A
Aramis
Guest
Matter and Form alone are insufficient for any sacrament. Intent is requisite
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mercytruth
Guest
I have already quoted Fr. Ladaria who in effect stated that for centuries the criteria for a valid baptism within the Roman Catholic church was correct matter and form. For this reason Mormon baptisms were considered valid since 1830 until the Vatican ruled otherwise in 2001 due in large measure to the doctrinal differences regarding the Trinitarian teaching of the Mormons.
It was Bishop Stephen of Rome who stated that baptisms performed by heretics were valid, all that was needed was repentance and the laying on of hands by the bishop for entry into the Catholic Church. Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of Bishops did not agree. In summary, they basically said that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. They argued that a heretic’s faith can not produce the one baptism required by our Lord Jesus Christ. The one true faith is required in order for the baptizer and the baptized to give and receive the one true baptism.
There is plenty of reading material documented at the time of this controversy.
The 72nd and 73rd epistles of Bishop Cyprian, and the 80 some excellent scriptual statements of African bishops (The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian) for understanding their view point.
One can access A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writerfor understanding the viewpoint of the Church of Rome.
Historically, accepting the baptism of heretics seems to go back to the time of Marcion the gnostic who had entered the church in Rome and had deceived some members of the Church. Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna came to Rome and confronted Marcion and brought many who had been deceived by Marcion into the true Church of Jesus Christ in Rome.
This happened during the time of Bishop Hyginus and Bishop Anicetus, approximately 100 years before Bishop Stephen.
One can read about this from Eusebius in his History of the Church and also from
Bishop Irenaeus in his Against Heresies
As background, Justin Martyr in his First Apology,says that Marcion’s gnostic sect claimed to be “Christian”. Marcion baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Bishop Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Bishop Polycarp was a contemporary of Bishop Ignatius and lived long enough to be alive during the time of Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.
Marcion the gnostic, taught that the God of the OT was evil. That the saints of the OT did not ascend up to heaven when Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but rather it was the wicked of the OT who rose up from Sheol with Jesus Christ. These were the ones who worshipped the unknown God. Marcion attempted to expunge all references in the NT of the God of the OT as being the Father of Jesus Christ in order to prove his demonic teachings. Teachings which denied the true God and the true Jesus Christ. One can read of this by Ireaneaus in his Against Heresies.
From reading these historical records, it seems that when Marcion had entered into the church of Rome he carried away some members of the church who had been previously baptized by the Church. When they repented of the error of being deceived by Marcion, they were re-admitted into the Roman Catholic church by the laying of hands by the Bishop. It is my conjecture, that this is where the tradition of not re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics began. These Roman Catholics had previously been baptized with the true baptism, so they did not have to be re-baptized.
Unfortunately, it seems that this tradition may have subsequently become a universal practice for everyone who had been converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and who had only received the baptism of heretics, and not been previously baptized by the Roman Catholic church.
The Vatican’s ruling in 2001 vindicates what Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops were stating, that only true faith can only produce a true baptism.
The faith of Mormons was ruled not a true faith, thus their baptisms were ruled invalid after 150 years of presumed validity based on correct matter and form.
God’s peace
micah
It was Bishop Stephen of Rome who stated that baptisms performed by heretics were valid, all that was needed was repentance and the laying on of hands by the bishop for entry into the Catholic Church. Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of Bishops did not agree. In summary, they basically said that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. They argued that a heretic’s faith can not produce the one baptism required by our Lord Jesus Christ. The one true faith is required in order for the baptizer and the baptized to give and receive the one true baptism.
There is plenty of reading material documented at the time of this controversy.
The 72nd and 73rd epistles of Bishop Cyprian, and the 80 some excellent scriptual statements of African bishops (The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian) for understanding their view point.
One can access A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writerfor understanding the viewpoint of the Church of Rome.
Historically, accepting the baptism of heretics seems to go back to the time of Marcion the gnostic who had entered the church in Rome and had deceived some members of the Church. Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna came to Rome and confronted Marcion and brought many who had been deceived by Marcion into the true Church of Jesus Christ in Rome.
This happened during the time of Bishop Hyginus and Bishop Anicetus, approximately 100 years before Bishop Stephen.
One can read about this from Eusebius in his History of the Church and also from
Bishop Irenaeus in his Against Heresies
As background, Justin Martyr in his First Apology,says that Marcion’s gnostic sect claimed to be “Christian”. Marcion baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Bishop Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Bishop Polycarp was a contemporary of Bishop Ignatius and lived long enough to be alive during the time of Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.
Marcion the gnostic, taught that the God of the OT was evil. That the saints of the OT did not ascend up to heaven when Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but rather it was the wicked of the OT who rose up from Sheol with Jesus Christ. These were the ones who worshipped the unknown God. Marcion attempted to expunge all references in the NT of the God of the OT as being the Father of Jesus Christ in order to prove his demonic teachings. Teachings which denied the true God and the true Jesus Christ. One can read of this by Ireaneaus in his Against Heresies.
