Papal opinions of Mormonism?

[Mahoneymoriancumer]

Excellent link; thank you for sharing.

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

How about everyone interested in this read the official explanation from the Vatican.

 

[ChristKnight]

19 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Not that I emphasized "divine revekation". I know traditions are a source of authority but was there any revelation given to the. Magisterium to reject non trinitarian baptisms? If not then why does not the Bible, the alnowledged only source of divine revelation not obligate anyone to believe in Holy Trinity as a qualification for baptism?

Huh?  He said that, for Catholics, the Bible is not the only source of divine revelation.  We are not sola scriptura.  We do not believe that divine revelation is only found in the Bible (indeed, such a stance is found nowhere in the Bible itself).  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the whole section on The Transmission of Divine Revelation would be helpful to those interested in understanding the Catholic perspective, as well as Dei verbum-Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, from the Second Vatican Council):

 

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."⁴⁰ Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".⁴¹

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."⁴²

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."⁴³

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."⁴⁴

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, ChristKnight said:

Huh?  He said that, for Catholics, the Bible is not the only source of divine revelation.  We are not sola scriptura.  We do not believe that divine revelation is only found in the Bible (indeed, such a stance is found nowhere in the Bible itself).  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the whole section on The Transmission of Divine Revelation would be helpful to those interested in understanding the Catholic perspective, as well as Dei verbum-Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, from the Second Vatican Council):

 

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."⁴⁰ Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".⁴¹

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."⁴²

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."⁴³

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."⁴⁴

Actually, he said "dogma" not "revelation ". Is what the Magisterium says equal to the Bible? My undwrstanding is that i. Catholi is, all do one truth has been revealed in the Bible but how to understand that truth is a matter of time, or five, and, for the lack of a better term, further enlightment. Is that a good way to sum up your citations? 

[ChristKnight]

6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Actually, he said "dogma" not "revelation ". Is what the Magisterium says equal to the Bible? My undwrstanding is that i. Catholi is, all do one truth has been revealed in the Bible but how to understand that truth is a matter of time, or five, and, for the lack of a better term, further enlightment. Is that a good way to sum up your citations? 

Who said "dogma"?  MiserereNobis?  I searched this thread for "dogma", and the only two posts that come up are your own, and where MiserereNobis says "Isn't the Catholic Church in a better position to determine what is foreign to Catholicism than a Mormon apologist? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the body who determines and applies questions of doctrine, dogma, and practice". 

No, Catholic teaching is that Revelation, the Truth, is found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not just the Bible.  For Catholics, the Truth, Revelation, existed before the Biblical texts were written and compiled.  The Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, has Divine authority to interpret Revelation.  Continuing from one of my links provided:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."⁴⁸

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",⁴⁹ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The pronouncement came because of specific questions asked by American bishops. So, yes, while the awareness had been there for a long time, it wasn't until it became an issue that needed answering that the decision was made.

 

While I don't have a specific answer for this, I would guess that his errors were not large enough to make the form invalid. The rule is that there is a presumption of validity unless the Church has ruled otherwise. So, prior to the the pronouncement that LDS baptisms are invalid, the presumption would have been that they are. However, from what I've read (admittedly limited), most priests and bishops would baptism converts from the LDS church anyways, just to be on the safe side

 

So for those of us Mormons who may understand the difference between the Catholic understanding and the Mormon understanding (for example, one being, three persons vs. three beings/persons and Creator/creature gap vs the Father is an exalted man who brings his children to dwell eternally at his side in oneness in all ways), if we were asked to baptize by a Catholic in an emergency in the Catholic manner, would that be sufficient?

If an atheist or someone who may be completely clueless about Catholic understanding of God can have sufficiently correct intent, it makes sense to me that Mormons---as long as we realize that Catholics don't understand in the same way we do and then baptize with the intent "as they believe, not as I do" would be acceptable in an emergency.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

EDITED TO AD: I am glad you made that link, I too was going to do that. I need to go right now so will read and respond later. God bless you my Catholic brother. You're a good man I've no doubt.

