RCC Changes Stance on LDS Baptism - Questions for Zerinus

[OHCAC]

In the “Did the Pope say Mormonism was a Sect” thread on the Non-Catholic Forum, a LDS poster, Zerinus, brought up a post he’d written on his blog (Mormon FAQ) regarding the somewhat recent decision by the Church to no longer accept LDS baptism as valid. I want to delve into his post and ask some questions. Please jump in - unfortunately to get the full gist you have to do a little reading outside this thread. Here’s the link to Zerinus’ post zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/08/rcc-not-recognizing-lds-baptism.html.

The main questions in the post are “…why the Catholic Church …has decided to go against its long held practice of recognizing the baptisms performed by other churches; and why it has made that decision, with regard to the LDS Church, now?" Zerinus then goes on to give answers to those questions. An important part of the post is an explanation of why the RCC made this change given by Fr. Luis Ladaria (link - ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm) .

I have several questions but I’ll start with just a few:

1. Zerinus posits that “The main reason for making that decision I believe was in retaliation to the LDS policy of not recognizing the validity (of) their (RCC) baptism!”

Q: Why do you think this was retaliation Zerinus and not the church now focusing its attention on how very different our baptisms are in terms of Form, the intention of the celebrating minister and the disposition of the recipient as Fr. Ladaria points out? Do you have any evidence that the decision was motivated by retaliation or is that speculation on your part?

1. Zerinus says that no church outside LDS has the proper priesthood authority to conduct baptism so all non-LDS baptisms are invalid – nothing new there. But then goes on with “If the Catholic Church was to recognize LDS baptisms, that would amount to a tacit acknowledgement of the authority under which it is performed; which would in turn amount to **negating their own! **The theological basis of LDS baptism would necessitate that. It is either Catholic baptism or the LDS one. It can’t be both. (his emphasis)”

Q: The RCC **has **accepted LDS baptism in the past (not anymore) as well as baptism of non-LDS churches so I don’t understand how you arrive at by such recognition the RCC negates her own baptisms. Please explain more about how you arrive at that conclusion as I don’t follow your logic.

The ordinary ministers of RCC Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon (catechism #1256). But the sacrament isn’t about priesthood authority, for RCC it is a gift from God that infuses grace into the recipient for the remission of original and personal sin.

Q: Assuming you understand this about RCC baptism, how do you conclude that it’s an either/or proposition? This may factor into LDS theology but what does that have to do with RCC theology about baptism?

 

[rpp]

The Z man is not comfortable in any role except the victim. Everything happens because people are out to get the Mormons. Hence, he is unable to comprehend that it is theological and doctrinal issues that lead the Church to clarify the issue of Mormon “baptisms”. This is just more of the same.

For one thing, he appears to intentionally ignore the fact that anyone, including lay people and even non-Christians, can perform a valid baptism provided they use the Trinitarian formula , “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” and this this is accompanied but the pouring, sprinkling or immersion in water.

Since the Mormon Church does not teach the Trinity the same way that the much of the rest of Christianity does. Their baptism, which also does not follow the above formula, is invalid. Period. That is it. Thus his assertion that recognizing LDS “baptisms” would somehow lend recognize the “power” of LDS “clergy” is without merit.

He also ignores the recent admonition by the Church that some of the modern formulas like “In the name Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier” are also invalid. This created problems in some parishes in Australia and elsewhere where people had to get re-baptized because of liberal priests failing to use the proper formula.

Another point about Z is that he also ignores the fact that the Church does not recognize baptisms performed by the Unitarian Church or JW because they also fail to use the Trinitarian formula.

Frankly, Z has demonstrated repeatedly over the years that he cannot be trusted to evaluate issues and reliably convey facts. In fact, I would not even consider him a credible source about the teachings and practices of the LDS church either. Instead he attempts to creates conflict where there is none, and holds himself and the LDS church out to be be victims of a cruel world whose primary, even singular, goal is to persecute the LDS Church. Such a warped approach will only result in error. Which we see repeatedly.

