RCC Changes Stance on LDS Baptism - Questions for Zerinus

[zerinus]

Thank you again Fr. Lance for your interest, and for taking the time to reply. My aim here is not to argue against Catholic doctrine, but to simply compare notes to see how we in the LDS Church do things differently.

He cannot, but he would be entrusted to our merciful God who is good and loves mankind.

LDS theology handles that kind of situation differently. If the person referred to was an infant, we think that infants don’t need any baptism at all to be saved. They are unconditionally saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ; so we do not baptize infants at all, until they reach the age of accountability, which we believe is eight years old.

If the person is an adult (and sane), then we think that baptism is necessary for salvation, and there are no exceptions to the rule. And baptism is a sacrament that can only be performed by a genuine priesthood holder. So how do we handle the case of those who desire to be baptized, but die before they get that opportunity? Or the case of those who never get the chance to hear the gospel in their lifetime at all? For us that problem is taken care of through the ordinance of baptisms for the dead.

Indeed, and one was ordained in the OT by being anointed with oil. Solemn Baptism always includes multiple anointings. The Eastern Churches always Chrismate immediately after Baptism. Baptism/Chrismation is ordination to the common holy priesthood of the baptized. This is why traditional liturgical discipline dismisses the non-baptized before the Anaphora, those not baptized, those not in the common priesthood technically have no right to be there or utter the responses to the Anaphora.

“Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5).

Chrismation in the Eastern rite I believe is equivalent to confirmation in Catholicism. It is the rite by which the gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed. We have the same rite in the LDS Church, which we also call Confirmation—but with some differences.

Firstly, in the LDS Church confirmation is performed purely by the laying on of hands, as was the case in the New Testament times. There is no anointing with oil during Confirmation. In the New Testament too I don’t recall any instance of the Holy Ghost being bestowed by any other means than the laying on of hands.

Secondly, in the LDS Church the rite of Confirmation only bestows the Holy Ghost. It does not confer any priesthood at all. That is obtained by a separate rite entirely. However, there is a “common priesthood” in the LDS Church, as you call it, in the sense that all worthy male members of the Church are able and expected to receive that ordination at the appropriate age in their lives during their membership of the Church. To quote a verse from the Bible: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Latter-day Saints are indeed a “royal priesthood,” but that priesthood is not obtained willy-nilly by the rite of baptism or even confirmation. It has its own rite and sacrament by which it is bestowed. Confirmation is given to both sexes, whereas ordination to the priesthood is applies exclusively to males. How does your Chrismation confer the priesthood, when priesthood is only given to males?

As a matter of interest, you might like to know that we do not use oil in the rite of consecration either. That also is done purely by the laying on of hands. Oil was indeed used in the Old Testament when Aaron was ordained; but there is no indication that it was in the New Testament. The only sacrament for which the use of oil is mentioned in the New Testament is the rite of blessing the sick, and that is the only rite in the LDS Church (outside the temple) for which oil is used. We have additional rites performed only in our temples for which also oil is used.

 

[zerinus]

I think Religio71 gave you a good answer - does that answer your question?

I guess I’m a little confused as to what your question is. Your friend baptized a baby she didn’t think needed to be baptized because she believed it was going to heaven anyway. The mother wanted the baptism because she thought it necessary and by your friend doing it it was completed. The RCC believes your friend does have the authority to do it - so no problem - unless she’d have done it as a LDS baptism - which I doubt she did.

So no harm, no foul - all’s good - what am I missing about your question? Let’s make sure we get you an answer.

Dianaiad does have a valid point. The person who did the baptizing was a Mormon nurse. Either her theological beliefs (regarding the Trinity et al) are a hindrance to her performing a valid baptism, or they aren’t. If they are, she has not put them aside for the sake of performing the baptism, she still believes them, therefore her baptism cannot be valid. If they are not, then why should Mormon baptisms in general be invalid from a Catholic point of view, when they use the same “form” and “matter” in their baptisms?

 

[OHCAC]

Dianaiad does have a valid point. The person who did the baptizing was a Mormon nurse. Either her theological beliefs (regarding the Trinity et al) are a hindrance to her performing a valid baptism, or they aren’t. If they are, she has not put them aside for the sake of performing the baptism, she still believes them, therefore her baptism cannot be valid. If they are not, then why should Mormon baptisms in general be invalid from a Catholic point of view, when they use the same “form” and “matter” in their baptisms?

