Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[LivingWaters7]

I don’t know if Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in one god are not. Yes, to be materially Christian one needs to believe in one God, and, presumably, because Arians believed in one God, they are “materially Christian”

Ok great.

Do you have a source for the definition of “materially Christian”? This is a phrase that I’m not familiar with and would like to read more.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Jehovah’s Witnesses are sometimes termed “the new Arians” by various traditional Christian writers, interestingly.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I may be mistaken, but I think the baptisms of Jehovah Witnesses, and the Oneness Pentecostals are invalid because they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, rather than in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

God’s peace

micah

Right, they do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit. I’m not sure about the exact formula used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however I’m pretty sure it is not that one, nor do I believe it is in the name of Jesus Christ, but I could be wrong.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Yes, I believe a heretical Christian group, which does not hold to the orthodox Trinity, can perform a valid baptism provided they use correct matter, form, and intent.

Ok great, thank you for adding to the diversity of views on that issue in this thread.

 

[runningdude]

Yes, to me it kind of seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem.

What I gather from this thread is that some believe that to have a valid baptism, there must be a belief in the orthodox/traditional Trinity doctrine. Because Latter-day Saints do not hold to the orthodox/traditional Trinity doctrine (among other reasons perhaps), LDS baptisms are considered to be invalid. Now, what does it mean to be “materially Christian”?

…
I would think from the article to be materially Christian would require a belief in one God; Mormons believe in at least three.
The Arians must have generally believed in one God; Mormons believe in three gods.

Actually, as Catholics, we believe that Baptism permanently marks one’s soul, such that they become “materially” Christian. We believe that most protestants are Christian by this definition.

Because Mormon’s at some point lost the proper intention for baptism, they are not “materially” Christian, even if they maintain some rudimentary belief in Christ. The Arians, by contrast, never lost the proper intention for baptism, and so remained technically Christian, albeit with heretical beliefs.

What I have also gathered is that it is generally understood that to be “Christian”, one must hold to the orthodox/traditional Trinity doctrine (and I guess this is where the chicken-and-the-egg problem can come in, because many believe that to be “Christian”, one has to be validly baptized, and to have a valid baptism, one must hold to the orthodox/traditional Trinity doctrine (in addition to correct form, matter, etc)). Now, Arians did not hold to the orthodox/traditional Trinity doctrine, so what does it mean to be “materially Christian”, or, essentially, an “extremely unorthodox” Christian? That is what I am not understanding in regards to those that believe that belief in the traditional Trinity is necessary for a valid baptism, Arian baptisms were considered valid, yet they did not believe in the traditional Trinity.

Thanks.

I don’t claim to know exactly when or where Mormonism ceased to be a Christian denomination, however I suspect it took a couple generations. When it first formed, most of its members would have been converts from other Christian communities, and thus individual members would be technically Christian, and thus possess an imperfect though valid intent when baptizing.

However, as time went on their beliefs would have became more corrupted, and Mormon baptism at some point lost its ability to impart a Christian character. If Arianism were not stamped out, it too may have become unchristian as well. However, my guess is that the Arian movement ended before this occurred.

I should point out that I am presuming that Mormon baptism lost its Christian character because of a legal ruling by the Vatican, referenced in the original post of this thread. It is my intent to offer commentary to explain the Vatican’s declaration of the nullity of Mormon baptism, but not my intent to prove this nullity myself.

 

[mercytruth]

Right, they do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit. I’m not sure about the exact formula used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however I’m pretty sure it is not that one, nor do I believe it is in the name of Jesus Christ, but I could be wrong.

According to wikipedia there are two denominations which baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit which are not Nicean in their theology… the Christadelphians and the LDS. (Both of these are invalid baptisms according to the Roman Catholic church.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

The Christadelphians do not believe in the pre-existence of the Messiah, prior to his birth of the virgin, Mary.

christadelphia.org/belief.htm

God’s peace

micah

 

[Stephen168]

Ok great, thank you for adding to the diversity of views on that issue in this thread.

The views are not really that diverse. I think we have been telling you essentially the same thing. Baptism requires proper form, matter and intent. Mormonism does not have the proper intent. When a Mormon baptizes they do not intend Christian baptism.

An intent to do as Christs Church does.

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.