So in Z’s world, it can never be about doctrine, only about “retaliation”.

 

[zerinus]

I have several questions but I’ll start with just a few:

1. Zerinus posits that “The main reason for making that decision I believe was in retaliation to the LDS policy of not recognizing the validity (of) their (RCC) baptism!”

Q: Why do you think this was retaliation Zerinus and not the church now focusing its attention on how very different our baptisms are in terms of Form, the intention of the celebrating minister and the disposition of the recipient as Fr. Ladaria points out? Do you have any evidence that the decision was motivated by retaliation or is that speculation on your part?

It is a speculation; but a necessary and unavoidable speculation. Since the Catholic Church has not given an official explanation for their decision, it becomes interesting, as a purely academic exercise if nothing else, to try to analyze, understand and explain the possible reasons behind it. Several people have made that attempt, including Fr. Ladaria and Jordan Vajda; and I think that I am as much entitled to make that attempt as anybody else is. If the RCC really want to end the speculation, that is easy. Provide an official explanation, and the speculation will end.

But to answer your main question, I think that retaliation (you can call it “countermeasure” if you like) was part of the motivation, not all of it. I think that another factor was involved which I have already explained in my Blog. I reject Fr. Ladaria’s explanation because it is theologically and historically inconsistent and contradictory, for the reasons already explained. What makes the Catholic Church’s decision even more suspicious is the fact that previous to their making that decision, representation was made to the Congregation for the Doctrine if the Faith by another Catholic priest in the US, Rev. A.J.V, to not recognize LDS baptisms. The Catholic Church had at that time rejected his plea after they had carried out an “in-depth examination” of all the points raised. So unless the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith doesn’t know how to do their job properly, it seems very strange that they should have missed the point when they first carried out the examination of the case, and then suddenly discovered it a couple of years later. There is something odd going on here. Have you heard of “circumstantial evidence”? The evidence for my arguments is circumstantial, but I think it is strong, and provids a better explanation of the events than Fr. Ladaria’s explanation. If you don’t agree with my conclusions you have that choice. But I like my own analysis of the case better.

1. Zerinus says that no church outside LDS has the proper priesthood authority to conduct baptism so all non-LDS baptisms are invalid – nothing new there. But then goes on with “If the Catholic Church was to recognize LDS baptisms, that would amount to a tacit acknowledgement of the authority under which it is performed; which would in turn amount to **negating their own! **The theological basis of LDS baptism would necessitate that. It is either Catholic baptism or the LDS one. It can’t be both. (his emphasis)”

Q: The RCC **has **accepted LDS baptism in the past (not anymore) as well as baptism of non-LDS churches so I don’t understand how you arrive at by such recognition the RCC negates her own baptisms. Please explain more about how you arrive at that conclusion as I don’t follow your logic.

I think that was one of the theological factors that they would have considered in their deliberations over that decision. I don’t think it was the only factor. And I am not claiming to know for a fact that that was a reason. I am guessing like everyone else is. But I think that my guesses are good ones. If you are looking for the theological reasoning behind it, it is the same as the one I have given in my Blog.

The ordinary ministers of RCC Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon (catechism #1256). But the sacrament isn’t about priesthood authority, for RCC it is a gift from God that infuses grace into the recipient for the remission of original and personal sin.

Q: Assuming you understand this about RCC baptism, how do you conclude that it’s an either/or proposition? This may factor into LDS theology but what does that have to do with RCC theology about baptism?

I know that in the RCC the sacramental nature of Baptism is confused and compromised, so that anybody can perform a baptism in an emergency; but baptism still remains one of the seven sacraments of the RCC, and a sacrament requires a priest to be performed. If an emergency situation doesn’t exist, a priest should still be called. I think that if carefully examined by Catholic theologians, they would find that that dilemma presents itself. But I am sure that was not the only reason, and may not even have been the main reason for their decision. I am guessing like everyone else is.