There’s one key person you’re leaving out of the equation - the baby’s mother. What effect do her beliefs have regarding the baby’s baptism?

Regarding your last question, LDS baptism, as done in the regular way, is not the same in form as a RCC baptism - as made clear by Fr. Ladaria’s article - here’s the link for your review - http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

 

[zerinus]

There’s one key person you’re leaving out of the equation - the baby’s mother. What effect do her beliefs have regarding the baby’s baptism?

No relevance whatsoever to what we are talking about.

Regarding your last question, LDS baptism, as done in the regular way, is not the same in form as a RCC baptism - as made clear by Fr. Ladaria’s article - here’s the link for your review - http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

LDS baptism uses the same form and matter as Catholic baptism. That article is self-contradictory. One minute it says that differences in doctrinal belief do not invalidate baptism, and next minute it proceeds to invalidate Mormon baptisms on the basis of doctrinal belief; therefore it does not answer the question.

 

[OHCAC]

“But I like my own analysis of the case better.” Of course you do! Sorry Zerinus but you walked right into that one.

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?

You really need to get a sense of humor Zerinus – that was a joke.

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?

I didn’t know of the distinction that a revelation stopped the practice of plural marriage but not the belief – thanks for making that clear.

The point of your blog Zerinus is why did RCC change their stance on LDS baptism, why now and why not ‘officially’ explain it. Right? My question is how is what the RCC’s done different from these two cases in LDS? LDS had a practice, changed it and didn’t give a lot of explanation beyond a revelation. That’s my point – that’s it – for illustrative purposes and nothing more. Our churches have the right and obligation to change things when they deem it necessary and that’s what they did in all three of these cases. I could speculate right and left on why the LDS changed their stance, that it’s not really at all about a revelation but due to government pressure re: plural marriage and social pressure re: blacks and the priesthood and that revelations are made up hooey anyway. That wasn’t my question or point.

I’m not thinking Mormonism is just as bad as Catholicism Zerinus – your words, not my thoughts. My question is straightforward – in comparing these situations across churches should they be seen as much different – I don’t think so – I don’t see a ‘big’ difference. As to your conclusions you have several of them which, as you’ve pointed out in this thread, are simply your own speculation – why would I bother to try and invalidate your speculations and opinions? I do my best not to waste my time as I doubt you’d change your mind anyway.

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.

Yes Zerinus, you’ve made it perfectly clear why you think the RCC made the decision to make the change - about 10 times now I think. You still haven’t answered the question – the question is how would the RCC accepting LDS baptism in the past and now changing that stance 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]

I assure you that the RCC decision neither “bothers” me nor does it “sting”. It doesn’t bother the LDS Church either. If you have read the article, you will know what response they gave to it at that time. But you ask a valid question which I will answer: why did I write that article, and why did I write it at the time I did?

I wrote it firstly as an academic exercise. Surely I have the right to take an academic interest in the subject, and research it and write an article about my conclusions, don’t you agree? Why does one research and write articles about anything? Are you saying that just because some Catholics don’t like my conclusions, that I shouldn’t have researched and written an article about that subject? That is point number one.

Secondly, what motivated me to take an interest in that subject in the first place? That is a good question. I will tell you. I became interested in that subject after I had spent some time discussing religion with Catholics on CAF. Before that time I took no interest in it at all. But when I started discussing gospel topics on CAF, I found some Catholics would use that decision by the RCC as a launchpad from which to attack Mormonism. They would say things like, “Mormons are not Christian because the RCC does not recognize their baptisms;” or “the RCC does not does not consider Mormonism to be Christian;” or express other sentiments along those lines. In order to answer them I had to find out more about it, so I researched it and posted my conclusions in my Blog. That is how that article came to be.

And I will tell you something else about that article. The RCC decision does not offend, or “sting,” or trouble me, the Mormons, or the LDS Church one little bit. I am not bothered by it at all. But that article has “stung” an awful lot of Catholics! When they read it, they just don’t like it. This thread was not started by me, or by another Mormon. It was started by a Catholic who was stung by that article. Well, you have to ask yourself why? I think I know the answer. That is because it is true, and it hurts.

I notice you haven’t responded to my question about how I was so stung by your article that I started this thread. Since your comment was directed at me and I would like to see your response.

In the meantime, a few final questions for you regarding your blog and then I’ll give you some insight into why I wanted to write the thread.

