Mormon baptism validity

[FrDavid96]

Yesterday, in RCIA, the Deacon who was teaching the class said that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms, …

He probably should have used the word “most” rather than “all.”

Still, there are 2 ways of taking that sentence.

If it’s not a valid baptism, then (in the Church’s language) it’s not a baptism at all.

Yes, we recognize “all Christian baptisms” because if they aren’t baptisms, we don’t recognize them.

On the other hand, we do not recognize “all Christian attempts at baptism.” Because some people who call themselves Christian (and we do likewise) do not have valid baptismal forms. Put another way “if it’s not a baptism, we don’t call it a baptism.” So it’s rather convenient to then say “we recognize all baptisms.”

Some diocese publish lists of communities who either do or do not practice valid baptism. I’ve seen a few of these. When it comes to the numerically small communities, these lists will vary greatly from one part of the country to another, reflecting how prevalent that community might be in that area. By way of example, there might be a local denomination of 25,000 people who are only present in California, so they aren’t on the list for a diocese in New England.

So yes, the deacon could have (perhaps should have) been more clear and provided more details, but in the context of an RCIA class, we can only go so far because time is limited.

 

[FrDavid96]

Vico in post #9 does a good job explaining the difference between a Christian and non-Christian (Mormon & Islam) baptism. The difference is who the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are? Christians say they are one in being (consubstantial),

That’s still not necessarily the case. It’s not about “consubstantial” because we DO recognize as valid the baptisms of non-Calcedonian Christians (aka Oriental Orthodox). Most Baptists would probably reject the idea of consubstantial as well (ie refuse to discuss it because “it’s not in the bible”).

Mormonism rejects the Christian belief saying they are three beings

It goes deeper than that.

FrDavid96 in post #12 explains more about the difference in intent of the persons performing a Christian baptism. A Mormon would not intend to preform a Christian baptism.

We cannot make blanket statements like that. There are probably Mormons out there who work at Catholic hospitals who would agree to do a Catholic baptism of an infant in an emergency. We cannot just lump all people together and say “no one would do it.”

 

[Stephen168]

It goes deeper than that.

Yes, I was trying to briefly answer why it would be that just using the same words for baptism would not necessarily make a Christian baptism. If I remember correctly, the Vatican spokesman talked more about the Mormon faith when asked to clarify the official answer to the question of Mormon baptism. What are your thoughts on that?

We cannot make blanket statements like that. There are probably Mormons out there who work at Catholic hospitals who would agree to do a Catholic baptism of an infant in an emergency. We cannot just lump all people together and say “no one would do it.”

In attempting to briefly answer the question, I was thinking about the OP. So I was thinking of a smaller blanket in that a Mormon would not intend to give a Christian baptism to someone who wanted to be Mormon. Therefore, someone born and raised Mormon would have to be baptized to enter the Catholic Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I was trying to briefly answer why it would be that just using the same words for baptism would not necessarily make a Christian baptism. If I remember correctly, the Vatican spokesman talked more about the Mormon faith when asked to clarify the official answer to the question of Mormon baptism. What are your thoughts on that?

I would say “yes, of course.”

In attempting to briefly answer the question, I was thinking about the OP. So I was thinking of a smaller blanket in that a Mormon would not intend to give a Christian baptism to someone who wanted to be Mormon. Therefore, someone born and raised Mormon would have to be baptized to enter the Catholic Church.

Surely, if someone wanted a Mormon baptism, then the Mormon performing it would do a Mormon baptism. That goes without saying. And, such would not be a Christian baptism.

Yes, someone who received a Mormon baptism would have to be baptized in order to enter the Church.

The OP did specifically ask whether or not a “Mormon emergency baptism” would be valid. (See the last sentence in the OP). So that does need to be addressed. There is a difference between the two ideas of a “Mormon baptism” and a “baptism performed by a Mormon”—given the context of the OPs question.

 

[Stephen168]

I would say “yes, of course.”

Surely, if someone wanted a Mormon baptism, then the Mormon performing it would do a Mormon baptism. That goes without saying. And, such would not be a Christian baptism.

Yes, someone who received a Mormon baptism would have to be baptized in order to enter the Church.

