Why are Mormon baptisms invalid?

[rod_of_iron]

Tmaque:

Rod Of Iron,

If you want to debate authority we can do that in another thread.

Do you disagree that authority is the basis upon how a baptism can be judged to be valid? I believe that authority is the only thing that matters concerning valid baptisms. I believe a discussion of authority pertains very well to this topic of valid baptisms.

 

[rod_of_iron]

----SIGH----

you missed my point entirely…

Your post seemed abundantly clear. It is the Catholic church that makes the requirements, not God. But it is probably best to not let God know that you believe this.

 

[Marauder]

The Catholic Church CAN and DOES determine what Baptisms are valid for Catholics [added]and those that enter the Catholic faith. If the Catholic church does not view a Mormon baptism as valid then it isn’t valid for Catholics.

The LDS church does the same thing within its own ranks.

There are several lines in the Bible that talk about the ONE true God, not three gods. If the Catholic hierarchy says that a LDS person is not validly baptised because they are Baptised to 3 gods instead of the one true God, that is their right.

Are they speaking for God? No. Only God knows that. They are speaking for the Catholic church.

If a particular denomination of Christianity recognizes Mormon baptism, that is their right. The LDS church has no say over what the Catholic church recognizes as valid baptism.

 

[Tmaque]

rod of iron:

Your post seemed abundantly clear. It is the Catholic church that makes the requirements, not God. But it is probably best to not let God know that you believe this.

Rod…I believe the Catholic church speaks for God when it comes matters of faith and morals. You say the Catholic church has no authority to baptize. I’m curious…did it ever? And, who does have such authority now?

 

[Marauder]

Tmaque:

Rod…I believe the Catholic church speaks for God when it comes matters of faith and morals. You say the Catholic church has no authority to baptize. I’m curious…did it ever? And, who does have such authority now?

Before Rod takes this one and runs with it I would like to mention that the Church is only infallable in when it speak on matters of faith and morals when it is defining that the teaching as such. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith didn’t define this as “dogma” and they by themselves don’t have the power to do that. It either has to be the Pope and he has to state it as such or all the Bishops speaking as one.
This is currently just a practice of the church and could change in the future. Which I doubt would happen unless the LDS church stop being polytheistic.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Marauder:

Before Rod takes this one and runs with it I would like to mention that the Church is only infallable in when it speak on matters of faith and morals when it is defining that the teaching as such.

And how do you know that the pope is infallible during that time? Because he says so?

 

[rod_of_iron]

Tmaque:

Rod…I believe the Catholic church speaks for God when it comes matters of faith and morals. You say the Catholic church has no authority to baptize. I’m curious…did it ever?

I’m not sure. The Catholic church was just one of many groups that could have succeeded the Apostles. But if there is no proof that the Catholic church is the genuine successor of those Apostles, I would question if the Catholic church ever had that authority. One of the two ways that the Catholic church could have that authority is if one of the Apostles passed the authority along to the Catholic church. But I see no evidence of that. The other way is for Jesus to directly give His authority to the Catholic church after the Apostles were dead, just as He gave His authority to the Apostles. I do not see any evidence of this either.

Tmaque:

And, who does have such authority now?

Oh, you know what my answer to this will be. I believe that Peter, James, and John came to Joseph Smith and laid their hands upon him, thus transferring authority and the keys of the kingdom to him. Of course, Brigham Young usurped authority and apostatized. He no longer had authority. The only church I believe still had authority after Joseph Smith’s death was the church that became known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This church had authority until it too apostatized. Now the authority is held by priesthood in several remnant groups of the RLDS. They are in the process of reorganizing again.

That is what God must expect when He allows man to have free agency. They may eventually choose against God, and God will bring forth another remnant group that will listen to Him and obey Him.

I am sure that you will not agree with me. But you asked me the question, and I told you what I believe.

 

[jgcase]

darcee:

Personally I was glad to be baptized when I became Catholic even though I had been baptized in the LDS church.What I found a bit more confusing was that LDS temple marriages are considered valid.
-D

Actually, it has to do with whether or not the individual spouses are validly baptized.

