RCC Changes Stance on LDS Baptism - Questions for Zerinus

[happilycatholic]

Zerinus:

I went back and read part of your blog. I did notice that it is dated 2007, still it’s 6 years after the declaration.

But for the life of me I still can’t figure out what your actual problem with the declaration really is. You appear to be pointing out a change in the position of the Church but that would be stating the obvious. So that only leaves me with the fact that you take it personally that the Church doesn’t recognize your baptism or you just want to argue about it.

So which is it? If it is that the Church has changed its position then I hate to tell you, but it certainly can and will from time to time. The Church was given that authority. It has an obligation to lead it’s lay people to salvation. If the Church feels that the present path is contradictory to that end, then it will by all means change its path. It must.

It’s a moot point. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[zerinus]

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.

Zerinus:

I went back and read part of your blog. I did notice that it is dated 2007, still it’s 6 years after the declaration.

But for the life of me I still can’t figure out what your actual problem with the declaration really is. You appear to be pointing out a change in the position of the Church but that would be stating the obvious. So that only leaves me with the fact that you take it personally that the Church doesn’t recognize your baptism or you just want to argue about it.

So which is it? If it is that the Church has changed its position then I hate to tell you, but it certainly can and will from time to time. The Church was given that authority. It has an obligation to lead it’s lay people to salvation. If the Church feels that the present path is contradictory to that end, then it will by all means change its path. It must.

It’s a moot point. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

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.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

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.

It is you who are confused because you do not understand Catholic theology. All the baptized are members of the common priesthood. The anomaly of allowing for baptism by the non-baptized is easily dealt with as anyone so baptized would be conditionally re-baptized.

From the CCC:

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[zerinus]

It is you who are confused because you do not understand Catholic theology. All the baptized are members of the common priesthood. The anomaly of allowing for baptism by the non-baptized is easily dealt with as anyone so baptized would be conditionally re-baptized.

Thank you Fr. Deacon Lance for your interest and reply. So if someone is baptized by a pagan when at the point death, and dies shortly thereafter, how can he then be “conditionally re-baptized”?

From the CCC:

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It is not so much that I misunderstand Catholic theology, but I disagree with it. There is no such thing as “all the baptized being members of a common priesthood”. All priesthood is obtained by ordination, or there is no priesthood, as Paul said, “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). There is no priesthood without ordination to the priesthood.

 

[dianaiad]

This video is a good introduction to Mormon beliefs:

gloria.tv/?media=2487

You do realize that Catholic authorities, Seminaries, theological schools and schools of divinity pretty much all dismiss “The Godmakers” as the purest clap trap, don’t you?

I don’t know what belief system Ed Decker is describing here, but it sure ain’t us.

 

[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.

Since I’m the Catholic you refer to who started this thread I’ll respond to your last few sentences. What I said in the other thread on Did the Pope Say Mormonism was a Sect was that I had questions I wanted to ask you about your blog, since you brought up your blog in that thread.

But before I started this thread I asked you if you were willing to interact in the new thread in an open, honest and accurate way and not be throwing around speculation and derogatory statements as you seem to be prone to do. You said yes, so I started this thread. I’ve asked some questions, you’ve given some answers. I have a few more to ask – if you’re willing.

But before I go further with other questions about your blog I’d ask you to please explain to us how you know I was stung by your article and are sure that was the motivation for me starting this thread? What, specifically, is the true part? And what is it that hurts?

If you can read my mind you should already know my questions and should be able to just send me the answers via telepathy – right?! We can save a lot of typing!

 

[Religio71]

You do realize that Catholic authorities, Seminaries, theological schools and schools of divinity pretty much all dismiss “The Godmakers” as the purest clap trap, don’t you?

I don’t know what belief system Ed Decker is describing here, but it sure ain’t us.

Agreed. The Godmakers is equivalent to Chick Tracts.

I mean, at least get things right if you want to critique something.

