Was Brigham Young's Mormon baptism valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter christianley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christianley

Guest
Mormon baptisms are currently considered invalid by the Roman Catholic Church. I had to be rebaptized last April apparently because Mormonism doesn’t have the same view of the Trinity.

It is well known that Mormonism’s view of the Godhead developed from a very Trinitarian stance as found in the Book of Mormon and early Mormon documents to the present belief in Tritheism. Early Mormonism’s view of the Godhead was much like the current view of one of Mormonism’s offshoots, the Community of Christ. As far as I know Community of Christ baptisms are considered valid by the Catholic Church.

So was the baptism received by early Mormons like Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, etc. valid? It seems to me that early Mormon baptisms would be considered valid by the Catholic Church because they occurred before the Mormon Church’s view of God went astray. Was Brigham Young simply one of the “separated brethren” rather than a non-Christian?
 
Interesting question. Unfortunately I do not know the answer. However here is a little[SIGN]BUMP![/SIGN] for you; hopefully someone else will have an answer for you! Oh and welcome into the fold!!!
 
If Brigham Young was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian formula, with the understanding of the Trinitarian belief system I would guess it to be valid. If that belief system “changed” later then it wouldn’t negate a legitimate baptism.

I can baptize someone using the Trinitarian formula and it’s valid. Any children I have I baptize immediately in the hospital, prior to the baptism by the Church. I know it’s one Baptism for the remission of sins, but I guess God can decide which one is valid for my kids. I’m not taking chances though.
 
Saint_Michael said:
I can baptize someone using the Trinitarian formula and it’s valid. Any children I have I baptize immediately in the hospital, prior to the baptism by the Church. I know it’s one Baptism for the remission of sins, but I guess God can decide which one is valid for my kids. I’m not taking chances though.
Click to expand...
When your children are born, you should not administer Baptism to them, unless they are in danger of death. The Priest is the ordinary minister of Baptism.

If you yourself do administer Baptism to your children in the hospital, and you are sure that you did it with the proper Trinitarian formula, and you actually had the intent to administer Baptism, then tell the Priest, and he can note this fact in the Parish register. The Priest will probably want to do what is called “supplying the ceremonies” of Baptism, which means doing basically all of the rituals for Baptism, besides the Baptism itself.
 
GoLatin said:
When your children are born, you should not administer Baptism to them, unless they are in danger of death. The Priest is the ordinary minister of Baptism.

If you yourself do administer Baptism to your children in the hospital, and you are sure that you did it with the proper Trinitarian formula, and you actually had the intent to administer Baptism, then tell the Priest, and he can note this fact in the Parish register. The Priest will probably want to do what is called “supplying the ceremonies” of Baptism, which means doing basically all of the rituals for Baptism, besides the Baptism itself.
Click to expand...
We’re all in danger of dying at any minute of any day. Seeing as how the Church has taught that babies either go to hell, or limbo in the past and they still haven’t made a decision on the matter. I’m not comfortable waiting the requisite month or so (some parishes longer) to have my children baptized, no way…

In the future I’ll let the Parish Priest know, but God forbid we are killed in an auto accident out of the hospital and my new baby is floating in limbo for eternity, or kept out of Heaven because she didn’t receive baptism.
 
Saint_Michael said:
We’re all in danger of dying at any minute of any day. Seeing as how the Church has taught that babies either go to hell, or limbo in the past and they still haven’t made a decision on the matter. I’m not comfortable waiting the requisite month or so (some parishes longer) to have my children baptized, no way…

In the future I’ll let the Parish Priest know, but God forbid we are killed in an auto accident out of the hospital and my new baby is floating in limbo for eternity, or kept out of Heaven because she didn’t receive baptism.
Click to expand...
You and your spouse should carry Holy Water with you, so that you can administer emergency Baptism to your children, or to anyone else who needs it. Of course, ordinary plain water will work for Baptism. A Baptism done with plain water is just as valid as a Baptism done with Holy Water.

As far as waiting a month or more to have your child receive Baptism at your Parish, I wonder if this might be because of the fact that Baptism preparation classes are often required. Perhaps the parents could go while the mother is still pregnant.