Near the beginning of your blog you make this statement: “That decision (for RCC to no longer accept LDS baptism as valid) is odd, because the Catholic Church has traditionally accepted baptisms performed by other churches, such as radical Protestant churches that have broken away from it, and even called it abusive names such as “Whore of Babylon,” and called the Pope the “Antichrist”! The LDS Church treats the Catholic Church with far greater respect than the Protestant Churches have done, or still do.”

Q: Isn’t it the official stance of the LDS church that ALL churches outside it are corrupt? I could cite several references from LDS prophets and others who call other churches, I believe including the RCC, all kinds of rather unfriendly things plus the Whore of Babylon. If that’s your stance, why do you not include the LDS church in the camp you put the radical Protestants in (of course on the other side of the campground!). I don’t quite get, with that view of all churches, how you’re treating the RCC with respect?

And near the end of your blog you cite a response from the LDS church saying “We are neither concerned nor offended that the Catholic Church has determined not to recognize Latter-day Saint baptisms, (church spokesman Michael Otterson).” You also ask the question of does anybody really care that the RCC changed its stance and have said in this thread, and implied in your blog, that you personally don’t care. Interestingly though, at least to me, you end your blog with this statement “I personally see in this a pretty damning and devastating response” – referring to the statement by Michael Otterson.

Q: What is damning about the statement? What is devastating? Assuming that some RCC’s would read your blog how should we take your statement? I don’t know what you intention was when you wrote it but it seems to be an ‘in your face’ statement? If not, why not? If so, back to the first question – how is that friendly to the RCC and showing respect?

 

[zerinus]

You really need to get a sense of humor Zerinus – that was a joke.

The point of your blog Zerinus is why did RCC change their stance on LDS baptism, why now and why not ‘officially’ explain it. Right? My question is how is what the RCC’s done different from these two cases in LDS? LDS had a practice, changed it and didn’t give a lot of explanation beyond a revelation. That’s my point – that’s it – for illustrative purposes and nothing more. Our churches have the right and obligation to change things when they deem it necessary and that’s what they did in all three of these cases. I could speculate right and left on why the LDS changed their stance, that it’s not really at all about a revelation but due to government pressure re: plural marriage and social pressure re: blacks and the priesthood and that revelations are made up hooey anyway. That wasn’t my question or point.

That is an irrelevant point you are bringing up. The question is not about why LDS has changed things. It is about the Catholic Church. If that is a satisfactory explanation for you, okay, but it isn’t for me.

I’m not thinking Mormonism is just as bad as Catholicism Zerinus – your words, not my thoughts. My question is straightforward – in comparing these situations across churches should they be seen as much different – I don’t think so – I don’t see a ‘big’ difference. As to your conclusions you have several of them which, as you’ve pointed out in this thread, are simply your own speculation – why would I bother to try and invalidate your speculations and opinions? I do my best not to waste my time as I doubt you’d change your mind anyway.

At the moment you seem to be wasting a lot of your own time and mine!

Yes Zerinus, you’ve made it perfectly clear why you think the RCC made the decision to make the change - about 10 times now I think. You still haven’t answered the question – the question is how would the RCC accepting LDS baptism in the past and now changing that stance 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.

That is just a reflection of my theological analysis of the case. You are entitled to disagree if you wish.

I notice you haven’t responded to my question about how I was so stung by your article that I started this thread. Since your comment was directed at me and I would like to see your response.

That is the impression I get from your comments.

In the meantime, a few final questions for you regarding your blog and then I’ll give you some insight into why I wanted to write the thread.

Near the beginning of your blog you make this statement: “That decision (for RCC to no longer accept LDS baptism as valid) is odd, because the Catholic Church has traditionally accepted baptisms performed by other churches, such as radical Protestant churches that have broken away from it, and even called it abusive names such as “Whore of Babylon,” and called the Pope the “Antichrist”! The LDS Church treats the Catholic Church with far greater respect than the Protestant Churches have done, or still do.”

Q: Isn’t it the official stance of the LDS church that ALL churches outside it are corrupt?

No.

I could cite several references from LDS prophets and others who call other churches, I believe including the RCC, all kinds of rather unfriendly things plus the Whore of Babylon. If that’s your stance, why do you not include the LDS church in the camp you put the radical Protestants in (of course on the other side of the campground!). I don’t quite get, with that view of all churches, how you’re treating the RCC with respect?

That is not the official position of the LDS Church on other churehcs.