From reading these historical records, it seems that when Marcion had entered into the church of Rome he carried away some members of the church who had been previously baptized by the Church. When they repented of the error of being deceived by Marcion, they were re-admitted into the Roman Catholic church by the laying of hands by the Bishop. It is my conjecture, that this is where the tradition of not re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics began. These Roman Catholics had previously been baptized with the true baptism, so they did not have to be re-baptized.
Unfortunately, it seems that this tradition may have subsequently become a universal practice for everyone who had been converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and who had only received the baptism of heretics, and not been previously baptized by the Roman Catholic church.
The Vatican’s ruling in 2001 vindicates what Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops were stating, that only true faith can only produce a true baptism.
The faith of Mormons was ruled not a true faith, thus their baptisms were ruled invalid after 150 years of presumed validity based on correct matter and form.
God’s peace
micah
R
runningdude
Guest
According to Fr. Ladaria, it seems to me that the church could have ruled Mormon baptism invalid much earlier, but the limited communications in the 1800’s made understanding the exact nature of Mormon doctrine difficult.I have already quoted Fr. Ladaria who in effect stated that for centuries the criteria for a valid baptism within the Roman Catholic church was correct matter and form. For this reason Mormon baptisms were considered valid since 1830 until the Vatican ruled otherwise in 2001 due in large measure to the doctrinal differences regarding the Trinitarian teaching of the Mormons.
…The faith of Mormons was ruled not a true faith, thus their baptisms were ruled invalid after 150 years of presumed validity based on correct matter and form.
God’s peace
micah
"Fr. Ladaria:
It seems to me that Father Ladaria admits there may have been a presumed validity, but only do the the absence of required information. As far as I am aware, Mormon converts always received conditional baptism, as did most converts…Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, according to their teaching, received the priesthood of Aaron in 1829. Given the circumstances of the Church in the United States in the 19th century and the means of social communication at that time, even though the new religious movement gained a considerable number of followers, the knowledge that ecclesiastical authorities could have had of the doctrinal errors that were professed in this new group** was necessarily very limited** throughout the entire century.
…
In the 20th century, the Catholic Church became more aware of the Trinitarian errors which the teaching proposed by Smith contained, though he used the traditional terms, and therefore** more and more doubts spread about the validity of the Baptism conferred by the Mormons**, in spite of the fact that the form, as far as the substance of the terminology goes, coincided with that used by the Church.
ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm
(emphasis added)
I don’t believe that Father Ladaria contradict Bishop Stephen here. Father Ladaria states that there is an absence of belief in one Lord on the part of Mormons:It was Bishop Stephen of Rome who stated that baptisms performed by heretics were valid, all that was needed was repentance and the laying on of hands by the bishop for entry into the Catholic Church. Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of Bishops did not agree.** In summary, they basically said that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism**. They argued that a heretic’s faith can not produce the one baptism required by our Lord Jesus Christ. The one true faith is required in order for the baptizer and the baptized to give and receive the one true baptism.
(emphasis added)
Fr Ladaria:
(emphasis added)There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372
http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm
Fr. Ladaria criticizes the form of Mormon baptism as only superficially resembling Christian baptism because of their flawed understanding of God. He further states that it is a defect in intent of the person administering of and receiving the Mormon baptism and based on this flawed understanding of God which had lead the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith to rule that Mormon baptism is invalid"
Fr. Ladaria said:***Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized
ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm
(emphasis original)
My conclusion, is that the Catholic Church ruled that Mormon baptism was invalid based on an investigation undertook in the 20th century, which found that the Mormon’s in fact likely never had a valid baptism. Because Mormon are not validly baptized, they are not technically Christian, thus not technically heretics.
While Bishop Stephen may have argued that baptism performed by heretics are valid, this line of reasoning does not apply to Mormonism, which is a non-Christian sect.
There is no break with tradition to state that non-Christians do not confer a valid baptismal ritual, even one that superficially follows the form and matter of Christian baptism. The intent on the part of the minister or candidate for baptism is simply missing.
Y
Yarb
Guest
The way I remember the scene in White Oleander is that the minister and the girl were both standing in a pool wearing something like white robes, and the minister put his hand on the girl’s head and kept it there while she stooped down into the water and he said the words.I’ve looked closely during some baptismal scenes, and I noticed that they sometimes pan away when they’re pouring, or slightly miss the child with the water, or otherwise not show the complete baptismal ritual. I suspect in most cases, they do this to avoid scandalizing Christians, as the intent necessary for a valid baptism can be a bit murky.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops were all speaking of non-Christian sects who were usually gnostic and claimed to be Christians. (Anthropians, Valentinians, Ophites and Marcionites were identified by St.Irenaeus as gnostics) (Apelletians were similar to Marcionites according to Hippolytus) (Patripassians maintain that God the Father was born of the Virgin Mary according to Tertullian)According to Fr. Ladaria, it seems to me that the church could have ruled Mormon baptism invalid much earlier, but the limited communications in the 1800’s made understanding the exact nature of Mormon doctrine difficult.
