Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[mercytruth]

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.

The fact is, that the statement says that the intent is automatically endowed, if the correct form is used.

The second problem that I have with baptisms that are considered valid by the Roman Catholic church is that there is no mention of the necessity for a prayer of exorcism.
What if someone from a ‘Christian denomination’ is obsessed or possessed with a demon, and the Catholic church confirms that person into the church?

I think of the example of Simon Magus, who although baptized, was about to be confirmed with the Holy Spirit by the apostle Peter, and St.Peter was able to discern that Simon Magus had a root of bitterness within him, and would not impart the Holy Spirit to him. Later, Simon Magus was to become the leader of gnosticism.

In the early church, an unblameable priest was required to perform baptism. The form was required, but the form did not sanctify the one who baptized.

This is what the Constitutions of the Apostles says about the correct way to baptize and who was to baptize:

XV. Be likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord; not that which is conferred by wicked heretics, but that which is conferred by unblameable priests, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 and let not that which comes from the ungodly be received by you, nor let that which is done by the godly be disannulled by a second. For as there is one God, one Christ, and one Comforter, and one death of the Lord in the body, so let that baptism which is unto Him be but one. But those that receive polluted baptism from the ungodly will become partners in their opinions. For they are not priests.

There was also a proclamation of renunciation that was required by the one who was baptized. There was also a period of examination of the one who is to be baptized. Laity were not allowed to baptize. All of these requirements are stipulated in this document.
newadvent.org/fathers/07156.htm

This basically, was the position held by Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and the Synod of African bishops. This position was opposed by Bishop Stephen of Rome who maintained that individuals who had been previously baptized by heretics need not be re-baptized in order to enter Roman Catholic Church. Bishop Stephen of Rome may have assumed that the correct form and words of a heretical baptism was all that was necessary for such a baptism to be valid, because the Holy Spirit had sanctified it in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

newadvent.org/fathers/07156.htm

God’s peace

micah

 

[choliks]

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.

This really made the most sense. I don’t think one can simply say that the LDS baptism is like the Arian’s, and just use the “askewed view of the Trinity” reason. That’s rather simplistic. One must also observe the theological, ecclesiological, and, maybe, ontological differences. I assume the Holy See studied and considered all these to invalidate the intent, and the LDS baptism as a whole.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

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

I) I believe that a conditional baptism is always made following an emergency baptism IIRC. 2) Wiki answers is not a valid source of theological information. The underlined portion of canon law seems to contradict the portion of the wiki answer which says the minister is of no importance. The proper minister is always required for any sacrament, but the proper minister of baptism is anyone with the right intention.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The fact is, that the statement says that the intent is automatically endowed, if the correct form is used.

The second problem that I have with baptisms that are considered valid by the Roman Catholic church is that there is no mention of the necessity for a prayer of exorcism.
What if someone from a ‘Christian denomination’ is obsessed or possessed with a demon, and the Catholic church confirms that person into the church?

I think of the example of Simon Magus, who although baptized, was about to be confirmed with the Holy Spirit by the apostle Peter, and St.Peter was able to discern that Simon Magus had a root of bitterness within him, and would not impart the Holy Spirit to him. Later, Simon Magus was to become the leader of gnosticism.

Peter discerned that Simon Magus was not seeking initiation into a Christian life, but rather was seeking to possess the power of God. An exorcism would not have changed what Peter had discerned.

The modern catechumenate is, among other things, a period of discernment. The catechumens are learning, praying and discerning whether or not they truly desire to be baptized. Those who lead and participate on RCIA teams are also praying discerning as to whether or not a person is "ready"to be baptized. Simon Magus was not ready.

In the early church, an unblameable priest was required to perform baptism. The form was required, but the form did not sanctify the one who baptized.

The form doesn’t sanctify anyone. Baptism is made valid first by Jesus Christ, if it were not, a priest who had gravely sinned and was unrepentant, yet performing baptisms, would cause the baptism to be invalid.the Church has never taught that then Sacraments are made invalid by the disposition of the person who is performing the baptism.