And near the end of your blog you cite a response from the LDS church saying “We are neither concerned nor offended that the Catholic Church has determined not to recognize Latter-day Saint baptisms, (church spokesman Michael Otterson).” You also ask the question of does anybody really care that the RCC changed its stance and have said in this thread, and implied in your blog, that you personally don’t care. Interestingly though, at least to me, you end your blog with this statement “I personally see in this a pretty damning and devastating response” – referring to the statement by Michael Otterson.

Q: What is damning about the statement? What is devastating? Assuming that some RCC’s would read your blog how should we take your statement? I don’t know what you intention was when you wrote it but it seems to be an ‘in your face’ statement? If not, why not? If so, back to the first question – how is that friendly to the RCC and showing respect?

That was not intended as an unfriendly comment towards the Catholic Church. That is how I view that response given by the LDS Church to the RCC’s decision. I think that the RCC decision was intended as a hostile act against the LDS Church, motivated by several different factors. I think that the LDS response was appropriate and dignified, and shows up the RCC in a poorer light. That is what I meant to say.

 

[estesbob]

I am a little confused as to why this is considered a major event, The Church has always had doubts about the validity of Mormon baptisms requiring Mormon converts to be conditionally baptized. I see little difference between being required to be conditionally baptized or baptized-both express a profound doubt as to the validity of Mormon Baptisms.

Since there has been no chages in Mormon beliefs concenring Catholics the idea that this insignifican change was in response to something the Mormom Church did is specious.

 

[happilycatholic]

Point “not taken”! You have missed the “point” again.
There are two possible ways that Mormon can respond to this: one way is to dismiss it, ignore it, and forget about it as something too trivial to be worth thinking about or wasting any time on! That is what the vast majority of Mormons do. **AND SOME WRITE BLOGS ABOUT IT SIX YEARS LATER. WHY??? THEN CALL ATTENTION TO IT IN OTHER DISCUSSIONS IN OTHER VENUES. WHY??? AND THEN CONTEND THAT THE ONLY REASON THEY EVEN RESPONDED IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS ACADEMIC AND THAT CATHOLICS ARE THE ONES WITH THE PROBLEM. WHY??? **That is why there are not that many of them posting here. **BUT YOU ARE. WHY??? **But there are a very small percentage of them who are interested in gospel discussion of this kind with non-Mormons; and I happen to be one of them. So when I see messages like the above, my first reaction is to go and find out something about it. I can’t respond to it if I don’t know what it is all about. So having researched it I publish my findings on my Blog which you have read—and guess what, Catholics don’t like it! It “stings” them! And your guess is as good as mine why.

Okay, let’s try again. No, I haven’t missed the point. You are confusing the issue.

The point of the OP is YOUR response (article on your blog) to the position the Church has taken on the issue of Mormon baptism. NOT the Church’s position on Mormon baptism.

You are trying to keep the Church’s position on this in the forefront of this conversation and that’s not what I’m trying to get from you. The Church’s position on valid baptism has not changed in 2000 years. Yet you contend that this was some kind of “retaliation” against the LDS.

You claim that catholics are all bent about what you said and we’re just trying to figure out this:

If we are the ones that are so bothered, why are we not blogging about it and you ARE? The whole point of this thread was to get you to respond to that very question (in a round about way). What could you possibly get from the decision that would make you think it was retaliation when the Church’s position has always been the same on valid baptism??

But you have yet to give us the answer. You just keep saying the same thing over and over.

Well, you are the one with the blog dude so will you finally tell us why you are so bothered about something that is old news?

Oh, that’s right you felt it academically necessary to bring it up on your blog about mormonism and it being victimized by the catholic Church.

!!!

 

[estesbob]

Oh, that’s right you felt it academically necessary to bring it up on your blog about mormonism and it being victimized by the catholic Church.

!!!

It would seem that ONLY Mormons this minor change would effect would be those converting to the Faith. In reality all we are talking about is dropping “If you are not baptized,” from the formula used to baptize Mormons into the faith. Gvien the Mormon rejection of the Trinity I am suprised these words were used in the first place.

 

[happilycatholic]

This is my whole point:

“I wrote it firstly as an academic exercise.”
**
The article seems to me to be less academic and more emotional than anything. And when we try to find out why, we are told we are the ones being emotional.

I just wanted to know why. I guess zerinus is in denial.

