RCC Changes Stance on LDS Baptism - Questions for Zerinus

[zerinus]

Yes, intent is very much part of this discussion, seeing how diana did bring it up and asked about the logic of how a Mormon nurse can validly baptize a Catholic baby. We have responded.

If we think about doctrinal errors in the context of which baptisms the Catholic Church accepts, it is clear what the article means. Even before the Church stated that LDS baptisms are invalid, it did not accept the baptisms of other groups, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Oneness Pentecostals, etc. The striking difference between traditional Protestants and those that the Church does not accept, including Mormons, is that they all have irregular understandings of God. The doctrinal issues we have with Protestants are real and great, however they do believe in the traditional God that we believe in. The latter groups do not, and therefore can be thought of as belonging to non-Christian groups, since it really is a “different God” that we all believe in. Therefore, the doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics are irrelevant to baptism, as we believe in the same God. The main doctrinal difference between Catholics and JWs, OPs, and LDS is that we believe in completely different Gods. Therefore “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is NOT referring to the same Persons that Catholics believe in and worship. Thus why Mormon baptism is not Christian baptism for the Church.

And I think Rebecca gave an interesting view on the need to regularize the practice of conditional baptism in relation to the Mormons.

If you insist on making yourself deaf, dumb, and blind, I will refrain from responding to your posts. JWs and LDS are not comparable. JWs do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost; LDS do.

 

[zerinus]

It is relevant to Catholic doctrine, which, is what is being discussed:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

footnote 58: Canon 861§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.

The LDS Church does not will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.

From Fr. Ladaria (quoted in my Blog):

the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of TRINITARIAN FAITH, as for example in the case of the ARIANS.

 

[Religio71]

If you insist on making yourself deaf, dumb, and blind, I will refrain from responding to your posts. JWs and LDS are not comparable. JWs do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost; LDS do.

So much for whyme saying all the Mormons on here are respectful. Feel free to not respond to my posts.

You continue to ignore the whole point, whether or not JWs do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that Mormons believe in a COMPLETELY different God than us. Therefore, the whole point of this is that Mormons refer to a different God than Catholics when they say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the same for Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Christadelphians, etc. You are not referring to the same Persons that we are, therefore the baptism is invalid. Plain and simple.

Try and address this difference between the doctrinal differences we have with Protestants whose baptisms we accept (which all believe in the same God that we do) and Mormon baptism that we do not accept (as you believe in a different concept of God than we do).

 

[zerinus]

So much for whyme saying all the Mormons on here are respectful. Feel free to not respond to my posts.

You continue to ignore the whole point, whether or not JWs do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that Mormons believe in a COMPLETELY different God than us. Therefore, the whole point of this is that Mormons refer to a different God than Catholics when they say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the same for Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Christadelphians, etc. You are not referring to the same Persons that we are, therefore the baptism is invalid. Plain and simple.

Try and address this difference between the doctrinal differences we have with Protestants whose baptisms we accept (which all believe in the same God that we do) and Mormon baptism that we do not accept (as you believe in a different concept of God than we do).

And difference in doctrine does not amount to difference in intent.

From Fr. Ladaria (quoted in my Blog):

the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of TRINITARIAN FAITH, as for example in the case of the ARIANS.

 

[why_me]

I have often wondered why we waste our time debating subjects like this. It seems that no one can win this discussion or debate or argument. And I am sure that God must be very bored with this type of debate, discussion or argument.

If Saint Therese of Lisieux would have been engaged in such discussions we would never have her book THE STORY OF A SOUL and we would not have her poetry and prayers nor would we have her letters to Father Maurice. But for Therese what was important was attempting to create a heaven on earth by doing good works. She wished to spread roses over the earth. Now that is beautiful. Now back to the argument:

 

[RebeccaJ]

From Fr. Ladaria (quoted in my Blog):
the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of TRINITARIAN FAITH, as for example in the case of the ARIANS.