The Church encourages parents to have their children Baptised within the first few weeks after birth. It used to be that babies were often Baptised within a few days of birth. Pope Benedict XVI received Baptism on the very same day of his birth, although I think that his Baptism was probably in Church, and done by a Priest. New Holy Water had been blessed(it was Easter Vigil), so it was logical for young Joseph Ratzinger to receive Baptism immediately.

I think that it would be a great idea if parents INSISTED that their baby receive Baptism within a few days of birth. The important thing is that the baby receives Baptism, NOT that the ceremony is delayed:( so that all of the relatives can attend.

I think that parents should let the Priest know about when the baby is due to be born, so that the Priest can know about when the Baptism will take place. Then, when the baby is actually born, one of the parents can call the Priest, and let him know that within a couple of days, there will be a baby for him to Baptise.
 
Saint_Michael said:
We’re all in danger of dying at any minute of any day. Seeing as how the Church has taught that babies either go to hell, or limbo in the past and they still haven’t made a decision on the matter. I’m not comfortable waiting the requisite month or so (some parishes longer) to have my children baptized, no way…

In the future I’ll let the Parish Priest know, but God forbid we are killed in an auto accident out of the hospital and my new baby is floating in limbo for eternity, or kept out of Heaven because she didn’t receive baptism.
Click to expand...
Show me where the Church ever taught that unbaptised infants go to hell.
 
PaulDupre said:
Show me where the Church ever taught that unbaptised infants go to hell.
Click to expand...
“This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state”

St. Augustine taught it, and he is considered a doctor of the Church. Either way limbo is no place I want my child to go. And the Church clearly taught this for nearly 2,000 years.
 
The LDS version of baptism is invalid. Period. Brigham Young thought that Adam was the incarnation of god the father. My guess is that no Mormon baptism is valid.

in Christ
Steph
 
Saint_Michael said:
“This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state”

St. Augustine taught it, and he is considered a doctor of the Church. Either way limbo is no place I want my child to go. And the Church clearly taught this for nearly 2,000 years.
Click to expand...
St. Augustine was not a pope nor a member of the magisterium. He is revered as a great theologian, but that’s all he was - a theologian. Many of his writings can give great insight into Church teachings, but none of them carry any authority.

Theologians, from Augustine to Raymond E. Brown, have proposed solutions to questions about things that the Church has never made official pronouncements about. But their theories are just that - intellectual theories.

The Catholic Church has never declared that unbaptized babies go to hell. Some theologians, in an attempt to propose solutions for the question of the fate of unbaptized infants, posited theories about limbo and other things. But none of these was ever authoritatively taught by the magisterium as Catholic doctrine.

As the CCC says, we just don’t know, but knowing the mercy of Jesus and his desire that all men be saved, we can hope.

As a personal aside, I think that the Holy Spirit has not revealed authoritatively that infants may be saved without baptism, because it would only diminish (in the minds of the common faithful) the extreme importance of baptism.

What the Church has consistently taught is that God is not bound by the sacraments He instituted. The sacraments are the normative means by which He imparts grace to His children. But He, as the creator of all, is free to impart His grace to whomever He chooses.

Hope this helps,
Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
St. Augustine was not a pope nor a member of the magisterium. He is revered as a great theologian, but that’s all he was - a theologian. Many of his writings can give great insight into Church teachings, but none of them carry any authority.

Hope this helps,
Paul
Click to expand...
Our modern Church today is largely based on St. Augustine’s teachings. He is not infallible, but is respected as possibly the greatest Catholic theologian in history, and the most important doctor of the Church. To say St. Augustine was “just” a theologian is like saying Babe Ruth was just a baseball player. To say the Church never taught unbaptized babies go to hell is erroneous. It may not have been infallibly declared, but like limbo it doesn’t mean that is wasn’t taught, it certainly was.

The system is flawed and too centered on convenience, it’s foolish to wait weeks or months to have your child baptized. Your Parish priest should be at the hospital waiting to baptize the child immediately after birth.
 
