Z
- Status
A
ApostateRLDS
Guest
Yet, Mormons obsess and carry on about their baptisms not being recognized by the Catholic Church. I just doesn’t make any sense.
M
majick275
Guest
first of all, the LDS really doesn’t use the trintiarian formula. this is where the confusion is rooted. the WORDS are the same but the meanings are so different as to invalidate it. When the definition of the father, son and holy ghost are exalted men and/or pre-mortal spirits then it can’t be the trinity. not to mention the consubstantial one God that IS the trinity that mormons do NOT recognize.
as to the pre-nicene churches, only the ignorant who have not bothered to study their beliefs would think they weren’t trinitarian Christians. now heretics did exist and I’m sure many of those baptized by/as heretics were not validly baptized. (depends upon the specific heresy and the actual baptism itself)
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
It never ceases to amaze me, and fortunately, it sometimes amuses me.
Folk who hold that the Catholic Church is, well, let’s just say, not such a nice outfit, struggle like mad to claim to have what she has.
In addition to folks who deny the Trinity, one God in three Divine Persons, and yet claim to have valid baptism, we have folks who deny that Holy Orders is a sacrament, and claim to have valid orders, and folks who basically invent their own rules for the sacraments, and claim they are valid.
Why, I wonder do they bother? And what does it say about these folks when, on the one hand, they denigrate the Church, and on the other hand, claim to have what was clearly given to her in the first place, long before they came into being as a grouping?
Just one of life’s amusing and perplexing mysteries, I guess.
Blessings,
Gerry
Folk who hold that the Catholic Church is, well, let’s just say, not such a nice outfit, struggle like mad to claim to have what she has.
In addition to folks who deny the Trinity, one God in three Divine Persons, and yet claim to have valid baptism, we have folks who deny that Holy Orders is a sacrament, and claim to have valid orders, and folks who basically invent their own rules for the sacraments, and claim they are valid.
Why, I wonder do they bother? And what does it say about these folks when, on the one hand, they denigrate the Church, and on the other hand, claim to have what was clearly given to her in the first place, long before they came into being as a grouping?
Just one of life’s amusing and perplexing mysteries, I guess.
Blessings,
Gerry
A
ApostateRLDS
Guest
Gerry,
Very well said, and I couldn’t have put it better. You have a church that has unequivocally stated that the Catholic and Protestant Churches are an abomination.
Very well said, and I couldn’t have put it better. You have a church that has unequivocally stated that the Catholic and Protestant Churches are an abomination.
Yet, its members carry on and obsess about their baptisms not being recognized by the Catholic Church.
B
BartBurk
Guest
I am a former Mormon who was recently baptized into the Catholic Church.
Some people are saying the Catholic Church never recognized Mormon baptism. That is false. I know a person named Owen West who was received into the Catholic Church without rebaptism. He had a choice and chose not to be rebaptized. When the Vatican clarified the issue he did get rebaptized, but he had been confirmed and was considered a worthy member of the Catholic Church for many years before his rebaptism. Many LDS who had converted to the Catholic Church without rebaptism were in this position.
Another falsehood being stated here is that Mormons don’t believe in original sin. Mormons believe that Adam and Eve sinned and that death and sin were brought into the world because of it. Mormons don’t believe we are judged personally guilty for this sin because Christ’s atonement paid for Adam’s sin. Mormons still recognize the effect of Adam’s original sin – a tendency towards sin in our own lives and eventually death. The Mormon position is actually very close to the position of the Eastern Orthodox. That is why Eastern Orthodox don’t accept the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. They feel it is an unnecessary doctrine as explained here:
antiochian.org/mary-one-of-us
also:
antiochian.org/morelli/the-ethos-of-orthodox-christian-healing
I would have to say this is exactly how I understood original sin as a Mormon – it’s a very Eastern Orthodox understanding. I don’t believe an Eastern Orthodox would claim that baptism washes away original sin, but their baptism is accepted by the Catholic Church.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
You are just not comprehending what you are reading and then commenting on it as if you do. Both of the articles quoted by you are about a misunderstanding of the Trinity, NOT a total intentional rewriting and redefining of the Trinity as done by the LDS church. The baptisms accepted are because the intention of the minister is to do what the Church teaches even though the minister himself might have a flawed personal understanding of that teaching. The LDS baptism is done with the intention of being contrary to Church teaching. To deny that is to deny LDS teaching.
The Catholic Church is so old and so huge that it took a great many years to even realize that the LDS church wasn’t just another Protestant church. As I said before it really was the former LDS themselves who raised the issue to the Church. They were the ones noting to the Church that their baptisms were probably invalid. If no one were converting, the issue would never need be addressed. I’m sorry to say that 180 years isn’t long when you are a Church. (Like that T-shirt that says, “60 isn’t old when you are a tree.”) Nine years is the blink of an eye in a decision making process of a 2000 year old Church.