The OP did specifically ask whether or not a “Mormon emergency baptism” would be valid. (See the last sentence in the OP). So that does need to be addressed. There is a difference between the two ideas of a “Mormon baptism” and a “baptism performed by a Mormon”—given the context of the OPs question.

Right, but I was trying to answer Lemuel’s question which seemed like the first question in the OP. Why are Mormon baptisms not valid? It can’t just be a lack of perfect belief in the Trinity, the use of the trinitarian formula, or even the person performing it.
In the 1970’s, my Mormon friends would tell me they did not believe in the Trinity, so it was a total rejection of the Christian belief, which was more than a lack of perfect belief.
It was that question that I was asking for your thoughts; Why are Mormon baptisms not valid?

 

[FrDavid96]

…
It was that question that I was asking for your thoughts; Why are Mormon baptisms not valid?

Here’s a good explanation

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...oc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

 

[Stephen168]

Thank You. It was a very informative article.

It seems the reasons a Mormon baptism is invalid is:

1. They don’t believe in the trinity
2. They don’t believe in the baptism instituted by Christ, because it predates Christ. Therefore, not a participation in his death and resurrection.

Also with two areas of concern:

1. It can be withheld from humans without the capacity for reason
2. They rebaptize.

 

[Lemuel]

They rebaptize.

Another one of those things that the Mormon schizophrenic God can’t make up his mind about. In the early church, they used to be baptized multiple times as a sign of re-dedication. Now God won’t let them do it.

 

[gazelam]

@FrDavid96

Is it true that the Catholic Church does not determine who is Christian, but only who has a valid Christian baptism (or perhaps which baptisms are valid)?

I ask because I heard it on this video:

(if you care to listen it’s stated between minute 29:00 and 30:30)

I haven’t been able to find anything that confirms the speaker’s assertion. Thanks in advance!!

 

[FrDavid96]

@FrDavid96

Is it true that the Catholic Church does not determine who is Christian, but only who has a valid Christian baptism (or perhaps which baptisms are valid)?

I ask because I heard it on this video:

(if you care to listen it’s stated between minute 29:00 and 30:30)

I haven’t been able to find anything that confirms the speaker’s assertion. Thanks in advance!!

This is one of those times where the answer really is “it depends on what you mean by the question.”

Let me explain:

The Church does indeed define who is a member of the Church. Anyone baptized (or received) into the Catholic Church is a Catholic. Also, the Church does define a “baptized Christian” as one who has received a valid Christian baptism. That might seem obvious, but it’s not—some people who believe firmly in Christ have never been baptised. The times when this matters is when some sacrament or discipline of the Church is at issue. So, for marriage purposes, a non-Catholic is either “baptized” or “non-baptized” regardless of that person’s own beliefs. Someone entering into membership of the Catholic Church is either baptized or not. However, the Church does not really define “who is a Christian” but rather “who is a baptized Christian” and even then, only when there is some reason to investigate the status of an individual person.

The Church does say that non-Catholics who believe in Christ are united to the Church by their faith in Christ, and especially by their baptism. But, at the same time, does not say that only the baptized are Christians; admitting that not all followers practice baptism. So baptized Christians are closer to the Church than non-baptized ones.

This is important: The Church does not evaluate the status of any non-Catholic person unless there is some reason to do so. If someone wants a Catholic marriage, then the Church investigates that person’s baptismal status. If someone wants to become a Catholic, the Church investigates. This is always done on an individual basis—so even though we can say “Lutherans have valid baptism” if a Lutheran wants to marry a Catholic, it is the status of that individual person that gets investigated, not just the label “Lutheran.”

So yes, what the speaker said is correct. The Church looks at individual persons (not groups) to determine who is or is-not a baptized Christian, and only does so if there is a particular reason.

Having said that, I must caution against someone who’s going to reduce what I said above to an absurdity. The Church certainly does recognize the reality that there are groups of Christians (ecclesial communities) out there. So yes, we can make very general statements like “Lutherans are Christians” or “Methodists are Christians” or “Buddhists are not Christian.”

 

[gazelam]

Thank you for the prompt response!!

This thread is becoming legendary…