This is what the Constitutions of the Apostles says about the correct way to baptize and who was to baptize:

XV. Be likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord; not that which is conferred by wicked heretics, but that which is conferred by unblameable priests, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 and let not that which comes from the ungodly be received by you, nor let that which is done by the godly be disannulled by a second. For as there is one God, one Christ, and one Comforter, and one death of the Lord in the body, so let that baptism which is unto Him be but one. But those that receive polluted baptism from the ungodly will become partners in their opinions. For they are not priests.

I’m not understanding what you are reading into this.

There was also a proclamation of renunciation that was required by the one who was baptized. There was also a period of examination of the one who is to be baptized. Laity were not allowed to baptize. All of these requirements are stipulated in this document.
newadvent.org/fathers/07156.htm

This remains the same for the unbaptized. Laity can only baptize in the case of necessity. We can’t go around baptizing willy nilly because we think we can.the ordinary minister of baptism is a deacon, priest or bishop.

This basically, was the position held by Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and the Synod of African bishops. This position was opposed by Bishop Stephen of Rome who maintained that individuals who had been previously baptized by heretics need not be re-baptized in order to enter Roman Catholic Church. Bishop Stephen of Rome may have assumed that the correct form and words of a heretical baptism was all that was necessary for such a baptism to be valid, because the Holy Spirit had sanctified it in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Mormons aren’t heretics.

The Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of ecclesial communities. The Mormon church is a non-Christian community.

 

[LivingWaters7]

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.

I don’t believe anyone was ever making an equivalence between Latter-day Saints belief and Arian belief. That was not the point. The actual point is Trinitarian verses the broad category of non-Trinitarian. I have read many times that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because, among other reasons, we reject the Trinity doctrine, i.e. we are non-Trinitarians. Therefore our baptism is not valid. On the other hand, I see that Arians are also non-Trinitarians (again, no one is claiming that their non-Trinitarian theology is the same as that of the Latter-day Saints), and using the same logic as that presented by those making the argument against Latter-day Saints, they are therefore not Christians since they are non-Trinitarian, and their baptisms would therefore be invalid, yet they apparently were accepted as valid baptisms. That was the point I was making on that specific issue/argument against Latter-day Saints.

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.

I think that what the Catholic poster xixxvmcm85 said earlier applies here:
**
“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.”**

 

[mercytruth]

Peter discerned that Simon Magus was not seeking initiation into a Christian life, but rather was seeking to possess the power of God. An exorcism would not have changed what Peter had discerned.

The modern catechumenate is, among other things, a period of discernment. The catechumens are learning, praying and discerning whether or not they truly desire to be baptized. Those who lead and participate on RCIA teams are also praying discerning as to whether or not a person is "ready"to be baptized. Simon Magus was not ready.

The form doesn’t sanctify anyone. Baptism is made valid first by Jesus Christ, if it were not, a priest who had gravely sinned and was unrepentant, yet performing baptisms, would cause the baptism to be invalid.the Church has never taught that then Sacraments are made invalid by the disposition of the person who is performing the baptism.

I’m not understanding what you are reading into this.

This remains the same for the unbaptized. Laity can only baptize in the case of necessity. We can’t go around baptizing willy nilly because we think we can.the ordinary minister of baptism is a deacon, priest or bishop.

Mormons aren’t heretics.

The Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of ecclesial communities. The Mormon church is a non-Christian community.

Rebecca,

Yes, Simon Magus was not ready for baptism. This is why canons regarding preparation and renunciation were adopted, so that individuals like Simon Magus would not be baptized in the first place.

I can appreciate and welcome the discernment and preparation that RICA teams minister when preparing someone** for baptism.**. If someone who desires to enter the Roman Catholic church who has a ‘valid’ baptism from a Christian community, is such discernment and preparation made eventhough they will not be re-baptized?

Secondly, this same document of the Apostolic Constitutions says that bishops, presbyters or deacons who have gravely sinned should be deprived of their ecclesiastical authority.

Thirdly, Mormons are heretical in their doctrine. This might be the whole issue of why the Vatican has done something unprecedented in determining that they had to be re-baptized. They discerned that Mormons had been allowed to enter the Roman Catholic church, and there was something amiss. They might have discerned that they needed the prayer of exorcism in a formal baptism that is not given during a conditional baptism.

