Infant Baptism

[TOmNossor]

Servant,

I think there are more similarities than you might recognize.

There are three re-baptisms to which you might be referring (assuming you do not mean that practice Paul spoke about in 1 Cor .

1. LDS Baptize those who were â??baptizedâ? in other traditions. This is because LDS like St. Cyprian do not recognize baptisms performed outside of our tradition/authority structure. LDS like Catholics (when performing confirmation today OR Catholics in St. Cyprianâ??s time much to the chagrin of Pope St. Stephen) require the proper authority to be present for baptism to be valid.

2. LDS Baptize to restore those excommunicated. As Cal pointed out recently, this is not another ordinance, but a formal restoration of the original ordinance. See here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

3. LDS in the 19th century practiced a re-baptism. This IMO, in Calâ??s opinion, and in accordance with the below article, is a remembering of covenants not a re-do of covenants. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

For easier read of 2&3 and Calâ??s original post:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208476539

So, from the above three things I would suggest two things. LDS have developed away from a practice (#3) and defined our practice more robustly just as Catholics siding with Pope St. Stephen declared St. Cyprianâ??s view heretical in the 3rd century where 2 local councils had ruled it was not. St. Cyprian died in opposition to St. Stephenâ??s view and yet was canonized nonetheless. Also of note is the fact that Semi-Arian believe was acceptable for the baptizer in the 4th century, but is unacceptable for the baptizer in the 20th and 21st century (compare the rulings on Arians from the 4th century and the rulings on JW baptism).

Second, as presently described by LDS literature, we are not â??Re-baptizersâ? either.

I would like to insert here an accepted Catholic practice that could be called a re-baptism. On Catholic radio I heard of a 3-5 year old boy who baptized his baby sister. He actually did it 2x, and the second time was likely valid since he corrected his initial errors based upon what his father told him made his 1st baptism invalid. The advice from Catholic radio was to consult with the priest and have a â??conditional baptismâ? performed when the original sacramental baptism was scheduled. This is a specific example of a not uncommon practice, â??the conditional baptism.â? If there is any doubt concerning the validity or occurrence of the original baptism, then a conditional baptism is performed. This is a valid sacrament IF the original baptism was defective or not performed. This is not a valid sacrament if the individual was validly baptized. I would encourage Catholics who practice conditional baptism to not be TOO concerned that LDS practice baptism to restore original complete baptism even though God is still unchanged in His faithfulness to the covenant.

Now, I have little more to say about the need for authority to baptize. I think St. Cyprian was sufficiently close to the LDS view and I think the need for authority to confirm within Catholicism severely mutes some of the â??Christ does the ordinances not the priest,â? arguments.

I do however think there is an interesting and important point Noel B. Reynolds brings up in this article:

http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcri...15_Reynolds.htm

A summary of one of the pertinent ideas:

Noel B. Reynolds, professor of political science at BYU and director of FARMS, "Traditional Christian Sacraments and Covenants" (this paper was presented by coauthor Bryson L. Bachman). Whereas traditional Christian sacraments (ordinances) are generally considered vehicles of Christ's unilaterally given grace, Latter-day Saint theology uniquely emphasizes the bilateral nature of ordinances by focusing on the covenants that attach to them. Early Christian sources from the late second century onward do not explicitly link sacraments to covenants. One reason for this deemphasis or loss of the covenant concept in that era may be that covenant meant the Mosaic law in Judaism and an illegal secret society in the Roman Empireâ??and early Christians had good reason to avoid association with both. Although some church fathers did see baptism as an initiation into the new covenant and St. John Chrysostom (ad 347â??407) went a step further, viewing baptism as a "contract" with Christ, the covenant concept did not return to prominence until the writings of the Reformation theologians Zwingli and Bullinger. The full connection, however, between covenants and ordinances reappeared only in the Restoration.

In addition to Dr. Reynolds thoughts, my readings on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP or as mentioned by some Catholics NPSP) suggest the centrality of â??covenantal nomismâ? to Paulâ??s (and presumably the early churchâ??s) theology. While I think the NPP is a powerful apologetic for Catholicism (as does Art Sippo), I think it has even more strength when used by LDS with our emphasis upon the two way nature of our ordinances (Catholic sacraments).

