Mormon baptism validity

[FrDavid96]

TOmNossor:

who is consubstantial with the Father. That would be an error.

Or perhaps you just didn’t read what I said.

Charity, TOm

No, my friend, you are in manifest error.

Jesus Christ is One in Being with the Father.

Us humans are NOT One in Being with the Son - that is heresy, some sort of pantheism.

Please show me where the CCC says we are One in Being (consubstantial) with the Son.

Yes, we are.

This is basic Incarnation Theology.

The Son took-on human nature–ergo, He became “of the same substance” as any other human being (while still preserving His Divine Nature in the hypostatic union). Although we do not typically use the word “consubstantial” in describing this (reserving that word instead to describing the Son and Father as consubstantial or homoousias) the dogma of it is undeniable.

So yes, Catholic theology does indeed say that human beings and the Son are consubstantial. To say otherwise is to deny the Incarnation itself.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Gazelam already produced, the Council of Chalcedon is where this truth

Gazelam is a Mormon who denies the Catholic Faith, he has no authority to speak on Catholic dogma.

@TomNossor are you a Catholic Christian?

Spyridon,
I am also a LDS.
That being said, Gazelam and I are correct about the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and you are mistaken.
Jesus Christ is consubstantial with Gazelam and me and you as was taught at the Council of Chalcedon.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Spyridon:

TOmNossor:

who is consubstantial with the Father. That would be an error.

Or perhaps you just didn’t read what I said.

Charity, TOm

No, my friend, you are in manifest error.

Jesus Christ is One in Being with the Father.

Us humans are NOT One in Being with the Son - that is heresy, some sort of pantheism.

Please show me where the CCC says we are One in Being (consubstantial) with the Son.

Yes, we are.

This is basic Incarnation Theology.

The Son took-on human nature–ergo, He became “of the same substance” as any other human being (while still preserving His Divine Nature in the hypostatic union). Although we do not typically use the word “consubstantial” in describing this (reserving that word instead to describing the Son and Father as consubstantial or homoousias) the dogma of it is undeniable.

So yes, Catholic theology does indeed say that human beings and the Son are consubstantial. To say otherwise is to deny the Incarnation itself.

Thank you FrDavid96.
Feel free to quality check my coming historical relaying of this and why I think Catholic Christians regularly deny this truth here at Catholic Answers.
Charity, TOm

 

[Spyridon]

Son took-on human nature–ergo, He became “of the same substance” as any other human being (while still preserving His Divine Nature in the hypostatic union). Although we do not typically use the word “consubstantial

Aha, I was only thinking of the eternal Son, I got tunnel vision about our nature being assumed and transfigured in the Person of Christ, and so by virtue of the Incarnation and the hypostatic Union of the Son, we can rightly say we are consubstantial with the Son.

So that then makes me think @FrDavid96, since the Father and Son are consubstantial, and since we are Consubstantial with the Son, does it not also follow that we then are consubstantial with the Father and Spirit as well?

If not, why not?

I apologize @TOmNossor, it was I who was in manifest error, and I retract any previous statements I made which are not in full conformity with Church doctrine.

 

[FrDavid96]

So that then makes me think @FrDavid96, since the Father and Son are consubstantial, and since we are Consubstantial with the Son, does it not also follow that we then are consubstantial with the Father and Spirit as well?

If not, why not?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial with each other with regard to their Divine Nature.

The Son and men are consubstantial with regard to His (and our) human nature.

In the hypostatic union, the one Person of Christ preserves both Natures (substances, ousia).

In other words, it is not the entire Christ Who is “consubstantial with the Father” but rather the Divine Nature which is Consubstantial with the Father (caution: in so far as it is possible to say “not the entire Christ” without denying the hypostatic union—the words can easily trip us if we’re not careful).

In the hypostatic union, the two natures are united, but not combined (ie not mixed into a 3rd nature). Exactly because they are not combined, we can still make that distinction and then not say that we humans are consubstantial with the Father.

