Morman baptism age/ceremony technicalities

[paul_barlow]

thank you ben for a respectful response. do you mide if we look at the following

Again, I’ll quote a very basic Creed that is used by both Catholics and the C of E (as an example) that is a profession that could not be made by a member of the LDS church:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty, so do we

maker of heaven and earth, yes the same with us via jesus
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, yes thats fine by us

God from God, Light from Light, Christ the son of god
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,

one being with the Father. please show were the scriptues show the Lord god, Jesus, Holy ghost are one physically and then explain how god can have a son but the son is physically one and then explain what happened to jesus’s body when he went back to his father.

Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven: no problems with any of this
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven **thats all fine by us **
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets. thats fine apart from he still talks to his prophets

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
well clearly we don’t except that or we would be catholic

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN. Again no problem here by one holding the proper authority christ sent his followers to baptise thats why jesus went to john the baptist.

Many protestant churches use this, or the simpler “Apostle’s Creed” in their liturgies as beliefs held in common with most of Christendom. As “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, we acknowledge as valid those baptisms that have been conferred in other churches who have the same doctrine of the Trinity as the Catholic Church - C of E, Methodist, etc. If there is a “doubt” about the validity of baptism, or if someone simply does not know when or if they were baptized, they can always receive what is popularly called “conditional” baptism. No, we are not accepting apostate doctrine - the Trinity has never been an issue with most protestant churches - so there has never been a change in teaching (save on some protestant churches part, I suppose - so many different churches but I can think of only a few, offhand, that deny the doctrine of the Trinity).

There is not a great deal, doctrinally, that separates the C of E from the Catholic Church. Those Anglican priests have - perhaps not knowingly! - been “in training” to become Catholic priests all of their lives! So there is not a great deal of “training” that they need go through (some, yes, but not the ‘full course’!). A Catholic priest, in the Western rite (“Roman” Catholic) takes a vow of celibacy - makes a promise to remain celibate. And if an unmarried C of E priest came into the Roman Catholic Church unmarried, he, too, would make the same promise. I’m not sure if you mean that your wife’s friend and her husband were treated very badly by the C of E (which they left) or the Roman Catholic Church (which they entered)
** No you missunderstood me he was a catholic priest who married a catholic lady. He has not left the church but has been banned from the sacarements. they have been shunned by there local parishes and are forced to worship in a different Diosise (think i spelt that wrong.). So as he is lawfully married he should be allowed to practice (they did not break the law of chastity before marrage **

Although I lived in the UK for a number of years I don’t recall meeting any LDS so I’m uncertain as to what relations are like between the C of E and the LDS but I would imagine that the C of E, like the Catholic Church, would not recognize a LDS baptism as valid. Might want to check me on that one, though.

there are about 100,000 of us so you will have met some of us. Yes the c of e do not recognise our baptism. the relationship varies from vicar to vicar. we had a vicar at our wedding and have many c of e friends, and also catholic, muslim, friends.

so we do differ in somethings but not as many as you think and we could argue about them forever but that would neither build your or mine faith.

 

[ABalch]

originally posted by Paul Barlow

**No you missunderstood me he was a catholic priest who married a catholic lady. He has not left the church but has been banned from the sacarements. they have been shunned by there local parishes and are forced to worship in a different Diosise (think i spelt that wrong.). So as he is lawfully married he should be allowed to practice (they did not break the law of chastity before marrage **

This then gets into the breaking of a solemn vow. As you say that the Catholic priest was a priest before he married, that would have meant that he took a vow upon being ordained to the preisthood that he would remain celibate. By choosing to marry, he chose to break that vow he made to God. I believe on a few other posts I have seen you defend the keeping a mormon doctrine on the basis of it being a vow, or a convenant between the mormon and God. Don’t you consider it at all wrong to violate a solemn vow you made to someone, let alone God? A man that heeds the calling to enter Holy Orders makes the vow of celibacy in the Catholic Church. Every man entering Holy Orders understands that this is a vow they must keep. As some people have already pointed out, the priest is choosing to “marry” the Church, and have no other bride.

a man who enters the Catholic Church, and is currently married, may, with approval, become a priest. The priest vows that when his spouse dies, he will not remarry. So, if his wife passes on, he will from that point forward be held to the same vow of celibacy as the unmarried priest.