So, the importance of the covenantal nature of Baptism within LDS thought offers one reason why it is restored (and was even previously performed in remembrance). While the Catholic believes that Baptismal regeneration is a grace poured out on humans who by many arguments neither choose nor participate actively in its reception; for LDS, baptism involves a free gift of grace BUT it also involves a two-way agreement between God and man. While God is unchanging in that He NEVER breaks His covenants, humans frequently do. In some cases LDS re-baptize to restore the human-way of that broken covenant, but God of course always stands up to His part and thus re-baptism is not a complete re-do.

Charity, TOm

[soren]

The punishment for original sin was death, not condemnation for babies.

Unless you take time to study our beliefs, you have no moral right to comment on them critically, ever. You have had enough opportunity to learn about our beliefs that ignorance is not an excuse for you.

[Catholic Girl]

The only problem with this is that we have confirmation too, and it is a misrepresentation of Catholic baptism to compare it to blessing a baby.

Right, I know. Not sure how it's a problem when in order to receive an LDS confirmation--one must be baptized. I understand LDS confirmation to take place immediately after baptism. For the benefit of our LDS here who are ignorant of Catholicism, the best parallel in THEIR TERMS is that Catholic baptism is much more roughly equivalent to a baby blessing than an LDS baptism. (of course with the exception of the belief in the Trinity as well as Original Sin).

In both, the baby is brought before the entire church and formally named and recognized as a member of that family as well as a new member of the Church.

What happens if parents fail to baptize a baby in the Catholic church, and that baby dies?

We don't know. We trust in God's mercy.

40 years ago when I was a Catholic school student, I was taught that the baby could not enter heaven, but instead went to "Limbo" which catholics now regard as non- doctrinal.

It was never doctrinal. It was a theory and it was widely taught. So? If you insist it was docrtinal--CFR.

I'm younger than you, obviously, but not by much. When I was an elementary student and in CCD (religious ed. classes or Church), I never heard a word about Limbo. The only time I ever heard about Limbo was from my parents. Who were in Catholic school pre-Vatican II.

Nevertheless, there are potentially grave consequences for a baby who is not baptized and who dies in catholic doctrine.

Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with the official Catholic Catechism:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

In fact the consequences are considered so grave that priesthood is not required by catholics to baptize a baby in an emergency situation. Anyone can baptize that infant in the name of the savior, even a non- Catholic christian.

Well that is not exactly true. A Mormon may not, because we are considered officially not Christian by the Catholic church. They recently passed some sort of decree stating that though they accepted many other Christian denominations baptisms, they would not accept ours because our understanding of the trinity is different than theirs.

Actually, this is more than true. ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE--a non-baptized person (including Mormons), an Atheist, whatever--maybe perform a valid baptism.

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

Tracing back to our favorite St. Augustine--the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the sanctity of the minister. Christ is the true minister of the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore--the vehicle through which it is given is irrelevant.

My understanding is that the doctrine of Limbo has been changed and replaced by something called "Invincible Ignorance" which I believe generally states that Catholics don't really know what happens to babies who die without baptism, but God will make it all up somehow, but no one knows how.

Again, Limbo was never doctrine.

[Servant]

Servant,

I think there are more similarities than you might recognize.

There are three re-baptisms to which you might be referring (assuming you do not mean that practice Paul spoke about in 1 Cor .

1. LDS Baptize those who were â??baptizedâ? in other traditions. This is because LDS like St. Cyprian do not recognize baptisms performed outside of our tradition/authority structure. LDS like Catholics (when performing confirmation today OR Catholics in St. Cyprianâ??s time much to the chagrin of Pope St. Stephen) require the proper authority to be present for baptism to be valid.