 

[happilycatholic]

It would seem that ONLY Mormons this minor change would effect would be those converting to the Faith. In reality all we are talking about is dropping “If you are not baptized,” from the formula used to baptize Mormons into the faith. Gvien the Mormon rejection of the Trinity I am suprised these words were used in the first place.

I kinda feel left out now. I’m going to go start a blog about why my catholic baptism is not valid in a Mormon church, even though I don’t actually ever go to a Mormon church. I think they don’t like us .

Oh, wait. Never mind. I don’t care.

It’s like the child who smacks his little sister to get a response because he doesn’t get enough attention. Then when mom says, “brother, why did you smack your sister?” He says, “I didn’t, she’s crying for no reason”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It would seem that ONLY Mormons this minor change would effect would be those converting to the Faith. In reality all we are talking about is dropping “If you are not baptized,” from the formula used to baptize Mormons into the faith. Gvien the Mormon rejection of the Trinity I am suprised these words were used in the first place.

Converting, there were two thought I had on this. One, my mormon baptism was done by my dad. I didn’t like the idea that something so important to him (he is very mormon) was rejected. Second, I wanted to be baptized in the Catholic church as knowing mormon teaching, and Catholic doctrine, I didn’t/don’t believe my mormon baptism was valid.

IMHO, this is how the change came to be. Former mormons raising this very issue with their priests, who take it to their bishops, who take it to the USCCB, who take it to the Roman Curia.

 

[happilycatholic]

Converting, there were two thought I had on this. One, my mormon baptism was done by my dad. I didn’t like the idea that something so important to him (he is very mormon) was rejected. Second, I wanted to be baptized in the Catholic church as knowing mormon teaching, and Catholic doctrine, I didn’t/don’t believe my mormon baptism was valid.

IMHO, this is how the change came to be. Former mormons raising this very issue with their priests, who take it to their bishops, who take it to the USCCB, who take it to the Roman Curia.

Hi Rebecca:

How common is this? Do you know others who have experienced this same situation?

HC

 

[estesbob]

I kinda feel left out now. I’m going to go start a blog about why my catholic baptism is not valid in a Mormon church, even though I don’t actually ever go to a Mormon church. I think they don’t like us .

Oh, wait. Never mind. I don’t care.

Which, to me, is the salient point of the whole discussion. Why would a Mormom care what the catholic position on Mormon Baptism is?

It would seem that Zerinus felt that the former conditional baptism somehow indicated the Church accpetd the validity of the Mormom Priesthood-a postion, if that is what he really thought , that is utterly absurd. To begin with the Church does not recognize any Priesthood outside of the Apostolic sucession maintained ONLY in the Church. In addtion Baptism is a sacrament that does NOT require a Priest to impart it.

 

[estesbob]

Converting, there were two thought I had on this. One, my mormon baptism was done by my dad. I didn’t like the idea that something so important to him (he is very mormon) was rejected. Second, I wanted to be baptized in the Catholic church as knowing mormon teaching, and Catholic doctrine, I didn’t/don’t believe my mormon baptism was valid.

IMHO, this is how the change came to be.** Former mormons raising this very issue with their priests, who take it to their bishops, who take it to the USCCB, who take it to the Roman Curia**.

That is a perfect example of how these types of thing work in the Church. The Curia gets involved ONLY when their are questions that need to be resolved. They never make new doctrine(in fact the hav no ability to do so)-they act to clarify what Doctrine is.

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Lancer! It is a pleasure to meet you. I hope you are having a wonderful day!

I did a quick read of this thread and I didn’t see anyone responding to your points here so I wanted to take a moment to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I apologize if this has already been addressed and I just missed the post.

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.

The Church of Jesus Christ believes, “…in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith). We believe that these three beings (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost) constitute the Godhead (lds.org, Godhead). They are three seperate and distinct beings, who are “…one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine” (lds.org). In fact, “…we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable…” except them being one in substance (Elder Holland).

The Church of Jesus Christ recognizes and worships Jesus Christ as “…[our] Redeemer, [our] Lord and [our] God” (Moro. 8:8; D&C 18:33; D&C 27:1). As an interesting side note, the Book of Mormon and modern day scripture such as the Doctrine and Covenants declares Jesus Christ as our Lord and God more clearly and abundantly than the Bible does.