If you are going to guote Archbishop Ladaria, please include all that he has to say:

III. **The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. **Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ *of Latter-day Saints *from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, *Articles of Faith *[AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the “priest” (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the *Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints *does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

 

[why_me]

Try and address this difference between the doctrinal differences we have with Protestants whose baptisms we accept (which all believe in the same God that we do) and Mormon baptism that we do not accept (as you believe in a different concept of God than we do).

And yet, catholics have more in common with mormons than with lutherns or episcopals or many other protestant groups. There are two faiths that have held out against the postmodern or relativist stance. The catholics and the mormons. And both churches have been attacked because of it. And both the catholic and mormon faith are looked upon as conservative in outlook. Is god pleased with the luthern church? or with the episcopal church? Or with many other protestant churches? Is he more pleased with the mormon church? Now those would be good questions to answer,

 

[Religio71]

And difference in doctrine does not amount to difference in intent.

From Fr. Ladaria (quoted in my Blog):

the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of TRINITARIAN FAITH, as for example in the case of the ARIANS.

I don’t know about that statement. A quick google search does not support that Arian baptisms were always accepted as valid.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have often wondered why we waste our time debating subjects like this. It seems that no one can win this discussion or debate or argument. And I am sure that God must be very bored with this type of debate, discussion or argument.

If Saint Therese of Lisieux would have been engaged in such discussions we would never have her book THE STORY OF A SOUL and we would not have her poetry and prayers nor would we have her letters to Father Maurice. But for Therese what was important was attempting to create a heaven on earth by doing good works. She wished to spread roses over the earth. Now that is beautiful. Now back to the argument:

So don’t read them.

ps: you don’t speak for God.

 

[why_me]

So don’t read them.

ps: you don’t speak for God.

But I think I know him. Any comments about what I wrote with saint therese in mind?

 

[RebeccaJ]

But I think I know him. Any comments about what I wrote with saint therese in mind?

There are also Saints who were fierce protectors of the faith. Who died without compromise.

I think you have made St. Therese part of your personal religion, which doesn’t have much to do with Catholicism. She did not compromise her faith. She was not a pluralist. I think you confuse her little way with the NOM middle way.

In short, St. Therese was never lukewarm about her Catholic faith. That is not the little way.

 

[estesbob]

And yet, catholics have more in common with mormons than with lutherns or episcopals or many other protestant groups. There are two faiths that have held out against the postmodern or relativist stance. The catholics and the mormons. And both churches have been attacked because of it. And both the catholic and mormon faith are looked upon as conservative in outlook. Is god pleased with the luthern church? or with the episcopal church? Or with many other protestant churches? Is he more pleased with the mormon church? Now those would be good questions to answer,

Doctrinally Catholics have almost nothing in commom with Mormons. Agreement over social issues can not paper over the insurmmountable doctrinal differences between the two.

 

[Religio71]

And yet, catholics have more in common with mormons than with lutherns or episcopals or many other protestant groups. There are two faiths that have held out against the postmodern or relativist stance. The catholics and the mormons. And both churches have been attacked because of it. And both the catholic and mormon faith are looked upon as conservative in outlook. Is god pleased with the luthern church? or with the episcopal church? Or with many other protestant churches? Is he more pleased with the mormon church? Now those would be good questions to answer,

Actually, Catholics and Mormons believe in different Gods.

 

[dianaiad]

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

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.

Not a difficult conclusion to reach, y’know.

No, I do not think that the Catholic church is mobilizing all the forces and is out to ‘get’ us. I don’t imagine that we are all that large a blip on their horizon. However, for the reasons I mentioned, it IS discrimination, in that their acceptance or non-acceptance of our baptisms is specific. If they accept any baptisms from any other faith, then refusing to accept them from any Christian faith is discrimination by definition.

I have read the link you provided, and it sounds very much like what we did with the prohibition against giving the priesthood to Negroes of African descent. That is, rather than looking at the evidence and making a decision because of it, In both cases the prohibition showed up first, and then people started scrambling around attempting to justify it. All his reasoning seems valid (from the Catholic perspective, certainly) and quite plausible…but the reality is, Fr. Ladaria is justifying a decision already made. The church itself did not mention any of these things at the time of the decision.

