Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[zaffiroborant]

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.

They may have been a heretical Christian group with incorrect understanding of the Trinity but they did not create their own church. They saw themselves as, and were members of the Catholic church and intended with the baptisms they performed to do what The Catholic church believes about baptism. Arians were individual Catholics who although they were wrong in belief still saw themselves as members of and aligned with the church. Churches are a different animal altogether, a church has it’s own teachings, and this is where alignment with Catholic understanding is important. If a church has an understanding 180 out from the Catholic understanding it’s ministers can not possibly be doing what the Catholic church intends in regards to baptism.

When an individual performs a baptism all that is needed is the intent to do what the Catholic church does, his beliefs and understanding are immaterial. When a person performs a baptism as an authority from a given church the belief and understanding of that church goes directly to intent and that is where the problem lies. LDS are baptizing with the intent of the their church and so it becomes necessary to look to the understanding of the church because there you see what is intended by the minister of baptism. IMO this is where “is it close enough to the proper understanding of the Trinity” comes into play.
Just to add to your confusion

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Living Waters:

I tried to send you a private message to commend you for your tenacity. The Good Lord knows I have not the patience to repeat myself over and over again. Alas, you neither allow private messages nor wall posts. Oh Well.

I still firmly accept the Church’s decision on LDS baptisms, and I recognize that the LDS baptism I had when I was 8 is not a valid baptism. Nevertheless, the incongruous arguments proffered in this thread with respect to belief in the Trinity, as the Catholic Church defines it, do not make any sense when juxtaposed to actual cases of history. Either the Church was wrong to admit as valid the baptism of non-Trinitarian heretics, or She is wrong to deny them now… or she is fully justified in denying the LDS baptism for some other reason concerning true intent; lack of Trinitarian belief notwithstanding.

I put this last part in italics as it’s the position I take as of yet, despite the fact it doesn’t fit well with an either/or proposition. But, please, don’t let my presence stop you all from your false dichotomy feast.

 

[Stephen168]

I still firmly accept the Church’s decision on LDS baptisms, and I recognize that the LDS baptism I had when I was 8 is not a valid baptism. Nevertheless, the incongruous arguments proffered in this thread with respect to belief in the Trinity, as the Catholic Church defines it, do not make any sense when juxtaposed to actual cases of history. Either the Church was wrong to admit as valid the baptism of non-Trinitarian heretics, or She is wrong to deny them now… or she is fully justified in denying the LDS baptism for some other reason concerning true intent; lack of Trinitarian belief notwithstanding.

Or she is fully justified in denying the LDS baptism for reasons concerning true intent which includes lack of Trinitarian belief as one of many factors to determine true intent. Belief in one God would be another factor.

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?

There a many factors that make a tractor a tractor; wheels, steering wheel, engine, hitch, etc. My station wagon had all those but was still not a tractor. It could not pull a plow and was not my, or the manufactures, intention for my station wagon to be a tractor.

Intent is required for a Christian baptism. The article listed two factors why Mormons do not have a Christian baptism. One is they believe in three gods. The Mormon tractor doesn’t even have wheels, yet you want to know how important it is for a tractor to have a hitch.

Actually, I am ignoring nothing,

You are ignoring the second factor listed in the article given by the Church on why Mormons do not have a Christian baptism. A ritual that pre-dates Christ is not Christian.

 

[mercytruth]

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.

Maybe it would help if you understood why the Catholic Church does not recognize the baptism done by the Christadelphian Church as being valid, eventhough they baptize with the correct form and matter. Jesus Christ as the Messiah did not exist prior to his human birth according to Christadelphian Trinitarian doctrine.

As I understand Roman Catholic thinking, any doctrine of the Trinity which accepts the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was considered to be valid for baptism as long as the form and matter were in order. In the case of emergency baptisms, an atheist can perform a valid baptism as long as the matter (water) and form (the Trinitarian formula) are in order. The Trinitarian formula sanctifies the intent of an atheist, because there is no one around to question his intent, or thoughts of his heart.