The issue between Bishop Stephen of Rome and Bishop Cyprian of Carthage along with the African synod of bishops was one between Rome who thought two baptisms were contrary to the canons, while the African bishops thought that the original baptism done by heretics was not a ‘true’ baptism.

God’s peace

micah

 

[twopekinguys]

I) I believe that a conditional baptism is always made following an emergency baptism IIRC. 2) Wiki answers is not a valid source of theological information. The underlined portion of canon law seems to contradict the portion of the wiki answer which says the minister is of no importance. The proper minister is always required for any sacrament, but the proper minister of baptism is anyone with the right intention.

You are correct. An emergency baptism is usually followed up with a conditional. If the emergency passes, and the individual survives.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t believe anyone was ever making an equivalence between Latter-day Saints belief and Arian belief. That was not the point. The actual point is Trinitarian verses the broad category of non-Trinitarian. I have read many times that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because, among other reasons, we reject the Trinity doctrine, i.e. we are non-Trinitarians. Therefore our baptism is not valid. On the other hand, I see that Arians are also non-Trinitarians (again, no one is claiming that their non-Trinitarian theology is the same as that of the Latter-day Saints), and using the same logic as that presented by those making the argument against Latter-day Saints, they are therefore not Christians since they are non-Trinitarian, and their baptisms would therefore be invalid, yet they apparently were accepted as valid baptisms. That was the point I was making on that specific issue/argument against Latter-day Saints.

I think that what the Catholic poster xixxvmcm85 said earlier applies here:
**
“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.”**

Showing the difference between arianism and mormonism is key to the topic, and does have bearing.

I have to respectfully disagree with xixxvmcm85. The issue of the Trinity is very key to this,

Again, if you don’t hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic church, a mormon baptism doesn’t have the intent required.

Also, wiki is not a very good theological source. You might want to try something else.

 

[mercytruth]

You are correct. An emergency baptism is usually followed up with a conditional. If the emergency passes, and the individual survives.

Does an emergency baptism and/or the conditional baptism have the prayer of renunciation followed by the prayer of confession of the Apostle’s Creed? Does an emergency baptism and/or the conditional baptism have the prayer of exorcism?

Probably not. This is why Mormons need to be re-baptized.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Stephen168]

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,"](Vatican rules LDS baptisms 'invalid' | WWRN - World-wide Religious News) the Osservatore wrote.

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).

Thank You

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t believe anyone was ever making an equivalence between Latter-day Saints belief and Arian belief. That was not the point. The actual point is Trinitarian verses the broad category of non-Trinitarian. I have read many times that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because, among other reasons, we reject the Trinity doctrine, i.e. we are non-Trinitarians. Therefore our baptism is not valid. On the other hand, I see that Arians are also non-Trinitarians (again, no one is claiming that their non-Trinitarian theology is the same as that of the Latter-day Saints), and using the same logic as that presented by those making the argument against Latter-day Saints, they are therefore not Christians since they are non-Trinitarian, and their baptisms would therefore be invalid, yet they apparently were accepted as valid baptisms. That was the point I was making on that specific issue/argument against Latter-day Saints.

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.

You have to be a Christian to be a heretic, Arian’s were heretics. The Vatican determined that Mormon’s are something else entirely; having more than one reason for doing so.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Showing the difference between arianism and mormonism is key to the topic, and does have bearing.

Why is it key to the topic, when no one has claimed that they are the same, and we all recognize the differences between Arianism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The point, as brought up originally by xixxvmcm85, was that there is precedent within the ancient church of accepting a non-Trinitarian baptism (non-Trinitarian meaning that while presumably they used the same “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” baptismal formula, they are non-Trinitarian, rejecting the traditional Trinity doctrine. Again, following the same logic used in by many when trying to explain why the Catholic Church, and others, do not accept baptisms done by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as valid, including within your very post that I am responding to, Arian baptisms should have not been accepted as valid, since “if you don’t hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic Church”, then the Arian baptism doesn’t have the intent required. According to the Fifth Canon of the First Council of Constantinople, among other sources, they were accepted, and Arians did not have to be “re”-baptized. Correct?

