RCC Changes Stance on LDS Baptism - Questions for Zerinus

[Religio71]

Just an FYI (don’t know if it was already stated):

Luis Ladaria Ferrer is currently the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has a doctorate in theology from Pontifical Gregorian University, and is currently Professor of dogmatic theology there. He is also a bishop.

 

[Religio71]

Do any of the Protestant churches whose baptisms we accept practice re-baptism? I think that is another strong difference between traditional Christianity and the LDS. It is a difference on the understanding of baptism and whether it can and should be repeated, which is thus related to the intent (doing what the Church does, among other things). From the article:

B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).

Catholics do not believe that baptism is something that can be repeated, and from what I’m aware of, neither do Protestants. This is a fundamental difference in what exactly baptism does and when it can be done, which is a conflict of intent.

As far as the Arians (especially WHICH Arians the article is talking about, as there are many differences), we will have to read more on the differences between Arians and LDS, and whether the Arian baptism was indeed accepted.

The Ecumenical Council of Trent says this:

**CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema. **

Clearly we also need to define what it means to do what the Church does.

It’s still funny that this is such a debate, since LDS think we’re heretical, corrupt and no one else has a valid baptism.

 

[why_me]

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.

I have on my side Mother theresa who did not preach but showed love. And I have on my side Saint Therese who lived in a convent and developed a way of life called the little way. Do good to create heaven on earth. And I have on my side Dorothy Day who through good works lived the word of god. I suppose that they were all relativists. I can also include Mother Cabrini who embraced immigrants of all faiths and katherine Drexel who did good for the african american and native american not by preaching and baptizing but through good deeds. All relativists?

 

[why_me]

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

.

I think that you gave a good idea for yourself. I am not a pharisee. Show love for neighbor whether friend or enemy is the key to the word of god. And that would include showing active love for mormons. Some catholics on this section have forgotten this idea.

 

[zerinus]

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.

If Jewish baptism was the same as John’s baptism, it was more than a ritual washing. If Jesus needed to be baptized of him in order to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15), it was more than a ritual washing. If it imparted salvation to those who received it in faith (which it did, see Matthew 21:31–32), it was more than a ritual washing.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I have on my side Mother theresa who did not preach but showed love. And I have on my side Saint Therese who lived in a convent and developed a way of life called the little way. Do good to create heaven on earth. And I have on my side Dorothy Day who through good works lived the word of god. I suppose that they were all relativists. I can also include Mother Cabrini who embraced immigrants of all faiths and katherine Drexel who did good for the african american and native american not by preaching and baptizing but through good deeds. All relativists?

No not relativists, Catholics unlike you. I don’t think Saint Therese would approve of your constant digs at Catholics ( a backhanded compliment is still an insult)

 

[Religio71]

I have on my side Mother theresa who did not preach but showed love. And I have on my side Saint Therese who lived in a convent and developed a way of life called the little way. Do good to create heaven on earth. And I have on my side Dorothy Day who through good works lived the word of god. I suppose that they were all relativists. I can also include Mother Cabrini who embraced immigrants of all faiths and katherine Drexel who did good for the african american and native american not by preaching and baptizing but through good deeds. All relativists?

You have not shown where any of these Catholic saints said anything about how love leads one to Heaven. Their ministries had nothing to do with providing or teaching on a means of salvation. You on the other hand say that we should just let people believe what they believe. None of them said anything of the sort, and it’s sad that you don’t realize this.

Oh and none of them gave up their Catholic Faith, or tried to meld it with another.

 

[Religio71]

I think that you gave a good idea for yourself. I am not a pharisee. Show love for neighbor whether friend or enemy is the key to the word of god. And that would include showing active love for mormons. Some catholics on this section have forgotten this idea.

Actually, the key to the word of God is that Jesus is God, and salvation comes only through Him. All else flows out from that.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It is a speculation; but a necessary and unavoidable speculation. Since the Catholic Church has not given an official explanation for their decision, it becomes interesting, as a purely academic exercise if nothing else, to try to analyze, understand and explain the possible reasons behind it. Several people have made that attempt, including Fr. Ladaria and Jordan Vajda; and I think that I am as much entitled to make that attempt as anybody else is. If the RCC really want to end the speculation, that is easy. Provide an official explanation, and the speculation will end.I thought the document that addressed this was a response to a dubium. In essence the Church was responding to a question that was becomming more common as Catholics and LDS interaction expanded. I think the reason for the decision is clear… the Church was making a clear statement on the issue because it had become a matter of concern. Ascribing some retaliatory motive to the action seems unjust to me. But, then again, I am not a Mormon.
zerinius:

Have you heard of “circumstantial evidence”? The evidence for my arguments is circumstantial, but I think it is strong, and provids a better explanation of the events than Fr. Ladaria’s explanation. If you don’t agree with my conclusions you have that choice. But I like my own analysis of the case better.

