Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[xixxvmcm85]

You had no defintion for P and Q, so I defined them. You defined X and then tried to made P and X the same. They are not.

This is madness! P and Q are variables in propositional logic. You can have various forms of argument and variables are used to show whether the form of the argument is valid or invalid.

An example of a valid argument is the one I used, called a Modus Ponens (or Affirming the Antecedent). The form is:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

Another valid form of argument is the Modus Tollens (or Denying the Consequent). The form is:

If P, then Q
Not Q.
Therefore not P

Some invalid forms of argument include Affirming the Consequent:

If P, then Q
Q
Therefore P

and Denying the Antecedent:

If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore not Q

In my argument I posted the generalized form of a Modus Ponens, and then went on to define them in two separate arguments to show how the two are contradictory. In so doing I proved that the simple premise “If the baptizer or baptized do not profess proper Trinitarian belief then the baptism is invalid” is false. You then blathered on about ABC, XYZ and other nonsensical things which have nothing to do with a Modus Ponens.

 

[Stephen168]

This is madness! P and Q are variables in propositional logic. You can have various forms of argument and variables are used to show whether the form of the argument is valid or invalid.

An example of a valid argument is the one I used, called a Modus Ponens (or Affirming the Antecedent). The form is:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

Another valid form of argument is the Modus Tollens (or Denying the Consequent). The form is:

If P, then Q
Not Q.
Therefore not P

Some invalid forms of argument include Affirming the Consequent:

If P, then Q
Q
Therefore P

and Denying the Antecedent:

If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore not Q

In my argument I posted the generalized form of a Modus Ponens, and then went on to define them in two separate arguments to show how the two are contradictory. In so doing I proved that the simple premise “If the baptizer or baptized do not profess proper Trinitarian belief then the baptism is invalid” is false. You then blathered on about ABC, XYZ and other nonsensical things which have nothing to do with a Modus Ponens.

I believe your problem is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

There are many, many, ways to not be orthodox Trinitarian but still be close enough. Mormons are not even close

I provided a link to an article quoting a spokesman from the Church. In almost every post of mine I have referenced that article.

Again the ARTICLE said Mormons believe in three gods and baptism as a pre-Christian ordinance. You have logically disproved nothing.

That article has no spokesman from the Church quoted, rather a theologian named Luis Ladaria. Nevertheless, lack of monotheism seems sufficient to deem that the LDS do not have proper intent. I’ve said just as much in my prior posts.

If there are a list of reason to explain something and you insist on one it is just the opposite of critical thinking. It is sticking your head in the sand.

Nonsense! If there is a list of reasons to explain something, and one of those reasons is false, it is not sticking your head in the sand to point it out and hope that we should simply dispense of the reason entirely. You can make a perfectly sound argument that LDS lack proper intent due to lack of belief in Original Sin, the intention of baptizing into a baptism which predates Christ, and for lack of monotheism, without bringing up the false premise that non-Trinitarianism is even a reason.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I believe your problem is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Oh yeah? What’s the false dichotomy I’m setting up?

 

[mercytruth]

xixxvmcm85,

In the case of emergency baptisms there is no way to prove that an atheist had proper intent, or knew what proper intent is, even if such a person was to baptize using the correct matter and form. It seems then, the Roman Catholic church assumes that an atheist has proper intent based on the assumption that the atheist’s intent in ministering baptism was sanctified by the use of water and by the use of the Trinitarian formula.

This was the assumption made by Bishop Stephen for those who had been baptized by heretics and desired to become members of the Roman Catholic Church. The assumption was that those who were baptized in water, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit by a heretic had their sins washed away, indeed.

At some point along the way, it was necessary to include ‘intent’ as a third part of the other two criteria. Thus, one can assume that Christadelphians were not baptized validly because they had not the proper intent, eventhough they have proper matter and form. They do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of God.

I can only assume that originally, the Roman Catholic Church thought that the LDS had the correct matter, form and intent, the intent being that Jesus Christ pre-existed as the Son of God.

What the Roman Catholic church later realized was that the LDS definition of God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is far different than what any form of Christianity has ever taught. At this point, the Roman Catholic church had to clarify lack of proper ‘intent’ as it applied to LDS doctrine of the Trinity, just as the Roman Catholic church had previously defined the lack of proper ‘intent’ with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity of the Christadelphian Church.

