I appreciate your responding to my question. Can I assume that since July, 2001 youNo it isn’t.
A conditional baptism is usually referred for those cases where a Christian baptism cannot be confirmed by baptismal certificate, or affidavit of witnesses
As the lay director of RCIA for our parish, we see these alot more often than we should, With that being said, with every convert that we have had from the mormon church, a conditional baptism was never done.
I agree. It is also a Sacrament that should only be given once. No doubt they took the time to understand Mormon practice and intent so as to not have an off-the-cuff decision.Mormonism is very rare outside of North America, and therefore might not be the highest priority for the Roman Curia. Conditional Baptism was a reasonable response until a definitive ruling was had.
As an aside, Rome has recently discouraged Catholic Parishes from giving records to Mormon genealogists to avoid appearing to endorse the Mormon practice of “baptisms for the dead”. Perhaps it has to do with the recent announcement of a Mormon Temple to be built in Rome that has put the LDS Church on Rome’s mind.
thanks Rebecca.My understanding is, a Bishop in Idaho inquired about baptism for former Mormons who were entering the Church. He first asked the SLC Diocese, who replied they had always done conditional baptisms. Not satisfied with this, he asked the Roman Curia. They took ten years to answer.
In this sense, it isn’t unprecedented as this is one aspect of how the congregations of Bishops function. If there is not an exact ruling already, about anything, any Bishop can ask for one.
Mormons do not bellieve in the Trinity. Jesus is not God, the Cross is a perditious symbol, and the Sign of the Cross is an empty and superstitious gesture.I think it was only unprecedented in that the Mormon use the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.
Alternative baptismal formals have been rejected for centuries, however Mormon baptism might be the first using the proper formula to be rejected on solely doctrinal grounds.
That cannot seriously be the reasoning of the Roman Catholic Church. The canons of the ecumenical councils state that Arians (who both denied the divinity of Christ and were non-trinitarians) should be received by Confirmation and a renunciation of Arianism, but not by rebaptism. A poster earlier in this thread mentioned intent, and I think that is likely the reasoning that the Roman Catholic Church uses to invalidate Mormon Baptism.Mormon baptisms are considered invalid because of the mormon view of the Trinity, which they call “godhead”.
Mormons believe the Trinity to be 3 distinctly separate and individual entities. That is in direct conflict with the Church’s definition of the Trinity, and therefor is not considered a “Christian” baptism.
A mormon coming into the Catholic Church would require a standard baptism, and not a conditional. Unless there was a valid Christian baptism prior to the being baptized mormon.
I find your asking this question kind of interesting considering mormons don’t recognize Catholic baptisms, so the same question could be asked of mormons couldn’t it?
Yes, this is correct. The Seventh Canon of the First Council of Constantinople (the Second Ecumenical Council) states: Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies—for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:—all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.I’m curious, didn’t the Arians baptize with a Trinitarian formula despite not being Trinitarian, yet the Church recognized baptisms by Arian priests? Which of the three qualities necessary for a valid baptism did the Arians satisfy yet the LDS do not?
Yep er doodle, you sure can.I appreciate your responding to my question. Can I assume that since July, 2001 you
have had Mormon converts who were officially baptized through your local parish who had not been baptized into a different Christian faith prior to their Mormon experience?
God’s peace
micah
Here’s the thing. When mormons use the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are.That cannot seriously be the reasoning of the Roman Catholic Church. The canons of the ecumenical councils state that Arians (who both denied the divinity of Christ and were non-trinitarians) should be received by Confirmation and a renunciation of Arianism, but not by rebaptism. A poster earlier in this thread mentioned intent, and I think that is likely the reasoning that the Roman Catholic Church uses to invalidate Mormon Baptism.
Were the Arians referring to “the same ones that traditional Christians are”? Wouldn’t that make them traditional Christians? Arians were non-Trinitarians, yet their baptisms were apparently accepted as valid. What is the difference?Here’s the thing. When mormons use the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are.