2. LDS Baptize to restore those excommunicated. As Cal pointed out recently, this is not another ordinance, but a formal restoration of the original ordinance. See here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

3. LDS in the 19th century practiced a re-baptism. This IMO, in Calâ??s opinion, and in accordance with the below article, is a remembering of covenants not a re-do of covenants. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

For easier read of 2&3 and Calâ??s original post:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208476539

So, from the above three things I would suggest two things. LDS have developed away from a practice (#3) and defined our practice more robustly just as Catholics siding with Pope St. Stephen declared St. Cyprianâ??s view heretical in the 3rd century where 2 local councils had ruled it was not. St. Cyprian died in opposition to St. Stephenâ??s view and yet was canonized nonetheless. Also of note is the fact that Semi-Arian believe was acceptable for the baptizer in the 4th century, but is unacceptable for the baptizer in the 20th and 21st century (compare the rulings on Arians from the 4th century and the rulings on JW baptism).

Second, as presently described by LDS literature, we are not â??Re-baptizersâ? either.

I would like to insert here an accepted Catholic practice that could be called a re-baptism. On Catholic radio I heard of a 3-5 year old boy who baptized his baby sister. He actually did it 2x, and the second time was likely valid since he corrected his initial errors based upon what his father told him made his 1st baptism invalid. The advice from Catholic radio was to consult with the priest and have a â??conditional baptismâ? performed when the original sacramental baptism was scheduled. This is a specific example of a not uncommon practice, â??the conditional baptism.â? If there is any doubt concerning the validity or occurrence of the original baptism, then a conditional baptism is performed. This is a valid sacrament IF the original baptism was defective or not performed. This is not a valid sacrament if the individual was validly baptized. I would encourage Catholics who practice conditional baptism to not be TOO concerned that LDS practice baptism to restore original complete baptism even though God is still unchanged in His faithfulness to the covenant.

Now, I have little more to say about the need for authority to baptize. I think St. Cyprian was sufficiently close to the LDS view and I think the need for authority to confirm within Catholicism severely mutes some of the â??Christ does the ordinances not the priest,â? arguments.

I do however think there is an interesting and important point Noel B. Reynolds brings up in this article:

http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcri...15_Reynolds.htm

A summary of one of the pertinent ideas:

In addition to Dr. Reynolds thoughts, my readings on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP or as mentioned by some Catholics NPSP) suggest the centrality of â??covenantal nomismâ? to Paulâ??s (and presumably the early churchâ??s) theology. While I think the NPP is a powerful apologetic for Catholicism (as does Art Sippo), I think it has even more strength when used by LDS with our emphasis upon the two way nature of our ordinances (Catholic sacraments).

So, the importance of the covenantal nature of Baptism within LDS thought offers one reason why it is restored (and was even previously performed in remembrance). While the Catholic believes that Baptismal regeneration is a grace poured out on humans who by many arguments neither choose nor participate actively in its reception; for LDS, baptism involves a free gift of grace BUT it also involves a two-way agreement between God and man. While God is unchanging in that He NEVER breaks His covenants, humans frequently do. In some cases LDS re-baptize to restore the human-way of that broken covenant, but God of course always stands up to His part and thus re-baptism is not a complete re-do.

Charity, TOm

Im sorry but you are actually wrong. Mormons baptize people that comes from other faiths regardless if they have already been baptized...the Mormons do not recognize baptism from other faith what so ever....mormons even rebaptize people who comes back into the mormon faith for example i was born and baptized as a mormon and i left the church and if i come back i would have to be baptize again....

the Catholic Church if they are baptize it is a one time thing..we also recognize other orthodox christian baptism so if someone who comes from let's say Lutheran Church and they want to become catholic the Catholic would NOT baptize that person...because their baptism is valid....there is cases like me...I had to be baptize Catholic only because the Church doesnt recognize the Mormon baptism because the context of the baptism isnt the same...the forumula is but not the context of it...only because the mormons can rebaptize if needed...

Catholic is not the case....it is two different baptisms nothing similar at all...well except the water and that is about it...

[tana]

First off...I want to state that I personally believe in the eternality of the soul....that the universe is conscious.....

I do however have issues with the anthropomorphic god that men have created for themselves...and the IMO feeble attempts to try to make the whole thing cohesive and reasonable.....