Saint_Michael said:
it’s foolish to wait weeks or months to have your child baptized. Your Parish priest should be at the hospital waiting to baptize the child immediately after birth.
Click to expand...
In this I agree with you whole-heartedly! My step-daughter married an inactive Protestant, and my 3 grandsons, a 4 year-old and twin 2 year-olds are unbaptised. It grieves me deeply.

Paul
 
. Seeing as how the Church has taught that babies either go to hell, or limbo in the past … I’m not comfortable waiting the requisite month or so (some parishes longer) to have my children baptized, no way…

In the future I’ll let the Parish Priest know, but God forbid we are killed in an auto accident out of the hospital and my new baby is floating in limbo for eternity, or kept out of Heaven because she didn’t receive baptism.

Benedict XVI has clarified that Limbo does not exist. So, is pedo baptism justified, unless we have faith as per Romans10.17?
 
christianley said:
Mormon baptisms are currently considered invalid by the Roman Catholic Church. I had to be rebaptized last April apparently because Mormonism doesn’t have the same view of the Trinity.

It is well known that Mormonism’s view of the Godhead developed from a very Trinitarian stance as found in the Book of Mormon and early Mormon documents to the present belief in Tritheism. Early Mormonism’s view of the Godhead was much like the current view of one of Mormonism’s offshoots, the Community of Christ. As far as I know Community of Christ baptisms are considered valid by the Catholic Church.

So was the baptism received by early Mormons like Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, etc. valid? It seems to me that early Mormon baptisms would be considered valid by the Catholic Church because they occurred before the Mormon Church’s view of God went astray. Was Brigham Young simply one of the “separated brethren” rather than a non-Christian?
Click to expand...
Before worrying abut Brigham Young’s baptism, you need to worry abut your own baptisms. It ain’t valid if it isn’t performed by an authorized LDS priesthood holder! 😃

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Before worrying abut Brigham Young’s baptism, you need to worry abut your own baptisms. It ain’t valid if it isn’t performed by an authorized LDS priesthood holder! 😃

zerinus
Click to expand...
Hey Z
Psychotherapy is usually the most effective help in person suffering from delusional disorder.

Grandiose Type: delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person
psychcentral.com/disorders/sx11t.htm
 
zerinus said:
Your church is apostate. It has no priesthood authority to baptize anybody.

zerinus
Click to expand...
St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):
The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)

Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).

The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)
web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

It was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus Christ converted by Paul and Barnabas were first called Christians [Acts 11:26]. Antioch, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, became a center for Christianity. The first Bishop was St. Peter before his travels to Rome. The third Bishop was the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius of Antioch. Antioch became one of the five original Patriarchates
experiencefestival.com/a/Maronite_-_History/id/1748222

let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them ("for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter).

Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, “who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles”. From the Roman Church, representing all the churches. St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till “the time of Trajan”. Of Polycarp he says, “he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna”. He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome
St. Polycarp
Martyr (A.D. 69-155).
newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm
 
dosdog said:
St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):
The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)

Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).

The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)
web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

It was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus Christ converted by Paul and Barnabas were first called Christians [Acts 11:26]. Antioch, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, became a center for Christianity. The first Bishop was St. Peter before his travels to Rome. The third Bishop was the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius of Antioch. Antioch became one of the five original Patriarchates
experiencefestival.com/a/Maronite_-_History/id/1748222

let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them ("for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter).

Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, “who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles”. From the Roman Church, representing all the churches. St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till “the time of Trajan”. Of Polycarp he says, “he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna”. He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome
St. Polycarp
Martyr (A.D. 69-155).
newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm
Click to expand...
All your posts consist of cut and pastes. No brains no pains.

zerinus
 
it is quite possible, that he, Smith and other figures from the first generation of the Mormons had already been validly baptized in the Christian denomination of their families, in which case attempted rebaptism would have been a meaningless act with no sacramental significance or purpose. I don’t know what OP means by “well-known facts” but “Trinitarian stance” does not equate to “Tritheism”.

yes folks, I decided to bypass the personal slugfest that fills most of this thread and go back to original topic, laughable, I know, but that’s just me. can you boys take it outside, we are busy in here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top