 

[Religio71]

Thank you Fr. Deacon Lance for your interest and reply. So if someone is baptized by a pagan when at the point death, and dies shortly thereafter, how can he then be “conditionally re-baptized”?

It is not so much that I misunderstand Catholic theology, but I disagree with it. There is no such thing as “all the baptized being members of a common priesthood”. All priesthood is obtained by ordination, or there is no priesthood, as Paul said, “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). There is no priesthood without ordination to the priesthood.

In Catholicism, God is the true baptizer. Thus, while we would do a conditional baptism to “make sure” that the person was indeed baptized, if they died before that, we assume baptism of desire would take effect, as that person indeed desired baptism enough to ask at least a non-Christian to attempt it.

Yes, all priesthood is obtained by ordination. Catholics believe that our ordination to the priesthood of believers occurs in baptism. Deacons, Priests, and Bishops are ordained through the sacrament of Holy Orders.

**1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”
**

 

[dianaiad]

Since I’m the Catholic you refer to who started this thread I’ll respond to your last few sentences. What I said in the other thread on Did the Pope Say Mormonism was a Sect was that I had questions I wanted to ask you about your blog, since you brought up your blog in that thread.

But before I started this thread I asked you if you were willing to interact in the new thread in an open, honest and accurate way and not be throwing around speculation and derogatory statements as you seem to be prone to do. You said yes, so I started this thread. I’ve asked some questions, you’ve given some answers. I have a few more to ask – if you’re willing.

But before I go further with other questions about your blog I’d ask you to please explain to us how you know I was stung by your article and are sure that was the motivation for me starting this thread? What, specifically, is the true part? And what is it that hurts?

If you can read my mind you should already know my questions and should be able to just send me the answers via telepathy – right?! We can save a lot of typing!

I’ve been reading this thread…sort of. I’ve skipped a lot. I do have one question.

What DOES the Catholic church say about why it does not recognize our baptisms, and why did it wait as long as it did? Our baptismal prayer has not changed a bit, and frankly, there is nothing wrong with it in terms of what is required by Catholics. It’s one of the very few ‘set’ prayers/ ordinances we have.

Now I suspect that the reason is at least partly because we don’t accept your baptisms. Fair is fair, I suppose…but then we haven’t accepted your baptisms from the beginning, either. That hasn’t changed. It’s really no skin off our noses, since we a: don’t believe that anybody under the age of eight requires baptism no matter what religion they were born into, b: anybody over the age of 8 wanting to convert to Mormonism would have to be baptized into the church anyway, and c: since we do believe we have the priesthood authority and nobody else does, it seems rather silly to worry about whether anybody else accepts our baptisms; anybody leaving us and going else were is, obviously, doing so because they don’t believe in Mormonism any more. Why in the world would they want their new faith to accept a baptism into a faith they consider to be in error? What earthly sense does that make?

Having said all that, I suspect another reason is that “he who one would persecute, one must first make 'other.” Catholicism, since it does accept baptisms from many Protestant sects, is making quite a statement by refusing to accept ours; it is saying 'look, these guys aren’t Christian. They aren’t worthy of notice, respect or consideration."

It is very different, you see, between us refusing to accept Catholic baptism and Catholics refusing to accept ours. We don’t discriminate, or single folks out; we don’t accept anybody’s baptisms but ours. That doesn’t mean we don’t believe that they are Christians, or can have personal relationships with Christ, or have truth; we just believe that in order to join up with the Mormons, you have to be baptized by the priesthood we recognize.

Catholics, however, pretty much accept everybody’s. For THEM to refuse to recognize our baptisms, when they do those of others, IS discrimination. It IS a very bold statement of disapprobation.

So, the question again? What does the Catholic church SAY about why it changed, and no longer accepts our baptisms?

 

[OHCAC]

Thank you Fr. Deacon Lance for your interest and reply. So if someone is baptized by a pagan when at the point death, and dies shortly thereafter, how can he then be “conditionally re-baptized”?

