Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[twopekinguys]

This is good to know. I do have a few questions though. What if someone from another Christian denomination had a ‘valid’ baptism, but that person never had the exorcism prayer prayed over them. Is it possible someone could be confirmed into the Roman Catholic church and yet be oppressed by demons, or unclean spirits?

God’s peace

micah

I’ll answer yours if you answer mine…

What makes you think an exorcism prayer has to be said? Is there a particular prayer you are talking about?

Where did you come up with the idea that one must be said?

 

[twopekinguys]

Oh dear. Firstly, why are you being so negative in this post (“so hard for you to understand”, “do you get it now”, “harping”, “childish”, “persecution complex”)? There is nothing at all about persecution or me feeling as such in any of my posts. This seems to be poisoning the well (similar to your accusation that I was using wikipedia as a theological source in this thread, when I never did, in contrast to your own citation).

Secondly, I am not “harping” about anything. I assumed that we were all having a discussion here as to the particulars as to why Latter-day Saint baptisms are not accepted as valid by the Catholic Church. A poster brought up the issue of Arian baptisms in the specific context of whether belief in the Trinity doctrine is requisite to a valid baptism, and I, as well as other posters, have been discussing that issue. If you do not want to participate in that part of the discussion, that is fine. But please do not tell me I am “harping” about something when I and others are trying to understand that issue in the context of this discussion. I am not disturbed or bothered that the Catholic Church does not accept baptisms done by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am interested in understanding the reasoning why, in the context of other examples in the ancient church and its relationship with other groups.

As far as Arians being heretics, I don’t see how that is relevant to the acceptance of their baptisms anciently (nor has this been explained, only asserted), when the specific issue that we are discussing is belief in the traditional/orthodox Trinity doctrine and Christology. The issue at hand, as discussed by me and other posters, is that it is a common claim that belief in the Trinity doctrine is requisite to a valid baptism, and this is why (perhaps among other reasons) Latter-day Saint baptisms are not accepted. With the Arians, we have an example of a group that is non-Trinitarian, yet they did not have to be “re”-baptized, according to the First Council of Constantinople. And, as mardukm stated (noting that I am only citing him on this specific statement of his): “the Arians were considered heretics at the First Ecumenical Council, so by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, there was at least one generation of Arians who were baptized outside the visible boundaries of the Church.”.

So, my question is, what does the Arians being heretics have to do with Arians, non-Trinitarians, not having to be “re”-baptized, as per the First Council of Constantinople? Since they were non-Trinitarians, were they Christians? Christian heretics? Do Christian heretics perform valid baptisms (noting that we are not talking about people that were originally validly baptized in the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Church, for Orthodox participants) then left and are returning)? I ask these questions to better understand those who hold to the position that one of the reasons that Latter-day Saint baptisms are not accepted as valid is because we are non-Trinitarian, and therefore, non-Christian, thus unable to perform a Christian baptism. Arians were non-Trinitarian, and therefore, using this logic, non-Christian. Is this also related to your seemingly implied position that Arians were less non-Trinitarian than Latter-day Saints, and that that is also part of the reasoning?

The issue of arian baptisms vs mormon baptisms has been answered. Multiple times.

Heretics are ones that held the Christian view but strayed. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called heretics.

Also, their view, even though heretical was closer to the true understanding of the Trinity than mormons.

This has been stated multiple times, I am not sure how else to explain it to you. Go back and read what I and others have posted with regard to the arians.

Your question/issue has been addressed more than once.

Let me ask you this. Why does it bother you that arian baptisms may have been accepted, but mormons aren’t?

You’re wanting to make/get to a point, so let’s just get there.

You’re fishing for something, what is it?

And yes, you are in fact “harping”, when the answer has been given to you multiple times, yet you refuse to either a. read it. or b. accept it.

We have seen this before.

 

[Marie5890]

A valid baptism does not require an exorcism. Catholic law is only binding on Catholics. If a Catholic baptizes someone in an emergency, the rest of the rites can be celebrated later, or celebrated at conditional baptism. A non-Catholic minister or even individual is not bound to perform the rite of exorcism or renunciation as Catholics Priests are.