They may use the same terms, but their meanings, can, and usually are vastly different.
Check out this answer from Fr. Serpa, or you can search for other threads regarding this issue.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=34791&highlight=mormon+baptism+valid
An intent to do as Christs Church does.Were the Arians referring to “the same ones that traditional Christians are”? Wouldn’t that make them traditional Christians? Arians were non-Trinitarians, yet their baptisms were apparently accepted as valid. What is the difference?
So the issue of “When mormons use the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are.” is a non-issue then, as far as validity of baptism goes, since Arian baptisms were apparently accepted as valid, yet they were non-Trinitarians, therefore “not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are”. Interesting.An intent to do as Christs Church does.
Essentially, the Roman Catholic understanding seems to be that Mormons do not intend to confer the same baptism that the Roman Catholic Church performs, so their baptisms therefore are invalid despite having proper form, just as Inego de Loyola posted above. The reasoning has little to do with their non-Trinitarian understanding of God.So the issue of “When mormons use the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are.” is a non-issue then, as far as validity of baptism goes, since Arian baptisms were apparently accepted as valid, yet they were non-Trinitarians, therefore “not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are”. Interesting.
Right, yeah I was just confirming that. Thank you!Essentially, the Roman Catholic understanding seems to be that Mormons do not intend to confer the same baptism that the Roman Catholic Church performs, so their baptisms therefore are invalid despite having proper form, just as Inego de Loyola posted above. The reasoning has little to do with their non-Trinitarian understanding of God.
Maybe this is why the article states that it is unprecedented for the Roman Catholic church to invalidate the baptisms of Mormons eventhough they claim to be Christians.So the issue of “When mormons use the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are.” is a non-issue then, as far as validity of baptism goes, since Arian baptisms were apparently accepted as valid, yet they were non-Trinitarians, therefore “not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are”. Interesting.
Would you be able to tell me if the Orthodox has ‘conditional baptisms’? Have they ever validated, or invalidated the baptisms performed by Mormons?Essentially, the Roman Catholic understanding seems to be that Mormons do not intend to confer the same baptism that the Roman Catholic Church performs, so their baptisms therefore are invalid despite having proper form, just as Inego de Loyola posted above. The reasoning has little to do with their non-Trinitarian understanding of God.
There does not seem to be much of a history of conditional baptisms in Orthodoxy. The general rule since the council of Trullo in the East has been, following canon 83 of Carthage, to rebaptize anybody whose baptism is in doubt. Certainly the East has always denied, however, that a second baptism for the remission of sins may be provided (so in that sense, the second baptism is implicitly conditional, since it would be held to be ineffectual in the case that the first baptism in doubt was efficacious).Would you be able to tell me if the Orthodox has ‘conditional baptisms’? Have they ever validated, or invalidated the baptisms performed by Mormons?
thanks and God’s peace
micah
There does not seem to be much of a history of conditional baptisms in Orthodoxy. The general rule since the council of Trullo in the East has been, following canon 83 of Carthage, to rebaptize anybody whose baptism is in doubt. Certainly the East has always denied, however, that a second baptism for the remission of sins may be provided (so in that sense, the second baptism is implicitly conditional, since it would be held to be ineffectual in the case that the first baptism in doubt was efficacious).
The Orthodox hold, just as the Catholics do, that a baptism cannot be valid unless it is conducted with proper form. The Orthodox differ, however, from the Catholics, in that we reserve the right to invalidate the baptisms of groups outside of the Church essentially for no reason. The understanding is that this comes from the power of the Church to bind and to loose, and so while the Church can cut people off entirely with this power, and declare them to be as heathen (as the seventh canon of the First Council of Constantinople did with the Sabellians), it can also forestall its judgment, and accept the baptisms of groups which have fallen away into heterodoxy (as the First Council of Constantinople did with the Arians).
Thank you for responding to my questions.As for Mormons, their baptisms are not, and have never been, to my knowledge, accepted by the Orthodox.
God’s peace
micah