It is not so much that I misunderstand Catholic theology, but I disagree with it. There is no such thing as “all the baptized being members of a common priesthood”. All priesthood is obtained by ordination, or there is no priesthood, as Paul said, “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). There is no priesthood without ordination to the priesthood.

To your first question Zerinus, what do you think? If you know Catholic theology, as you say, do we baptize for the dead? Can he be conditionally re-baptized once dead? What do you think?

We’ll see if the good Father comes back and replies and I don’t want to speak for him but I’d think he’s thinking of the 99% of cases where people don’t die right after baptism. If the person is baptized by a non-priest, or non-deacon, and then dies right after that, the baptism is valid as long as the criteria mentioned in Fr. Ladaria’s article are met; baptized with water, in the right form, and the intentions of the baptizer and the baptized are correct.

I can see by many of your responses that you don’t understand a lot of RCC theology, but think that you do. I do appreciate the fact that you’ve obviously taken the time to do some research, trust me, I still have a whole lot to learn and will never understand it all.

What I see you do Zerinus is look at things SOOO much through a LDS lens that you lack the subtlety, or tact, to see things from the other side. You say, “There is no priesthood without ordination to the priesthood.” Yea, says you and the LDS - not the RCC - you seem to forget where you are sometimes on this forum. We obviously don’t believe that.

You say RCC baptism is confused - although it has been thoroughly explained to you over and over and over now. It is only confused to you because you want to think it so. The explanations are clear, if you don’t agree with them, that’s fine but then bother to do the work to show why you think so instead of just throwing out LDS theology and a Bible verse or two, interpreted through LDS eyes. To continue to make statements, in a RCC forum, that RCC theology is confused because the mighty Zerinus says it is with a few Bible verses thrown in is really kind of sad. We’d like to discuss this seriously with you but it’s hard to take you seriously when you do that.

 

[dianaiad]

To your first question Zerinus, what do you think? If you know Catholic theology, as you say, do we baptize for the dead? Can he be conditionally re-baptized once dead? What do you think?

We’ll see if the good Father comes back and replies and I don’t want to speak for him but I’d think he’s thinking of the 99% of cases where people don’t die right after baptism. If the person is baptized by a non-priest, or non-deacon, and then dies right after that, the baptism is valid as long as the criteria mentioned in Fr. Ladaria’s article are met; baptized with water, in the right form, and the intentions of the baptizer and the baptized are correct.

I can see by many of your responses that you don’t understand a lot of RCC theology, but think that you do. I do appreciate the fact that you’ve obviously taken the time to do some research, trust me, I still have a whole lot to learn and will never understand it all.

What I see you do Zerinus is look at things SOOO much through a LDS lens that you lack the subtlety, or tact, to see things from the other side. You say, “There is no priesthood without ordination to the priesthood.” Yea, says you and the LDS - not the RCC - you seem to forget where you are sometimes on this forum. We obviously don’t believe that.

You say RCC baptism is confused - although it has been thoroughly explained to you over and over and over now. It is only confused to you because you want to think it so. The explanations are clear, if you don’t agree with them, that’s fine but then bother to do the work to show why you think so instead of just throwing out LDS theology and a Bible verse or two, interpreted through LDS eyes. To continue to make statements, in a RCC forum, that RCC theology is confused because the mighty Zerinus says it is with a few Bible verses thrown in is really kind of sad. We’d like to discuss this seriously with you but it’s hard to take you seriously when you do that.

I will admit that this is something I"ve thought about. A friend of mine, who is a neo-natal nurse in a high risk neo natal critical care unit, is LDS. It does not happen often (maybe twice or so in her last ten years working), but she HAS baptized an infant at the request of Mom. In one case the infant died immediately. In another the infant lived long enough for a priest to ‘redo’ it…also at the request of Mom.

