Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[mercytruth]

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

God’s peace

micah

 

[mardukm]

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.

newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm

Even Trinitarian heresies are not grounds for rejecting the baptisms of certain groups. Tampering with the baptismal formula, as the Eunomians did, however, was grounds enough. The canon unfortunately does not mention the council’s reasoning for rejecting the baptisms of other heretics, like the Sabellians, Montanists (and all other heretics, who are covered by this canon generically).

Actually, the Canon does mention the reason for the rejection of the Sabellian baptism - it is because they believed that the Father and Son were one Person. Other patristic sources tell us why the Baptism of the Montanists was rejected - it is because they baptized into the names of “Father, Son, and Montanus/Priscilla,” having believed the latter to be the personification of the Holy Ghost.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

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. During the controversy between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian, the Pope’s conditions were (1) proper belief in Christ and (2) the use of the three Names. The second condition basically ruled out the Montanists and most other heretics (the Gnostics) during that period of history.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

The Eunomians’ baptisms were rejected because they famously tampered with the baptismal formula, baptizing into the death of Christ with a single immersion. The Seventh Canon of the First Council of Constantinople mentions this as the reason for rejecting their baptisms, not their Trinitarian theology. Furthermore, the Pneumatomachoi also had their baptisms accepted by the same canon, and they explicitly believed that the Holy Spirit was a creature created by the Son. That one needs proper Trinitarian theology in order to have valid baptisms simply contradicts the canons of the ecumenical councils.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Concerning “proper belief in the Trinity”, which of the three qualities of a valid baptism does this satisfy? The general consensus of those who deem this proper belief necessary seems to be that it satisfies, howbeit indirectly, proper intent. If this is the case then what of atheists who baptize people in extremis? Surely an improper belief about God is more in tune with correct intent than no belief in God whatsoever?

We already agree that Mormons have the correct form and the correct matter (they are, after all not baptizing in jello in the name of Brigham Young), so this leaves only intent. As it has been explained to me before by my Bishop, the proper intent of baptism is to

• Remove the stain of Original Sin,
• Remove Particular Sin,
• Initiate the faithful into the Body of Christ through emulation of the Lord’s death and resurrection.

The LDS satisfy the second and third. They believe that baptism is required for the remission of particular sin, and unlike many Protestants they believe that Baptism is the very first “Ordinance” of initiation into the fold (see: Article of Faith #4). So much so that to a Mormon, they only “become a member of the LDS Church” at their baptism, Mormon upbringing notwithstanding. The LDS do not believe in Original Sin (see: Article of Faith #2), so they cannot in any way intend to remove that which they do not believe exists. This seems to be the most objective reason for deeming an LDS baptism invalid.

Indirect reasons, I understand, can be quite nuanced, and only peripherally apply to one of the three requisites of a valid baptism. Fair enough. I can tangentially see how the LDS view of baptism as being essentially an Old Testament religious ritual rather than the sign of the New and Everlasting Covenant could indirectly apply as incorrect intent (and thus contradict the idea that baptism is initiation into the Body of Christ through emulation of his death and resurrection). I just cannot wrap my feeble little mind around how the particular beliefs about God in any way speak to intent.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The Eunomians’ baptisms were rejected because they famously tampered with the baptismal formula, baptizing into the death of Christ with a single immersion. The Seventh Canon of the First Council of Constantinople mentions this as the reason for rejecting their baptisms, not their Trinitarian theology. Furthermore, the Pneumatomachoi also had their baptisms accepted by the same canon, and they explicitly believed that the Holy Spirit was a creature created by the Son. That one needs proper Trinitarian theology in order to have valid baptisms simply contradicts the canons of the ecumenical councils.

Ah! A whole new layer to this complex onion!

Is this still the case today? Are single immersion baptisms invalid? If not, what changed and why?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, the Canon does mention the reason for the rejection of the Sabellian baptism - it is because they believed that the Father and Son were one Person. Other patristic sources tell us why the Baptism of the Montanists was rejected - it is because they baptized into the names of “Father, Son, and Montanus/Priscilla,” having believed the latter to be the personification of the Holy Ghost.

Blessings,
Marduk

That was St. Basil’s reasoning, yes. Whether they actually tampered with the formula is debatable. It is again, too bad the council did not comment on its reasoning. The council similarly only mentions in passing the heresy of the Sabellians, but not why their baptisms are invalid. The Catholic Encyclopedia argues that they too tampered with the baptismal formula, if I recall.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ah! A whole new layer to this complex onion!