If one or both spouses were baptized Christians who later repudiated Christianity by converting to Mormonism, and then married in an LDS ceremony, their marriage would be considered sacramentally–not civilly–invalid, should they return or convert to the Catholic Church. This would require a convalidation of their marriage in order for the two of them to receive any other Catholic sacraments. If both spouses were BIC Mormons from Day One of their lives, married in an LDS ceremony, then later became baptized Catholic Christians, their marriage would be assumed to be sacramentally valid. (This applies no matter what religious persuasion or Christian denomination the couple followed prior to becoming Catholic, not just LDS.) The reason is that the individuals getting married are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony (part of their sharing in the one Priesthood of Christ by virtue of their Baptisms), not the officiating clergy person. The clergyman is just there to make sure they do it properly.

A baptized Catholic is required to marry in the Catholic Church; if he or she marries in any other venue without receiving an authorized dispensation to do so from the Church, his or her marriage is sacramentally invalid, and he or she is in a state of mortal sin. Ignorance of his or her responsibility–say, for someone baptized but not raised as a Catholic–may mitigate the situation.

Where in the Bible is the Catholic Church given this authority? See Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22-23.

 

[rod_of_iron]

jgcase:

Where in the Bible is the Catholic Church given this authority? See Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22-23.

Very strange. Neither of those scriptures mention the Catholic church.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rod of iron:

But if you cannot understand it, how do you know it is true? By claiming that this Trinity cannot fully be comprehended by the human mind, you are just hanging the concept upon ignorance. Mormons can do the very same thing with their beliefs. Since the Bible does directly say that “baptism for the dead” is not of God, the Mormons can simply say that the human mind cannot fully comprehend it at this time, and thus they can call it a mystery. Claiming ignorance of something, even in part, is not a very strong argument to support your view of it.
…

Clear to whom? What makes it so clear? The Bible does not directly say that the Godhead consists of three persons that are all God. Are you basing your argument on the fact that there are three names given, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why does this have to show that there are three distinct persons? Why can’t these three names be references for one God who is one person? Where in the Bible does it make clear that there are definitely three distinct persons?

…

Again, I ask – where?

Rod, my point was only that the Trinity has historically been referred to as a “mystery” of faith because it seems paradoxical and impossible that there can be only one God in threee distinct persons. But acknowledging the difficulty of a doctrine is not the same thing as admitting ignorance of a doctrine. I was merely being honest with you about the complexities of the issue we are addressing. I thought that the definition of the CCC was quite clear in describing the Triune nature of God. The mere fact that a doctrine is difficult to fully comprehend with the human intellect does not make it invalid. The nature of “time” is also not fully comprehended, but that doesn’t mean we should stop wearing wristwatches.

The Bible does not *directly * say that the nature of God is Triune, but it does say it indirectly. First, I think you would concede that the Bible identifies God the Father throughout the OT. In the NT, Jesus makes it clear that he is not God the Father. When Jesus speaks of the Father, he speaks of Him as a separate person. For example: …if you knew me, you would know my Father (Jn 8:19.) And of course, in the first chapter of John, there is a clear description of the Word both as God and separate and distinct from God. (Jn 1:1.) The bible also clearly establishes Jesus’ divinity. For example, when Thomas declares: “…my Lord and my God” (Jn 20:28.) Thus, two separate and distinct persons are established as “God.” Finally, the bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is also a distinct person separate and apart from God the Father and Jesus, who is also God. For example: He teaches the truth (Jn 14:16); He testifies for Christ (John 15:26); He scrutinizes and knows the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 2:10-11); He appoints bishops (Acts 20:28) and he can be grieved (Eph. 4:30).

Finally, in the “Great Commission” that you cited earlier, Jesus implores his disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the *name * of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat. 28: 19.) (Italics added.) This statement implies the Triune nature of God

Thus, taken in whole and in context, the Bible implicitly establishes the existence of the Trinity as consisting of God in three separate and distinct persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I’m curious Rod. If you disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity - i.e. God existing as three separate and distinct persons - then what do you believe? I sincerely would like to know.

Peace,

 

[darcee]

jgcase:

If one or both spouses were baptized Christians who later repudiated Christianity by converting to Mormonism, and then married in an LDS ceremony, their marriage would be considered sacramentally–not civilly–invalid, should they return or convert to the Catholic Church. This would require a convalidation of their marriage in order for the two of them to receive any other Catholic sacraments. If both spouses were BIC Mormons from Day One of their lives, married in an LDS ceremony, then later became baptized Catholic Christians, their marriage would be assumed to be sacramentally valid. (This applies no matter what religious persuasion or Christian denomination the couple followed prior to becoming Catholic, not just LDS.) The reason is that the individuals getting married are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony (part of their sharing in the one Priesthood of Christ by virtue of their Baptisms), not the officiating clergy person. The clergyman is just there to make sure they do it properly.