For instance, baptism. As soon as men came up with this most important ritual, and proclaimed that it is something that must be done in order to not be "damned"....it created all sorts of dilemmas....EG. At what age, by what authority, immersion or sprinkling, how to provide for those who died without it.....And so in order to try to make sense of it men just keep piling it on....EG. Traceable line of authority, Two witnesses, not a hair of the head to be unsubmerged....and the biggest one of all....the one that really creates impossible scenarios.....baptism for the dead.

I just wonder, does God have the authority to override the law....or are his hands tied....Can he say, you know what, ta hell with it...I change my mind, all these rites and ordinances and secret handshakes are just really a lot of trouble....

When I google "Number of humans that have ever been born"....I get a low ball of 25 billion and a high of 100 billion....and out of that number, lets just go with the 25.....How many have had their work done by the proper authority? If you look at the history of the world according to the bible....as far as I can tell, the one true church hasn't spent a whole lot of time down here.....Adam had the gospel....but it didn't last very long....since God got angry and killed everything....Noah had the gospel, but again it didn't seem to stick.....Moses and his little band of nomads had it for a while...but again, it was secluded to that small percentage of people on the earth.....and again didn't stick very long. Jesus brought it back....and we know how well that went over....The great apostasy....and then God waits approx 16-17 hundred years to restore his "one true church" to another little band of nomads.....Now I know that God always disliked the Canaanites, and really anybody that wasn't Hebrew....but what did he have against the Asians....to never give them the gospel?

It just appears to me that the about 99.999% of Gods spirits he's created...kinda got the shaft....and are going to have to have all their rituals done for them by proxy....And so J. Smith, or whoever was coaching him came up with the whole bucket of bullfeathers...Where in the Millennium you can see from temple to temple all the way around he world and proxy rituals performed night and day to get all of humanity immunized....

Again, I would think that God could just say....Aw well....never mind. I mean really, what is the baptism....Is it just a act of contrition to show submission and commitment....or is it an actual physical, molecular transmogrification.....[ala Calvin and Hobbes]....where ones body is changed and a physical "law" of the universe....similar to our gravity? If it is a law of physics, then I would think that the water would need to be pure and holy....EG. no chlorine....etc. And if it isn't a law of the universe that God is bound to....Then he should be able to say....I see your heart....your contrite....your worthy....come on in.....

The whole point that I am spending way too many words on here is.....How does some kid in SLC. being dunked in a tub of water somehow transmogrify, make holy, alter the physics of the spirit body of a long dead sinner from Shanghai....and how does it any way have anything to do with a show of contriteness and acceptance of the gospel by said sinner?

[saemo]

and important point Noel B. Reynolds brings up in this article:

http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcri...15_Reynolds.htm

A summary of one of the pertinent ideas:

TOm, while there is much to disagree with in your post, I'll only point out something here. When an infant is baptized, godparents make promises, covenants, on behalf of the infant and they also make promises themselves. These are between the family and God.

At a later time, when the child is older and has learned their Catholic faith, they are confirmed. Prior to their confirmation they reaffirm their baptismal vows and then they are asked by the priest or bishop:

"If you have firmly resolved to live in accordance with the holy doctrine of Christ, ever to remain faithful to His Church, to avoid sin, to love God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself, declare now this your will, and promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, before your parents, teachers, and the whole congregration"

The child who is about to be confirmed replies: "This we have firmly resolved and do solemnly promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, our Lord and Savior, before our parents, pastor, teachers, and the whole congregration."

So this idea that you have is rather erroneous.

[3DOP]

Tom

First, I would generally agree that Kartereoâ??s claim that she perhaps did not mean Catholics in her post was rather surprising. Of course perhaps my view that all non-LDS organized religions other than Catholicism fall like a house of cards so only Catholics are worthy of consideration and attack has made me see Catholicism in her comment.