What seems to be unprecedented then, is the Vatican’s change of ruling with regard to LDS baptisms.

God’s peace to you

micah

 

[Stephen168]

You can make a perfectly sound argument that LDS lack proper intent due to lack of belief in Original Sin, the intention of baptizing into a baptism which predates Christ, and for lack of monotheism, without bringing up the false premise that non-Trinitarianism is even a reason.

Yes, there are many reasons Mormons lack proper intent including being non-trinitarians. To ignore that reason is just sticking your head in the sand.

Oh yeah? What’s the false dichotomy I’m setting up?

The undistributed middle and false dichotomy/dilemma are two different fallacies.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

xixxvmcm85,

In the case of emergency baptisms there is no way to prove that an atheist had proper intent, or knew what proper intent is, even if such a person was to baptize using the correct matter and form. It seems then, the Roman Catholic church assumes that an atheist has proper intent based on the assumption that the atheist’s intent in ministering baptism was sanctified by the use of water and by the use of the Trinitarian formula.

This was the assumption made by Bishop Stephen for those who had been baptized by heretics and desired to become members of the Roman Catholic Church. The assumption was that those who were baptized in water, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit by a heretic had their sins washed away, indeed.

This is sensible. Thanks.

At some point along the way, it was necessary to include ‘intent’ as a third part of the other two criteria. Thus, one can assume that Christadelphians were not baptized validly because they had not the proper intent, eventhough they have proper matter and form. They do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of God.

Specifically, how does what they believe about Jesus Christ inform their intention to “do what the Church does”? I know next to nothing about the Christadelphians.

I can only assume that originally, the Roman Catholic Church thought that the LDS had the correct matter, form and intent, the intent being that Jesus Christ pre-existed as the Son of God.

I think it’s more likely that the Catholic Church simply didn’t have an opinion one way or the other on LDS baptisms until it was brought to their attention. The Church after all cannot rule on every possible group until attention is brought to them. This is precisely why heresy usually manifests itself for a little while until an Ecumenical Council is called to combat it, or the Vatican issues definitive statements against them.

I’m having trouble understanding how belief that Jesus Christ pre-existed as the Son of God is in of itself intent. This seems like a really strange use of the word intention. We intend to do things, not believe things. I may intend to wash away Original Sin, intend to wash away Particular Sin, and intend to initiate a person into the Body of Christ through baptism, all the while believing wrong things about Jesus Christ. Belief can inform intent, of course, but then it behooves us to explicitly state how proper intention arises from that erroneous belief.

What seems to be unprecedented then, is the Vatican’s change of ruling with regard to LDS baptisms.

Did the Vatican actually change a ruling? I don’t think so. It seems more likely that the Church went from having no opinion whatsoever to having a definitive opinion, rather than ruling that LDS baptisms are, in fact, valid, then switching their decision later on. It was probably the case in the past that the validity of LDS baptism was dealt with by individual Bishops (none of whom are infallible alone) on a case-by-case basis. Some likely thought it valid and ushered the ex-LDS catechumen straight to Confession, while others either baptized them or gave them conditional ones. I can’t seem to find any information on the web one way or the other.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yes, there are many reasons Mormons lack proper intent including being non-trinitarians. To ignore that reason is just sticking your head in the sand.

Ignoring the reason? I’m tackling that reason head on! That’s the polar opposite of “ignoring” something. I’m doubting its veracity, and no one has shown that its true. Indeed, I’ve shown how it’s not true.

The undistributed middle and false dichotomy/dilemma are two different fallacies.

Agh! You’re right. Slow mind today.

How is my modus ponens fallacious?

 

[Stephen168]

That article has no spokesman from the Church quoted, rather a theologian named Luis Ladaria.

He is an Archbishop who was a consultor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would call him a spokesman for the Church.

 

[Stephen168]

Ignoring the reason? I’m tackling that reason head on! That’s the polar opposite of “ignoring” something. I’m doubting its veracity, and no one has shown that its true. Indeed, I’ve shown how it’s not true.