A baptized Catholic is required to marry in the Catholic Church; if he or she marries in any other venue without receiving an authorized dispensation to do so from the Church, his or her marriage is sacramentally invalid, and he or she is in a state of mortal sin. Ignorance of his or her responsibility–say, for someone baptized but not raised as a Catholic–may mitigate the situation.

I think you are kind of missing what the issue I had was.

Here is the situation. Two people are baptized in the LDS Church (a baptism the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize). They later divorce and then one converts to the Catholic Church.

The Pauline priviledge (more) “Two non-baptized persons marry. One chooses to become baptized. After the baptism, the unbaptized person finds he or she cannot live in harmony with the baptized person. The marriage can be dissolved when the baptized person enters into a marriage with another baptized person.”

If the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the validity of the baptism it would make sense that Pauline Privilege would apply in the above case. That is assuming that the secret LDS temple marriage would even meet the idea of a valid marriage considering that by its very nature you really aren’t told what you are commiting to until you are one the spot right there taking the vow.

-D

 

[chimakuni]

rod of iron:

Very strange. Neither of those scriptures mention the Catholic church.

Rod of Iron, my dear…you keep on asking where is that in scripture and disputing much of Catholic dogma. That is fine. My question to you, though, is why are you so concerned about scripture, when your own sect has many more books than just the bible?

As Catholics, we know that Jesus Christ set up His Church - the Catholic Church. As a Mormon, you know that Joseph Smith set up his church upon the ideas of the Masonic .The Masons were not at all pleased with that, but he took many Masonic ideas with him and all Mormon churches I have been in are styled similarly to the Masonic temples. Anyway - I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

As far as where babies go that are not baptized…well, why does your church baptize the dead? So they can get into heaven? What is your belief on where babies go before they are baptized?

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

Anyway, back to baptism.

The Catholic Church has determined that Mormon baptisms are invalid (see my first post). This is inarguable.

As rodofiron has asked so many times, why does it matter that the Catholic Church says so? Who gave them the authority? Is this authority above God?

Answers: the Catholic Church is Christ’s One, True Church; Christ, God incarnate; and no.

Prove it then.

I have started a new thread on the Divine Authority of the Catholic Church. Check that out for that discussion.

 

[rod_of_iron]

chimakuni:

Rod of Iron, my dear…you keep on asking where is that in scripture and disputing much of Catholic dogma. That is fine. My question to you, though, is why are you so concerned about scripture, when your own sect has many more books than just the bible?

Well, I could ask you to prove your doctrines using the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants, but since you don’t believe those books are sacred scriptures, what would be the point? You would obviously reject what those 2 books say on the subject. If you cannot prove your assertions from the Bible, why would I expect you to prove them with the other 2 books I mentioned, especially when you reject them? As far as I knew, the Bible was the only book that the Catholic considered to be sacred scripture. I didn’t think that Tradition was considered sacred scripture.

chimakuni:

As Catholics, we know that Jesus Christ set up His Church - the Catholic Church. As a Mormon, you know that Joseph Smith set up his church upon the ideas of the Masonic .The Masons were not at all pleased with that, but he took many Masonic ideas with him and all Mormon churches I have been in are styled similarly to the Masonic temples. Anyway - I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I thought I already covered the fact that I am not a member of the LDS church, but the fact must have fallen upon deaf ears. Perhaps, Brigham Young and his successors patterned the LDS church after the Masons. But Joseph Smith did not. He was the instrument that Jesus used to restore His true church to the way it was when Christ was on the Earth.

chimakuni:

As far as where babies go that are not baptized…well, why does your church baptize the dead? So they can get into heaven?

My church does not baptize the dead. The LDS church does, but as I have said, I am not affiliated with them.

chimakuni:

What is your belief on where babies go before they are baptized?

I believe that all babies who die in their infancy go directly to heaven to be with God. Even though I believe that infant baptism is a mockery to God, I do not believe that God condemns the infant for being baptized. Instead, God will hold responsible the one performing the baptism.