3DOP

Perhaps K. will clarify who he/she meant at some later time. I thought it was pretty outrageous to claim for Catholics that regarding infant baptism, "This ceremony is based upon the idea that the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." It becomes even less credible to attribute it to the Reformation pedobaptist churches. It just illustrates to me Tom why most Mormons are so closed minded whenever anyone should challenge them about the Apostasy. Kartereo didn't dream this up. Somebody taught it. Whether Augustine ever believed it at anytime, I do not know. I quoted a lengthy passage which shows that there was a period of his life where he rejected the idea. If Augustine only believed it for part of his short life, on what basis does Kartereo, suggest that the theology of infant baptism is based on the idea that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." In my opinion, that is a hideous and monstrous misrepresentation of the doctrine behind the practise. Kartereo claims that "This scheme was first worked out by st. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo) in the late 4th or early 5th century A.D." "First worked out..." he/she said. You and I both know that Tertullian, who ultimately left the Catholic Church, who preceeded Augustine by 200 years, spoke against infant baptism. No one except me has quoted Augustine. Here he is again, not sounding at all to me like someone who believes that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another."

Marriage, therefore, is a good in all the things which are proper to the married state. And these are three: it is the ordained means of procreation, it is the guarantee of chastity, it is the bond of union. In respect of its ordination for generation the Scripture says, I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house; as regards its guaranteeing chastity, it is said of it, The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife; and considered as the bond of union: What God has joined together, let not man put asunder. Touching these points, we do not forget that we have treated at sufficient length, with whatever ability the Lord has given us, in other works of ours, which are not unknown to you. In relation to them all the Scripture has this general praise: Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For, inasmuch as the wedded state is good, insomuch does it produce a very large amount of good in respect of the evil of concupiscence; for it is not lust, but reason, which makes a good use of concupiscence. Now lust lies in that law of the disobedient members which the apostle notes as warring against the law of the mind; whereas reason lies in that law of the wedded state which makes good use of concupiscence. If, however, it were impossible for any good to arise out of evil, God could not create man out of the embraces of adultery. As, therefore, the damnable evil of adultery, whenever man is born in it, is not chargeable on God, who certainly amidst man's evil work actually produces a good work; so, likewise, all which causes shame in that rebellion of the members which brought the accusing blush on those who after their sin covered these members with the fig-tree leaves, is not laid to the charge of marriage, by virtue of which the conjugal embrace is not only allowable, but is even useful and honourable; but it is imputable to the sin of that disobedience which was followed by the penalty of man's finding his own members emulating against himself that very disobedience which he had practised against God. Then, abashed at their action, since they moved no more at the bidding of his rational will, but at their own arbitrary choice as it were, instigated by lust, he devised the covering which should conceal such of them as he judged to be worthy of shame. For man, as the handiwork of God, deserved not confusion of face; nor were the members which it seemed fit to the Creator to form and appoint by any means designed to bring the blush to the creature. Accordingly, that simple nudity was displeasing neither to God nor to man: there was nothing to be ashamed of, because nothing at first accrued which deserved punishment. There was, however, undoubtedly marriage, even when sin had no prior existence; and for no other reason was it that woman, and not a second man, was created as a help for the man. Moreover, those words of God, Be fruitful and multiply, are not prophetic of sins to be condemned, but a benediction upon the fertility of marriage. For by these ineffable words of His, I mean by the divine methods which are inherent in the truth of His wisdom by which all things were made, God endowed the primeval pair with their seminal power. Suppose, however, that nature had not been dishonoured by sin, God forbid that we should think that marriages in Paradise must have been such...

I don't understand how this does not amount to a refutation of claims that the Catholic Church...excuse me..."some churches" introduced infant baptism upon the development of Augustinian theology which taught that "This ceremony is based upon the idea that the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." Do I need to go over each word to show that Augustine taught that we could expect for Adam and Eve to sinlessly know each other in Paradise? Here is the problem. Mormons think that to promote celibacy is to despise marriage. Of course the Church that "forbids to marry" is unholy and apostate. So what does the Mormon learn? That the Catholic Church "forbids to marry", in violation of I Tim. 4:3, when in fact the Catholic Church holds firmly that marriage is a means of sacramental grace. You know this is a widely held misunderstanding of my faith Tom. It can't be accurately said that following Augustine, "the churches" that baptize infants do so "based upon the idea that the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." Not when all that can be produced is assertions to say that Augustine ever believed that, while I can produce something which says that Augustine, if he ever believed it, changed his mind.