God bless you, too!

[ChristKnight]

30 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Actually, he said "dogma" not "revelation ". Is what the Magisterium says equal to the Bible? My undwrstanding is that i. Catholi is, all do one truth has been revealed in the Bible but how to understand that truth is a matter of time, or five, and, for the lack of a better term, further enlightment. Is that a good way to sum up your citations? 

I think I see what you're talking about (interestingly searching for "dogma" does not turn up the relevant post).  MiserereNobis said this:

"No. The Bible is one of the three legs. There are Catholic dogmas that are not found in the Bible because they are found in Tradition and decreed by the Magisterium."

Right, he is referring to Revelation, as pointed out in the relevant excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Not all Truths taught are contained in the Bible, and Catholics do not hold to the idea that all Truth, Truths, Revelation, Dogmas, etc. are only found in the Bible.  See relevant quotes from Catholic documents given previously which expound on this.

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

So for those of us Mormons who may understand the difference between the Catholic understanding and the Mormon understanding (for example, one being, three persons vs. three beings/persons and Creator/creature gap vs the Father is an exalted man who brings his children to dwell eternally at his side in oneness in all ways), if we were asked to baptize by a Catholic in an emergency in the Catholic manner, would that be sufficient?

If an atheist or someone who may be completely clueless about Catholic understanding of God can have sufficiently correct intent, it makes sense to me that Mormons---as long as we realize that Catholics don't understand in the same way we do and then baptize with the intent "as they believe, not as I do" would be acceptable in an emergency.

I would think so, too. Makes sense to me.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, ChristKnight said:

Who said "dogma"?  MiserereNobis?  I searched this thread for "dogma", and the only two posts that come up are your own, and where MiserereNobis says "Isn't the Catholic Church in a better position to determine what is foreign to Catholicism than a Mormon apologist? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the body who determines and applies questions of doctrine, dogma, and practice". 

No, Catholic teaching is that Revelation, the Truth, is found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not just the Bible.  For Catholics, the Truth, Revelation, existed before the Biblical texts were written and compiled.  The Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, has Divine authority to interpret Revelation.  Continuing from one of my links provided:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."⁴⁸

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",⁴⁹ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

"...existed before the Biblical texts were written and compiled." 

What about after? Not after the compilation of the Bible but after the final text, whatever that was, was completed which ended up forming what Catholics today call the Bible, ("Vulgate" if I understand correctly)?

I understand you may *interpret* the bible or any revelation but what about revelation itself? Do not Catholics believe that it ended with the original texts which became the Bible? 

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant." - That's my understanding of Catholicism. Which is why I ask why is the LDS baptism not valid since the LDs do not believe in holy Trinity yet there is no biblical obligation for anyone to believe in Holy Trinity; only that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one God" which the LDS 100% believe in?

"It teaches only what has been handed on to it." - Meaning that there is an end of what was 'handed to it', correct? "At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit" - Does that mean revelation or simply to correctly interpret revelation?

 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, ChristKnight said:

I think I see what you're talking about (interestingly searching for "dogma" does not turn up the relevant post).  MiserereNobis said this:

"No. The Bible is one of the three legs. There are Catholic dogmas that are not found in the Bible because they are found in Tradition and decreed by the Magisterium."

Right, he is referring to Revelation, as pointed out in the relevant excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Not all Truths taught are contained in the Bible, and Catholics do not hold to the idea that all Truth, Truths, Revelation, Dogmas, etc. are only found in the Bible.  See relevant quotes from Catholic documents given previously which expound on this.

"Not all Truths taught are contained in the Bible, and Catholics do not hold to the idea that all Truth, Truths, Revelation, Dogmas, etc. are only found in the Bible." - So how does the Catholic Church receive revelation not found in the Bible? I've always experienced Catholic believers and Catholic leaders referring to the Bible. The Trinitarian creeds frequently refer back to the Bible.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

How about everyone interested in this read the official explanation from the Vatican.

Here we go:

Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized

II The Form

"This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346)."