Mormonism is a tiny movement worldwide, and I’d image only formal baptisms in a Mormon chapel and/or temple would be deemed automatically invalid. Any emergency baptisms performed by a Mormon would be merely suspect, subject to a conditional baptism.

It is the context of the Mormon baptism that invalidates it, not lack of additional rituals that accompany a proper baptism in a Catholic setting.

The idea of doing an emergency baptism wouldnt even enter the mind of a Mormon.

Because they believe in proxy baptism in the temple, the idea of baptizing in an emergency would be not necessary for them.

The point it moot.

 

[mercytruth]

I’ll answer yours if you answer mine…

What makes you think an exorcism prayer has to be said? Is there a particular prayer you are talking about?

Where did you come up with the idea that one must be said?

I appreciate the fact that you challenged me on this one. I had a vague recollection, but my recollections are failing me.

**THE PRAYERS OF EXORCISM
89. During the Sacrament of Baptism, the Priest says two prayers of Exorcism.

1. The first one is said after the reading of the Gospel. During that prayer, the Priest commands any impure spirits who might be present to depart from the person to be baptised. This process is to purify the physical body of the believer. The spiritual body does not need purification because a new creation will be born when the sinful one dies.
2. The second prayer of Exorcism is called “Ephpheta.” (Ephpheta means ‘Be opened’) After the prayer, the Priest touches the ears and mouth of the child with his thumb. He then says, “The Lord Jesus made the deaf hear and the dumb speak. May He soon touch your ears to receive His Word, and your mouth to proclaim His faith, to the praise and glory of God the Father.”**

catholicdoors.com/courses/baptism.htm

God’s peace

micah

 

[twopekinguys]

I appreciate the fact that you challenged me on this one. I had a vague recollection, but my recollections are failing me.

**THE PRAYERS OF EXORCISM
89. During the Sacrament of Baptism, the Priest says two prayers of Exorcism.

1. The first one is said after the reading of the Gospel. During that prayer, the Priest commands any impure spirits who might be present to depart from the person to be baptised. This process is to purify the physical body of the believer. The spiritual body does not need purification because a new creation will be born when the sinful one dies.
2. The second prayer of Exorcism is called “Ephpheta.” (Ephpheta means ‘Be opened’) After the prayer, the Priest touches the ears and mouth of the child with his thumb. He then says, “The Lord Jesus made the deaf hear and the dumb speak. May He soon touch your ears to receive His Word, and your mouth to proclaim His faith, to the praise and glory of God the Father.”**

catholicdoors.com/courses/baptism.htm

God’s peace

micah

Now we are getting somewhere…LOL

For people that are going through the RCIA process, the Ephpheta Rite is done as a prepatory rite the morning of the Easter Vigil, where the formal baptism takes place. (In our parish, it can be done sooner, or later, depending on the program)

Also, prior to the Easter Vigil, there are 3 “scrutinies” that are usually done within a Sunday Mass, are actually minor exorcisms.

Does this help?

 

[LivingWaters7]

The issue of arian baptisms vs mormon baptisms has been answered. Multiple times.

If you read this thread, you will note that “the issue of arian baptisms vs mormon baptisms” has been answered from different perspectives, including by different Catholics (as has been pointed out multiple times in this very thread). I, and others are seeking to understand one of those perspectives. Your response is not the only one provided here, including amongst Catholic posters.

Heretics are ones that held the Christian view but strayed. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called heretics.

Right, that is clear. Again, this is an assertion. I am interested, again, in an explanation of the relevance of that fact to the validity of Arian baptism. What does it mean that their being deemed heretics makes their baptisms valid, or, perhaps more precisely, does not make them invalid?

Also, their view, even though heretical was closer to the true understanding of the Trinity than mormons.

Right, and that goes back to the issue of whether this statement is relevant to validity of baptism that one group is, essentially, more non-Trinitarian than other, since both are still non-Trinitarian.