Originally, the Roman Catholic Church may have thought that the matter, form and pre-existence of the Messiah were all in order with regard to Mormon baptisms, but later they found out that Mormon doctrine at sometime taught that Michael the Archangel/Adam is the God and Father of the human race and God has a wife, and/or that there are at least three gods in the Mormon faith. (Actually, as I understand Mormon doctrine, beings are becoming gods continually throughout generations of eternity).

Now as to why it took the Roman Catholic church 150 years to realize this, or more likely150 years to change the validity, or doubtfulness of Mormon baptisms to being invalid is understandable from the dilemma of Papal infallibility possibly being questioned. So, it is my conjecture that the Roman Catholic Church knowing that the faith of Mormons is so contrary to Christian understanding, that discretion was more important than defending Papal infallibility.

Which is why I asked the original question, is this unprecedented? I am asking this question for one reason. There is division in the body of Christ over this issue, and I think our God and Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit would like to see the division between the East and the West come to an end if the Passover prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be honored.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[cayahoo08]

The uniqueness of the Mormon’s beliefs puts them far enough outside of Christianity as to invalidate their intent. Remember, even Islam has a Christology, in that they accept Jesus as a prophet, yet this does not constitute them being Christian. It is only Christian baptism that is recognized.

Chris·tian
kríschən ]

**believer in Jesus Christ as savior:** somebody whose religion is Christianity
**from teachings of Jesus Christ: based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels**
relating to Christianity: relating to Christianity, or belonging to or maintained by a Christian organization, especially a church

James 1:27

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[twopekinguys]

Chris·tian
kríschən ]

**believer in Jesus Christ as savior:** somebody whose religion is Christianity
**from teachings of Jesus Christ: based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels**
relating to Christianity: relating to Christianity, or belonging to or maintained by a Christian organization, especially a church

James 1:27

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

You realize that the mormon theological view of Jesus is totally different than mainstream Christianity right?

Which means they don’t worship the same one we do. But if you had read the thread, you would have seen/known that.

 

[cayahoo08]

Well, from what I understand Mormons baptize the non-Mormons that they really like after they’re dead anyway.

It is NOT without merit…

1 Corinthians 15:29

Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

 

[cayahoo08]

You realize that the mormon theological view of Jesus is totally different than mainstream Christianity right?

Which means they don’t worship the same one we do. But if you had read the thread, you would have seen/known that.

So are worshiping the God of baal ?

 

[twopekinguys]

So are worshiping the God of baal ?

Who’s worshipping the god of Baal?

Are you saying Catholics are?

 

[pablope]

It is NOT without merit…

1 Corinthians 15:29

Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

You misunderstand this passage…called proof texting…carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29

But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let’s examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.

In verses 1-19, the fact of Christ’s resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ was the first one raised - in a glorified body - and next will be those who are His at His return. Verses 24 - 29 then mention Christ’s reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.1 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.

Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, “…if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?” Paul did not say we.2

This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

Paul’s point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word “they” is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans. Let’s take a look.

Literally, the verse is translated as “Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them.”

The issue here is the word, “baptizontai” – “they are baptized.” It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.

 

[Stephen168]

Chris·tian
kríschən ]

**believer in Jesus Christ as savior:** somebody whose religion is Christianity
**from teachings of Jesus Christ: based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels**
relating to Christianity: relating to Christianity, or belonging to or maintained by a Christian organization, especially a church

James 1:27

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Mormons do not have a Christian Baptism because they believe in more than one god.

 

[cayahoo08]

Mormons do not have a Christian Baptism because they believe in more than one god.

John 6:39

And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

To whom was Christ speaking ?

 

[Stephen168]

John 6:39

And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

To whom was Christ speaking ?

I already understand that you believe in more than one god, which is not Christian.

 

[mercytruth]

Chris·tian
kríschən ]

**believer in Jesus Christ as savior:** somebody whose religion is Christianity
**from teachings of Jesus Christ: based on or relating to a belief in

Jesus Christ as the Son of God

God’s peace

micah

 

[cayahoo08]

I already understand that you believe in more than one god, which is not Christian.

Please answer the question, to WHOM was CHRIST speaking ?