 

[scottywolf777]

I worked in RCIA for several years and on our team we never accepted baptism from any of the following churches because of the question of form etc.: Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, Unitarians etc. There was nothing about “retaliation” in any of these groups but, merely a question of validity as well as their cooperation in granting details of the baptism to discover whether it was valid or not. We had one lady who was a former Mormon who when she asked for a letter from her bishop, he sent us the most horrible “recommendation” ever. He said she was excommunicated and a reprobate, accused her of adultery, abominations, sexual abberrations, various crimes including Satanic practices etc. everything short of “saying her black matins at midnight.” The team called her in to talk to us about her bishop’s charges and she was shocked to hear what awful things he’d said about her. We of course dismissed the whole matter and let her continue in RCIA with a conditional baptism at Easter vigil and never spoke of it again.
PS Hi rpp:wave:

 

[Lancer]

1.Mormons do not believe in the Trinitarian God of three distinct and divine persons…but rather something along the line of of three personalities. They do not baptize using in the Trinitarian formula.

1. Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the Second person of the Blessed Trinity…but only that Jesus is the son of God in flesh…they do accept him as redeemer and savior but not Lord and God.
2. Mormons do not believe that baptism removes original sin.

From EWTN’s Library…a very objective and detailed look at why Mormon baptism was found to be invalid by the Catholic Church…:
ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

A concluding paragraph…for consideration:

**Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
**Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.
It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.
Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
1 August 2001, page 4 L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

My problem with Mormonism is that the whole of its foundation rests on their theory of “The Great Apostasy” – after the last apostle died…the Catholic Church became completely corrupted…ceased to be apostolic and became a pagan Church. This is their foundational doctrine. (see Beginning Apologetics 2 – by Father Chacon and Jim Burnham). Belief in “The Great Apostasy” theory/doctrine…would make Jesus’ words to Peter…

**Matt: 16:18 (KJV) **
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

…more akin to Jesus saying “have a nice day Peter”…just superfluous words by our Lord…but not very important or reliable. Also remember what Jesus taught about the foolish man who built his house on sand…and the wise man who built his on rock…then Jesus builds his Church on sand…?..yea right!

Matt 7: 24-27 (KJV)
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a** foolish man**, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

If you think/believe that the “Great Apostasy”…is feasible/true…Mormonism makes sense…if not…Mormonism is simply false at its core doctrine.

When Mormons come to my door…I focus on the fact that they do not believe that Jesus is God…the Second Person of the Trinity…the conversation always ends very quickly…friendly and charitably but it is really is quick.

Lastly, the Mormons put us to shame in practicing and sacrificing for their faith vs how lazy and selfish we Catholics (as a body of 65 million) are in practicing ours (I am first in that line). Lastly, if Mitt Romney had won the Republican nomination…he would be our President right now…I would have voted for him in a heart beat…over (now) President Obama.

Pax Christi

 

[Jesus_123]

**+ I posted this on another thread . . . thought it might help here . . . **

• … I was raised as a child in the heart of “Mormon” country here in the United States … Though I knew many Mormons as friends in school and our neighborhood . . . their belief system is known to Catholics and Protestants alike essentially as a CULT . . . and it is an immensely large one . . . and their understandings, definitions and usage of the same religious and scriptural words are RADICALLY different . . .

Definition:

 

[Religio71]

It is a speculation; but a necessary and unavoidable speculation. Since the Catholic Church has not given an official explanation for their decision, it becomes interesting, as a purely academic exercise if nothing else, to try to analyze, understand and explain the possible reasons behind it. Several people have made that attempt, including Fr. Ladaria and Jordan Vajda; and I think that I am as much entitled to make that attempt as anybody else is. If the RCC really want to end the speculation, that is easy. Provide an official explanation, and the speculation will end.

