Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[Stephen168]

If we looked at a divinity scale:
10=Christ is of the same substance (consubstantial) with the Father
5= Christ is of similar substance as the Father
0=Christ is not of the same substance as the Father
Arians were all over the scale between 0 and 9.

From what I understand, the Vatican decided that none of the Mormon godhead is even on the divinity scale. Mainly due to claiming the Father was once like us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead&sa=U&ei=nkeAULeoDOaa0QH13YCQAQ&ved=0CBcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHn_eOfscCW7fwpwGD9o1COKWM31g

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/camorm2.htm&sa=U&ei=nkeAULeoDOaa0QH13YCQAQ&ved=0CBQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEpGQEPL19DGqO8TLBAeofMGlP-dg

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm&sa=U&ei=-EeAUPD2FYrk0QHH44HoBg&ved=0CBcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGiO-dNqxpqVEhgKw4gW4iag-2f7w

Some links on the topic.

Peace

 

[mercytruth]

Intent is, and always was a key element in the baptismal process.

Valid baptism consists of 1. Matter (flowing water) 2. Form (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) 3. Intent (to do what the Catholic Church teaches)

So, as you can see, your assumption that only form was important was incorrect.

God’s peace

micah

 

[runningdude]

What is the point you are trying to get too? You have beat around all of the bushes, why not just come out and let us know what your real question is.

Also, it has been posed to you twice, about mormons not accepting Christian baptisms, but you have avoided them completely.

**Why doesn’t the mormon church recognize anyone else’s? Is that unprecedented? **

Because they consider themselves the restored church or Christ, and therefore consider the sacraments of all other communities to be defective.

 

[mercytruth]

If I’m remembering correctly, evangelicals and those of the reformed tradition don’t believe that baptism washes away original sin. Are their baptisms invalid?

I noticed that you are of LDS. The 9/11 prophecy by Joseph Smith was not fulfilled. Do you believe that his prophecy for the ‘redemption of Zion’ is yet to be fulfilled?

Use every effort to prevail on the churches to gather to those regions and situate themselves to be in readiness to move into Jackson Co. in two years from the Eleventh of September next which is the appointed time for the redemption of Zion.” In other words, the Prophet anticipated that on September 11, 1836, the Church would make another attempt—a second Zion’s Camp—to return to Jackson County

rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-prophet-and-seer/joseph-smith-and-redemption-zion-1834

God’s peace

micah

 

[runningdude]

Thank you, I just looked it up and you are correct. Do you have any understanding of which of the three requirements for a valid baptism are missing and in what way?

God’s peace

micah

Valid intent is missing. They reject the intent to do as the Christian Church has always done in baptism. Traditional Christianity has always understood baptism to be accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit. Since Mormons reject the Holy Spirit as a divine person, their baptism cannot be valid.

 

[runningdude]

Except that I am specifically discussing the issue of Arian baptisms in this context of having a “skewed view of the Trinity”, or " they are not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are.", and yet Arian baptisms were apparently accepted anciently (and presumably the Catholic Church identifies itself with that ancient church, right?), as well as the cited Seventh Canon of the First Council of Constantinople. So Arians had a “skewed view of the Trinity”, and their baptisms were accepted, while Latter-day Saints also have a "skewed view of the Trinity, yet LDS baptisms are not accepted. So I’m just trying to understand how “skewed view of the Trinity” is a valid argument in one case (LDS) but not the other (Arians).

By necessity, their baptisms had to be valid. If they were not Christian (invalidly baptized), they would not be heretics and the inquisition would have no formal jurisdiction.

The Arian’s believed themselves to be doing as the Christian Church had always done. At their start, their priests and bishops would have come from the ordinarily ordained clergy. There was no historical break between “Catholic” and “Arian” baptisms - ordinary baptisms continued unimpeded. People never woke up one day and decided that baptism meant something completely different.

By contrast, Mormons, rejected the contemporary practices of Christians, substituting their own intent for baptism. As the restored church, all incoming members must receive restored Church’s new baptism. It is a break and rejection of all previous sacraments of the “fallen” (non-LDS) churches.

At its start, the intents of Mormon ministers were probably varied enough from their previous backgrounds, that some baptisms may have been valid. This would have justified for a substantial time the practice of offering conditional baptism, however the Vatican has ruled that this is no longer the case.

 

[runningdude]

If I’m remembering correctly, evangelicals and those of the reformed tradition don’t believe that baptism washes away original sin. Are their baptisms invalid?

If they are baptizing with the intent to do as the historical Christian Church has always done, it would be valid. Conditional baptism are sometimes offered in these instances.

 

[runningdude]

Another link when Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was Prefect of Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith…

In it it says that the Mormon doctrine cant even be consider heresy. It’s so that off…

No baptism = not Christian. Only Christians can be heretics.

 

[runningdude]

Perhaps it has to do with intent of washing away original sin…?

Mormons reject the doctrine of original sin…

Micah,

I am assuming you are aware that Mormons dont believe in original sin.

That would go to not having the right intent, right off the bat…

This alone would not invalidate intent. The Catholic Church practiced valid baptisms for many years before original sin was fully understood. Non-Catholics cannot be expected to fully understand all points of doctrine. Merely intending to perform a traditional Christian (as opposed to LDS) baptism is all that suffices, along with form and matter.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

I don’t see why it’s an issue. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church on earth, second only to Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit guides the His Holiness to guide the Church according to the will of God the Father. Christ created ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We “are” Christianity not just “one part” of Christianity. Christ created ONE Church and calls all His children to it. Anyone remaining in man made religions outside of Christ’s ONE Church is doing the exact opposite of Christ’s will. So no, the Pope was completely within his right. And thank God for it!

