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
Mercytruth, the same discernment is occurring by and for candidates.
Coming from Mormonism myself, my Mormon baptism has meaning to me because it was my dad who baptized me Mormon. It was one of the more difficult things in my own discernment, that is, rejecting something that my dad views as very important.
The thing is, as I learned more about Christianity, and the Trinity, the more I understood my Mormon baptism was completely different than a Christian baptism. I wanted to be baptized Catholic.
A Catholic friend kind of laughs when I say this, and says of course! Who wouldn’t want to be baptized again and start all over, fresh? Good point.
As for intent, what I’m not seeing covered in this thread (and maybe I missed it) is the intention of baptism in relationship to the church itself. St. Cyprian describes the church as the holy land from which the spring of baptism flows. The Sacraments are established
in the Church. The church is a mystical organism, not just a group of common believers. The Church is One because God is One. We baptize in the name, not names, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Singular “name” indicates our belief in One God. We are baptized into the life of the Holy Trinity.
There is One Church, which all mainline Protestants acknowledge. We have ecumenical ties to other Christians because we believe in One God, and one Church. We may disagree on what, exactly, the structure of the one Church is, but we are all in agreement that it is the mystical Body of Christ.
This is the intent of baptism that Mormonism does not have. A LDS baptism does not have the intention of baptizing a person into the life of the Holy Trinity, or that of bringing a person into the ONE Body of Christ.
I don’t know how this aligns to the rulings on the Arians, as, the Arians were more than one large group but were comprised of many sects. The Catholic encyclopedia entry indicates Arian baptisms were declared valid, but this declaration changed later and their baptisms were declared invalid. The documents that would explain this decision no longer exist. We only have the decision itself.
However, we do have the writings of the ECFs at this time. All were in agreement that the baptismal formula, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, were required. There was disagreement (ie, St. Cyprian and St. Augustine) as to the validity of heretical/schismatic baptisms. But since Mormonism is neither heretical or schismatic, it wouldn’t fall under these arguments anyway. It is more like asking if a pagan baptism is valid. Since Mormonism is polytheistic, it resembles paganism in regards to their belief about God, and not Christian belief. As Marie already pointed out, it is more likely that the Curia was unaware of Mormon belief regarding who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, and didn’t investigate it until someone asked.
To your point of exorcism…it wouldn’t surprise me that it was a consideration, as, the Church has taken all catechumens into its care and does all that it can to bring them to Christ. The Rites, blessings, anointings, scrutinies, prayers, are all for the benefit of the catechumen. But a baptism is not made invalid by not having these things made available or performed for the catechumen. Baptismal graces are not injured, or removed, by not having an exorcism.