But to answer your main question, I think that retaliation (you can call it “countermeasure” if you like) was part of the motivation, not all of it. I think that another factor was involved which I have already explained in my Blog. I reject Fr. Ladaria’s explanation because it is theologically and historically inconsistent and contradictory, for the reasons already explained. What makes the Catholic Church’s decision even more suspicious is the fact that previous to their making that decision, representation was made to the Congregation for the Doctrine if the Faith by another Catholic priest in the US, Rev. A.J.V, to not recognize LDS baptisms. The Catholic Church had at that time rejected his plea after they had carried out an “in-depth examination” of all the points raised. So unless the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith doesn’t know how to do their job properly, it seems very strange that they should have missed the point when they first carried out the examination of the case, and then suddenly discovered it a couple of years later. There is something odd going on here. Have you heard of “circumstantial evidence”? The evidence for my arguments is circumstantial, but I think it is strong, and provids a better explanation of the events than Fr. Ladaria’s explanation. If you don’t agree with my conclusions you have that choice. But I like my own analysis of the case better.

I think that was one of the theological factors that they would have considered in their deliberations over that decision. I don’t think it was the only factor. And I am not claiming to know for a fact that that was a reason. I am guessing like everyone else is. But I think that my guesses are good ones. If you are looking for the theological reasoning behind it, it is the same as the one I have given in my Blog.

I know that in the RCC the sacramental nature of Baptism is confused and compromised, so that anybody can perform a baptism in an emergency; but baptism still remains one of the seven sacraments of the RCC, and a sacrament requires a priest to be performed. If an emergency situation doesn’t exist, a priest should still be called. I think that if carefully examined by Catholic theologians, they would find that that dilemma presents itself. But I am sure that was not the only reason, and may not even have been the main reason for their decision. I am guessing like everyone else is.

To be completely clear, in the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. the Western Church of the Catholic Church), the priest, bishop, AND deacon are the normal ministers of the sacrament of baptism, there sacraments do not always need a priest. True to that, marriage does not require a priest, as a deacon can be the witness of marriage in the Roman Catholic Church. It matrimony, the couple marries themselves, and NOT the minister. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the priest is the ordinary minister of baptism. Now, the fact that anyone else can baptize if necessary, as in, an emergency situation, such as in a hospital with no priest, points us to the Catholic understanding of the true nature of baptism, that is, GOD is the true minister of baptism. It is God who baptizes.

And I agree, everyone is just speculating on this issue. My speculation is just that it is based on the irregular understanding of God in the LDS Church. Therefore, the Catholic Church only accepts baptisms by those that not only use the proper Trinitarian form (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but have a proper understanding of the Trinity. Thus, let’s say there is a Hindu in a new sect, that believes that Christ is a manifestation of God (but not the only one. This is actually common), etc. They perform baptisms “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, however have an irregular understanding of who they actually are. This baptism would not be accepted by the Catholic Church, in the same way that baptisms by oneness pentecostals, jehovah’s witnesses, etc. are not accepted.

 

[scottywolf777]

This video is a good introduction to Mormon beliefs:

gloria.tv/?media=2487

 

[OHCAC]

It is a speculation; but a necessary and unavoidable speculation. Since the Catholic Church has not given an official explanation for their decision, it becomes interesting, as a purely academic exercise if nothing else, to try to analyze, understand and explain the possible reasons behind it. Several people have made that attempt, including Fr. Ladaria and Jordan Vajda; and I think that I am as much entitled to make that attempt as anybody else is. If the RCC really want to end the speculation, that is easy. Provide an official explanation, and the speculation will end.

But to answer your main question, I think that retaliation (you can call it “countermeasure” if you like) was part of the motivation, not all of it. I think that another factor was involved which I have already explained in my Blog. I reject Fr. Ladaria’s explanation because it is theologically and historically inconsistent and contradictory, for the reasons already explained. What makes the Catholic Church’s decision even more suspicious is the fact that previous to their making that decision, representation was made to the Congregation for the Doctrine if the Faith by another Catholic priest in the US, Rev. A.J.V, to not recognize LDS baptisms. The Catholic Church had at that time rejected his plea after they had carried out an “in-depth examination” of all the points raised. So unless the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith doesn’t know how to do their job properly, it seems very strange that they should have missed the point when they first carried out the examination of the case, and then suddenly discovered it a couple of years later. There is something odd going on here. Have you heard of “circumstantial evidence”? The evidence for my arguments is circumstantial, but I think it is strong, and provids a better explanation of the events than Fr. Ladaria’s explanation. If you don’t agree with my conclusions you have that choice. But I like my own analysis of the case better.