I’ve heard of circumstantial evidence. But what you described is not circumstantial evidence. It is speculation based upon your own mistrust.
zerinius:

I am guessing like everyone else is.

You are guessing. I’m not willing to speculate about motives without some real evidence (direct or circumstantial). You have presented nothing of any substantial weight in support of your admitted “guess.”
zerinius:

I know that in the RCC the sacramental nature of Baptism is confused and compromised, so that anybody can perform a baptism in an emergency; but baptism still remains one of the seven sacraments of the RCC, and a sacrament requires a priest to be performed.

Baptism does not require a priest or a deacon, or even a Catholic to be performed. The Church has always been quite clear about what is required, and what is the ordinary means.

The fundamental reason for the rejection of the LDS baptism is the completely different understanding of the Trinity. The same problem would, theoretically, exist with the JWs and the Oneness Pentecostals. It’s not a retaliatory response. It is an attempt to protect those who wish to fully enter into the fullness of Christian faith as safeguarded by the Catholic Church. I’m not stating this as a challenge to your belief. I’m saying this to clarify that at some point two faiths can diverge to the point that one is fundamentally different from the other. That is what is being recognized here, and I think it is an honest point to make. Whether you are LDS or Catholic, the acknowledgement should be recognized.

It’s not a put-down or even improper to acknowledge that where two faiths diverge to such an extent on the doctrine of the trinity one faith cannot accept the validity of the other’s “trinitarian” baptism. Ascribing a malicious or retaliatory motive to such an honest recognition - without substantial evidence - is simply unwarranted here.

Peace,
Robert

 

[estesbob]

I have on my side Mother theresa who did not preach but showed love. And I have on my side Saint Therese who lived in a convent and developed a way of life called the little way. Do good to create heaven on earth. And I have on my side Dorothy Day who through good works lived the word of god. I suppose that they were all relativists. I can also include Mother Cabrini who embraced immigrants of all faiths and katherine Drexel who did good for the african american and native american not by preaching and baptizing but through good deeds. All relativists?

Can you provide us quotes from these people supporting the Mormon faith? how about any of them rejecting the Trinity?

 

[OHCAC]

I assure you that the RCC decision neither “bothers” me nor does it “sting”. It doesn’t bother the LDS Church either…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.

**ex-LDS please give your thoughts on my questions below because this is a rather fascinating phenomenon I seen over and over with LDS. Maybe we’ll continue this in a separate thread. **

I’m the Catholic Zerinus is referring to as being stung (I wasn’t - long past that in talking with LDS). My typical intent in writing on a blog or forum is 1) to interact with people I share something in common (Catholics, business, etc), or 2) to respond to non-Catholics when they have questions, want to learn about Catholicism, or have an open and respectful conversation. I’ll be happy to put with disrespect for a good while from posters in #2 because in the end what I hope to do is lead them to the Catholic faith by helping them to better understand it.

But in the case of this thread I started it for one reason and that was to see if Zerinus, and other LDS posters- but mainly Zerinus, would be able to have an open, honest, accurate and respectful conversation regarding his blog on RCC baptism - it wasn’t, for me, about discussing his blog, it was to see how he’d act. I hoped he’d do those things but didn’t think he would, and he didn’t disappoint. There was no subterfuge - I said in #29 in the thread “Did the Pope Say Mormonism was a Sect?”

However, if we’re going to do this (start a new thread about Zerinus’ blog) I’d ask that you please enter the discussion with an open mind and desire to honestly, accurately and respectfully discuss the questions; I’ll promise to do the same. I didn’t start the conversation on anti-LDS - you did - see post #9 of this thread. I bring this up not to fight with you about that topic but because your statement is not accurate - if we’re really going to discuss something as important as our faiths accuracy is important, don’t you think? As you can see by posts #23-27 many of my Catholic brethren experience the same frustration as I do when talking with LDS. My comments about the anti thing is not about bashing LDS, its about the inability to have a meaningful and open discussion when the LDS person is stuck in the anti mindset. Shall we proceed?"

And Zerinus answer was to proceed. I’ll skip the fine details but those of you following this and the “Did the Pope…” thread have seen many examples of Zerinus’ responses. He started out great - saying why he wrote what he wrote, explaining what he meant by retaliation, etc. But it wasn’t long before he was telling us how to understand our own doctrines and theology, not being able to see the subtlety of Fr. Ladaria’s article and basically taking the stance that if anyone didn’t agree with his opinion of the RCC baptism change, or baptism, or the priesthood, etc., they were wrong - because he said so!