Is this still the case today? Are single immersion baptisms invalid? If not, what changed and why?

They are invalid in Orthodoxy. I don’t know whether they are invalid in Catholicism.

 

[mercytruth]

They are invalid in Orthodoxy. I don’t know whether they are invalid in Catholicism.

In an earlier post you responded that you did not think that Orthodoxy had ever validated the baptisms performed by the Mormons. Do you know why Orthodoxy determined that they were invalid and when?

God’s peace

micah

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Micah,

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.

Actually, 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.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cvaradossi,

The Eunomians’ baptisms were rejected because they famously tampered with the baptismal formula, baptizing into the death of Christ with a single immersion. The Seventh Canon of the First Council of Constantinople mentions this as the reason for rejecting their baptisms, not their Trinitarian theology.

Though it is true they changed the baptismal formula, the Council rejected their baptism only for the reason of baptizing in one immersion. I think is is more cogent that their baptism was rejected because they did not believe in the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, only the Father’s, which would explain their one immersion. The practice of one immersion was also practiced by the Catholic Church in Spain for a certain period in the 7th century, but not for any heretical reason – they did so in order to stress the unity of the Godhead in opposition to the local Arians who performed triune baptism for their belief in three Persons with three different natures. The practice of the Spanish Church was approved by Pope St. Gregory the Great. So the doctrinal meaning/teaching behind the form was essential to a valid baptism. Further we have the testimony of St. Athanasius who stated that though the followers of Paul of Samosota used the proper Trinitarian formula, they did not have an orthodox belief in the Trinity, and therefore their baptisms were rejected. St. Athanasius (and Pope St. Stephne before him) testifies to the importance of the Trinitarian formula, but also to the importance of the theology behind it.

Furthermore, the Pneumatomachoi also had their baptisms accepted by the same canon, and they explicitly believed that the Holy Spirit was a creature created by the Son.

Actually, there were different types of Pneumatomachi (just as there were different types of Arians). The Macedonians whose baptisms are accepted by the 2nd Ecum were Pneumatomachi who believed in the homoiousion of the Holy Spirit, just as the Arians whose baptisms were accepted believed in the homoiousion of the Son - though these heretics did not believe in a proper way in the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit, they nevertheless did believe in their divnity. There were, of course, other Pneumatomachi and Arians who did not believe in the divinity of the other Persons – such were the Eunomians, whose baptisms were actually rejected.

That one needs proper Trinitarian theology in order to have valid baptisms simply contradicts the canons of the ecumenical councils.

The Sabellian baptism was rejected by the 2nd Ecum for the sole reason that they believed the Father and Son to be one Person. So the theology behind the baptism was obviously recognized as one of the most important factors.

That was St. Basil’s reasoning, yes. Whether they actually tampered with the formula is debatable.

You are assuming that the baptismal formula sans consideration of the theology behind it was the criteria, which I believe is inconsistent with the evidence.

It is again, too bad the council did not comment on its reasoning. The council similarly only mentions in passing the heresy of the Sabellians, but not why their baptisms are invalid.

“And Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son…”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Though it is true they changed the baptismal formula, the Council rejected their baptism only for the reason of baptizing in one immersion. I think is is more cogent that their baptism was rejected because they did not believe in the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, only the Father’s, which would explain their one immersion.

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

The practice of one immersion was also practiced by the Catholic Church in Spain for a certain period in the 7th century, but not for any heretical reason – they did so in order to stress the unity of the Godhead in opposition to the local Arians who performed triune baptism for their belief in three Persons with three different natures. The practice of the Spanish Church was approved by Pope St. Gregory the Great. So the doctrinal meaning/teaching behind the form was essential to a valid baptism. Further we have the testimony of St. Athanasius who stated that though the followers of Paul of Samosota used the proper Trinitarian formula, they did not have an orthodox belief in the Trinity, and therefore their baptisms were rejected. St. Athanasius (and Pope St. Stephne before him) testifies to the importance of the Trinitarian formula, but also to the importance of the theology behind it.

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.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, there were different types of Pneumatomachi (just as there were different types of Arians). The Macedonians whose baptisms are accepted by the 2nd Ecum were Pneumatomachi who believed in the homoiousion of the Holy Spirit, just as the Arians whose baptisms were accepted believed in the homoiousion of the Son - though these heretics did not believe in a proper way in the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit, they nevertheless did believe in their divnity. There were, of course, other Pneumatomachi and Arians who did not believe in the divinity of the other Persons – such were the Eunomians, whose baptisms were actually rejected.