 

[TOmNossor]

gazelam:

Gazelam,

It is Catholic dogma that you and I are consubstantial with with Jesus Christ.

_I have seen Catholics deny it, but that is because they do not know their history (or their current dogma for that matter)._

This issue much more complex than most folks (Catholic and non-Catholic) know.

@gazelam This is what TOm wrote: ^^^ We have never taught we are consubstantial with Jesus Christ and it has never been dogma. You may not agree with Catholics on this issue, but it doesn’t make your opinion fact, only your opinion.

@Horton
@gazelam
@Spyridon
@FrDavid96

I said to Gazelam that this was a complex issue and that Catholics would make mistakes here. Here is how I see the history.
FrDavid98, I would love comments, challenges, or corrections on this.

Consubstantial is the Latin word for the Greek Homoousian (you will see the Greek transliterated in a number of ways, Homoousios is another).

At the Council of Nicea where the Fathers were concerned about defending Christ’s DIVINITY, the group Athanasius was a part of needed a word that the Arians would not be able to embrace while still holding their view. A proposal of scripture only words was rejected because the Arians looked comfortable with it.
The word Homoousian was a hard sell at Nicea because it was the word used by the Modalists decades earlier. The Modalist were condemned as heretics and their language was really condemned too. They said that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian. They meant that God the Father and God the Son were the same PERSON who just manifested himself in different MODES. This was a heresy (still is a heresy in the Catholic Church today).
But, the Council of Nicea ultimately accepted the word Homoousain. A small number of Bishops (2 of 325 I think) refused to accept it. Most of the Bishops embraced the term Homoousian as Eusebius (of Caesarea, the historian) embraced it. He wrote to his church that Christ was Homoousian with the Father just as a human father and son are Homoousian. A smaller number of bishops (and probably Athanasius the priest and orthodox hero at and after the council) seem to have embraced a meaning of Homoousian that could not be said of a human father and son. But, Athanasius specifically said that those who thought as Eusebius of Caesarea were not to be condemned like the Arianomanics (this was written sometime after the council). The council closed and the debate raged for many decades.
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Fast forward to Chalcedon. The fathers at Chalcedon claimed that Christ was homoousian with God the Father in His divinity and homoousian with mankind in his humanity. This use of the term “homoousian” at least for the second half of the sentence is the same as Eusebius of Caesarea used the term.
This usage (scholars call it homoousian in the “generic” sense) is seldom employed in Catholic and Protestant circles today. Most uses of the term homoousian (and consubstantial) are the “numeric” sense. That is because if you say that God the Father and God the Son are homoousian in the generic sense ONLY, you do not adequately guard against polytheism. So when Catholics are taught the Latin term “consubstantial” the meaning is typically the numeric sense.
That being said, the “generic” sense cannot be completely ignored because it is necessary when describing the incarnation of Christ.

There are many other difficulties in this area.
The Greek terms associate with English “participate” and “partake” get rapped up in this discussion too.
And the term “hypostasis” which is often translated “person” has an interesting history at Nicea that is inconsistent with its use later and today.

While I think there are historical difficulties illustrated by all of this, SOME of the problems are just due to the evolution of language. There is wisdom in the Catholic use of Latin as a dead language that evolves much less than ancient Greek (or ancient Latin).
Charity, TOm

 

[FrDavid96]

I said to Gazelam that this was a complex issue and that Catholics would make mistakes here. Here is how I see the history.
FrDavid98, I would love comments, challenges, or corrections on this.

Yes. That’s a fair summary of the points you decided to make. Of course, there’s much more to this beyond what you addressed.

Language did indeed prove to be a problem. Words simply did not translate across cultures in the ancient world any more than they do in the modern one.