Almost all the time there is some Catholic, or someone whose faith is more acceptable to Catholics, there to handle things. My friend said that she wasn’t going to be responsible for Mom’s faith to falter; it was her faith, and her beliefs, at issue here, not hers. So–she baptized an infant that she deeply felt didn’t require it; an infant that SHE was convinced was heaven bound no matter what, but because Mom was certain that the baptism was required, my friend performed it.

So here we have Mom, who is happy that it was done, my friend, who is utterly convinced that it didn’t need doing, she didn’t have the authority to do it even if it DID need doing, and that the child was headed for heaven no matter what. However, there was, quite literally, no time and nobody else.

So…what about that?

 

[Religio71]

I’ve been reading this thread…sort of. I’ve skipped a lot. I do have one question.

What DOES the Catholic church say about why it does not recognize our baptisms, and why did it wait as long as it did? Our baptismal prayer has not changed a bit, and frankly, there is nothing wrong with it in terms of what is required by Catholics. It’s one of the very few ‘set’ prayers/ ordinances we have.

Now I suspect that the reason is at least partly because we don’t accept your baptisms. Fair is fair, I suppose…but then we haven’t accepted your baptisms from the beginning, either. That hasn’t changed. It’s really no skin off our noses, since we a: don’t believe that anybody under the age of eight requires baptism no matter what religion they were born into, b: anybody over the age of 8 wanting to convert to Mormonism would have to be baptized into the church anyway, and c: since we do believe we have the priesthood authority and nobody else does, it seems rather silly to worry about whether anybody else accepts our baptisms; anybody leaving us and going else were is, obviously, doing so because they don’t believe in Mormonism any more. Why in the world would they want their new faith to accept a baptism into a faith they consider to be in error? What earthly sense does that make?

Having said all that, I suspect another reason is that “he who one would persecute, one must first make 'other.” Catholicism, since it does accept baptisms from many Protestant sects, is making quite a statement by refusing to accept ours; it is saying 'look, these guys aren’t Christian. They aren’t worthy of notice, respect or consideration."

It is very different, you see, between us refusing to accept Catholic baptism and Catholics refusing to accept ours. We don’t discriminate, or single folks out; we don’t accept anybody’s baptisms but ours. That doesn’t mean we don’t believe that they are Christians, or can have personal relationships with Christ, or have truth; we just believe that in order to join up with the Mormons, you have to be baptized by the priesthood we recognize.

Catholics, however, pretty much accept everybody’s. For THEM to refuse to recognize our baptisms, when they do those of others, IS discrimination. It IS a very bold statement of disapprobation.

So, the question again? What does the Catholic church SAY about why it changed, and no longer accepts our baptisms?

Well from what we’re aware, the Church hasn’t officially said anything about why we no longer accept LDS baptisms. Here is one priests views on the matter, though it isn’t like an “official” statement:

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

And no, it isn’t discrimination to not accept LDS baptism. We also do not accept Jehovah’s Witness baptism, Oneness Pentecostal baptism, baptisms in Jesus’ name only, and those that hold irregular views of the nature of God, yet still say “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. It all comes down to having an improper understanding of God, just as how we would not accept a Hindu sect that believes that Jesus is an incarnation of God and baptizes in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So no, LDS are not the only baptism we do not accept.

 

[Religio71]

I will admit that this is something I"ve thought about. A friend of mine, who is a neo-natal nurse in a high risk neo natal critical care unit, is LDS. It does not happen often (maybe twice or so in her last ten years working), but she HAS baptized an infant at the request of Mom. In one case the infant died immediately. In another the infant lived long enough for a priest to ‘redo’ it…also at the request of Mom.

Almost all the time there is some Catholic, or someone whose faith is more acceptable to Catholics, there to handle things. My friend said that she wasn’t going to be responsible for Mom’s faith to falter; it was her faith, and her beliefs, at issue here, not hers. So–she baptized an infant that she deeply felt didn’t require it; an infant that SHE was convinced was heaven bound no matter what, but because Mom was certain that the baptism was required, my friend performed it.