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. 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) 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. 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.

The Sabellian baptism was rejected by the 2nd Ecum for the sole reason that they believed the Father and Son to be one Person. So the theology behind the baptism was obviously recognized as one of the most important factors.

You are assuming that the baptismal formula sans consideration of the theology behind it was the criteria, which I believe is inconsistent with the evidence.

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. 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.

 

[LivingWaters7]

“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

This doesn’t make sense to me. In the same post, you say that “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”, and you also say that the “semi-Arians” had a Christology “sufficiently at least able to be interpreted as orthodox”. What does that mean? Was it the same as the orthodox position? What does “sufficiently” mean? If the semi-Arians had differences from the orthodox understanding of the Trinity doctrine, then how could they have a “proper understanding”? Everything I have read points to the semi-Arians having a different understanding on Christology than the traditional/orthodox position.

 

[runningdude]

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

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.

 

[twopekinguys]

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

What makes you think a prayer of exorcism is required? Where are you getting this?

I ask because you keep bringing it up even though it’s been answered.

 

[twopekinguys]

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?

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.

I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It has been explained to you multiple times.

The arians were heretics. Meaning they strayed away from the accepted teachings. Mormons were never there to begin with.

Mormons have a totally different view of the Trinity than mainstream Christianity. The arians were there at one point, but strayed. Do you get it now?

Honestly, the way you are harping about the arian baptisms being accepted and mormon baptisms not being accepted is coming across very childish.

Johnnie has something and I don’t. Why is Johnnie special?

The whole persecution complex thing is a very old tactic, and not tolerated very well around here.

Mercy explained why mormon baptisms are invalid. He stated mormons don’t accept any Christian baptisms, because you are a “restored” church. Since Catholics don’t believe the authority was lost, there was no need for a restoration, thus adding to the invalidity of the mormon baptisms.

There, now you have another reason why they aren’t recognized.

Someone else has already posted a link to a partial list of non approved baptisms. If you want to talk about a specific one, fine, but as I stated earlier, there is no single blanket answer.

 

[twopekinguys]

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?

micah

All people, validly baptized or not will go through an instruction and discernment process. The Catholic Church lays it all out on the table during the RCIA process.

Nothing is out of bounds. Nothing is too sacred/secret to discuss. We don’t do milk before meat.

We want everyone going through the process to have all of their questions and concerns addressed before making the final commitment.

I always tell the people in my classes, “You have until 5 minutes before the start of Easter Vigil to back out. Less than 5 minutes, and I’m dragging you down the aisle.”

I’ve never had to drag anybody down the aisle.

I had a young lady that backed out the Monday of Holy Week one year, but that’s as close as they’ve gotten

 

[mercytruth]

All people, validly baptized or not will go through an instruction and discernment process. The Catholic Church lays it all out on the table during the RCIA process.

Nothing is out of bounds. Nothing is too sacred/secret to discuss. We don’t do milk before meat.

We want everyone going through the process to have all of their questions and concerns addressed before making the final commitment.

I always tell the people in my classes, “You have until 5 minutes before the start of Easter Vigil to back out. Less than 5 minutes, and I’m dragging you down the aisle.”

I’ve never had to drag anybody down the aisle.

I had a young lady that backed out the Monday of Holy Week one year, but that’s as close as they’ve gotten

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

 

[LivingWaters7]

I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It has been explained to you multiple times.

The arians were heretics. Meaning they strayed away from the accepted teachings. Mormons were never there to begin with.

Mormons have a totally different view of the Trinity than mainstream Christianity. The arians were there at one point, but strayed. Do you get it now?

Honestly, the way you are harping about the arian baptisms being accepted and mormon baptisms not being accepted is coming across very childish.

Johnnie has something and I don’t. Why is Johnnie special?

The whole persecution complex thing is a very old tactic, and not tolerated very well around here.

Mercy explained why mormon baptisms are invalid. He stated mormons don’t accept any Christian baptisms, because you are a “restored” church. Since Catholics don’t believe the authority was lost, there was no need for a restoration, thus adding to the invalidity of the mormon baptisms.

There, now you have another reason why they aren’t recognized.

Someone else has already posted a link to a partial list of non approved baptisms. If you want to talk about a specific one, fine, but as I stated earlier, there is no single blanket answer.

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?