I have to respectfully disagree with xixxvmcm85. The issue of the Trinity is very key to this,

Ok, please see above as to why xixxvmcm85, Cavaradossi, and others do not believe that it is, using the example of the acceptance of the non-Trinitarian Arians as an example of an inconsistency in this position.

Again, if you don’t hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic church, a mormon baptism doesn’t have the intent required.

Yet Arians did not hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic Church, and they did not have to be “re”-baptized. I’m just trying to understand how you are understanding that issue. Earlier in this thread you also said " If mormons do not (and they don’t) believe in the Trinity as defined by mainstream Christianity, then it is impossible to have the proper intent as defined by mainstream Christianity." I assume this position applies to all non-Trinitarians, right? So was the ancient church incorrect in accepting Arian (non-Trinitarian) baptism, by this standard? Is it your view that because the Arians are closer to the traditional Trinity than Latter-day Saints (yet still clearly non-Trinitarian), then that is different? Is there a source for such a position of varying degrees of non-Trinitarian-ness?

Also, wiki is not a very good theological source. You might want to try something else.

I don’t believe I have used wiki as a source in this thread, nor in the post you were responding to. Indeed, in this thread, you referenced wiki.

 

[mercytruth]

You have to be a Christian to be a heretic, Arian’s were heretics. The Vatican determined that Mormon’s are something else entirely; having more than one reason for doing so.

I thought Arians were schismatics, and gnostics were heretics. Historically speaking from my understanding, the use of the term heretic in the catholic church before the Nicene Councils was almost always used in reference to the various gnostic sects that the catholic church was combating.

Mormons have gnostic elements to their doctrines, and so it would seem that they are heretics.

God’s peace

micah

 

[LivingWaters7]

You have to be a Christian to be a heretic, Arian’s were heretics. The Vatican determined that Mormon’s are something else entirely; having more than one reason for doing so.

So Arians were non-Trinitarian Christian heretics. Even though they were non-Trinitarian, not believing in the Trinity “as defined by mainstream Christianity”, they had a valid baptism. And what has been said many times is that Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not believe the Trinity doctrine, because to be Christian one has to accept that belief (I have also seen this stated outside of an LDS-related context as well). Arians did not, so were they Christian?

 

[Stephen168]

I thought Arians were schismatics, and gnostics were heretics. Historically speaking from my understanding, the use of the term heretic in the catholic church before the Nicene Councils was almost always used in reference to the various gnostic sects that the catholic church was combating.

Mormons have gnostic elements to their doctrines, and so it would seem that they are heretics.

God’s peace

micah

Would we call Jews heretics?

 

[mercytruth]

Why is it key to the topic, when no one has claimed that they are the same, and we all recognize the differences between Arianism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The point, as brought up originally by xixxvmcm85, was that there is precedent within the ancient church of accepting a non-Trinitarian baptism (non-Trinitarian meaning that while presumably they used the same “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” baptismal formula, they are non-Trinitarian, rejecting the traditional Trinity doctrine. Again, following the same logic used in by many when trying to explain why the Catholic Church, and others, do not accept baptisms done by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as valid, including within your very post that I am responding to, Arian baptisms should have not been accepted as valid, since “if you don’t hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic Church”, then the Arian baptism doesn’t have the intent required. According to the Seventh Canon of the First Council of Constantinople, among other sources, they were accepted, and Arians did not have to be “re”-baptized. Correct?

Ok, please see above as to why xixxvmcm85, Cavaradossi, and others do not believe that it is, using the example of the acceptance of the non-Trinitarian Arians as an example of an inconsistency in this position.

Yet Arians did not hold the same view of the Trinity as the Catholic Church, and they did not have to be “re”-baptized. I’m just trying to understand how you are understanding that issue. Earlier in this thread you also said " If mormons do not (and they don’t) believe in the Trinity as defined by mainstream Christianity, then it is impossible to have the proper intent as defined by mainstream Christianity." I assume this position applies to all non-Trinitarians, right? So was the ancient church incorrect in accepting Arian (non-Trinitarian) baptism, by this standard? Is it your view that because the Arians are closer to the traditional Trinity than Latter-day Saints (yet still clearly non-Trinitarian), then that is different? Is there a source for such a position of varying degrees of non-Trinitarian-ness?