Considering that I posted a canon from the Second Ecumenical Council, it should apply to Roman Catholics as well, unless Roman Catholics no longer follow the Ecumenical Councils. As other posters have also said, the Catholic rationale for rejecting Mormon baptisms seems to hinge upon intent, not wholly upon their incorrect trinitarian teaching.

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.

No, that is not all that matters. Intent does too.

In the Catholic Church, in the case of emergency, absolutely anyone of reasonable mind is able to confer a valid baptism,…This is outlined in canon 861 §2 of the code of Canon Law.
Cannon 861:

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.

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 the Sacraments are made invalid by the disposition of the person who is performing the baptism.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The views are not really that diverse. I think we have been telling you essentially the same thing. Baptism requires proper form, matter and intent. Mormonism does not have the proper intent. When a Mormon baptizes they do not intend Christian baptism.

On the specific issue (i.e. “that issue”) of whether holding to the orthodox Trinity doctrine is necessary for a valid baptism (yes, I know that everyone has stated that proper form, matter, and intent is needed), it has not been essentially the same thing.

Mormon baptisms are considered invalid because of the mormon view of the Trinity, which they call “godhead”.

The mormon view of the Trinity is far outside what is recognized by mainstream Christianity.

Therefore a mormon baptism is not considered “Christian”

The Catholic Church does not recognize Christian groups baptisms who baptize only in the name of Jesus. They do not recognize the baptism of groups who do not believe in the Trinity as expressed by traditional Christianity (this is where the Mormons fall though there are groups that deny that the Holy Spirit is a person).

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).

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.

What it boils down to, is since the mormon church has a skewed view of the Trinity in comparison to mainstream Christianity, they therefore cannot have the same intent.

Those 2 things invalidate mormon baptisms. Simple as that.

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.

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

“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).

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.

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.

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?

Yes, I believe a heretical Christian group, which does not hold to the orthodox Trinity, can perform a valid baptism provided they use correct matter, form, and intent.

Also, do you have a source for the definition of “materially Christian”? Thanks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“For if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and
Son, and they [the Arians] do not confess a true Father, because
they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the
true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of
nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and
unprofitable [kenon kai alusiteles], making a show, but in reality
being no help towards religion? . . . So the baptism, which is
supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they
pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the
words of Scripture. For not he who simply says, “O Lord,” gives
baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith [pistin
orthēn]. On this account therefore our Savior also did not simply command to
baptize, but first says, “Teach,” then thus: “Baptize into the Name of
Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost”; that the right faith might follow
upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration
of baptism.” St. Athanasius, “Second Oration Against the Arians”

 

[Stephen168]

On the specific issue (i.e. “that issue”) of whether holding to the orthodox Trinity doctrine is necessary for a valid baptism (yes, I know that everyone has stated that proper form, matter, and intent is needed), it has not been essentially the same thing.

The discussion was how important is holding to the orthodoxy trinity to proper intent. The article I linked listed it as the first reason, so I would think most important.

Also, do you have a source for the definition of “materially Christian”? Thanks.

I think a dictionary would give you the definition of materially. Some examples are:
-to a significant extent or degree; substantially.
-to an important degree; considerably

So it would be someone who is Christian to a great degree but maybe not 100%. runningdude seems to be using materially in an ontological sense. I was thinking more theological because, according to the article I linked to is why the Church rejects Mormon baptism. The Church decided Mormon baptism is a pre-Christian pagan ritual.

 

[twopekinguys]

The discussion was how important is holding to the orthodoxy trinity to proper intent. The article I linked listed it as the first reason, so I would think most important.

I think a dictionary would give you the definition of materially. Some examples are:
-to a significant extent or degree; substantially.
-to an important degree; considerably

So it would be someone who is Christian to a great degree but maybe not 100%. runningdude seems to be using materially in an ontological sense. I was thinking more theological because, according to the article I linked to is why the Church rejects Mormon baptism. The Church decided Mormon baptism is a pre-Christian pagan ritual.

This has been explained to him/her numerous times. They either refuse to understand, or for some reason, refuse to.

That’s why I have them on ignore.

 

[Stephen168]

This has been explained to him/her numerous times. They either refuse to understand, or for some reason, refuse to.

That’s why I have them on ignore.