As one Catholic poster stated, "I hope we can all now agree that the issue of the Trinity is a Red Herring. As has been pointed out by others, the Church has and does accept the baptisms of heretics which are non-Trinitarian. Saying that the LDS are somehow “even less” Trinitarian is just special pleading.". You stated that you disagreed with that poster, and that the Trinity is “very key to this”. You further stated “if you don’t hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic church, a mormon baptism doesn’t have the intent required.” As I and others have mentioned multiple times, Arians did not hold to the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic Church, so how is that fact to be understood in light of your statement? If your response is that it’s because they were heretics, my question is, what is the relevance of the fact that this non-Trinitarian group, Arians, were heretics, to the validity of their baptisms? If this has already been answered, please cite the post. Thank you.

Also, another Catholic poster 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. This was Pope St. Stephen’s position - it was conditioned on a proper belief in Christ and the use of the Trinitarian formula (which implied proper belief in the Trinity)." Again, my question is, how is your statement that the Arians were closer to the “true understanding of the Trinity than mormons” to be understood in that context? If this has already been answered, please cite the post. Thank you.

This has been stated multiple times, I am not sure how else to explain it to you. Go back and read what I and others have posted with regard to the arians.

Your question/issue has been addressed more than once.

As already mentioned, I have yet to see an explanation as to the relevance of Arians being heretics (and I am not talking about those that were “validly” baptized then became Arians, and are returning), or that they are closer to the orthodox Trinity doctrine than Latter-day Saints, to the specific issue of the validity of their baptisms. I have only seen these things asserted. If an explanation has already been provided, as to that relevance, would you be kind enough to provide a link to the posts? Thank you.

Let me ask you this. Why does it bother you that arian baptisms may have been accepted, but mormons aren’t

You’re wanting to make/get to a point, so let’s just get there.

You’re fishing for something, what is it?

I do believe I clearly stated in my previous post to you that I am not bothered at all with that. I assumed that we could discuss things we find intriguing or fascinating here without having to be disturbed or bothered by something. I, and others (including other Catholics), are trying to understand the Catholic position on LDS baptisms in the context of its dealings with other groups anciently, especially the non-Trinitarian Arians.

If you think I’m “fishing for something” (oh dear), that is fine.

And yes, you are in fact “harping”, when the answer has been given to you multiple times, yet you refuse to either a. read it. or b. accept it.

We have seen this before.

See above. The answer to my specific questions (being heretics and its relation to validity of baptism, as well as one group being less non-Trinitarian than another, and its relation to validity of baptism) has not been answered, there have only been assertions of these beliefs. Indeed, not everyone in this thread agrees with your position (I am not referring to myself), hence the discussion. Again, if both have been addressed, then please cite the post(s) where they have been.

 

[mercytruth]

Now we are getting somewhere…LOL

For people that are going through the RCIA process, the Ephpheta Rite is done as a prepatory rite the morning of the Easter Vigil, where the formal baptism takes place. (In our parish, it can be done sooner, or later, depending on the program)

Also, prior to the Easter Vigil, there are 3 “scrutinies” that are usually done within a Sunday Mass, are actually minor exorcisms.

Does this help?

This helps me to understand for those who are undergoing the formal baptism.

However, what about those from Christian denominations whose baptisms are considered valid? Do they also go through the prepatory rite (the Ephpheta Rite) the morning of the Easter Vigil, where the formal bapism takes place, eventhough they do not receive a formal baptism?

Thanks,

God’s peace

micah

 

[twopekinguys]

This helps me to understand for those who are undergoing the formal baptism.

However, what about those from Christian denominations whose baptisms are considered valid? Do they also go through the prepatory rite (the Ephpheta Rite) the morning of the Easter Vigil, where the formal bapism takes place, eventhough they do not receive a formal baptism?

Thanks,

God’s peace

micah

They don’t get the Ephpheta, but they do participate in the scrutines. Since they have received a valid baptism, their ears have been opened, etc. etc.