WHAT???? Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is no more canon than Pope Francis saying Catholics need add "saving the planet" to the practice of caring for the poor.

Quote

Pope Francis has called for urgent action to stop climate change and proposed that caring for the environment be added to traditional Christian works of mercy such as feeding the hungry and visiting the sick.

Pope Francis says destroying the environment is a sin

It is doctrine that God is an "exalted man" in the sense that He is of "flesh and bone" in an exalted state (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/god.html?lang=eng&letter=G); but, 'native of another planet'? Where in the cosmos did the Catholic Church think that's "what Mormons believe"? Beyond speculation, Mormons do not believe any such thing. All LDS scripture -- the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants -- when talking about the Father and His origins place Him "in the beginning"; no different than what Genesis declares. And there is NEVER a mention of the Father being from a planet. Ever. That doctrine does not exist in any LDS canon. The clearest moment we have of such teachings is in the King Follett Discourse. But as we have it today, it is a recollection of various people, some of which can be corroborated by independent sources, such as newspapers, but most of it cannot be corroborated. KFD was never endorsed by the LDS church and I highly doubt it ever will be before the Second Coming.  So, just like no Catholic has to believe that saving the planet is akin to feeding the poor, no Mormon has to believe this. Those who do, and I am one of them, do so only as speculation. So, unless the Catholic Church condemns speculation from specific individuals, it is very disingenuous to apply this standard to the LDS Church in the manner which it does. It's actually an embarrassment to do so.

"God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373"

WHAT??? That's speculation by individual church members which they are 100% free to do. Why in the cosmos would the Catholic Church declare that this is "what Mormons believe"? I shake my head in disbelief every time I read this in the Vatican's justification to reject Mormon baptisms.

"God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world." - Correct. But, even here, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints does not say "God has a wife". It never says any such thing though logically this would be the appropriate way of thinking about the relation of the Father with Heavenly Mother. And, yes, they share responsibilities in the creation but even here that is logical, not doctrinal so far as I know. They did create spirit children (I'm so glad the Vatican did not say "spirit babies") but beyond that we know nothing regarding Heavenly mother. This includes her "responsibilities". The manner in which the Vatican frames this LDS doctrine of Heavenly mother makes it seem like the Father had lesser than a supreme and absolute role in the creation. Reality is that LDS doctrine gives all glory and credit of the creation to the Father and the Father alone (through the Son). All LDS canon point to this.

"Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence." - 'Equal to all men', again, where does the Vatican get this from?

Quote

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

Abraham 3

There's a clear distinction of God's rulers (prophets) and Jesus Christ who is declared "was like unto God". Here "God" is to be interpreted as "God the Father" since it is He declaring this to Abraham. How does the Vatican believe that the LDS Church believes or teaches that Jesus Christ is 'equal to all men'? It absolutely does not. The LDS believe Jesus Christ has always been greater than men. Like all men, Jesus Christ is a son of the Father but unlike any other man He "was like unto God". The scriptural passage I cited is, so far as I know, the most chronologically original doctrine concerning Jesus Christ in LDS canon. So for as long as "time" existed, Jesus Christ was, has been, and forever will be "like unto God".

"Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity." - HUH??? Beyond speculation, this is NOT, I repeat, NOT what the LDS Church believes nor declares. You will not find any such thing in any canon or even in lesson manuals. It would be just as absurd to say "Catholics believe in four persons for salvation:. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and Mary", as it is for the Vatican to say that 'four gods...' created the universe.

"The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2." - So, how can the LDS Church be Christian but not their baptisms? That makes no sense whatsoever.

"Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13)."

As noted, LDS baptisms are done to follow Jesus Christ. No LDS missionary invites people to be baptized as Adam was baptized in the beginning of creation. It is Christ centered. The LDS baptism follows everything the Bible teaches regarding baptism.

I do not recall the Bible declaring that Christ instituted, meaning "began", the practice of baptism. If anything, baptism follows Old Testament concepts of renewal, even by water. So, how did the Catholic Church come to this conclusion as an absolute doctrine? And, why is this a big deal since the Catholic Church admits that the LDS Church follows Jesus Christ regarding baptism? A baptism is invalidated since a church teaches that it began with Adam? That denies Jesus Christ as the central figure in baptism?