Yes, contrary to the article I linked to, one Catholic has claimed that a proper belief in the trinity has nothing to do with proper intent. The article clearly says that the Mormon teaching on the trinity voids their intent. LivingWaters7 for some reason chooses to cling to this one incorrect statement, and ignore all the others.

 

[runningdude]

The discussion was how important is holding to the orthodoxy trinity to proper intent. The article I linked listed it as the first reason, so I would think most important.

I think a dictionary would give you the definition of materially. Some examples are:
-to a significant extent or degree; substantially.
-to an important degree; considerably

So it would be someone who is Christian to a great degree but maybe not 100%. runningdude seems to be using materially in an ontological sense. I was thinking more theological because, according to the article I linked to is why the Church rejects Mormon baptism. The Church decided Mormon baptism is a pre-Christian pagan ritual.

I use “materially”, because I wished to include all branches of Protestantism that hold a valid baptism, even if their interpretation Christianity is flawed (only Catholicism perfectly expresses Christianity). I believe that someone who is validly baptized is more likely to intend to baptize as they themselves were originally baptized. Baptism brings all members, even non-Catholic Christians, into the Body of Christ (CCC 1271)

Perhaps early on, as Protestants or Catholics converted into Mormonism, they received an invalid second “Mormon” baptism, and then went on to intend to confer only that second attempt at baptism.

It would be the repudiation of previous Trinitarian beliefs that led them to seek a second baptism as Mormons, but the lack of proper Trinitarian beliefs themselves would not necessarily invalidate future baptism as long as the proper historical intent was present. It would be, in my opinion, the intent to confer some non-Christian ritual that invalidated Mormon baptism.

 

[Stephen168]

I use “materially”, because I wished to include all branches of Protestantism that hold a valid baptism, even if their interpretation Christianity is flawed (only Catholicism perfectly expresses Christianity). I believe that someone who is validly baptized is more likely to intend to baptize as they themselves were originally baptized. Baptism brings all members, even non-Catholic Christians, into the Body of Christ (CCC 1271)

Yes, that is how I understood you to mean it.

Perhaps early on, as Protestants or Catholics converted into Mormonism, they received an invalid second “Mormon” baptism, and then went on to intend to confer only that second attempt at baptism.
It would be the repudiation of previous Trinitarian beliefs that led them to seek a second baptism as Mormons, but the lack of proper Trinitarian beliefs themselves would not necessarily invalidate future baptism as long as the proper historical intent was present.

Anabaptist belief and practice was not invented by Joseph Smith, but he did teach a very un-Christian definition of God which was both non- Trinitarian and non-divine.

It would be, in my opinion, the intent to confer some non-Christian ritual that invalidated Mormon baptism.

I agree, which is what the article I’ve been referring to said and I summarized as “The Church decided Mormon baptism is a pre-Christian pagan ritual.”

 

[runningdude]

…
I agree, which is what the article I’ve been referring to said and I summarized as “The Church decided Mormon baptism is a pre-Christian pagan ritual.”

I must have missed this article somewhere in this marathon of thread, lol.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes, contrary to the article I linked to, one Catholic has claimed that a proper belief in the trinity has nothing to do with proper intent. The article clearly says that the Mormon teaching on the trinity voids their intent. LivingWaters7 for some reason chooses to cling to this one incorrect statement, and ignore all the others.

LOL, I think I used the word “harp”, or “harping” to describe it before I put them on ignore.

I mean really, how many times can you beat a dead horse?

 

[SteveVH]

“For if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and
Son, and they [the Arians] do not confess a true Father, because
they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the
true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of
nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and
unprofitable [kenon kai alusiteles], making a show, but in reality
being no help towards religion? . . . So the baptism, which is
supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they
pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the
words of Scripture. For not he who simply says, “O Lord,” gives
baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith [pistin
orthēn]. On this account therefore our Savior also did not simply command to
baptize, but first says, “Teach,” then thus: “Baptize into the Name of
Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost”; that the right faith might follow
upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration
of baptism.” St. Athanasius, “Second Oration Against the Arians”

Gotta love the ECF’s. I had never read this before. Thanks. How absolutely fitting for this thread.