On a practical note, I think most people would have to aggree that being that most priest live in a communal habitation with other priests and/or brothers, that bringing a wife and family into that arrangement would not be the best solution. You also could expect that being the calling of the priesthood consumes much of a person’s time, that the priest would have a lot of pressure put upon his marriage and parenting, if he has children, by the requirements of the priesthood. So, there are good reasons for maintining the priestly vow of celibacy.

 

[paul_barlow]

ABalch:

originally posted by Paul Barlow

**No you missunderstood me he was a catholic priest who married a catholic lady. He has not left the church but has been banned from the sacarements. they have been shunned by there local parishes and are forced to worship in a different Diosise (think i spelt that wrong.). So as he is lawfully married he should be allowed to practice (they did not break the law of chastity before marrage **

This then gets into the breaking of a solemn vow. As you say that the Catholic priest was a priest before he married, that would have meant that he took a vow upon being ordained to the preisthood that he would remain celibate. By choosing to marry, he chose to break that vow he made to God. I believe on a few other posts I have seen you defend the keeping a mormon doctrine on the basis of it being a vow, or a convenant between the mormon and God. Don’t you consider it at all wrong to violate a solemn vow you made to someone, let alone God? A man that heeds the calling to enter Holy Orders makes the vow of celibacy in the Catholic Church. Every man entering Holy Orders understands that this is a vow they must keep. As some people have already pointed out, the priest is choosing to “marry” the Church, and have no other bride.

a man who enters the Catholic Church, and is currently married, may, with approval, become a priest. The priest vows that when his spouse dies, he will not remarry. So, if his wife passes on, he will from that point forward be held to the same vow of celibacy as the unmarried priest.

On a practical note, I think most people would have to aggree that being that most priest live in a communal habitation with other priests and/or brothers, that bringing a wife and family into that arrangement would not be the best solution. You also could expect that being the calling of the priesthood consumes much of a person’s time, that the priest would have a lot of pressure put upon his marriage and parenting, if he has children, by the requirements of the priesthood. So, there are good reasons for maintining the priestly vow of celibacy.

thats fine i know you don’t belive me but i am asking for an honest reason.
clearly he is no longer a priest or is he? I was not implying he could move his wife in with the other priests that would be a bit difficult. So how could he repent without divorcing his wife.

the other churches don’t seem to have any problem with there priests having families and doing there duties. even our bishops do that with hundreds of children.

from what i can find on the net being celibate in the catholic church began in about 1100. (this from a very protestant site) one reason being the problem of the children claiming the property of the father the other i could not even understand. so is this true or not.

 

[MEP]

paul barlow:

thats fine i know you don’t belive me but i am asking for an honest reason.
clearly he is no longer a priest or is he? I was not implying he could move his wife in with the other priests that would be a bit difficult. So how could he repent without divorcing his wife.

He can repent without divorcing his wife. Repentence doesn’t mean “backsies” or something. It’s not like you repent and everything suddenly returns to the way it was before you sinned. He can repent of his sins, but that won’t make him a priest again.

Repentence saves you from eternal punishment, not temporal punishment. Temporal punishment are those consequences of our actions that can’t be avoided. It’s not really fair to refer to it as “punishment” all the time, it’s simply what happens when you do something wrong.

If a drunk driver kills a family of five, serves his time and then repents for what he did, he is forgiven. But that family ain’t comin’ back, and he’s going to have to live with that.

If a priest marries, he has broken a vow he made to God. If he then divorces his wife, he is breaking another vow. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Now, he’s married. He’s no longer a priest. He can be forgiven for breaking his vow of celibacy (and should be), but he’s not a priest anymore. That ship has sailed. He has chosen (made a willful decision) to make a new vow to his wife. He’d better keep it, because he gave up the priesthood to make that vow. He can repent for breaking his vow to the church and he can be forgiven for that. But he won’t ever be a priest again.

If the church is actually denying this man access to the sacraments as you say they are, then there has to be something you’re not telling us. There has to be some other part of this story that either you aren’t aware of or you aren’t aware of its significance and therefore don’t see why he’s in this situation. But simply leaving the priesthood to get married is not enough to warrant that kind of treatment.

If he is publicly claiming that the church should allow him to get married as a priest and refuses to say otherwise, then he is potentially guilty of heresy (I say “potentially” for a good reason, because I won’t accuse someone of that without knowing the full story and it’s likely that he isn’t). If he tells other people that he should be allowed to get married after becoming a priest and then remain a priest, then he is contradicting Church doctrine. That could be the real problem here. It could be that leaving the priesthood and getting married is not the reason why he is being denied the sacraments as you describe.