 

[twopekinguys]

If you read this thread, you will note that “the issue of arian baptisms vs mormon baptisms” has been answered from different perspectives, including by different Catholics (as has been pointed out multiple times in this very thread). I, and others are seeking to understand one of those perspectives. Your response is not the only one provided here, including amongst Catholic posters.

Right, that is clear. Again, this is an assertion. I am interested, again, in an explanation of the relevance of that fact to the validity of Arian baptism. What does it mean that their being deemed heretics makes their baptisms valid, or, perhaps more precisely, does not make them invalid?

Right, and that goes back to the issue of whether this statement is relevant to validity of baptism that one group is, essentially, more non-Trinitarian than other, since both are still non-Trinitarian.

As one Catholic poster stated, "I hope we can all now agree that the issue of the Trinity is a Red Herring. As has been pointed out by others, the Church has and does accept the baptisms of heretics which are non-Trinitarian. Saying that the LDS are somehow “even less” Trinitarian is just special pleading.". You stated that you disagreed with that poster, and that the Trinity is “very key to this”. You further stated “if you don’t hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic church, a mormon baptism doesn’t have the intent required.” As I and others have mentioned multiple times, Arians did not hold to the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic Church, so how is that fact to be understood in light of your statement? If your response is that it’s because they were heretics, my question is, what is the relevance of the fact that this non-Trinitarian group, Arians, were heretics, to the validity of their baptisms? If this has already been answered, please cite the post. Thank you.

Also, another Catholic poster 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. This was Pope St. Stephen’s position - it was conditioned on a proper belief in Christ and the use of the Trinitarian formula (which implied proper belief in the Trinity)." Again, my question is, how is your statement that the Arians were closer to the “true understanding of the Trinity than mormons” to be understood in that context? If this has already been answered, please cite the post. Thank you.

As already mentioned, I have yet to see an explanation as to the relevance of Arians being heretics (and I am not talking about those that were “validly” baptized then became Arians, and are returning), or that they are closer to the orthodox Trinity doctrine than Latter-day Saints, to the specific issue of the validity of their baptisms. I have only seen these things asserted. If an explanation has already been provided, as to that relevance, would you be kind enough to provide a link to the posts? Thank you.

I do believe I clearly stated in my previous post to you that I am not bothered at all with that. I assumed that we could discuss things we find intriguing or fascinating here without having to be disturbed or bothered by something. I, and others (including other Catholics), are trying to understand the Catholic position on LDS baptisms in the context of its dealings with other groups anciently, especially the non-Trinitarian Arians.

If you think I’m “fishing for something” (oh dear), that is fine.

See above. The answer to my specific questions (being heretics and its relation to validity of baptism, as well as one group being less non-Trinitarian than another, and its relation to validity of baptism) has not been answered, there have only been assertions of these beliefs. Indeed, not everyone in this thread agrees with your position (I am not referring to myself), hence the discussion. Again, if both have been addressed, then please cite the post(s) where they have been.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or, You can only beat a dead horse for so long.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[LivingWaters7]

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or, You can only beat a dead horse for so long.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Other posters can also see that my questions as to explanations for your positions were never answered by you (as well as my polite request for you to cite the specific posts by you or others where those explanations could be found).

 

[mercytruth]

They don’t get the Ephpheta, but they do participate in the scrutines. Since they have received a valid baptism, their ears have been opened, etc. etc.

Well, if a Protestant baptism did not include an exorcism prayer, then it is not complete as a Roman Catholic baptism which does include the exorcism prayer.

This may sound harsh, but this is how I think tares may have been sown into the church, that is, by those who were previously baptized with incomplete ‘valid’ baptisms, and who subsequently were converted and entered the Roman Catholic church.

Mormons before 2001 would be good examples of such.

God’s peace

micah

 

[twopekinguys]

Well, if a Protestant baptism did not include an exorcism prayer, then it is not complete as a Roman Catholic baptism which does include the exorcism prayer.