 

[runningdude]

Maybe it would help if you understood why the Catholic Church does not recognize the baptism done by the Christadelphian Church as being valid, eventhough they baptize with the correct form and matter. Jesus Christ as the Messiah did not exist prior to his human birth according to Christadelphian Trinitarian doctrine.

As I understand Roman Catholic thinking, any doctrine of the Trinity which accepts the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was considered to be valid for baptism as long as the form and matter were in order. In the case of emergency baptisms, an atheist can perform a valid baptism as long as the matter (water) and form (the Trinitarian formula) are in order. The Trinitarian formula sanctifies the intent of an atheist, because there is no one around to question his intent, or thoughts of his heart.

I believe the above is correct.

Originally, the Roman Catholic Church may have thought that the matter, form and pre-existence of the Messiah were all in order with regard to Mormon baptisms, but later they found out that Mormon doctrine at sometime taught that Michael the Archangel/Adam is the God and Father of the human race and God has a wife, and/or that there are at least three gods in the Mormon faith. (Actually, as I understand Mormon doctrine, beings are becoming gods continually throughout generations of eternity).

Mormonism has not been consistent throughout its existence. As it has no true central authority, it really depends on what each member actually believes.

Now as to why it took the Roman Catholic church 150 years to realize this, or more likely150 years to change the validity, or doubtfulness of Mormon baptisms to being invalid is understandable from the dilemma of Papal infallibility possibly being questioned. So, it is my conjecture that the Roman Catholic Church knowing that the faith of Mormons is so contrary to Christian understanding, that discretion was more important than defending Papal infallibility.

I think it merely took about 150 years for Mormonism to grow into a movement large enough for the Vatican to formally consider the validity of its baptism. Bishops in the United States, I’m sure, always determined that the baptisms were suspect and required conditional baptism for converts.

Only in the late 20th century, when the Mormon population worldwide reached 14 million, did the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith issue a formal legal opinion that their baptisms were invalid.

Previously, Mormonism would not have been on Rome’s radar, especially during the late 19th century was the Papal States were being forcefully united under the King of Italy, and the issue of Papal Infallibility were under serious discussion.

Which is why I asked the original question, is this unprecedented? I am asking this question for one reason. There is division in the body of Christ over this issue, and I think our God and Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit would like to see the division between the East and the West come to an end if the Passover prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be honored.

God’s peace be with you

micah

I don’t think you question has a particular answer, as “unprecedented” can mean many things. Certainly some groups have been ruled to have invalid baptisms before, and some have had baptisms found valid even with heretical beliefs. Certainly, we would all like to see Christians united, but this can only come about by accepting the objective reality that the Catholic Church is the only fully true Christian Church.

 

[mercytruth]

I believe the above is correct.

Mormonism has not been consistent throughout its existence. As it has no true central authority, it really depends on what each member actually believes.

I think it merely took about 150 years for Mormonism to grow into a movement large enough for the Vatican to formally consider the validity of its baptism. Bishops in the United States, I’m sure, always determined that the baptisms were suspect and required conditional baptism for converts.

Only in the late 20th century, when the Mormon population worldwide reached 14 million, did the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith issue a formal legal opinion that there baptisms were invalid. Previously, Mormonism would not have been on Rome’s radar, especially during the late 19th century was the Papal States were being forcefully united under the King of Italy, and the issue of Papal Infallibility were under serious discussion.

I don’t think you question has a particular answer, as “unprecedented” can mean many things. Certainly some groups have been ruled to have invalid baptisms before, and some have had baptisms found valid even with heretical beliefs. Certainly, we would all like to see Christians united, but this can only come about by accepting the objective reality that the Catholic Church is the only true Christian Church.

I would accept your understanding of the issue at hand more readily if it was not for the fact the Christadelphian Church has been around as long as the LDS, and the Christadelphian church is much, much smaller than the LDS.

However, I do not know at which point in time the Roman Catholic Church ruled that the baptisms of the Christadelphian Church were invalid. As for other ‘Christian groups’ having their baptisms ruled as invalid, it historically begins with an invalid means of matter and form. I do not know of any other ‘christian group’ besides the Christadelphians and the Mormons whose baptisms are ruled invalid because of ‘intent’ when they were using the correct matter and form, unless it is the Gnostic church in the U.S.