So here we have Mom, who is happy that it was done, my friend, who is utterly convinced that it didn’t need doing, she didn’t have the authority to do it even if it DID need doing, and that the child was headed for heaven no matter what. However, there was, quite literally, no time and nobody else.

So…what about that?

In that case, it is all about “doing what the Church does”, which is what your friend did by accepting Mom’s wish. This is how we view the “intent” of emergency baptisms.

 

[Religio71]

The United Methodist Church also does not accept LDS baptisms, interestingly.

 

[Religio71]

apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010723-05.html

**In Rome, the Vatican congregation indicated that radically different theological views of God and Jesus Christ necessitated the rebaptism of Mormon converts.

The congregation said that the Catholic Church could not accept Mormon belief that “God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.”**

It doesn’t say what changed from before, however.

 

[OHCAC]

I’ve been reading this thread…sort of. I’ve skipped a lot. I do have one question.

What DOES the Catholic church say about why it does not recognize our baptisms, and why did it wait as long as it did? Our baptismal prayer has not changed a bit, and frankly, there is nothing wrong with it in terms of what is required by Catholics. It’s one of the very few ‘set’ prayers/ ordinances we have.

Now I suspect that the reason is at least partly because we don’t accept your baptisms. Fair is fair, I suppose…but then we haven’t accepted your baptisms from the beginning, either. That hasn’t changed. It’s really no skin off our noses, since we a: don’t believe that anybody under the age of eight requires baptism no matter what religion they were born into, b: anybody over the age of 8 wanting to convert to Mormonism would have to be baptized into the church anyway, and c: since we do believe we have the priesthood authority and nobody else does, it seems rather silly to worry about whether anybody else accepts our baptisms; anybody leaving us and going else were is, obviously, doing so because they don’t believe in Mormonism any more. Why in the world would they want their new faith to accept a baptism into a faith they consider to be in error? What earthly sense does that make?

Having said all that, I suspect another reason is that “he who one would persecute, one must first make 'other.” Catholicism, since it does accept baptisms from many Protestant sects, is making quite a statement by refusing to accept ours; it is saying 'look, these guys aren’t Christian. They aren’t worthy of notice, respect or consideration."

It is very different, you see, between us refusing to accept Catholic baptism and Catholics refusing to accept ours. We don’t discriminate, or single folks out; we don’t accept anybody’s baptisms but ours. That doesn’t mean we don’t believe that they are Christians, or can have personal relationships with Christ, or have truth; we just believe that in order to join up with the Mormons, you have to be baptized by the priesthood we recognize.

Catholics, however, pretty much accept everybody’s. For THEM to refuse to recognize our baptisms, when they do those of others, IS discrimination. It IS a very bold statement of disapprobation.

So, the question again? What does the Catholic church SAY about why it changed, and no longer accepts our baptisms?

Here’s a link that explains why the Church made the change: ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

A lot of the discussion of this topic started in a thread called “Did the Pope Say Mormonism was a Sect” and now we’ve moved here to discuss an article Zerinus wrote regarding the link above. So if you want to take the time you can read some of that info.

Fr. Ladaria, who wrote the article above, finishes it by saying:

“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.”

As to your other points it seems you’ve already reached a conclusion that you’re being persecuted and discriminated against so if you’ve already created the answer you’re comfortable with it doesn’t make sense to me to respond to these points. It seems you’ve already reached a conclusion regarding a topic you don’t even know the answer to yet so I’m thinking your response to Fr. Ladaria’s article will be the same as above. Hey, then you don’t have to read it!

 

[OHCAC]

I will admit that this is something I"ve thought about. A friend of mine, who is a neo-natal nurse in a high risk neo natal critical care unit, is LDS. It does not happen often (maybe twice or so in her last ten years working), but she HAS baptized an infant at the request of Mom. In one case the infant died immediately. In another the infant lived long enough for a priest to ‘redo’ it…also at the request of Mom.