This may sound harsh, but this is how I think tares may have been sown into the church, that is, by those who were previously baptized with incomplete ‘valid’ baptisms, and who subsequently were converted and entered the Roman Catholic church.

Mormons before 2001 would be good examples of such.

God’s peace

micah

Did you miss the part about the scrutinies being minor exorcisms? They go through 3 of them.

Also, you are missing the “intent” here. When there is a valid protestant baptism, they have the “intent” to do what the church teaches. So the Ephpheta Rite is not an absolute requirement in those cases.

 

[twopekinguys]

Mormons before 2001 would be good examples of such.

God’s peace

micah

Are you saying mormons before 2001 entering the church damaged it? That is a HUGE stretch.

 

[mercytruth]

Are you saying mormons before 2001 entering the church damaged it? That is a HUGE stretch.

What I am saying, is that Jesus Christ said that tares would be ‘sown’ among the wheat in the night time by the adversary. Incomplete or invalid baptisms seem to be the most likely means through which tares would be ‘sown’.

God’s peace

 

[twopekinguys]

What I am saying, is that Jesus Christ said that tares would be ‘sown’ among the wheat in the night time by the adversary. Incomplete or invalid baptisms seem to be the most likely means through which tares would be ‘sown’.

God’s peace

Ok, I see where you’re going. But you also have to remember Christ said he would never leave his church, and that the gates of hell would not prevail.

Also, I don’t know of any invalidly baptized converts that have made it to Cardinal or Pope, so i think we’re pretty safe there.

You also didn’t answer the question. Did Mormons who defected to the Catholic Church, damage, or diminish it in some way? Intentional or otherwise?

 

[mercytruth]

Ok, I see where you’re going. But you also have to remember Christ said he would never leave his church, and that the gates of hell would not prevail.

Also, I don’t know of any invalidly baptized converts that have made it to Cardinal or Pope, so i think we’re pretty safe there.

You also didn’t answer the question. Did Mormons who defected to the Catholic Church, damage, or diminish it in some way? Intentional or otherwise?

There is a reason why the Vatican changed its ruling on the validity of Mormon baptisms.
I would not hazard to guess why. It could have been that many of the Mormons who desired to convert to the Roman Catholic faith felt that they needed to be baptized with a true baptism.

On the other hand, it does concern me that there are Freemasonry roots to Mormonism along with some elements of gnosticism and spiritualism

God’s peace

micah

 

[twopekinguys]

There is a reason why the Vatican changed its ruling on the validity of Mormon baptisms.
I would not hazard to guess why. It could have been that many of the Mormons who desired to convert to the Roman Catholic faith felt that they needed to be baptized with a true baptism.

On the other hand, it does concern me that there are Freemasonry roots to Mormonism along with some elements of gnosticism and spiritualism

God’s peace

micah

Rulings from the “Church”, can loosely be compared to today’s laws.

Everybody assumes everything is OK, until they find out everyone isn’t on the same page. That’s when laws get passed, or rulings from the Church happen.

Speed laws. When motor vehicles first hit the road, there weren’t any speed limits. After many accidents, speed laws were passed.

Criteria for valid baptisms worked the same way.

That’s probably the easiest way I can explain it.

 

[Marie5890]

There is a reason why the Vatican changed its ruling on the validity of Mormon baptisms.
I would not hazard to guess why. It could have been that many of the Mormons who desired to convert to the Roman Catholic faith felt that they needed to be baptized with a true baptism.

On the other hand, it does concern me that there are Freemasonry roots to Mormonism along with some elements of gnosticism and spiritualism

God’s peace

micah

I doubt prior to a US bishop (specifically one from Idaho) asking for clarification on the matter (since he would have understood Mormon belief more clearly) that the Vatican gave much thought to the matter.

Mormonism is a pretty much an obscure American church, at least up until recently. And I am sure that is how the Holy See saw it, if they even knew much about it in the first place.

Thru the 70’s 80’s etc, most people when they hear of “Mormon” they thought of the Osmonds and polygamy.