The Greeks said one thing. The Latins heard something else. The Egyptians said one thing, the Latins and Greeks heard something else. It went on and on and on…

It even continues to today. The old 1960s ICEL translation of the Creed “one in being with the Father” took 50 years to correct. And the truly frightening thing is that so many Catholics want to drop “consubstantial” and go back to “one in being” because it’s easier to say! What a sad state of affairs indeed.

 

[lilypadrees]

lilypadrees:

Therefore, Jesus was born with two natures, one fully Divine, the other fully human.

That’s what I was always taught when I was a Mormon.

If you were taught that Jesus was born with two natures, it is only so that you could go out during your 2 yr missionary work and convert others. It wasn’t out of a true belief.

Mormons believe that Jesus only became a god after dying. Mormons are taught that. The Mormon religion is full of contradictions. They’ll say what you want to hear in order to get you to believe their teachings come straight from (the real) God when they don’t. If you convert, they’ve hooked you and you only learn their real beliefs later.

 

[Lemuel]

I honestly don’t think that was the reason. I don’t remember ever once on my mission even talking about that. The missionaries pretty much stick to the script and that was not part of it. Mormons struggle with the truth and their doctrines are confusing and contradictory. I think they really believe that Jesus Christ was both human and divine.

 

[lilypadrees]

The Mormons I’ve spoken to about it deny that He has two natures, one of them being Divine. They say that He only became a god after the other gods voted Him in like they voted His Father into the godhood (not Godhead).

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

You were taught when you were a LDS that Christ had two natures?

Do you have any documentation for this teaching?

Charity, TOm

ETB taught this in general conference:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and powers of His Eternal Father.

Lemuel,
I apologize for not getting to this sooner. Ex-Mormons (and Anti-Mormons) who do not get LDS thought correct is not the most interesting thing happening on this thread.
Having divine attributes and human attributes because of Christ’s mixed parentage is not the Catholic doctrine of dual natures. It is something LDS say.
I can understand how you thought they were equivalent.
As Gazelem and Horton discuss later, the LDS view is closer to the red + blue = green AND the Catholic view being fully red and fully blue. That being said, there is much more going on here and I would NOT say that the BEST way (from a LDS perspective) of defining Christ is analogous to “green.”

Many lines of thought within historic Christianity posited that the “DIVINE ATTRIBUTES” were the antithesis of the “HUMAN ATTRIBUTES.” We see this in the scriptures when it is said that God is not like a man in that He does not change. As Christians and Jews tried to use the language of their thought world to explain what the scriptures meant, this idea of antithesis lead to many divine attributes that COULD not be possess by the same person / nature. The solution to this difficulty was the dual nature of Christ.

LDS thought has not defined divinity as the anti-thesis of humanity. Christ is the exemplar of divinity AND the exemplar of humanity. Humanity perfected is divinity. In LDS thought “-ousia” is not the designator of divinity. “Divinity as such” to my knowledge has received little discussion from general authorities, but the Exploring Mormon Thought book series is a great resource.

I think I will close here.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Lemuel:

lilypadrees:

Therefore, Jesus was born with two natures, one fully Divine, the other fully human.

That’s what I was always taught when I was a Mormon.

If you were taught that Jesus was born with two natures, it is only so that you could go out during your 2 yr missionary work and convert others. It wasn’t out of a true belief.

Mormons believe that Jesus only became a god after dying. Mormons are taught that. The Mormon religion is full of contradictions. They’ll say what you want to hear in order to get you to believe their teachings come straight from (the real) God when they don’t. If you convert, they’ve hooked you and you only learn their real beliefs later.

@Lemuel
@lilypadrees
Thanks to Lemuel for expressing that he does not believe that he was encouraged to teach not “out of true belief” to somehow “convert others.” I do not believe this happened here and I do not believe it happens much at all.
Lily, as Gazelam pointed out earlier in this thread and as I have tried to make explicit in my last post, there is a misunderstanding present as Lemuel tries to understand his new Catholicism based on his previous Mormonism.
There is no dishonesty (not on Lemuel’s part or on the part of the church).

