RCC Decision Not to Recognize LDS Baptism!

[zerinus]

It would seem to me that Catholics view baptism as such an essential ordinance (tied to Original Sin and all) that they exclude it from needing priesthood authority. That it’s an outward sign of an inner committment.

They have got the “essential” bit right; but the “solution” wrong! Baptism is indeed an essential requirement for salvation. But the solution to that problem is not to abrogate the authority in order to accommodate the “emergency”. The right solution to that is the LDS solution—baptism for the dead! Baptism for the dead both preserves the authority, as well as caters for the situation when someone dies without baptism through no fault of their own. The current Catholic practice would damn someone who dies without baptism through no fault of their own. LDS practice recognizes the fairness of God, and saves him through the ordinance of vicarious baptism for the dead.

There is another problem with the Catholic practice. Baptism is not the only ordinance that is required for salvation. All the ordinances of the gospel in fact are required for salvation, including confirmation and the laying of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordination, and all the rest. Catholic practice makes no provision for those, and does not even recognise their requirement. LDS doctrine is perfect and complete, and caters for all the ordinances of the gospel (including marriage), not just baptism.

However, without the priesthood involved, there’s always the danger that too many insincere people will be baptised and then improperly nourished as new converts. I know there’s always that problem but that’s why I would want the priesthood involved.

The need for authority is the need for authority. It is a legalistic concern. The sincerity or personal worthiness of the individuals concerned is a separate issue.

So I can see why it would be relegated to “only in case of emergency” status but that’s really not the case if a Protestant or Mormon wanted to become a Catholic. I’m sure RICA helps but still…

It is indeed appropriate that new converts to the Church should be instructed in the basic requirements of gospel, and what will be expected of them as members of the Church; and LDS doctrine provides for that (D&C 20:68). But that is a far cry to the rigmarole and bureaucratic hassle of RCIA, which can take months and even years. That is worse than the Pharisees! The gospel of Jesus Christ is essentially a simple one. “He that believeth and is baptize shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), said the Lord to His disciples. No hassle! To the newly converted Peter said: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:28). No RCIA! To the Etheopean eunuch who inquired, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest;” and he was immediately baptized (See Acts 8:26–39). No hassle! That is the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the gospel of RCIA!

zerinus

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Did you read my blog?

zerinus

A reference to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by O.S. Luke
United Methodists do not recognize LDS baptisms either. More here.

O+

Why yes, I did, and I found this:

The Protestant churches probably thought that their decision wouldn’t be very effective unless the Catholic Church followed suit—who in turn relented to do as they were asked!

This could be ignorance of the fact that Protestants just aren’t in the habit of asking the Catholic Church for anything – they don’t really think we have anything to offer, or they’d be Catholics. Or, it could be an arrogance that thinks that the Catholic Church marches to the beat of an American drum, and that, somehow, a need or request of the American (or any Western) Bishops has some kind of clout in the Curia, by virtue only of the origin of the need or request. As history, and recent history, clearly illustrate, not so.

And finally, there’s the utterly preposterous notion that the Curia does Protestant bidding! Catholics do indeed have a special regard for our Separated Christian Brethren, but the idea that they set the agenda for the Church, is, well,

I’m afraid recourse to the blog is every bit as unhelpful as reference to the author’s discourse in this thread, and preposterous content like that is mostly why.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[po18guy]

It’s obvious Mormons don’t accept Catholic baptisms – I had a visit from my Bishop last night demanding that I either leave the Catholic Church, resign from the LDS Church or have a church court. My letter of resignation is going out today!

Praise God! To paraphrase our Lord Jesus in Matthew 16:17, Blessed are you, BartBurk. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but our Father in heaven. Welcome home.