“But I like my own analysis of the case better.” Of course you do! Sorry Zerinus but you walked right into that one. Ok, so you obviously think the RCC has something to hide, or they screwed up, or the CDF doesn’t know what to do, etc. Got it.

So let’s look at two perhaps similar instance in LDS history - the change in stance on polygamy or blacks being allowed to the priesthood - take your pick. First LDS takes one position, then, apparently, they do a 180 and take the opposite position. What you have from the RCC is a pretty detailed explanation for their change - even if you reject it or think it’s a coverup. All I know of explaining the LDS change in both situations is a revelation from God. These situations have nothing to do with retaliation but this is really similar to the subject at hand because it involves a reversal of the Church’s position.

So is there any difference between those LDS situations and the RCC changing their mind on LDS baptism?

 

[Religio71]

The LDS Church still believes in plural marriage, it just has a revelation saying that it is not to be practiced now.

And vestiges of plural marriage still echo in temple sealings, and how it deals with remarriage.

 

[OHCAC]

I think that was one of the theological factors that they would have considered in their deliberations over that decision. I don’t think it was the only factor. And I am not claiming to know for a fact that that was a reason. I am guessing like everyone else is. But I think that my guesses are good ones. If you are looking for the theological reasoning behind it, it is the same as the one I have given in my Blog.

It may or may not have been one of the factors Zerinus - but that doesn’t deal with the question I asked. The question is how would the RCC accepting LDS baptism in the past somehow become, in your logic, a “…tacit acknowledgement of the authority under which it is performed; which would in turn amount to negating their own!” I don’t agree with either premise regarding a tacit acknowledgment of authority or negating their own baptisms. Please explain your logic.

 

[OHCAC]

The LDS Church still believes in plural marriage, it just has a revelation saying that it is not to be practiced now.

And vestiges of plural marriage still echo in temple sealings, and how it deals with remarriage.

Ok - but isn’t that still a reversal of practice - first the church promoted plural marriage and then, based on the revelation, they reversed their position?

Also Religio, being ex-LDS, help us understand how LDS are taught to view this situation. How is it handled if someone has doubts about it.

 

[OHCAC]

I know that in the RCC the sacramental nature of Baptism is confused and compromised, so that anybody can perform a baptism in an emergency; but baptism still remains one of the seven sacraments of the RCC, and a sacrament requires a priest to be performed. If an emergency situation doesn’t exist, a priest should still be called. I think that if carefully examined by Catholic theologians, they would find that that dilemma presents itself. But I am sure that was not the only reason, and may not even have been the main reason for their decision. I am guessing like everyone else is.

Ok Zerinus - we talked about having an open, honest and respectful conversation - you agreed to that. Are you reneging on that already? You make statements but don’t elaborate on them so let’s see what you mean.

Q: What is confused about RCC baptism? What is compromised? Please give us a detailed answer based on your understanding of RCC baptism - not as seen through a LDS lens.

Q: Why do you say a sacrament requires a priest to be performed?

 

[Religio71]

Ok - but isn’t that still a reversal of practice - first the church promoted plural marriage and then, based on the revelation, they reversed their position?

Also Religio, being ex-LDS, help us understand how LDS are taught to view this situation. How is it handled if someone has doubts about it.

Well, it is a reversal of the policy that plural marriage can be practiced. It is not a reversal of the belief that plural marriage is God-ordained. God does allow polygamy at various points in time, and now is just not the time. You can read the Revelation here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

Plural marriage is still found in the Doctrine and Covenants, part of LDS “Standard Works” of Scripture.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:58-66:

scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/58-66#58

So LDS are taught to see it as described above: That God allows plural marriage off and on, at certain points in time. So it could be allowed during the early part of LDS history, until Official Declaration #1. That is what it means to have a Prophet: that there is continuing revelation that can be given, which allows for plural marriage to be allowed then not allowed, and for blacks to be restricted from the priesthood (and thus temple Endowment), and now to be allowed the priesthood.