Here's the full text of Adam's baptism:
 

Quote

 

64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.

66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity.

68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen.

 

Moses 6

Here's verse 57:

Quote

Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

Adam's baptism was done as a record of the Father and the Son and was done to become as God's sons (spiritually born of God). The point of the entire 6th chapter of the Book of Moses was to show that Adam was taught about Jesus Christ. What part of Jesus Christ's teachings does this deny? Jesus never said He started baptism did He? Is this extra biblical revelation by the Catholic Church?

"According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid."

Rejecting the baptism of infants applies to Protestants as well. If it does not affect their baptism, why would it affect Mormon baptisms? The LDS rejection of "original sin", in this particular situation, is in the sense that according to "original sin" if an infant dies he or she will gain something less than full salvation simply because he or she was never baptized. The LDS absolutely believe in a fallen world and that everyone needs to be baptized for salvation but that little children "are alive in Christ":

Quote

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

Moroni 8

The LDS Church rejects infant baptism (most if not all Protestant denominations do too) because they are unconditionally covered by Christ's atonement. To say they need baptism is to reject God's mercy upon them. How did the Vatican take this as a negative towards LDS baptisms?

OK, I'm tired. Luv ya' bro. I'll await your response.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Darren10

[3DOP]

On 7/16/2017 at 6:18 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I would be interested, too. A quick google search only yielded the declaration that Mormon baptisms are invalid and that parishes should not give records to Mormon genealogical societies.

Out of curiosity, what is surprising about it to you? The reasoning made sense to me: the form doesn't work because of the LDS theology of God.

MN, hey.

I hadn't seen this until now.

I have thought that a conditional baptism would be more appropriate. Mormons use the proper form (words). They are hard to pin down doctrinally. A case by case basis might reveal that some, perhaps few Mormons, "intend to do what the Church does", without much doctrinal opposition to the Catholic faith. But we can't be adminstering baptism to the baptised! How can we know? I think most are invalid, but I am uncomfortable with saying that every LDS baptism is invalid.

Mormons like to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic. I was "baptized" by a well-meaning Baptist minister who would have denied with all his soul that the Trinitarian baptism he administered brought about any change in the soul of the one baptised. Regeneration, according to the Baptists, occurred before baptism, which was symbolic. The Novus Ordo accepted this baptism. Tradition did not doubt it. But I began to have concerns, and learned that in times past, Pre-Vatican II, conditional baptisms were more common. I couldn't be certainly baptised so I was conditionally baptised. My surprise is that the Novus Ordo church would take such a hard line as to say that we should baptise Mormons unconditionally, while accepting Baptist baptisms unconditionally. I tend to think that conditional baptism is the most prudent course in both cases. In a way, I kind of like seeing the Novus Ordo be tough on something. But I fear they picked the wrong thing.

For those unfamiliar with a conditional Catholic baptism, the minister says words to the effect that "...if you are not baptised, I baptise thee". Baptism cannot be repeated according to the Catholic faith, and in His goodness, God allows that even atheists may minister baptism, "if they do what the Church intends." This is not a difficult threshhold to reach, even while not even believing in God. These are some of the reasons I found it surprising, but refreshing, in a way, that during the reign of John Paul II, LDS baptisms were determined to be always invalid. I still disagree with the decision.

Edited July 19, 2017 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 7/16/2017 at 8:32 PM, boblloyd91 said:

I remember hearing about this but thought it was Pope Benedict. That's interesting.

Boblloyd91.

Pope Benedict (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) was John Paul's Prefect for the Doctrine of the Propagation of the Faith. My recollection is that this decree on LDS baptisms was before Cardinal Ratzinger became pope. I could be wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/17/2017 at 5:26 PM, MiserereNobis said:

How about everyone interested in this read the official explanation from the Vatican.