 

[po18guy]

And finally, there’s the utterly preposterous notion that the Curia does Protestant bidding! Catholics do indeed have a special regard for our Separated Christian Brethren, but the idea that they set the agenda for the Church, is, well,

Yet another adventist faith, the SDA church, also believes that “Rome” hoodwinked or tricked the entire Protestant world into Sunday worship, rather than observing the Jewish Shabbat of sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. SDA founders also claimed that Rome would cause the United States government to enforce Sunday worship. Why do these strange religions persist?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Way back in 1992, when we were going through the RCIA process, one of our Priests let me know that the Church didn’t recognize LDS baptisms; anyone who was converting from the LDS faith would have to be re-baptized. However, since I was RLDS I had the choice as to whether I would be re-baptized or not. From what I remember, it was up to the Diocese whether or not I had to be re-baptized or not since there were no clear-cut guidelines about RLDS baptisms, and the Diocese left it up to me.

I chose to be re-baptized in to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

What you received was a conditional baptism (i.e. a just in case) baptism. Catholics don’t re-baptize. So if your first baptism was valid, the second was just a nice Catholic ceremony.

For that matter we don’t re-baptize SLC Mormons either. We don’t recognize their baptisms so in our eyes they’re not baptized because they don’t believe in the Triune God.

 

[Lehl]

I’ve also read your blog, Z.

Another Catholic priest by the name of Jordan Vajda, who appears to be more sympathetic to the LDS Church, in the introduction to his masters’ thesis: Partakers of the Divine Nature (pp. xiii–xv), has come up with a different possible explanation

Jordan Vajda was an aberrant priest when he wrote that thesis. More importantly is he is NOT an active Catholic priest. He IS a Mormon. I know that Mormon apologists just LOVE to keep quoting him and keep referring to him as a “Catholic priest” since you all think it lends credibility to your positions.

Even on Mormon apologetics site, Jordan Vajda is STILL referred to as a Catholic priest when in reality he’s officially been just another rank and file Mormon since 2004.

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=435

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=371

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=247

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Scholarship_in_Mormonism_and_Mormonism_in_Scholarship.html

This is of great interest, too:

speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11678

The conversion of Jordan Vajda, a fine young man who had been a Catholic priest, is instructive. **When he was in grade school he had Latter-day Saint friends in his class who shared with him their love of the gospel. At age 13 he found an offer from the Church for a free Book of Mormon. He sent for it, and two sister missionaries responded. They were surprised that he was only 13 and had requested the Book of Mormon. **He was impressed with what they taught and what he felt, but after discussions with his family, he decided to become a priest in the Catholic Church. **As he prepared to be a priest, he remained interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. **
…
After being taught by missionaries and praying sincerely, he received inspiration that he should resign as a Catholic priest and be baptized and confirmed into the Church of Jesus Christ. His letter of resignation expressed his love and appreciation for the Catholic Church and then stated:

But why am I doing what I am doing? To put it most simply: I have found a fuller truth and goodness and beauty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After years of study and reflection, I have come to believe that the LDS Church is the only true and living Church of Jesus Christ, guided and led by living apostles and prophets.

I believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, called and ordained for this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. I love the Book of Mormon; I believe it to be the word of God for us in these latter days.

I can no longer deny my feelings, my heart, my conscience. I cannot deny the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost which has come after much prayer and soul-searching. At this point in my life, at this moment, as I look forward to and prepare for my convert baptism, I have found a happiness greater than I ever imagined possible.4

This good man is completely active in the Church, has been to the temple, teaches the Gospel Doctrine class in his ward, and has a management position in a hospital in Seattle.

It’s pathetic and purposely deceptive to not update their site to reflect that Father Vajda has been BROTHER Vajda since 2004.

After completing his thesis, Father Vajda further investigated the Church and now has been baptized, becoming Brother Vajda in 2004.

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml

But the ultimate question is, does anybody care? The LDS Church certainly doesn’t, and I doubt if anybody else does either.

Obviously you care very much.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

LDS uses the Trinitarian formula. Try reading the blog before replying to it, and save yourself and us the trouble.

zerinus

PS. It looks like the post was deleted! Nevermind.