Then he tells us that even though he’s made statements in his blog like the RCC is retaliating against LDS and “I think that statement is damning and devestating” that he and the LDS are our friends! With friends like that, who needs - well, you know the rest…Then, right on cue, Dianaiad comes bombing in accusing the RCC of discrimination before she’s even read Fr. Ladaria’s article. She does soften this a little in #94 but then speculates that the RCC is gathering the flocks against the “wolves” of LDS. Interesting choice of images.

Finally, I see this behavior with LDS posters here and on LDS blogs I’ve responded to that they can say all sorts of negative things about other people but when you bring that to their attention they deny it or try to blame their responses on you - as if they’re justified for being mean and negative. In other words, it can never be their own behavior that is in question - it has to be you. They make accusations and speculations without first gathering facts, instead of first asking questions as one with some discretion would do. LDS strike me like the bug in the first Men In Black movie - always in a bad mood with a huge inferiority complex combined with a large dose of passive aggressiveness. They say they want to talk, but only if you agree with them. They say they’re the friend of RCC but then bash it relentlessly. But if we question their faith, or make a change to our practices, we’re discriminating and they’re victims

Where does this fascinating behavior come from? What is it in the religion/culture that inculcates this behavior? I’ve had lots of religious discussions and run into this with other people too - but never to the extent and consistency across people I see in LDS.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If Jewish baptism was the same as John’s baptism, it was more than a ritual washing. If Jesus needed to be baptized of him in order to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15), it was more than a ritual washing. If it imparted salvation to those who received it in faith (which it did, see Matthew 21:31–32), it was more than a ritual washing.

Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Baptism. Prior to this, it was a ritual washing only. Jews would participate in a immersion ritual several times a year.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The Catholic Church is not the only Christian faith that does not recognize Mormon baptisms as valid. Other Christian faiths have, at various times, either performed conditional baptisms or re-baptized Mormons that were converting to another faith. This is not strictly a Catholic/Mormon thing, hence the victim mentality on this issue is unwarranted.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The Catholic Church is not the only Christian faith that does not recognize Mormon baptisms as valid. Other Christian faiths have, at various times, either performed conditional baptisms or re-baptized Mormons that were converting to another faith. This is not strictly a Catholic/Mormon thing, hence the victim mentality on this issue is unwarranted.

But it is always ok to ascribe nefarious purpose to non-Mormons and here on this board to Catholics in particular. From posts here it is quite obvious that the Mormons have an ugly view of Catholicism, if we were to ascribe the same motive to Mormons we would be accused of Anti-Mormonism but hey it’s ok if they do it to us.

 

[MelanieAnne]

But it is always ok to ascribe nefarious purpose to non-Mormons and here on this board to Catholics in particular. From posts here it is quite obvious that the Mormons have an ugly view of Catholicism, if we were to ascribe the same motive to Mormons we would be accused of Anti-Mormonism but hey it’s ok if they do it to us.

You may be right.

But we’ve got one really great thing going for us, and that’s the fact that our Church was founded by Jesus Christ and He still guides the Church today, as He promised to do. All other faiths were founded by men. All other faiths fall short of the fullness of Truth. This won’t stop people from throwing rocks at us, but it takes a little of the sting out!

 

[zerinus]

I thought the document that addressed this was a response to a dubium. In essence the Church was responding to a question that was becomming more common as Catholics and LDS interaction expanded. I think the reason for the decision is clear… the Church was making a clear statement on the issue because it had become a matter of concern. Ascribing some retaliatory motive to the action seems unjust to me. But, then again, I am not a Mormon.

I don’t know what you are making out of that. Everybody keeps banging that it is a “dubium” now. Well what is it supposed to be? That is the Catholic Church’s way of formally responding to a legal or theological inquiry. The dubium was raised by the conference of the Catholic bishops in the United States. That is the significant bit, not the fact that it is a dubium. A dubium can also be a cover for making a change in policy or doctrine. You don’t know what discussions took place behind the scenes before the dubium was issued. The same “dubium” was raised a couple of years earlier by a Catholic cleric which the CDF had rejected. These are the factors that you need to take into account in assessing the situation, not banging on the fact that it is a “dubium”.

I’ve heard of circumstantial evidence. But what you described is not circumstantial evidence. It is speculation based upon your own mistrust.

You are guessing. I’m not willing to speculate about motives without some real evidence (direct or circumstantial). You have presented nothing of any substantial weight in support of your admitted “guess.”

Circumstantial evidence does involve speculation; but it is a bit more than pure speculation. I think the circumstantial evidence is strong that there is more to that decision than meets the eye.

Baptism does not require a priest or a deacon, or even a Catholic to be performed. The Church has always been quite clear about what is required, and what is the ordinary means.