I'm more interested in the official reason for denying access by Mormons to Catholic parish registers for the purpose of records preservation.

 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm more interested in the official reason for denying access by Mormons to Catholic parish registers for the purpose of records preservation.

 

Because we then baptized and performed other proxy temple ordinances.  They saw it as inappropriate.

"Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records – such as baptismal documentation – to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members..."The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”"

https://www.archbalt.org/vatican-letter-directs-bishops-to-keep-parish-records-from-mormons/

Edited July 19, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Because we then baptized and performed other proxy temple ordinances.  They saw it as inappropriate.

"Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records – such as baptismal documentation – to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members..."The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”"

https://www.archbalt.org/vatican-letter-directs-bishops-to-keep-parish-records-from-mormons/

I believe MiserereNobis has correctly characterized this as a knee jerk reaction. 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe MiserereNobis has correctly characterized this as a knee jerk reaction. 

Except apparently they don't give out records to anyone just because they ask (from the above link):

"Monsignor J. Terrence Fitzgerald – vicar general of the Diocese of Salt Lake City – said he didn’t understand why the Latter-day Saints church was singled out in this latest Vatican policy regarding parish records.

“We have a policy not to give out baptismal records to anyone unless they are entitled to have them,” Monsignor Fitzgerald said of his diocese. “That isn’t just for the Church of the Latter-day Saints. That is for all groups.”"

They would need to find a reason why LDS were entitled to the records in order to override the default position.

Us wanting to perform our own ordinances with those names is hardly sufficient reason given they think those ordinances have no value.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except apparently they don't give out records to anyone just because they ask (from the above link):

"Monsignor J. Terrence Fitzgerald – vicar general of the Diocese of Salt Lake City – said he didn’t understand why the Latter-day Saints church was singled out in this latest Vatican policy regarding parish records.

“We have a policy not to give out baptismal records to anyone unless they are entitled to have them,” Monsignor Fitzgerald said of his diocese. “That isn’t just for the Church of the Latter-day Saints. That is for all groups.”"

They would need to find a reason why LDS were entitled to the records in order to override the default position.

Us wanting to perform our own ordinances with those names is hardly sufficient reason given they think those ordinances have no value.

But that's hardly the only reason the Church is seeking access. From a non-Mormon standpoint, permanent preservation of perishable records ought to be a major consideration in their decision. And since the copied and indexed records are made accessible to everyone with an interest in learning his or her family history, there is an altruistic reason why non-Mormon entities might want to cooperate with the Chrch's efforts in this respect. 

Again I say it is perfectly understandable that Catholic officials would not recognize Mormon baptisms. Refusing to grant access to parish records, not so much. I think it was ill-considered. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that's hardly the only reason the Church is seeking access. From a non-Mormon standpoint, permanent preservation of perishable records ought to be a major consideration in their decision. And since the copied and indexed records are made accessible to everyone with an interest in learning his or her family history, is an altruistic reason why non-Mormon entities might want to cooperate with the Chrch's efforts in this respect. 

Again I say it is perfectly understandable that Catholic officials would not recognize Mormon baptisms. Refusing to grant access to parish records, not so much. 

And if that is a reason that the Catholic Church values, sure.  If it isn't, if genealogical pursuits are looked on as a hobby, why should they set aside their own high value of confidentiality? (I don't know how they view genealogy).

add-on:  And from what I have read,  they are willing to do the research through the confidential records when asked by descendants, they simply want to keep the full records within their own possession and control.

https://archives.arch-no.org/genealogy

"The ability to trace your family history though Catholic records is a valuable resource that perpetuates faith being passed from one generation to the next.

Genealogical Research

In order to ensure continued preservation of the sacramental registers held at the Archdiocesan Archives, these records are unavailable to those engaged in genealogical studies or family research. All requests for individual sacramental and cemetery records are handled by mail according to the procedures outlined below."

Edited July 19, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"Care must be taken to protect people's privacy. Although sacramental
registers contain information about public events and other facts readily known to any interested party, they also contain information which is personal and confidential.