Almost all the time there is some Catholic, or someone whose faith is more acceptable to Catholics, there to handle things. My friend said that she wasn’t going to be responsible for Mom’s faith to falter; it was her faith, and her beliefs, at issue here, not hers. So–she baptized an infant that she deeply felt didn’t require it; an infant that SHE was convinced was heaven bound no matter what, but because Mom was certain that the baptism was required, my friend performed it.

So here we have Mom, who is happy that it was done, my friend, who is utterly convinced that it didn’t need doing, she didn’t have the authority to do it even if it DID need doing, and that the child was headed for heaven no matter what. However, there was, quite literally, no time and nobody else.

So…what about that?

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.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

Thank you Fr. Deacon Lance for your interest and reply. So if someone is baptized by a pagan when at the point death, and dies shortly thereafter, how can he then be “conditionally re-baptized”?

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

It is not so much that I misunderstand Catholic theology, but I disagree with it. There is no such thing as “all the baptized being members of a common priesthood”. All priesthood is obtained by ordination, or there is no priesthood, as Paul said, “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). There is no priesthood without ordination to the priesthood.

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).

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[happilycatholic]

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.

Response to point number one: I wasn’t *saying *anything. I was asking.

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.

Well, I don’t claim to know what causes people to start threads. I usually ask. But since you brought it up, I’m assuming when you say, “article” you are speaking of *your *article. And yes, it probably did push a button with catholics. Especially the part where you conclude that the Church was problably retaliating against the LDS church. (If that’s true, I didn’t get that far in the article.)At any rate, I doubt that very seriously. Hence my comment about me not being able to care less about whether the LDS folks consider me baptised and my confidence that it goes both ways.

Everyone with a beef about the Church claims to be a victim of some catholic conspiracy to damn them to hell. The Church has one catechism. As far as I know there’s no “list” of accepted faiths that have accepted baptisms. There *is *however, a very specific stated form for valid baptism.

I’m sorry, but it’s not about the LDS church. It’s about valid baptism.

Not a problem to me. But apparently, the subject is of importance to you since you are the one with it on a blog. I just wanted to know why. Now that’s pretty obvious.

Point taken.

 

[zerinus]

Well, I don’t claim to know what causes people to start threads. I usually ask. But since you brought it up, I’m assuming when you say, “article” you are speaking of *your *article. And yes, it probably did push a button with catholics. Especially the part where you conclude that the Church was problably retaliating against the LDS church. (If that’s true, I didn’t get that far in the article.)At any rate, I doubt that very seriously. Hence my comment about me not being able to care less about whether the LDS folks consider me baptised and my confidence that it goes both ways.

Everyone with a beef about the Church claims to be a victim of some catholic conspiracy to damn them to hell. The Church has one catechism. As far as I know there’s no “list” of accepted faiths that have accepted baptisms. There *is *however, a very specific stated form for valid baptism.

I’m sorry, but it’s not about the LDS church. It’s about valid baptism.

Not a problem to me. But apparently, the subject is of importance to you since you are the one with it on a blog. I just wanted to know why. Now that’s pretty obvious.

Point taken.

Point “not taken”! You have missed the “point” again. The OP of this very thread begins with this sentence: “In the ‘Did the Pope say Mormonism was a Sect’ thread on the Non-Catholic Forum, …” That refers to this thread which is still active on the board. The title of that thread by itself is provocative enough; and its content even more so, as follows:

I have been told that the Pope, I am assuming Benedict, said that Mormonism was a sect and that he had great reservations about it. This may have been in the same communication in which he forbade any Catholic Church records (baptism, weddings, etc) to be given to the Mormons for Family History purposes.

Can anyone confirm this?

This is followed by a reply from another Catholic in post #3 as follows:

Pope Benedict XVI, when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith did indicate that Mormon baptism is illicit due to their errors regarding the true nature of the Trinity (Jesus taught 3 in 1, Smith taught 3 separate gods), and the nature of the baptism (Mormons do not accept the concept of Original Sin)

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. That is why there are not that many of them posting here. 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.