Tom

I think all of you should be able to define your view and I see nothing non-Catholic in it. But, if one wishes to embrace Augustine as a pillar of orthodoxy with nary a blemish (which I suspect many Catholics LDS run into do), then I think invoking Augustine can give Kartereo more ground to stand upon. Kartereo did specifically mention Augustine. So while I would generally stay away from saying that original sin was â??acquiring carnal knowledge of one another,â? I would suggest that Augustine at one point in time believe that Adam lusted after Eve, and that the fall being this lust was suggested by the covering of their nakedness. Augustine then placed some amount of sinful lust in all FALLEN procreation, even within marriage. And perhaps links this as part of the sin that is born with the baby. Certainly there is much that has been written in support of this idea and I would be surprised if all of this is just a misread of Augustine.

3DOP

I have no intention of embracing "Augustine as a pillar of orthodoxy with nary a blemish." No informed Catholic embraces any individual, not even Aquinas in such a fashion. My point is that if he has "a blemish" neither you nor Kartereo has brought it to light, and if you should, how can Kartereo suggest that Augustine's ill-conceived notions, which were obviously revised, and never adopted by the Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of England, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, or Roman Catholics were responsible for infant baptism which was practised at least 200 years before Augustine lived? (of course I hold that Tertullian was wrong, and it is an apostolic practice) But Kartereo has to concede that the practice long preceded St. Augustine's alleged heresies. If Augustine's alleged 5th Century heresy is somehow the impetus behind infant baptism, I suppose Jimmy Carter was an inspiration to our poor troops at Valley Forge.

Tom

Some have suggested that when Augustine ceased to be a Manchaean heretic, he ceased to hold this as the genesis of sin in the infant.

There is much tied up in the origins of souls for this question. The Catholic Church has generally leaned toward a Truducianism. This view will explain why the Virgin Birth AND the Immaculate Conception are/were necessary to leave Christ untainted with original sin. However the Virgin Birth has pointed many thinkers toward the view that original sin had something to do with procreative sex.

3DOP

And do you link such unacceptable thinking to the practise of infant baptism? I doubt you do. Infant baptism is proof of an apostasy to Mormons if they can link it to such nonsense. Shoot. I'd be concerned about an Apostasy if Kartereo had proof instead of unsupported dogmatic assertions! I am not saying that no one has ever thought this. I am saying that there is no justification for linking it to pedobaptism and I am saying that none of "the churches" which Kartereo can possibly have in mind has ever adopted the view that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another."

Abrahamic covenantal circumcision provides pedobaptists a plain precedent and warrant for ceremonial rites for infants. This Old Testament practise is the "scheme" which provides the impetus for infant baptism.

Tom

I guess all I am saying is that I do not think it quite fair to claim that Kartereo is without basis to believe that Augustine found something less then godly in all sexual intercourse (the only exception being a possible / hypothetical pre-fall act of reason without lust) and that this was not unlinked to original sin. There has been enough written about Augustine from this frame that I doubt it is all willful misconception of his thoughts.

3DOP

If I had to guess, until Kartereo speaks for himself/herself, I suppose he/she has never read one page of Augustine...unless perhaps he/she has perused the chapters I have quoted. I don't accuse K. of ill will. Just ill-conceived ideas probably taught in some LDS Sunday School. I seldom speak out here until someone talks about my beliefs. I agree with you that it is possible that Augustine had "blemishes" in this area. But no one has given evidence. I have shown that if he once held to such heterodox views, they were clearly revised upon sober reflection. But most importantly, Augustine can be considered responsible for infant baptism when Gerald Ford is credited for masterminding the crossing of the Delaware.

Tom

So, if Kartereo is addressing â??some non-LDS Christians,â? including Augustine and if there is a little modification of some of the words chosen, I do not think this is a straw man. I would also acknowledge that Adam-God is not a straw man as applied to Brigham Youngâ??s thought, but is often a straw man against 21st century LDS (hopefully all the Catholic posters here can agree with that).

3DOP

I agree with you that we can dispense with accusing Kartereo of proposing a straw man. Will you agree with me that what Kartereo proposed was wrong?