Parish record books are not to leave the parish premises and are to be maintained in a secure location, the registers must be kept in a protected place such as a safe, vault, or locked and fireproof filing cabinet. An inventory of the registers is to be created as well (c. 535§4)....

Persons have the right to copies of public documents that pertain to their church status, including their sacramental records (c. 487§2). The Church also recognizes a person's right to their reputation and privacy (c. 220). Therefore, parish personnel must exercise care with regard to providing sacramental documents and allowing access to church records. Church records are not "public" in the sense of "open records" for review at the request of individuals. Use of records for personal or genealogical research needs to be monitored. Individuals seeking access to records for such research should be referred to the Archdiocesan archives. In most cases, microfilm of older records is stored in the archives. Use of microfilm records helps to preserve the delicate older books while still serving researchers' needs. The diocesan archives maintain rules for access and will handle the written requests of researchers in a timely fashion.

It is recommended that identification be requested in order to release a record and that requests be made in writing, and signed by the individual requesting the record. Authorized recipients of a sacramental record include the party or parties named in the record as having received the sacrament; Roman Catholic clergy or his delegate involved in canonical procedures; the parents of the subject, if the subject is a minor; and government agencies (such as the Social Security Administration) who present a signed release from the person whose record is requested."

http://www.archdpdx.org/documents/2016/5/Sacramental Records.pdf

"Baptisms, marriages, confirmations and funerals were recorded to document these sacred acts; these records were not intended to serve as a replacement for civil vital statistics. The care and preservation of these confidential records is a sacred trust. Sacramental records are of a mixed nature: private and public. They are private in that they are intended to document an individual's status within the Church. They were originally created in circumstances presumed to be private and confidential. Sacramental records are public in that they will stand in civil law as valid and authentic evidence when an appropriate civil record does not exist. It is important to understand that although these records are public in that they stand in civil law, they are not public in the sense that they are open to immediate examination and inspection by anyone for whatever reason."

https://archives.arch-no.org/sacramental-records

=====

Do LDS release temple ordinance records in bulk to anyone who asks?  If not, we should understand the position of the Catholic Church, imo.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 Refusing to grant access to parish records, not so much. I think it was ill-considered. 

Do we grant access to temple ordinance records to anyone who asks?  In bulk so they can make mass copies of them?

add-on:

From what I have read it appears to me the leadership of the RCC view parish records as a sacred stewardship and for that reason believe it is inappropriate to hand the records over in bulk to someone else as they would be doing if they allowed the Mormon Church to make copies for themselves even if the Mormon Church shared those copies only with the RCC and did not make them generally public (but we do make them public which violates RC church law from what I can tell).

Edited July 19, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 

Do LDS release temple ordinance records in bulk to anyone who asks?  If not, we should understand the position of the Catholic Church, imo.

Making the temple ordinance records accessible, indexed and searchable on FamilySearch.org amounts to the same thing in my view.

And if my understanding is correct, the Church does not ask that records "be handed over in bulk." Rather, microfilming teams (or in this day age, digital imaging teams) photograph the records on site where the work can be monitored by the manager of the repository, whatever it is.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Genealogical Research

In order to ensure continued preservation of the sacramental registers held at the Archdiocesan Archives, these records are unavailable to those engaged in genealogical studies or family research. All requests for individual sacramental and cemetery records are handled by mail according to the procedures outlined below."

However cooperative they might be in answering requests pertaining to genealogical research, they could not come close to matching the capability of FamilySearch International in facilitating such research. Especially if they insist on the cumbersome process of handling requests by mail.

As for ensuring the continued preservation, once the records are digitally copied, they are preserved permanently, even if something should happen to the original.

 

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Because we then baptized and performed other proxy temple ordinances.  They saw it as inappropriate.

"Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records – such as baptismal documentation – to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members..."The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”"

https://www.archbalt.org/vatican-letter-directs-bishops-to-keep-parish-records-from-mormons/

If Catholics believe LDS baptism of the living is of no value/effect then it seems arbitrary to claim proxy baptism for the dead is of value/effect.