I don’t believe I have used wiki as a source in this thread, nor in the post you were responding to. Indeed, in this thread, you referenced wiki.

Arians originated within the catholic church and were baptized within the catholic church. They became schismatics in their understanding of the Trinity.

Mormons were not originally baptized within the catholic church. If fact, Mormons teach that they are the true church and the Roman Catholic church is apostate.

Joseph Smith was a false prophet who claimed to be like unto Moses. Mormons teach that Adam is their God. That God has a wife. This is so far afield of Arianism, or any other understanding of the Christian faith with regard to the Trinity. Correct me if I have misstated anything in this regard.

Consequently, the Roman Catholic church has reconsidered the validity of Mormon baptisms and now have discerned that Mormons need to be re-baptized (and I presume delivered from their demonic deceptions.) if they are to enter the Roman Catholic church.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Stephen168]

So Arians were non-Trinitarian Christian heretics. Even though they were non-Trinitarian, not believing in the Trinity “as defined by mainstream Christianity”, they had a valid baptism. And what has been said many times is that Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not believe the Trinity doctrine, because to be Christian one has to accept that belief (I have also seen this stated outside of an LDS-related context as well). Arians did not, so were they Christian?

Mormons are not Christian because they do not have a Christian baptism. They do not have a Christian baptism for at least two reasons listed in posts 110 and 111.

 

[mercytruth]

Would we call Jews heretics?

Of course not. We are only to judge those who claim to embrace the Christian faith.
Now I would grant that the use of the term heretic has been applied broadly in the history of the church, even to Protestant denominations. I think most of the time such denominations should have been identified as schismatics. We have no stronger term for those who deny the principles of the Apostle’s Creed, other than to label them as heretics.

God’s peace

micah

 

[LivingWaters7]

Arians originated within the catholic church and were baptized within the catholic church. They became schismatics in their understanding of the Trinity.

Mormons were not originally baptized within the catholic church. If fact, Mormons teach that they are the true church and the Roman Catholic church is apostate.

Joseph Smith was a false prophet who claimed to be like unto Moses. Mormons teach that Adam is their God. That God has a wife. This is so far afield of Arianism, or any other understanding of the Christian faith with regard to the Trinity. Correct me if I have misstated anything in this regard.

Consequently, the Roman Catholic church has reconsidered the validity of Mormon baptisms and now have discerned that Mormons need to be re-baptized (and I presume delivered from their demonic deceptions.) if they are to enter the Roman Catholic church.

God’s peace

micah

So Arians were schismatics? I thought that the Catholic Church considered the Orthodox to be schismatics (for example). Wouldn’t having a non-Trinitarian belief mean that they are heretics, not schismatics? And wouldn’t a group holding to a non-Trinitarian belief make them non-Christian (following the position that to be Christian one has to believe in the Trinity)? Were they still Christian even though they did not hold to the Trinity doctrine (believing that the Son was a created being with an origin in time)?

And yes, I’m sure that the first Arians were validly baptized in the Catholic Church, according to your belief. However it seems that the Fifth Canon of the First Council of Constantinople is stating that Arians, as well as Macedonians, Sabbatians, and Novatians, are not received into the church by baptism, in contrast to the Sabellians (modalists), Montanists, and Eunomians, who are received by baptism. Perhaps this also applies to those Arians, etc. that were not baptized in the Catholic Church originally.

 

[mardukm]

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?

There were many sects of Arians, which included what we today call “semi-Arians” and also the Eunomians. Eunomians were Arians who had a very extreme view of Christology and basically flat out denied even the term homoiousious.

“Arians” as such that are mentioned by the Councils whose baptisms were accepted were most likely what we today would call “semi-Arians,” whose Christology was sufficiently at least able to be interpreted as orthodox.

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).

Blessings,
Marduk