The horses pushing the cart, in other words. He could be right…but if so, why didn’t the church give this as the official reason?

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!

I haven’t reached a conclusion. I have proposed hypotheses based on what evidence I have, which is; the length of time it took the Catholics to do this, the lack of official explanation from the church (and several people attempting to justify it after the fact) and the fact that the Catholics made the same decision regarding other faiths–and didn’t explain them, either.

My tentative theory (very tentative…very much up for adjustment) is that the Catholic church looked around, and is taking steps to consolidate Christianity in a form that is more comfortable to them. So…there is a process of affirmation going on that is attempting to get everybody back in the fold, so to speak.

Here’s the thing, though; a shepherd is only needed to guard the flock if there are dangers; sheep who are in full possession of an area scatter all over…it is only when there are wolves around that they bunch up. So, in order to get all the sheep into one bunch again, some wolves need to be identified—and so, the Catholics have identified and discarded those who might look like wolves, or at least black sheep.

Then all those sects whose baptisms are accepted feel like they are part of a group; the Christians. How do they know this? Why, because even the Catholics accept them as such.

…but don’t mind me, I’m just doing some thinking out loud…

 

[why_me]

There are also Saints who were fierce protectors of the faith. Who died without compromise.

I think you have made St. Therese part of your personal religion, which doesn’t have much to do with Catholicism. She did not compromise her faith. She was not a pluralist. I think you confuse her little way with the NOM middle way.

In short, St. Therese was never lukewarm about her Catholic faith. That is not the little way.

If Therese did not receive her vision, I am not sure what she would have believed upon death. But she did have a severe crisis of faith which lasted for quite a long time. But she did not doubt her mission: to spread good over the whole earth by doing simple little things. In this she was not lukewarm and in this she has influenced millions of people.

I do like her but I also like to read Dorothy Day.

 

[why_me]

Actually, Catholics and Mormons believe in different Gods.

I think that upon death we will discover that mormons and catholics believe in the same god and the question that he will ask will not be about the trinity but about what good have we done on this earth and did we have love for our fellow human beings.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Stop speaking for God for a while and perhaps learn what the faith you claim to belong to teaches as doctrine.

If you do not believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church, you should be having a discussion with your priest.

 

[zerinus]

If you are going to guote Archbishop Ladaria, please include all that he has to say:

III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism.

Which explains why I said his statement is self-contradictory. One minute he says one thing, next minute he contradicts himself by saying the opposite. Either doctrinal differences are a hindrance or they are not. One minute he says they are, next minute he says they aren’t.

This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the “priest” (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

Two problems with that. Firstly, it is just more contradictions, attempting to invalidate LDS baptism on doctrinal grounds, which contradicts his own statements elsewhere. Secondly, he is wrong on baptism. Baptism was not instituted for the first time by Christ. John practiced baptism, and the Jews did not consider it odd, which means that they were familiar with the rite. His argument that “there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism” is not justified. Jesus may have added meaning to the rite; but that does not mean that it was a different rite. Baptism is an ancient sacrament. The fact that Jesus may have given added significance to it is not negated by LDS doctrine.

 

[Religio71]

I think that upon death we will discover that mormons and catholics believe in the same god and the question that he will ask will not be about the trinity but about what good have we done on this earth and did we have love for our fellow human beings.

That is your belief. You have already demonstrated a relativist outlook on faith, where it is more important to be nice and love, and that’s all that matters to God. Whereas according to the Bible, that is not what is taught. JESUS CHRIST himself said to go out and preach and baptize. Clearly He didn’t think it was okay to believe whatever you want as long as you just love.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A Jewish immersion was a ritual washing, it did not impart Salvation, it did not initiate one into the Body of Christ, His Church, or cleanse the stain of Original Sin. Therefore, it was not a Christian baptism.

You have only underlined and supported the Catholic position.

You may as well make the same claim for Hindus, who immerse themselves in the Ganges river, as a form of ritual washing. That is not a Christian baptism either.