I respect your viewpoint on this issue.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[mercytruth]

I would accept your understanding of the issue at hand more readily if it was not for the fact the Christadelphian Church has been around as long as the LDS, and the Christadelphian church is much, much smaller than the LDS.

However, I do not know at which point in time the Roman Catholic Church ruled that the baptisms of the Christadelphian Church were invalid. As for other ‘Christian groups’ having their baptisms ruled as invalid, it historically begins with an invalid means of matter and form. I do not know of any other ‘christian group’ besides the Christadelphians and the Mormons whose baptisms are ruled invalid because of ‘intent’ when they were using the correct matter and form, unless it is the Gnostic church in the U.S.

I respect your viewpoint on this issue.

God’s peace be with you

micah

I need to correct myself. I do not know of anytime in the history of the Roman Catholic church where initially a particular ‘christian organization’s’ baptism was ruled as valid or doubtful, but later was changed to invalid.

Historically, this phenomenon within the Roman Catholic church might be traceable to the disagreement between Bishop Stephen of Rome and Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, where matter and form were sufficient to Bishop Stephen, while matter, form, intent and the person ministering the baptism were necessary for Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of bishops.

 

[Yarb]

Mormon baptisms are considered invalid because of the mormon view of the Trinity,

If that’s true then how can an emergency baptism by an atheist be considered valid, when the atheist’s view of the Trinity is that it doesn’t exist?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Or she is fully justified in denying the LDS baptism for reasons concerning true intent which includes lack of Trinitarian belief as one of many factors to determine true intent. Belief in one God would be another factor.

This doesn’t in any way answer my question, and I’m starting to come up short with more ways to explain something that should be patently obvious to anyone reading. Nobody here (as far as I can tell) is taking with issue with non-Trinitarianism theoretically informing the intent of a baptizer or the baptized. I’m taking issue with that explanation not being universally applied leading to historical contradiction. Maybe some propositional logic is in order by means of the old Modus Ponens:

If P, then Q
P is true
Therefore Q is true

If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
X professes non-Trinitarian belief,
Therefore X’s baptisms are invalid.

This is a sound deductive argument. IF premises used to arrive at conclusion Q are true, then the conclusion must be true (this is a logical proof). X can be any group that in fact is non-Trinitarian.

Now let’s plug and chug X with real examples and see if Q universally comes up as true in regards to the Catholic Church’s teachings:

Mormons are non-Trinitarian. I assume you don’t dispute this premise. X = Mormons:
We therefore have:

If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
Mormons profess non-Trinitarian belief,
**Therefore Mormon baptisms are invalid.
**
The conclusion is undeniably true (The Church has in fact said Mormon baptisms are invalid). But are the premises which lead us to that conclusion true? That’s what I’m doubting, simply because if we substitute “Arians” for X, we get:

If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
Arians profess non-Trinitarian belief,
**Therefore Arian baptisms are invalid.
**
Notice that the structure of this deductive argument has not changed. It is still a perfectly sound deductive argument. We know matter-of-fact that the conclusion (Arian baptisms are invalid) is false because the Church does not view Arian baptisms as invalid. One or more of the premises which led us to this false conclusion must be false, otherwise we end up with a logically contradictory statement of Q & not Q.

There are only two premises in this syllogism, so which one (if not both) are false:

1. If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
2. Arians profess non-Trinitarian belief

Since premise #2 is undoubtedly false, as history can attest, premise #1 must be false.

You are ignoring the second factor listed in the article given by the Church on why Mormons do not have a Christian baptism. A ritual that pre-dates Christ is not Christian.

I probably should let Living Waters speak for him/herself, but the fact that (s)he’s ignoring this reasoning implies that (s)he sees nothing fallacious about it, and is therefore not bringing it up. Living Waters is not taking issue with LDS baptisms being deemed invalid by the Catholic Church. (S)he is, like myself, taking issue with the Trinity being used as an explanation in and of itself.