Did you read the article quoting the Archbishop?

as three people in which one divinity exists while the Mormons see it as "three gods which form one divinity."Trinity

 

[xixxvmcm85]

He is an Archbishop who was a consultor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would call him a spokesman for the Church.

Thank you. I hadn’t known this. Still, he qualifies non-Trinitarian there as being actually non-monotheist. As I’ve said previously, I don’t know how this erroneous belief about God informs the intent to baptize, but I can’t think of any cases where the Church has considered valid the baptism of other non-monotheists, and so there’s no contradiction that concerns me.

 

[Stephen168]

How is my modus ponens fallacious?

P and X are not the same as you try to make them.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Did you read the article quoting the Archbishop?

It says the Catholic Church sees the Trinity as three people in which one divinity exists while the Mormons see it as "three gods which form one divinity."

Uh, right. The LDS are not monotheists. Therefore not being Trinitarian is insufficient to deem a baptism invalid. Precisely what the initial premise was that I doubted from the very beginning.

 

[Stephen168]

Still, he qualifies non-Trinitarian there as being actually non-monotheist.

Yes, he briefly says why the Mormon understanding of the trinity is wrong.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Living Waters:

I tried to send you a private message to commend you for your tenacity. The Good Lord knows I have not the patience to repeat myself over and over again. Alas, you neither allow private messages nor wall posts. Oh Well.

Sorry about that. Yes, I don’t accept PMs or VMs for a number of reasons. I appreciate your thoughts though!

I still firmly accept the Church’s decision on LDS baptisms, and I recognize that the LDS baptism I had when I was 8 is not a valid baptism. Nevertheless, the incongruous arguments proffered in this thread with respect to belief in the Trinity, as the Catholic Church defines it, do not make any sense when juxtaposed to actual cases of history. Either the Church was wrong to admit as valid the baptism of non-Trinitarian heretics, or She is wrong to deny them now… or she is fully justified in denying the LDS baptism for some other reason concerning true intent; lack of Trinitarian belief notwithstanding.

I put this last part in italics as it’s the position I take as of yet, despite the fact it doesn’t fit well with an either/or proposition. But, please, don’t let my presence stop you all from your false dichotomy feast.

I completely agree with you. And yes, I do believe a false dichotomy has been set up by certain specific posters, and that’s what I’m trying to make sense of.

Intent is required for a Christian baptism. The article listed two factors why Mormons do not have a Christian baptism. One is they believe in three gods. The Mormon tractor doesn’t even have wheels, yet you want to know how important it is for a tractor to have a hitch.

Yes, I am well aware of the necessity of intent for a valid baptism. The question is, is holding to the orthodox Trinity always part of that intent. Some posters say yes, others say no, others seem to be saying it depends on which group we’re talking about.

You are ignoring the second factor listed in the article given by the Church on why Mormons do not have a Christian baptism. A ritual that pre-dates Christ is not Christian.

No, as I stated before (I believe more than once), I am not ignoring anything. I am quite aware of everything everyone is saying. I am discussing a specific issue/factor (necessity of holding to the orthodox Trinity doctrine), and attempting to understand its relevance in the wider context of validity of baptisms as understood by the Catholic Church, anciently and in more recent times. Essentially, I am trying to determine if it is consistently seen as a requirement for valid baptism (as some posters state), or if it may or may not be, depending on the group (as other posters state). Or, if it is not a requirement of a valid baptism (as other posters state).

I probably should let Living Waters speak for him/herself, but the fact that (s)he’s ignoring this reasoning implies that (s)he sees nothing fallacious about it, and is therefore not bringing it up. Living Waters is not taking issue with LDS baptisms being deemed invalid by the Catholic Church. (S)he is, like myself, taking issue with the Trinity being used as an explanation in and of itself.

Exactly. I agree with you here. And, as I’m sure you agree, this is not to the exclusion or ignoring of other reasons. It is discussing a specific issue and trying to understand it. I believe I read that you’re a scientist. I’m a pharmacy student and heavily involved in pharmaceutical/pharmacological research, and I think we’re approaching this similarly.

The Church never used the trinity as an explanation in and of itself. Something, I’ve been trying to explain. As long as s/he just looks at one reason s/he will only see it as a reason in and of itself.