It seems to me that Father Ladaria admits there may have been a presumed validity, but only do the the absence of required information. As far as I am aware, Mormon converts always received conditional baptism, as did most converts
I don’t believe that Father Ladaria contradict Bishop Stephen here. Father Ladaria states that there is an absence of belief in one Lord on the part of Mormons:
Fr. Ladaria criticizes the form of Mormon baptism as only superficially resembling Christian baptism because of their flawed understanding of God. He further states that it is a defect in intent of the person administering of and receiving the Mormon baptism and based on this flawed understanding of God which had lead the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith to rule that Mormon baptism is invalid"
My conclusion, is that the Catholic Church ruled that Mormon baptism was invalid based on an investigation undertook in the 20th century, which found that the Mormon’s in fact likely never had a valid baptism. Because Mormon are not validly baptized, they are not technically Christian, thus not technically heretics.
While Bishop Stephen may have argued that baptism performed by heretics are valid, this line of reasoning does not apply to Mormonism, which is a non-Christian sect.
There is no break with tradition to state that non-Christians do not confer a valid baptismal ritual, even one that superficially follows the form and matter of Christian baptism. The intent on the part of the minister or candidate for baptism is simply missing.
Quoting from St.Cyprian, the martyr who indignantly wrote:
If we and heretics have one faith, we may also have one grace. If the Patripassians, Anthropians, Valentinians, Apelletians, Ophites, Marcionites, and other pests, and swords, and poisons of heretics for subverting the truth, confess the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same Church with us, they may also have one baptism if they have also one faith. And lest it should be wearisome to go through all the heresies, and to enumerate either of the follies or the madness of each of them, because it is no pleasure to speak of that which one either dreads or is ashamed to know, let us examine in the meantime about Marcion alone…
( Epistle 72, paragraph 4. The Epistles of Cyprian)
As far as the article by Fr. Ladaria, he makes it quite clear that for 150 years the Vatican presumed the Mormon baptisms to be valid because of correct matter and of correct form were used.
Maybe if the Vatican had consulted with the Orthodox church they might have been able to rule sooner on the invalidity of Mormon baptisms.
God’s peace be with you
micah
R
runningdude
Guest
Ah, ok.Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops were all speaking of non-Christian sects who were usually gnostic and claimed to be Christians. (Anthropians, Valentinians, Ophites and Marcionites were identified by St.Irenaeus as gnostics) (Apelletians were similar to Marcionites according to Hippolytus) (Patripassians maintain that God the Father was born of the Virgin Mary according to Tertullian)
Quoting from St.Cyprian, the martyr who indignantly wrote:
If we and heretics have one faith, we may also have one grace. If the Patripassians, Anthropians, Valentinians, Apelletians, Ophites, Marcionites, and other pests, and swords, and poisons of heretics for subverting the truth, confess the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same Church with us, they may also have one baptism if they have also one faith. And lest it should be wearisome to go through all the heresies, and to enumerate either of the follies or the madness of each of them, because it is no pleasure to speak of that which one either dreads or is ashamed to know, let us examine in the meantime about Marcion alone…
( Epistle 72, paragraph 4. The Epistles of Cyprian)
As far as the article by Fr. Ladaria, he makes it quite clear that for 150 years the Vatican presumed the Mormon baptisms to be valid because of correct matter and of correct form were used.
Maybe if the Vatican had consulted with the Orthodox church they might have been able to rule sooner on the invalidity of Mormon baptisms.
God’s peace be with you
Ah. Mormon baptisms were not seriously doubted due to apparently following the proper form and matter. They were then presumed invalid when the lack of proper intent was revealed during the investigation.micah
I admit, I don’t fully understand the quote from Saint Cyprian.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Well, it is difficult to pick up the gist of what St.Cyprian is saying in the midst of one his epistles. He actually has four or five epistles on this subject, and he covers just about every imaginable circumstance that was presented to him from other presbyters and bishops.Ah, ok.
Ah. Mormon baptisms were not seriously doubted due to apparently following the proper form and matter. They were then presumed invalid when the lack of proper intent was revealed during the investigation.
I admit, I don’t fully understand the quote from Saint Cyprian.
Basically from that quote, the baptisms performed by those particular heretics were considered valid by Bishop Stephen according to the understanding that Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of bishops had from Bishop Stephen’s letter, and his opposition to Bishop Cyprian.
Bishop Stephen believed that repentance and the laying on of hands was sufficient to admit someone into the Church, whose only baptism was the one performed by a heretic, such as the ones listed. There was canon law that there was to be **only **one baptism. The apostle Paul affirms the canon law by writing, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
The whole argument centers around whether a baptism performed by a heretic in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with water is the one true baptism since it is performed and received by those who do not have the one true faith.
Bishop Cyprian argues that this would not be the ‘one’ baptism,because such baptisms do not initiate from the one true faith.
God’s peace
micah
- Status
- Not open for further replies.