[emphasis by me] You note here exactly what I said, “people” not churches. You would be hard pressed to open an official Lutheran document and find those words stated. Yes, Luther said it. I think he had just renounced being a Catholic priest at the time. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church calls herself those names merely because a former member does? The official documents of the LDS church say our creed is an abomination. Again, to deny that is to deny LDS teaching.
I was being sarcastic hence the “roll eyes: sarcastic” face included.
I will still dialogue with my LDS friends who are honest and upfront about their teachings. All I ask in dialogue with others is honesty about their own beliefs.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Good clarification. I don’t know that anyone is saying that they were never recognized. I think what is being said is that the awareness of the invalidity is finally recognized. They were “recognized” only because people thought that the LDS were just another branch of protestantism.
Since there really is no such thing as “rebaptism” it was a tough time for many former LDS. There is only baptism or conditional baptism. One is either baptized validly once and for all, or is just being dunked in water. My experience during this time is that some former LDS were conditionally baptised until the ruling was clear. I have a lot of respect for converts during that period. It must have been a very big leap of faith for them.
As I said, it is the converts themselves we can thank for helping clarify the issue. They knew their former beliefs on the Trinity were not in line with Church teaching and spoke up about it. All of you converts from Mormonism are a blessed addition to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!
N
nowcatholic
Guest
I was extremely happy to hear the news that I would be baptized prior to communion and confirmation. It really seemed to make sense to me and I thought it was so cool that my children were there with me watching me be baptized. I was really excited to receive all three sacraments. It was AWESOME!!! I didn’t give much thought about the chruch not accepting my prior baptism, I was too excited about becoming fully Catholic and really having Jesus in my life.
Now we look back at the pictures and my kids talk about how mama and papa baptized them and how they baptized mama.
No controversy for me, just gratefulness for a true relationship with Christ and prayers for everyone that seeks one also.
Now we look back at the pictures and my kids talk about how mama and papa baptized them and how they baptized mama.
No controversy for me, just gratefulness for a true relationship with Christ and prayers for everyone that seeks one also.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Not true. You don’t know what you are talking about. Twisting the facts. By the “intent” of whoever is administering the rite, is meant the intent to administer the rite, and not for some other purpose. If, for example, I dip someone in the bath tub with the intent to give them a wash and shampoo, then that is not the correct “intent” for it to be counted as baptism. But if I dip them in the water with the “intent” baptize them, then that is the correct “intent”. Now if I happen to be a Moslem, a Jew, a Hindu, a Satanist, or an atheist, and don’t believe in God at all, and believe that the “Trinity” is all a bunch of baloney, that does not invalidate my baptism (according to the Catholic Church), provided that the correct “form” and “matter” is used (i.e. the Trinitarian formula and water), and the “intent” was right (i.e. to baptise them and not give them a good wash and shampoo). That is what “intent” means. What kind of “Trinity” you believe in; or whether you believe in the Trinity at all; is not a factor that is take into account. That is Catholic doctrine for you, like it or not.
Rubbish! Already answered. No need to answer again.
Churches means “people”. That is what “church” is. There is no such thing as church without people. The Pope does not make the Catholic Church. The Catholic people do. And as it happens, the majority of the radical protestant groups (Evangelicals if you like) believe that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Church of the devil. Sorry to disappoint.
zerinus
T
truthsilence
Guest
You’re giving yourself way too much credit. I highly doubt you are capable of causing disappointment to any of us and in actuality, your involvement on this board only serves to reinforce our gratitude for the One, Holy, Apostolic church of Christ: the Catholic church.
Zerinus, I have a question. Have you ever been to mass? Ever gone with an open heart for the truth?
God bless you.
ts
Z
Zooey
Guest
Precisely…though I have to wonder
why it has taken the man** 6 years **to work up enough indignation about it, to write a blog entry about it…Oh, pooh! You say that, and all you do, is to prove the point that you are arguing against. The very fact that you can’t see the difference between valid Christian baptisms & Mormon baptisms, simply shows that Mormons don’t have a valid form of baptism.
They rebaptize people themselves…proving that Mormon baptism is a different thing than a valid Christian baptism.
But
anything to argue that the rest of the world is
oppressing the Mormons. I dunno…
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
No, Church means “Church”, as in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, the Mystical Body of Christ into which people are grafted. It is composed, in total of some people here on earth – the Church Militant – some in purgatory – the Church Suffering – and those in heaven – the Church Triumphant. The Church does not exist because a bunch of people gathered together and said, “here we are,” although, of course, the members of the Church do, form time to time, gather together.