 

[runningdude]

Gonna guess that it has to do with the LDS doctrine that priesthood authority was “restored” and not passed down thru apostolic lines…IE the whole idea of apostasy and the priesthood authority taken from the earth…

Remember that Mormons believe in a great apostasy, there for they see ALL baptism but their own as invalid.

It’s one of the reasons they do baptism for the dead in their temples. They believe those who have died without having been baptized thru Mormon authority need to be re-baptized…

The idea that Mormon baptism is invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church is not of a concern for them, because they feel the same about anyone who has not be baptized Mormon.

I concur

 

[runningdude]

I don’t see why it’s an issue. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church on earth, second only to Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit guides the His Holiness to guide the Church according to the will of God the Father. Christ created ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We “are” Christianity not just “one part” of Christianity. Christ created ONE Church and calls all His children to it. Anyone remaining in man made religions outside of Christ’s ONE Church is doing the exact opposite of Christ’s will. So no, the Pope was completely within his right. And thank God for it!

I don’t think anyone was questioning whether the Church was correct in rejecting Mormon baptism, but trying to better understand why it did.

 

[mercytruth]

I was curious what this means:

[The second key reason for the ruling, the Osservatore says, is the origin of the LDS baptism.

"The Mormon baptism, which would have its origins not in Christ but at the start of creation, is not a Christian baptism,"

God’s peace

micah

 

[xixxvmcm85]

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.

This is what I assumed. So what exactly is it that the LDS church is not intending to do in baptism that the Church is? Does it have anything to do with the LDS rejection of original sin, and thus any need to wash away the stain of such?

EDIT: Got around to skimming the other 6 pages of this thread (Geez it moves fast!), and I see others have already brought this up. This seems like the most likely reason for the Church finding that the LDS do not intend to do what Holy Mother Church does.

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.

Concerning Marie’s link which mentioned that LDS baptism comes from “before Christ”, I presume that has something to do with the LDS understanding of baptism as an ordinance which has been around since Adam (See the LDS book of scripture Moses 6:64-68, which was Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Torah).

The LDS (erroneously) believe that all of their ordinances (including baptism, confirmation, ordination, and temple ordinances) were practiced by all the Old Testament righteous. Can anyone tell me if I’m barking up the wrong tree here?

 

[twopekinguys]

Except that I am specifically discussing the issue of Arian baptisms in this context of having a “skewed view of the Trinity”, or " they are not referring to the same ones that traditional Christians are.", and yet Arian baptisms were apparently accepted anciently (and presumably the Catholic Church identifies itself with that ancient church, right?), as well as the cited Seventh Canon of the First Council of Constantinople. So Arians had a “skewed view of the Trinity”, and their baptisms were accepted, while Latter-day Saints also have a "skewed view of the Trinity, yet LDS baptisms are not accepted. So I’m just trying to understand how “skewed view of the Trinity” is a valid argument in one case (LDS) but not the other (Arians).

If I remember correctly, the Arian’s that you keep referring to, didn’t believe that God was once a sinful man. Mormons have taught, and been taught that in the past.

Also, if you look up arianism on wiki, you will see that their view of the Trinity is much closer (although flawed) to the traditional view as opposed to mormons.

That in an of itself sets mormons into an entirely different category from other religions.

Also, it wasn’t all that many years ago, mormons did not want to be considered, or called “Christian”. That has evolved over the years also, along with the ever changing doctrines in mormonism.

Those two things separate mormons from the arians, baptism and all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Concerning Marie’s link which mentioned that LDS baptism comes from “before Christ”, I presume that has something to do with the LDS understanding of baptism as an ordinance which has been around since Adam (See the LDS book of scripture Moses 6:64-68, which was Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Torah).

The LDS (erroneously) believe that all of their ordinances (including baptism, confirmation, ordination, and temple ordinances) were practiced by all the Old Testament righteous. Can anyone tell me if I’m barking up the wrong tree here?

I agree.

 

[hn160]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod does not consider the Mormens Christian but a cult and does not recognize their baptism.

 

[mercytruth]

In the Catholic Church, in the case of emergency, absolutely anyone of reasonable mind is able to confer a valid baptism, even an atheist, insofar as they use the correct form and matter of the sacrament (words and objects with actions) and have the intention to do what the Church does, which is automatically supplied by virtue of performing the sacrament unless the person baptizing explicitly renounces it. This is outlined in canon 861 §2 of the code of Canon Law. Other Christian groups do not agree with this interpretation of the sacrament, believing that a person cannot convey what he/she himself does not possess (i.e baptism). The Latin Rite Catholic Church, however, considers that the virtue of the sacrament is not affected by the person who baptizes, but by the Holy Spirit and that all water has already been previously sanctified by Christ at His own baptism and thus does not require a specific minister in order for it to be empowered, as this excerpt from Tertullian illustrates:
"All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying."

wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_allowed_to_baptize_in_case_of_emergency

**§2 If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so. Pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to be diligent in ensuring that Christ’s faithful are taught the correct way to baptise. **

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2V.HTM

Am I understanding this correctly?

God’s peace

micah

 

[runningdude]

In the Catholic Church, in the case of emergency, absolutely anyone of reasonable mind is able to confer a valid baptism, even an atheist, insofar as they use the correct form and matter of the sacrament (words and objects with actions) and have the intention to do what the Church does, which is automatically supplied by virtue of performing the sacrament unless the person baptizing explicitly renounces it. …

Am I understanding this correctly?

God’s peace

micah

Yes. The issue is here though is the lack of proper intent when the baptism is performed in a Mormon context. However, a Mormon could indeed perform a Christian baptism in an emergency if the one in danger requested a Christian baptism. Following the proper form in such a request would be presumed to have the proper intent.