Our mode of baptism is thusly:

1. We believe in baptism by immersion.
2. A person who is baptized must be baptized by the proper priesthood authority.
3. The person who is baptizing, puts their right arm to the square and says the following prayer verbatim:

“Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

1. The person being baptized is then submerged in to water completely and brought up.
2. The last component of baptism is to be confirmed a member of the Church and given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This is again performed under proper priesthood authority. When doing this ordinance, the priesthood holders place their hands upon the head of the newly baptized:** A.** They call the person by name. B. They announce that they are performing the ordinance by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood. C. The newly baptized is confirmed a member of the Church. D. And then they are given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by using words such as “Receive the Holy Ghost”. After this the priesthood holder doing the ordinance can give any blessings as prompted by the Spirit to give. E. Lastly, the ordinance is closed in the name of Jesus Christ.

Because we do not believe in Original Sin, of course we do not believe it is removed via baptism. Although we do believe that a person is baptized on to the remission of their sins and insofar as they have come unto baptism with a “broken heart and a contrite spirit”, the person is for the moment clean and pure from sin after baptism.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is a perfect example of how these types of thing work in the Church. The Curia gets involved ONLY when their are questions that need to be resolved. They never make new doctrine(in fact the hav no ability to do so)-they act to clarify what Doctrine is.

The CDF provided a response to the question. “Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.”

Given this is a response to a ‘Dubium’, it is a no brainer, someone asked the Curia a question.

It is natural, I would think, that as the population who adhere to Mormonism grows, so does the number of mormons who convert to Catholicism. I think this is a logical answer to “why this response, now?”.

 

[OHCAC]

No relevance whatsoever to what we are talking about.

And yet again Zerinus, you think you understand Catholicism and you don’t. The will and intent of the parent(s) does make a difference - not just the religious beliefs of the nurse who’s LDS. In a baptismal ceremony for an infant the priest or deacon asks the parents what they are requesting for the baby - the answer is baptism. This is done because the baby can’t answer for themselves. The parents are acting on behalf of their baby - it is their will that is being followed to bring this sacrament to the baby.

In an adolescent or adult baptism the recipient themselves are asked what their request is of the church, the answer - baptism. So the mother plays a very important role in the case cited. It is her will that’s important, not that of the LDS nurse. And based on the way this nurse was described, it appears her intent was to help the mother - not make sure the baptism was following LDS form.

That’s why, as explained multiple time to you now, the RCC recognizes as valid, baptism from non-priests/deacons, from other religions, from an atheist, if necessary, in the case of an emergency.

LDS baptism uses the same form and matter as Catholic baptism. That article is self-contradictory. One minute it says that differences in doctrinal belief do not invalidate baptism, and next minute it proceeds to invalidate Mormon baptisms on the basis of doctrinal belief; therefore it does not answer the question.

Below is info from the Fr. Ladaria article regarding form and matter. Regarding matter, you’re right - no problem. Regarding form, he makes it so abundantly clear that they are not the same, contradictory to your statement above.

I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.

II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. **There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). **The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

This is so clear: that the form of LDS and Catholic baptism are not the same, for a RCC baptism, as pertains to RCC theology, that for you to continue to say “LDS baptism uses the same form and matter as Catholic baptism” is simply foolish. I know you can read the words - heck, you brought up the article. It appears, (I can’t read minds) that you really have no intention to have a meaningful dialogue about your blog - you’ve made up your mind and that’s it.

So be it - but then please don’t come to a RCC forum purporting to want to converse with us when really all you want to do is spout LDS theology, ignore what we (even a priest) tells you when you’re flat out wrong, and make derogatory statements about our faith - and then do it under the guise of the LDS are the mistreated ones.

 

[Religio71]

Dianaiad does have a valid point. The person who did the baptizing was a Mormon nurse. Either her theological beliefs (regarding the Trinity et al) are a hindrance to her performing a valid baptism, or they aren’t. If they are, she has not put them aside for the sake of performing the baptism, she still believes them, therefore her baptism cannot be valid. If they are not, then why should Mormon baptisms in general be invalid from a Catholic point of view, when they use the same “form” and “matter” in their baptisms?

This is incorrect. You forget “intent”. In diana’s scenario, the intent of the Mormon nurse was to do as the Catholic Church does, in reference to the wishes of the mother. That is why even an atheist can baptize. Why would an atheist baptize someone in any situation since they don’t believe in any God? It is to do as the Church does, in accordance with the wishes of the person asking. This contrasts with the situation of an LDS baptism, where there is a difference in theology on God, which places LDS in the same category as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and any other group that has a non-traditional Christian understanding of God.