I encourage YOU to not look for dishonesty at every turn. Theology does not hold the same place within the CoJCoLDS as it does within the Catholic Church. As a lover of theology, I am sometimes sad about this. But, it is true. If you want to compare LDS thought with Catholic thought, I recommend the Exploring Mormon Thought series. If you want to go slowly, you and I can deal with it 1 thought at time in our discussions.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons struggle with the truth and their doctrines are confusing and contradictory. I think they really believe that Jesus Christ was both human and divine.

Yes, I have to agree. I’ve had Mormons claim they will become a God in the same way that Jesus was a man and became God. But when asked, “then why is Christ special compared to any other human?” The answers seem to imply some kind of divinity in Christ. So Christ has a kind of special divine-ishness, but any man can do what Christ and the Father did even though every man is not divine-ish.

To the point of the thread: A Mormon baptizing with this thought in mind is not giving a Christian baptism.

 

[Lemuel]

Yesterday, in RCIA, the Deacon who was teaching the class said that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms, which means a baptism performed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I would have liked him to have been a little more clear about that, because the Mormons also baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy (Ghost). So, I think there’s more to it than just the words that are said. They have made it really clear to me that Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptisms, which I’m actually happy about.

 

[gazelam]

@Lemuel
@Stephen168
@lilypadrees
@TOmNossor
@FrDavid96
@Horton
@Spyridon
@fredystairs
@twf
@runningdude

Everyone,
This has been most remarkable thread!! Thank you to everyone for your comments and especially for the new information on Catholic uses of “consubstantial”, Incarnation Theology, the history of language at the Council of Nicea, and translation issues. I can’t think of a better thread on CAF in which I’ve personally participated. As a thank you I’ll share something I’ve come across recently regarding the original meaning of the word “grace”.

It’s found here: Op-ed: The Mormon restoration and the meaning of grace - Deseret News

And just to wet your respective whistles I’ll share this paragraph:

Indeed, the word used consistently for grace in the ancient Greek Bible is charis. It has an unexpected meaning. That original meaning became obscure, centuries ago, when it was translated into Latin as gratia. That word meant “pleasantness,” or “favor,” and that makes it look to us like the English word “gratitude.” Gratia eventually evolved in modern Western culture to mean gratis or gratuitously given — with no strings attached. But the original meaning of the Greek word charis involved a relationship between two people — a patron and a devoted client. They gave gifts reciprocally to or for each other’s benefit.

Although I haven’t delved into this topic any more than reading the article, it has already helped me have a new perspective when doing church assignments - turning a mundane assignment into a returning of a small gift to Christ as part of the bargain or covenant I agreed to when He gave a huge gift to me.

Anyway, thanks again for the enlightening thread!

 

[gazelam]

@Vico
@Kei
@had_matter
@PaulfromIowa
@Benadam
@BT3241

Including the other 6 participants since only 10 are allowed per comment… Please see my previous comment.

 

[Stephen168]

Yesterday, in RCIA, the Deacon who was teaching the class said that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms, which means a baptism performed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I would have liked him to have been a little more clear about that, because the Mormons also baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy (Ghost). So, I think there’s more to it than just the words that are said.

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), Mormonism rejects the Christian belief saying they are three beings.
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.

 

[Benadam]

So a Mormon, hypothetical thing here, a person wanted to be baptized Catholic, for whatever reason, no one is around and no way to get it otherwise, it’s the Mormon doin’ it or it isn’t happening.

The Mormon decides to do it. And knows his intention needs to be a baptism that does what a Catholic Baptism.

A Mormon is going to be conceptualizing a Mormon baptism. Or maybe thoughts of " a catholic baptism doesn’t really do anything, this should be a real baptism, well same words maybe it is a Mormon baptism even though I am just doing it to make this guy feel better"

Would those kinds of thought obstruct the intention?

 

[runningdude]

The thing to remember is that Mormonism is not ontologically Christian, because its members are not validly baptized