PPS. The poster was GandalfTheWhite

LDS may use the wording of the “Trinitarian formula” but there is no belief in the Trinity, therefore the wording does not have any substance, therefore your baptisms aren’t valid.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

What you received was a conditional baptism (i.e. a just in case) baptism. Catholics don’t re-baptize. So if your first baptism was valid, the second was just a nice Catholic ceremony

That’s not the way it was explained to me. The Church was clear at the time on the invalidity of LDS baptisms, but not on RLDS baptisms(apparently the RLDS are closer to Christianlity then their LDS brethren). Father Offut explained the situation and said I had the choice of being baptized in the Church, or be confirmed. Nothing about the baptism being conditional, or a ‘nice Catholic ceremony.’ So you’ll excuse me I take at face value that my baptism was bona fide’ and not contigent.

Yes, I know that the Church doesn’t re-baptize. Sometimes I type faster than I think. What I should have said was that I chose to be baptized.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The “definition” of Trinitarian is not an issue here. The fact is that the RCC recognizes the baptism performed anyone provided the Trinitarian FORMULA is used (i.e. “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”); not what definition of “Trinitarian” they believe in (or whether they believe in it at all). If you don’t know your own Catholic doctrine, don’t blame me.

Zerinus

You re-baptize Christians of any stripe who were baptized in the Trinitarian formula therefore declaring yourselves that your “Ordinance” is different from the Christian Sacrament.

 

[po18guy]

jmcrae;2658161:

And so I am wondering why Catholics allow Lutheran (or any Protestants for that matter) baptism when they don’t recognize their authority.

It would seem to me that Catholics view baptism as such an essential ordinance (tied to Original Sin and all) that they exclude it from needing priesthood authority. That it’s an outward sign of an inner committment. However, without the priesthood involved, there’s always the danger that too many insincere people will be baptised and then improperly nourished as new converts…

Any baptism done in a proper, non-Mormon Trinitarian formula is acceptable, as the grace comes from God, not man. For example, St. Paul was baptised by Ananias, a disciple, but not one of the twelve. I may be wrong, but he was likely considered laity.

The One God, our God, is not involved in Mormon baptisms, as they clearly have created an idol-god that they worship, one that leads them to desire satan-like godhood of their own. This, despite their belief in the KJV bible that establishes One God.

Nearly all Catholic baptisms are indeed, performed by priests. However, God’s grace allows for alternatives. The Lord is not so narrow-minded as we are. The dangers of routine baptism “without the priesthood involved” is right! Look at the strange doctrines that have come about through those who let you read the bible and do your own thing. It blew the doors off the church and let nearly every conceivable belief into some of them.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

That’s not the way it was explained to me. The Church was clear at the time on the invalidity of LDS baptisms, but not on RLDS baptisms(apparently the RLDS are closer to Christianlity then their LDS brethren). Father Offut explained the situation and said I had the choice of being baptized in the Church, or be confirmed. Nothing about the baptism being conditional.

RLDS believe in the Trinity so in my opinion you received a conditional baptism.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

RLDS believe in the Trinity so in my opinion you received a conditional baptism.

Not in the way you think they do.

Pretty arrogant of you to decide which Catholic’s baptism is conditional and which isn’t. You weren’t pivy to the discussion and had with Father Offut, nor where you at that Easter Vigil, and I doubt you were privy to the discussions between our Priest and our Bishop.

 

[po18guy]

There is another problem with the Catholic practice. Baptism is not the only ordinance that is required for salvation. All the ordinances of the gospel in fact are required for salvation, including confirmation and the laying of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordination, and all the rest. Catholic practice makes no provision for those, and does not even recognise their requirement. LDS doctrine is perfect and complete, and caters for all the ordinances of the gospel (including marriage), not just baptism.
zerinus

zerinus, you are displaying a cancerous ignorance. At one time, you might have been as a benign tumor, but your abject ignorance of the Catholic faith, or evil misrepresentation of it, your slavish parroting of clear falsehoods and your lying to Our One God and Catholic Answers when you agreed not to prosthelytize on the forum are unacceptable. Have you no conscience?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Not in the way you think they do.