 

[Tmaque]

rod of iron:

I’m not sure. The Catholic church was just one of many groups that could have succeeded the Apostles. But if there is no proof that the Catholic church is the genuine successor of those Apostles, I would question if the Catholic church ever had that authority. One of the two ways that the Catholic church could have that authority is if one of the Apostles passed the authority along to the Catholic church. But I see no evidence of that. The other way is for Jesus to directly give His authority to the Catholic church after the Apostles were dead, just as He gave His authority to the Apostles. I do not see any evidence of this either.

Oh, you know what my answer to this will be. I believe that Peter, James, and John came to Joseph Smith and laid their hands upon him, thus transferring authority and the keys of the kingdom to him. Of course, Brigham Young usurped authority and apostatized. He no longer had authority. The only church I believe still had authority after Joseph Smith’s death was the church that became known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This church had authority until it too apostatized. Now the authority is held by priesthood in several remnant groups of the RLDS. They are in the process of reorganizing again.

That is what God must expect when He allows man to have free agency. They may eventually choose against God, and God will bring forth another remnant group that will listen to Him and obey Him.

I am sure that you will not agree with me. But you asked me the question, and I told you what I believe.

So, you believe that Jesus set up his Church twice now and it has failed both times? Let me ask you this: In your opinion, what has to happen for a person or group that has priesthood authority to lose that authority?

 

[hawkeye]

"[T]
he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith determined that the faith of Mormons is sufficiently different from Christian doctrine so that the baptism conferred by that sect has a different significance. The Congregation notes that the Mormons believe that ‘God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.’ The Vatican concluded, therefore, that ‘this is not the Baptism that Christ instituted.’"
-Catholic World News

Oh yeh !!! and who was the best man ?

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

hawkeye:

Joe Smith.

rodofiron:

As I understand it, the Catholic view of an infant who has not received baptism but dies is this. Nothing that is not pure can enter Heaven. However, this does not mean that the baby is damned to hell. Purgatory is a reality, there is a cleansing fire after death to “purge” all sin from our soul so that we may enter Heaven (provided that there isn’t moratl sin on your soul). The child will enter purgatory, but, with the prayers of his loved one’s on Earth and those souls already in Heaven, he will be cleansed of Adam’s sin and see God.

Yes, the word purgatory is not in the Bible. Neither is “incarnation”, “trinity”, or, heck, even “bible”. The absence of the term does not undermine the reality.

 

[Diaconia]

A moment of clarity . . .

The LDS Church is not a Christian Church, and it’s members are not Christians.

That’s why their baptisms are not valid.

A sacrament requires proper form and intent.

The LDS understanding of the Trinity, and of the very nature of God, are so mangled that their members are not Christians.

The litmus test of any Christian group is: Belief in the hypostatic union (two natures of Christ) AND belief in the Trinity (ONE God, Three Persons).

Mormons fail on both counts, it’s that simple, folks.

That doesn’t mean Mormons are unkind, unloving, or bad citizens, it just means they are not Christians, and cannot confer Christian baptism.

In the peace of the One who walked among us as servant of all,

Chris

 

[DianJo]

You continually ask, “Where is that in the bible?” You say that your church is the one that Jesus founded to bring His church back to what it was when He was on earth.

The bible IS A RECORD OF HOW HIS CHURCH WAS WHEN HE WAS HERE! That’s the bible we all use and adhere to - the teachings of your Mr. Smith are totally contrary to those teachings.

BTW, the bible is the record of (catholic) church Tradition. The Apostles taught the faith as learned from Jesus Himself (Tradition) and passed it on to all the nations. The bible is the record of that. The bible comes from church that Jesus established - not the other way around. So, if you quote and live by your bible - guess what - you adhere to Church Tradition.

 

[RobedWithLight]

"[T]
he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith determined that the faith of Mormons is sufficiently different from Christian doctrine so that the baptism conferred by that sect has a different significance. The Congregation notes that the Mormons believe that ‘God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.’ The Vatican concluded, therefore, that ‘this is not the Baptism that Christ instituted.’"
-Catholic World News

To put it simply, Mormon baptisms are invalid simply **because they do not baptize in the name of the Blessed Trinity. **

Gerry