There’s a group of “dissident” Catholics out there who claim “we are church.” Actually, they are proclaiming that they aren’t much interested in being Catholic.
Your understanding of “church” is unknown to Catholic thought. Please don’t presume to tell us the nature of the body into which we have been grafted – that’s very presumptuous.
Blessings,
Gerry
po18guy
Well-known member
Please define “Trinitarian” for us. Christians accept only baptism in the Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). Anything less is an invalid Trinitarian formula, denying the Divinity of Christ. A baptism in the name of Jesus the MAN, even though you consider Him the Son of God, is invalid! To deny part of Christ (His Divinity) is to deny all of him. It’s not a “cafeteria” deal. We Catholics are fighting our own battles with that one!
This is based on SCRIPTURE and church teaching.
The peace of the Divine Christ be with all of you.
Z
zerinus
Guest
G
goodcatholicman
Guest
Let’s cut to the chase here - What the RCC is stating, rather clearly, is that the Mormon church isn’t recognizable as a Christian institution even in the simplest of terms. The RCC is stating that we can’t even come up to the level of discussing doctrine without a valid Baptism. The argument regarding a valid Baptism is moot considering the LDS shares nothing whatever of basic Christian principles. There are so many doctrines getting in the way of honest discussion that will be forever impossible recognize the LDS as anything more than a thinly disguised cult. Examples include the origin of magic seer stones, secret hand shakes to get into heaven, plurality of gods, plagarized new testament, racist treatment of blacks (white and delightful) men that can become gods in after life and the list goes on and on. Sad really as I know some fine people that happen to be Mormon. A discussion of a valid baptism is ignoring the white elephant in the room and giving this group far more credence than they deserve. 
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant (and Mormon)
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant (and Mormon)
L
Lehl
Guest
Amen to that.Let’s cut to the chase here - What the RCC is stating, rather clearly, is that the Mormon church isn’t recognizable as a Christian institution even in the simplest of terms. The RCC is stating that we can’t even come up to the level of discussing doctrine without a valid Baptism. The argument regarding a valid Baptism is moot considering the LDS shares nothing whatever of basic Christian principles. There are so many doctrines getting in the way of honest discussion that will be forever impossible recognize the LDS as anything more than a thinly disguised cult. Examples include the origin of magic seer stones, secret hand shakes to get into heaven, plurality of gods, plagarized new testament, racist treatment of blacks (white and delightful) men that can become gods in after life and the list goes on and on. Sad really as I know some fine people that happen to be Mormon. A discussion of a valid baptism is ignoring the white elephant in the room and giving this group far more credence than they deserve.
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant (and Mormon)
M
majick275
Guest
actually church comes from Kyriakon meaning “belonging to God”
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Two things:
The first is that the Greek ekklesia is a compound, which means the people who are called out. And yes, Christ calls people into his Church. When they’re called out from the world, the Church is where they go.
Second, do you REALLY expect to make points with Catholics by quoting Baptists ? :hypno:
uch: They deny the teaching of the Church, too, you know, including her teachings on the nature of the church.Blessings,
Gerry
J
jmcrae
Guest
It’s important to realize that the only non-Catholic baptisms that are recognized are those that are both Trinitarian, and recognize that this action of Baptism is a membership action of bringing the person into Christ’s Church, and washing them clean from their sins.
Without those elements being at least implicitly present, no baptism has taken place. There are many Protestant organizations whose baptisms are also not recognized, because they don’t believe that baptism washes away sins, or else they don’t believe that baptism is the rite of membership into the Church, or else they don’t use the Trinitarian formula.
When a non-Catholic performs an emergency Baptism, he does so intending to do what Catholics do when they baptize - what this means is that, although he may or may not understand what membership in the Church is, or what the washing away of sins is, or why he should use the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” while pouring the water, he is not explicitly denying any of this, either, or intending to do something other than a valid baptism into the Catholic Church.
Without those elements being at least implicitly present, no baptism has taken place. There are many Protestant organizations whose baptisms are also not recognized, because they don’t believe that baptism washes away sins, or else they don’t believe that baptism is the rite of membership into the Church, or else they don’t use the Trinitarian formula.
When a non-Catholic performs an emergency Baptism, he does so intending to do what Catholics do when they baptize - what this means is that, although he may or may not understand what membership in the Church is, or what the washing away of sins is, or why he should use the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” while pouring the water, he is not explicitly denying any of this, either, or intending to do something other than a valid baptism into the Catholic Church.
- Status