 

[mardukm]

That is just wrong. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that tampering with the baptismal formula has universally been held to be grounds for declaring a baptism invalid: The mind of the Church as to the necessity of serving the trinitarian formula in this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid. The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus and Priscilla (St. Basil, Epistle 188). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea ordered their rebaptism. The Arians at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism. When, then, St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration 2) and St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians) declare the Arians to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to their doctrine or to a later changing of the sacramental form. It is well known that the latter was the case with the Spanish Arians and that consequently converts from the sect were rebaptized. The Anomæans, a branch of the Arians, baptized with the formula: “In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by the created Son” (Epiphanius, Hær., lxxvii).

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Individual fathers do not outweigh the decisions of councils. St. Athanasius also called a baptism into Arianism a baptism into atheism. The Council Fathers obviously disagreed with him.

Lex credendi, lex orandi. The point was that the formula is a reflection of the theology behind it. So the theology must have been important in the consideration of a valid baptism. Do you deny that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This is simply untrue. The fathers universally understood homoiousian Arians to be heretics, just like the Arians who rejected both homoousian and homoiousian confessions, because they used the term homoiousios to show that the Son was still a creature, but a creature which was like the Father. St. John of Damascus, for example, writes this about the Semiarians in On Heresies 73, noting:The Semiarians, while they on one hand confess Chris to be a creature, on the other hand captiously declare that He is not a creature like other creatures. ‘But,’ they say, ‘we do call him Son—yet we say that He is created, lest we attribute suffering to the Father because of His having begotten Him.’ In the same way they also definitely postulate a creature in the case of the Holy Ghost. They reject the ‘identity in substance’ of the Son and prefer to say ‘similarity in substance.’ Some of them, however, have rejected the similarity in substance as well.
Your distinction, is unsound because the Fathers themselves did not understand homoiousians who rejected identity in substance (this rejection is what gave them the title Arian in the first place) as holding to the Orthodox faith or to Orthodox Triadology. In fact, they understood it as an explicit denial of Christ’s divinity.

Who said that the Arians were not heretics? Certainly not me. I don’t understand the point of the above.

Secondly, your interpretation of the canon is unsound because even if the aforementioned distinction between Arians who affirmed the divinity of Christ (who has ever heard of such an absurdity)

Yes, there were Arians who affirmed the divinity, but a derived divinity. They did believe in the co-essentialness of Father and Son, but that the essence was given to a created being, albeit created before time.

and Arians who denied the divinity of Christ were true (which it is not), there is no indication whatsoever in the Seventh Canon that they only accepted homoiousian baptisms, while rejecting non homoiousian baptisms. That is something you are reading into the text which is not there.

Then why did they accept the Baptism of the “Arians?” I am trying to theorize a reason, but the only response you have given is to assume I am saying the Arians were not heretics.

If you want to keep arguing this, then please provide some primary sources (especially helpful would be the commentaries of first millennium canonists) or scholarly secondary resources which substantiate your claims.

Why? So you can attach another name to the rhetoric? Address my rhetoric. I don’t understand your constant request for other sources.

The baptismal formula being tampered with was alone enough to invalidate the baptisms of groups, like the Eunomians, as the Catholic Encyclopedia points out. I never said, however, that theological considerations could not come into play.

Lex credendi, lex orandi. I’m glad you are (somewhat) conceding my point.

All I was intending to point out was that those who argue that Mormon baptisms should be rejected because they are not Trinitarian should understand that plenty of groups which were not Trinitarian in history in fact had their baptisms accepted, so this argument alone is not enough.

I don’t know why people are arguing that the reason the Mormon baptism is rejected is because it is not Trinitarian. From reading the original journalistic source (L’osservatore Romano), the rationale was because the Mormon conception of the Persons is not even Christian (God the Father being a glorified man, like Jesus). The conception of the Persons of course directly affects the Triadology. But it is not specifically their understanding of the Trinity, but rather their understanding of the Persons, which makes their Baptism devoid of “the intention of the Catholic Church.”

Blessings,
Marduk