Pretty arrogant of you to decide which Catholic’s baptism is conditional and which isn’t. You weren’t pivy to the discussion and had with Father Offut, nor where you at that Easter Vigil, and I doubt you were privy to the discussions between our Priest and our Bishop.

Can you explain to me “not in the way you think they do”?

I’m not the one making personal attacks here… all I stated was that if your RLDS baptism was a valid Christian baptism – then, your Catholic baptism was a conditional baptism. I think it’s great you chose to get baptized to be safe, but it might not have been necessarily necessary or you wouldn’t have been given the decision for yourself.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There is another problem with the Catholic practice. Baptism is not the only ordinance that is required for salvation. All the ordinances of the gospel in fact are required for salvation, including confirmation and the laying of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordination, and all the rest. Catholic practice makes no provision for those, and does not even recognise their requirement. LDS doctrine is perfect and complete, and caters for all the ordinances of the gospel (including marriage), not just baptism.

Okay, so according to the Utah Mormon Church you need to be married to be saved?

 

[ApostateRLDS]

Okay, so according to the Utah Mormon Church you need to be married to be saved?

To reach Celestial Glory you do. In fact, you have to be married and sealed. How else is one expected to reach godhood, create spirit children, rule your own planet?

 

[BartBurk]

Praise God! To paraphrase our Lord Jesus in Matthew 16:17, Blessed are you, BartBurk. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but our Father in heaven. Welcome home.

The letters went out this morning – one to Member Records in Salt Lake City, one to the Bishop and one to the Stake President. There is actually a very good web site with a nice sample letter that helps explain the process:

mormonnomore.com/

I wouldn’t have done this right now if I hadn’t been pushed.

 

[po18guy]

The letters went out this morning – one to Member Records in Salt Lake City, one to the Bishop and one to the Stake President. There is actually a very good web site with a nice sample letter that helps explain the process:

mormonnomore.com/

I wouldn’t have done this right now if I hadn’t been pushed.

Sometimes, the Lord does get a little pushy. Praise Him for that! He has placed two Mormons in my life who are dissatisfied and are seeking Catholicism. Clearly, God is at work here, and you are indeed blessed, as Christ said in Matthew 18:13-15, “And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost”.

There is celebration in heaven, for although you have lost some family, the Lord Himself will give you much more.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

Can you explain to me “not in the way you think they do”?

Even though they gave lip service to ‘God in Three Persons’, they don’t teach it. They don’t teach God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. It’s closer to what the LDS believes: God is the Father, Jesus is the Son of God and a completely seperate being.

That’s why growing up RLDS I had such a tough time with concept of Mary being the Mother of God.

 

[zerinus]

I’ve also read your blog, Z.

Jordan Vajda was an aberrant priest when he wrote that thesis. More importantly is he is NOT an active Catholic priest. He IS a Mormon. I know that Mormon apologists just LOVE to keep quoting him and keep referring to him as a “Catholic priest” since you all think it lends credibility to your positions.

Even on Mormon apologetics site, Jordan Vajda is STILL referred to as a Catholic priest when in reality he’s officially been just another rank and file Mormon since 2004.

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=435

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=371

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=247

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Scholarship_in_Mormonism_and_Mormonism_in_Scholarship.html

This is of great interest, too:

speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11678

It’s pathetic and purposely deceptive to not update their site to reflect that Father Vajda has been BROTHER Vajda since 2004.

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml

Obviously you care very much.

Thank you for the info. I hadn’t realized that he had cnverted to the LDS Church. Good for him! Great to hear! I shall reflect that in my blog.

As for the rest of you post, those articles you had linked to were all written before his conversion, so there is no deception involved. Nobody rewrites a past article every time one of the details in it changes. BYU and LDS websites host millions of articles by numerous authors. It would be an impossible task to ammend them all every time one of the details changes. But thanks for the good news though! Good to hear a great Catholic priest converting to Mormonism!

zerinus

PS. Where did you obtain the date of his conversion? I need that to put it in my blog. Thanks.