 

[Josephene]

nbccongress.org/features/prayer-for-healing.asp - reading this article and the related book makes one wonder if the whole idea of getting baptised on behalf of the deceased is related to the focal point in this article too , of repenting , on behalf of the past generations, as though 'one ’ with them ( even though the LDS baptisms seem to miss this point ,ASIK )

Could it be that the Christian baptism gives one , the priestly role, to stand so , on behalf of others , esp. one’s ancestors , which could include any and all that we read of , in the Old Testament ; thus, reading through the Old Testament , one gets chances to repent , on behalf of many , in one’s ancesrty too , with similar issues !

Could it be that , in days of St.Paul, this awareness was such an attractive aspect of coming into The Church , atleast in certain locales ( have read other explanations of the verses related to the practice ) that many found this as the main reason for embracing the faith !

As The Church gets led by The Spirit , could it be that prayers for the deceasd , many even in the first person format , took the place of such a practice , that we no longer consider same , as the main objective of baptism but as a priviilege of belonging to the household of The Father , that gets carried on !

Ironically, those who think of this practice in LDS as an attractive point might consider how the enemy , who holds the claims against the deceased , is said to be
a ’ legalist’ , who would know who holds the keys and thus whom it really needs to obey or ignore !

Those who have gone to the enemy side attest to the power of the Catholic Sacraments , in this regard !

In this Year of Faith , such an aspect of repentance , would it not serve to enlighten the faith and make the reading of The Word , more effective , all the while , enlarging our family, to include more !

The popularity of the Divine mercy devotion can be seen as part of this Spirit led aspect of repentance too ; may be even a deeper awareness of same, on behalf of those who migt have had violent deaths,such as in wars , have been in idolatry and all the issues of selfishness that come swith it etc; incluiding for the Native Americans of our soil , might help to bring more peace into the present , for many !

 

[LivingWaters7]

The discussion was how important is holding to the orthodoxy trinity to proper intent. The article I linked listed it as the first reason, so I would think most important.

Right, and yet earlier you said “I believe a heretical Christian group, which does not hold to the orthodox Trinity, can perform a valid baptism provided they use correct matter, form, and intent.” This is why I’m confused. Is it or isn’t it necessary?

I think a dictionary would give you the definition of materially. Some examples are:
-to a significant extent or degree; substantially.
-to an important degree; considerably

So it would be someone who is Christian to a great degree but maybe not 100%. runningdude seems to be using materially in an ontological sense. I was thinking more theological because, according to the article I linked to is why the Church rejects Mormon baptism. The Church decided Mormon baptism is a pre-Christian pagan ritual.

Ok, I thought “materially Christian” was an actual theological phrase.

 

[LivingWaters7]

This has been explained to him/her numerous times. They either refuse to understand, or for some reason, refuse to.

That’s why I have them on ignore.

Yes, contrary to the article I linked to, one Catholic has claimed that a proper belief in the trinity has nothing to do with proper intent. The article clearly says that the Mormon teaching on the trinity voids their intent. LivingWaters7 for some reason chooses to cling to this one incorrect statement, and ignore all the others.

LOL, I think I used the word “harp”, or “harping” to describe it before I put them on ignore.

I mean really, how many times can you beat a dead horse?

Actually, I am ignoring nothing, as I clearly quoted various views on the issue of belief in the Trinity as well as the Arians, in this post. One person says the Catholic Church does not recognizes baptisms performed by groups that do not believe in the Trinity as expressed by traditional Christianity. Another says that Latter-day Saints are less non-Trinitarian than Arians, and that Arians were heretics, without ever mentioning the significance of either assertion to baptism (despite polite requests to do so or point out the specific post where it was already done). Another says the the issue of the Trinity is a red herring, because of the example of the Arians. Another says that the Arians mentioned by the Councils were most likely semi-Arians that had a sufficient enough Christology that could be interpreted as orthodox (whatever that means). And then we have another that cites an article that claims that holding to the Trinity is important in this matter (again interesting in light of Arians who didn’t hold to that doctrine), yet he also says that a heretical Christian group that doesn’t hold to the Trinity can still validly baptize. And of course we have the Orthodox poster that the reasoning has nothing to do with the Trinity, citing examples from one of the ancient Councils.

That is why I keep discussing the issue, because of the above. I am not ignoring anything, nor am I refusing to do anything. The fact is that there is a diversity of views expressed on this issue, as evidenced by the posts in this very thread.