No one has said that it has. And your conclusion here does not logically follow. The question I and others have been seeking to understand is, is holding to the orthodox Trinity doctrine necessary for a valid baptism. Sure, other reasons included under the umbrella of “intent” can also be discussed, and are relevant. However, we can discuss a specific one.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

P and X are not the same as you try to make them.

P = The group is non-Trinitarian.
Q = The group’s baptism is invalid.
X = variable non-Trinitarian group. Can be Mormons, JWs, Arians, Adoptionists, etc.

My modus ponens:

P → Q
X → P
X
∴ Q

This is logically valid. It would be invalid only if I switched the 2nd variable in the 2nd premise from a P to a Q, and this would indeed be a case of the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle:

P → Q
X → Q
X
∴ Q

 

[Stephen168]

Uh, right. The LDS are not monotheists. Therefore not being Trinitarian is insufficient to deem a baptism invalid. Precisely what the initial premise was that I doubted from the very beginning.

The Catholic theologian Archbishop who works at the CDF, said the Mormon understanding of the trinity is wrong. That is the Church’s position.
I would guess due to the Mormon’s claim of one divinity.

 

[twopekinguys]

If that’s true then how can an emergency baptism by an atheist be considered valid, when the atheist’s view of the Trinity is that it doesn’t exist?

The chances of an athiest doing an emergency baptism is highly unlikely.

IF, and that is a big if, an athiest does perform an emergency baptism, then I would have to think he is trying to understand the trinity, and trying to do what the church intends.

If he absolutely denied the Trinity, I doubt he would do the baptism, or even attempt it because it would go against his core beliefs.

Simple as that.

 

[Stephen168]

P = The group is non-Trinitarian.
Q = The group’s baptism is invalid.
X = variable non-Trinitarian group. Can be Mormons, JWs, Arians, Adoptionists, etc.

My modus ponens:

P → Q
X → P
X
∴ Q

This is logically valid. It would be invalid only if I switched the 2nd variable in the 2nd premise from a P to a Q, and this would indeed be a case of the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle:

P → Q
X → Q
X
∴ Q

Proper intent is required which you have removed. Being simple non-trinitarian does not include all the possibilities, as the Archbishop explained.

 

[LivingWaters7]

With due respect, it seems to me that you’ve been talking out of both sides of your mouth.

This is the exact phrase that I have been thinking throughout this, but refrained from saying it.

In some posts you seem to agree that non-Trinitarianism is not sufficient to deem proper intent lacking, and yet in others you seem to be arguing in favor of proper Trinitarian belief as satisfying proper intent. So which is it?

Exactly.

There are many, many, ways to not be orthodox Trinitarian but still be close enough. Mormons are not even close

So is your response both?

Where is it defined what constitutes “close enough”? If “close enough” is enough, then clearly, holding to the orthodox Trinity doctrine is not necessary as one of the reasons for valid intent, since “close enough” is not “holding to the orthodox Trinity doctrine”.

In this thread, you have stated “I believe a heretical Christian group, which does not hold to the orthodox Trinity, can perform a valid baptism provided they use correct matter, form, and intent.”, as well as “The discussion was how important is holding to the orthodoxy trinity to proper intent. The article I linked listed it as the first reason, so I would think most important.”

Another Catholic poster, mardukm, has also stated “Proper understanding of the Trinity and the Persons has always been a pre-requisite for what is considered a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church…Actually, the notion of baptizing according to the same intention as the Catholic Church includes the idea that there is the same belief about the Trinity and the Persons.”.

This is where the confusion is happening. How can a heretical group that doesn’t hold to the orthodox Trinity be able to validly baptize if, as you say, holding to the orthodox Trinity in relation to intent is most important? From everything else you have said, I gather that you believe that there can be “close enough” (which doesn’t seem to be defined by the Catholic Church), as well as other factors involved in intent, yet I don’t see how those other factors could override the apparent importance in holding to the orthodox Trinity (not saying that that is your argument). And if “close enough” is okay, then mardukm and other posters that claim that holding to the orthodox Trinity is necessary as part of intent would be incorrect, since “close enough” is still not holding to the orthodox Trinity.