 

[zerinus]

“But I like my own analysis of the case better.” Of course you do! Sorry Zerinus but you walked right into that one. Ok, so you obviously think the RCC has something to hide, or they screwed up, or the CDF doesn’t know what to do, etc. Got it.

Look, I am not expecting you or anybody else to agree with or accept what I have written in my Blog. That is my personal opinion of how I think things happened, and I have given my reasons for it. If you don’t agree with it, that is okay by me, you don’t have to. If you feel strongly about that, you can even add a comment to my Blog to express your views, and disagree with me as strongly as you wish. What more do you expect me to do?

So let’s look at two perhaps similar instance in LDS history - the change in stance on polygamy or blacks being allowed to the priesthood - take your pick. First LDS takes one position, then, apparently, they do a 180 and take the opposite position. What you have from the RCC is a pretty detailed explanation for their change - even if you reject it or think it’s a coverup. All I know of explaining the LDS change in both situations is a revelation from God. These situations have nothing to do with retaliation but this is really similar to the subject at hand because it involves a reversal of the Church’s position.

So is there any difference between those LDS situations and the RCC changing their mind on LDS baptism?

Yes, there is a difference. Religio71 has given you a good answer to that question in post #14. Besides, let us suppose for arguments sake that the LDS reversal on polygamy is comparable to the Catholic reversal on LDS baptism; how does that invalidate my conclusions? That proves what exactly? That Mormonism is just as bad as Catholicism in doing U-turns? And that invalidates my argument? How?

It may or may not have been one of the factors Zerinus - but that doesn’t deal with the question I asked. The question is how would the RCC accepting LDS baptism in the past somehow become, in your logic, a “…tacit acknowledgement of the authority under which it is performed; which would in turn amount to negating their own!” I don’t agree with either premise regarding a tacit acknowledgment of authority or negating their own baptisms. Please explain your logic.

The Catholic Church is a very traditional institution. They don’t abandon their traditions, or go against them, easily. Their initial decision to recognize LDS baptisms was simply a continuation of their traditional practices. But at a certain point in time, due to various factors that came into play, they were obliged to reconsider their practices, and make changes to it. What those factors were remains a matter of speculation; but my opinions about it are those I have expressed in my Blog—which you are not obliged to agree with. I believe those factors were: (1) The LDS Church’s continued gain in prominence, especially in the US and in the American Continent, posing a more serious challenge to the Catholic Church; and (2) the combined influence of the major Protestant churches (in the US especially) to push the Catholic Church along the same direction that themselves were going. But again, that is my personal opinion. You don’t have to agree with it if you don’t want to. And I don’t feel that I have an obligation to justify it any more than I have already done.

Ok Zerinus - we talked about having an open, honest and respectful conversation - you agreed to that. Are you reneging on that already? You make statements but don’t elaborate on them so let’s see what you mean.

Q: What is confused about RCC baptism? What is compromised? Please give us a detailed answer based on your understanding of RCC baptism - not as seen through a LDS lens.

Q: Why do you say a sacrament requires a priest to be performed?

A sacrament is a rite, a ritual, that has to be performed following a certain procedure otherwise it is not considered valid. They existed in the Old Testament times as well as the New. One of the requirements of performing a valid sacrament is the possession of the priesthood. Baptism is not an exception. Jesus did not go to just anybody to be baptized, but to John, who had the priesthood and the authority from God to baptize. The priesthood is as much required for a valid baptism as for any other sacrament. But in the Catholic Church that has become confused, and they say that baptism, unlike the other sacraments does not require the priesthood. Here is a quote from the Catholic encyclopedia:

For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Decr. pro Armen., Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). Only bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer Baptism solemnly. It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical “Arcanum”, 10 Febr., 1880; see MATRIMONY). For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained. The Council of Trent anathematized those who said that all Christians could administer all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can.10). Source.

