are in the situation he is in.

Someone who is headed for hell anyway, who has already decided to reject Christ and all that He offers, isn’t going to accept the offer. Only someone who is ‘already going to heaven’ is likely to accept it, and in a way it only does for them what your prayers for the dead, Masses for the dead (and isn’t that somewhat in the same spirit, so to speak, that baptisms for the dead have?) and indulgences do.

Oh, it’s not an exact match, of course, but in a very real way the idea is the same; we both believe that death is not the end of free will, or growth, or learning, and that things we do here CAN help those who have died.

If they let us.

Diana, if I recall, one of the major reasons for baptizing by proxy is the belief that those who never heard the Gospel in this life, can be taught in the next. The person is then judged after this.

Further, if mormons believe baptism remits sin, and God has forgiven them of their sins, how can you say a person will be judged as going to hell immediately after a baptism has been done for them?

Also, how is it you can say a person will not accept baptism? Why would you perform a baptism that you believe to be pointless? I have never heard this. Is this mormon doctrine?

 

[BrianH]

1 Corinthians 15:29 “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”

This is the verse. Based upon my readings, from a scripture perspective, it mentions it obviously. This does not mean that it tells us to do it. Big difference. It is an interesting issue to be sure!

I would agree that possibly some groups did practice it but I have seen nothing to indicate that it was in any way the norm or sanctioned by the Catholic Church early on or at any time.

 

[Religio71]

This is the verse. Based upon my readings, from a scripture perspective, it mentions it obviously. This does not mean that it tells us to do it. Big difference. It is an interesting issue to be sure!

I would agree that possibly some groups did practice it but I have seen nothing to indicate that it was in any way the norm or sanctioned by the Catholic Church early on or at any time.

And, we should also look into how the word “baptized” is used throughout the Bible. I don’t believe it always means “water baptism”.

 

[dianaiad]

There is no belief that Catholic prayers for the dead are given to the deceased soul in order for them to make a decision to accept those prayers, or not.

The prayers are to God. Those in purgatory are already judged as attaining Heaven. Purgatory is a time of purification and we pray for their souls, believing that this is of a benefit to them. The same as we pray for those who are living.

OK…and? Remember, I didn’t claim that the two things were an exact match, though all ordinances that we perform are done in the Name of Jesus Christ, and are thus, in a way, ‘prayers’ to the Father.

What IS a match is this: both religious groups, Mormon and Catholic, believe that we can do things HERE that are of benefit to those who have died.

Further, Catholic belief is that a person is judged immediately after death. A post-baptism, as well intentioned as it may be, is too late. The person is judged at the moment of their death, and if God has judged them as going to Heaven, a proxy baptism is not going to add, or change, that judgment. The same for being judged as going to hell. It’s done.

So why do you pray for them? Sincere question.

St. Paul never expressed or taught that judgment was delayed. The Church certainly does not teach this today, and never has.

CCC

**1021 **Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

**1022 **Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,–or immediate and everlasting damnation

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.

---

St. Francis de Sales also taught that we are judged at death:

"Finally, my beloved child, I intreat you by all that is sacred in
heaven and in earth, by your own Baptism, by the breast which Jesus
sucked, by the tender Heart with which He loves you, and by the bowels
of compassion in which you hope–be stedfast and persevere in this most
blessed undertaking to live a devout life. Our days pass away, death is
at hand. “The trumpet sounds a recall,” says S. Gregory Nazianzen, “in
order that every one may make ready, for Judgment is near.”

Ok, so then why do you pray for them? What good do you think it does for them? Sincere question, honestly asked.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok, so then why do you pray for them? What good do you think it does for them? Sincere question, honestly asked.

“Why do we pray for the dead?”

 

[nlm]

OK…and? Remember, I didn’t claim that the two things were an exact match, though all ordinances that we perform are done in the Name of Jesus Christ, and are thus, in a way, ‘prayers’ to the Father.

What IS a match is this: both religious groups, Mormon and Catholic, believe that we can do things HERE that are of benefit to those who have died.

So why do you pray for them? Sincere question.

Ok, so then why do you pray for them? What good do you think it does for them? Sincere question, honestly asked.

An elderly lady died and I was at the funeral home for visitation. A table had been set up and people were having masses said for the repose of her soul. There had to be AT LEAST 90 or 100 mass cards in the rack next to the casket. This lady’s son was a priest.
Someone went to him and asked. How is it that your mother died two days ago and was judged at the moment of her death. She was a good person so we believe she went to heaven. What use will all these masses be then? This is what he answered." When my mother died and appeared before God for judgement, He ( God) already knew that all these masses would be offered for her as well as all the prayers which would be said for her and He ( God) took all that into consideration when making His ( God) final judgement of my mother". I remember walking away trying to digest what I had just heard as a priest’s explanation of praying for the dead.NLM

 

[Murdock]

There is an interesting newspaper article about baptism for the dead, centuries of widespread ancient Christian practice of baptism for the dead, the synods which eventually condemned the practice, the reasons of Church politics which led to that condemnation, and today’s concern of the Roman Catholic Church (specifically in Ireland) about Mormon use of Catholic parish records in connection with Mormon baptism for the dead, in the Northern Ireland newspaper Belfast Telegraph. Apparently the author, Eamonn McCann, is Catholic or at least attended Catholic schools. The article is dated August 28, 2008 and I believe that theURL is:

belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/eamonn-mccann-what-if-mormons-are-right-and-catholics-and-protestants-wrong-13955402.html

Here is some of what Mr. McCann says:

“The Mormons didn’t invent baptism of the dead. The practice has a significant history within mainstream Christianity. The decision to order its abandonment was taken only after heated debate, and was a close-run thing.”
* * * *

“Let’s look at the facts as understood by the early followers of Christ. For more than 300 years after the Crucifixion, baptism of the dead was widely accepted, its biblical basis located in 1 Corinthians 15, 29: “Otherwise, what shall they do who are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptised for them.” In other words, a deceased person could be baptised by proxy: otherwise, how could such a person be included in the Resurrection? A good question.”

"The radical Cerinthians and the Marcionites were especially energetic baptisers of the dead. It was to wrong-foot these sects, seen as competitors with the official Church at a time when it was consolidating its position as the State religion of the Roman Empire, that the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) voted, after bitter debate, to condemn the practice. "

Mr. McCann, in a humorous vein, makes it clear that he is not the least bit concerned about Mormon baptism for the dead, and does not think others should be either. Lastly, his remark about “mumbo-jumbo Mormons might mutter over Catholic cadavers” is just a joke. The subject is Mormon baptism for the dead, not baptism of the dead, and no dead bodies are involved.

Murdock

 

[RebeccaJ]

"The radical Cerinthians and the Marcionites were especially energetic baptisers of the dead. It was to wrong-foot these sects, seen as competitors with the official Church at a time when it was consolidating its position as the State religion of the Roman Empire, that the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) voted, after bitter debate, to condemn the practice. "

The Marcionites and Cerinthians held many beliefs that were not orthodox. Most very much in opposition to each other.

When are the mormons going to “restore” these?

You might want to actually investigate the beliefs of these two groups before hitching up to them. They were declared heretical for good reason. Why you would think these two groups are an example of apostolic teaching is beyond me.