Precisely, which is why it is confused. It goes contrary to the biblical evidence. John was a legal administrator, a priest, authorized by God to perform baptisms. That is why Jesus went to him to be baptized, not just to anybody. Also the Catholic position is ambiguous. Is a priest required or not required? Nobody seems to be able to say for sure!

The fundamental reason for the rejection of the LDS baptism is the completely different understanding of the Trinity.

Which goes contrary to Catholic practice and tradition. Trinitarian (or other theological) differences have traditionally not been used by the RCC as a justification for rejecting the baptism of another church, by Fr. Ladaria’s own admission. Just curious, did you read my article, or at least the posts in this thread? I can’t understand the Catholic mentality. When they decide to have a one-track-mind on something, they become completely oblivious to everything else. This point has been made several times here already, and Catholic posters seem completely blind to it, and keep bringing the same argument again, oblivious to my previous replies, and without having refuted them. Heard of burying your head in the sand? It is kind of like that.

The same problem would, theoretically, exist with the JWs . . .

Ditto!

JWs do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. They baptize in the name of their JW organization! That is the gripe that the Catholic Church has with them. That objection does not apply to the LDS Church. We baptize by immersion, in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Do you think you could try to remember that; or is that too much to ask? I will give you a dollar if you try to remember that for at least a week!

It is an attempt to protect those who wish to fully enter into the fullness of Christian faith as safeguarded by the Catholic Church. I’m not stating this as a challenge to your belief. I’m saying this to clarify that at some point two faiths can diverge to the point that one is fundamentally different from the other. That is what is being recognized here, and I think it is an honest point to make. Whether you are LDS or Catholic, the acknowledgement should be recognized.

You can say what you like; but to me hypocrisy is oozing out of it—I mean out of the RCC decision. Not sure about you comments!

It’s not a put-down or even improper to acknowledge that where two faiths diverge to such an extent on the doctrine of the trinity one faith cannot accept the validity of the other’s “trinitarian” baptism. Ascribing a malicious or retaliatory motive to such an honest recognition - without substantial evidence - is simply unwarranted here.

I think the evidence for it is circumstantial, but strong.

 

[zerinus]

Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Baptism. Prior to this, it was a ritual washing only. Jews would participate in a immersion ritual several times a year.

John’s authoritative baptism belies your comment.

 

[Finrock]

Good morning Religio71! I hope you have been doing well and enjoying your weekend.

Actually, the key to the word of God is that Jesus is God, and salvation comes only through Him. All else flows out from that.

This is what Jesus taught:

“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40).

According to Jesus, everything flows from these two commandments to love God and to love your neighbor. Paul reiterated this later in 1 Corinthians speaking to charity, or the pure love of Christ, that all mankind should have. Said Paul:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” (1 Cor.13).

Jesus and Paul make it clear. It doesn’t matter what we think we are doing whether that is defending the faith, preaching the gospel, or giving to the poor, if we don’t have the pure love of Christ in our hearts towards others, then we are nothing. Are we “defending the faith” because of charity or because of pride? Do we preach the gospel because of ego or because of love? If we are motivated by the pure love of Christ in our hearts towards mankind then we will be long suffering towards one another, we will be kind to one another, we will not be puffed up or egotistical, we will not be easily provoked by others, and we will not behave unseemingly. We will treat each other with respect and with dignity. That is the way of the Master. These are the things Jesus taught.

Love of God and love of neighbor are the greatest of all and it is upon these two commandments on which everything else hangs.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Religio71]

Good morning Religio71! I hope you have been doing well and enjoying your weekend.

This is what Jesus taught:

“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40).

According to Jesus, everything flows from these two commandments to love God and to love your neighbor. Paul reiterated this later in 1 Corinthians speaking to charity, or the pure love of Christ, that all mankind should have. Said Paul:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” (1 Cor.13).

Jesus and Paul make it clear. It doesn’t matter what we think we are doing whether that is defending the faith, preaching the gospel, or giving to the poor, if we don’t have the pure love of Christ in our hearts towards others, then we are nothing. Are we “defending the faith” because of charity or because of pride? Do we preach the gospel because of ego or because of love? If we are motivated by the pure love of Christ in our hearts towards mankind then we will be long suffering towards one another, we will be kind to one another, we will not be puffed up or egotistical, we will not be easily provoked by others, and we will not behave unseemingly. We will treat each other with respect and with dignity. That is the way of the Master. These are the things Jesus taught.

Love of God and love of neighbor are the greatest of all and it is upon these two commandments on which everything else hangs.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Thank you Finrock. However, the big point of this is yes, Love of God. Now, is this Love of Vishnu? Love of Zeus? Love of the Goddess? No, it is Love of the One True God. This is why we must first know who God is, then everything else occurs.