Another quote:

For all the sacraments except Baptism and Marriage, he [the minister] must be in Holy Orders. Baptism may be administered in necessity by a layman; Marriage is conferred by the Christian man and woman upon each other. All the other sacraments require a priest or bishop to be genuine or valid. Source.

That in my opinion is confusion. Baptism is a sacrament like any other, and the priesthood is required for it like any other.

 

[zerinus]

We had one lady who was a former Mormon who when she asked for a letter from her bishop, he sent us the most horrible “recommendation” ever. He said she was excommunicated and a reprobate, accused her of adultery, abominations, sexual abberrations, various crimes including Satanic practices etc. everything short of “saying her black matins at midnight.” The team called her in to talk to us about her bishop’s charges and she was shocked to hear what awful things he’d said about her.

That is a made up story. It is false.I don’t believe it. LDS bishops do not give “letters of recommendation” about people’s moral standing, and they do not divulge confidential information about Church members, even excommunicated ones.

 

[zerinus]

1. Mormons do not believe in the Trinitarian God of three distinct and divine persons…but rather something along the line of of three personalities. They do not baptize using in the Trinitarian formula.

Mormons believe in the Trinity of three distinct and divine persons.

1. Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the Second person of the Blessed Trinity…but only that Jesus is the son of God in flesh…they do accept him as redeemer and savior but not Lord and God.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is “God the Son,” the second person of the Trinity.

1. Mormons do not believe that baptism removes original sin.

That is correct, they don’t.

 

[happilycatholic]

Does the Church state an “official” position on each faith’s baptism, or does the Church state what constitutes a valid baptismand go from there?

I’ve never seen a list of faiths that the Church has deemed to have valid baptisms. I’ve only read in the Catechism what a valid baptism is. Therefore the Church could take an official position at any point in time about any given faith in question should that become necessary.

I don’t see how that would be a new revelation. IMHO, this is less about LDS and more about valid baptism. It appears that the Church didn’t just set out to pick on the LDS faith, but rather they made a decision necessary for the salvation of it’s people.

Am I wrong about this?

 

[zerinus]

Does the Church state an “official” position on each faith’s baptism, or does the Church state what constitutes a valid baptismand go from there?

I’ve never seen a list of faiths that the Church has deemed to have valid baptisms. I’ve only read in the Catechism what a valid baptism is. Therefore the Church could take an official position at any point in time about any given faith in question should that become necessary.

I don’t see how that would be a new revelation. IMHO, this is less about LDS and more about valid baptism. It appears that the Church didn’t just set out to pick on the LDS faith, but rather they made a decision necessary for the salvation of it’s people.

Am I wrong about this?

That is certainly one way of looking at it. One would expect that that should be the case. However, in the case of the Catholic change of stance regarding LDS baptisms, circumstantial evidence suggests that that is not how that decision was made. I have my own opinion about that which I have expressed in my Blog, and given my reasons for it which I think is convincing enough. You are free to disagree, and provide your counter-arguments if you wish. And others will be able to judge between the two.

 

[happilycatholic]

That is certainly one way of looking at it. One would expect that that should be the case. However, in the case of the Catholic change of stance regarding LDS baptisms, circumstantial evidence suggests that that is not how that decision was made. I have my own opinion about that which I have expressed in my Blog, and given my reasons for it which I think is convincing enough. You are free to disagree, and provide your counter-arguments if you wish. And others will be able to judge between the two.

Well, okay but what exactly bothers you about the declaration? Is it the fact that the Church considers your baptism invalid or that the Church changed its position?

Either way, I certainly understand how it might sting. When it comes down to it though, with all due respect, I doubt you care any more about whether my Church considers your baptism vaild than I do about whether your Church considers my baptism valid.

What difference does it make unless you are coming into the Church? A person such as yourself has no dog in the fight so-to-speak. You are merely pointing out what was stated 8 years ago actually. This declaration has been around a few years. What’s grieving you about it now? Or again I ask…at all?

I guess it makes for a good argument…or as we like to say debate.