Tom

I am far from a scholar on Augustine. I often offer a refund for the price I receive in payment for my message board comments. This $0 price tag is perhaps more indicative of what you get here than normal. In addition to this, I do not think it quite possible to know what Augustineâ??s views were on everything he ever wrote about at the time of his death. He changed/developed/grew in his thinking over time and some of his earlier writings do not represent his final thoughts while other writings may be among the thoughts that he also altered, but never completed telling us about. His departure from Manchaeanism can serve to indicate he changed some of his thinking, but at times he indicates that some of his Manchaean thought followed him.

Ultimately, I quite appreciate the LDS view of the fallen nature of man and rejection â??original sin/guilt.â? I think the original sin and the fall was a departure from communion with God. I believe that all children are now born with minds incapable of recognizing the communion of man and man and God, thus they all behave in a separated way. Whenever the â??age of accountabilityâ? is, we discover that we have already acted in a non-loving, sinful, non-communal way. We naturally seek to self-justify this behavior by pointing to others as the cause of our non-loving actions. Sin thus enters inevitably at the age of accountability. Only Christ knowing us perfectly and loving us anyway allows us to be freed from the need to self-justify and to confront the unloving actions (the sin) that we have committed.

3DOP

I have no quarrel with your beliefs or Kartereo's for purpose of this thread unless it somehow includes the untenable notion that infant baptism is linked with some alleged scheme attributed to a 5th Century Catholic convert from Manicheism, who later changed his own mind if he ever did believe what is alleged, that was never adopted by any Protestant or Catholic Church that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another."

[soren]

In both, the baby is brought before the entire church and formally named and recognized as a member of that family as well as a new member of the Church.

This is incorrect, a newly blessed baby is not made a member of the LDS Church per D&C 20:71, which bars infants from membership in the Church:

No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

I've never been able to figure how someone's sinlessness could be an impediment to Church membership, but Smith evidently thought it was. Clearly seen, it is Smithâ??s teaching, not Catholicism, that is deleterious to babies, and contradicts Matt 19:14:

Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Again, Limbo was never doctrine.

While limbo was not a doctrine, it has an important place in understanding the history of infant baptism in the Catholic Church, for the prominence of the limbo theory demonstrates that infant damnation was not doctrinal either. The two were competing theological opinions, neither one officially condemned or sanctioned by the Church.

[soren]

3DOP

I have no quarrel with your beliefs or Kartereo's for purpose of this thread unless it somehow includes the untenable notion that infant baptism is linked with some alleged scheme attributed to a 5th Century Catholic convert from Manicheism, who later changed his own mind if he ever did believe what is alleged, that was never adopted by any Protestant or Catholic Church that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another."

There is a kind of historical basis for this claim, in that Augustine held, as the Church does today, that because grace is supernatural, it cannot be conveyed through the natural union of a man and a woman. Even if two canonizable saints conceived a child, the child would not receive the life of grace through them. Yet if Adam and Eve had never fallen, God would have instilled sanctifying grace in all their offspring from conception in additional to the natural existence the child would receive from his parents. That in a nutshell is the doctrine of Original Sin; it has a link to carnal knowledge, but not at all what the OP claims.

[Catholic Girl]

This is incorrect, a newly blessed baby is not made a member of the LDS Church per D&C 20:71, which bars infants from membership in the Church:

No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

I've never been able to figure how someone's sinlessness could be an impediment to Church membership, but Smith evidently thought it was. Clearly seen, it is Smithâ??s teaching, not Catholicism, that is deleterious to babies, and contradicts Matt 19:14:

Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

It is not incorrect.

In both, the baby is brought before the entire church and formally named and recognized as a member of that family as well as a new member of the Church.

An LDS baby blessing gives the baby an official church membership record. Now we can argue semantics all day long about members of record differ from real members or whatever--but since an LDS baby blessing generates an official church membership record, as does a Catholic infant baptism, I don't see where you can disagree with my comparison.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

Making the Baby a Member of Record in the Church

You may want to have all the children show their certificates of blessing if they have them.

Mention that the certificate of blessing is an official Church record and will be properly filled out and signed by the ward clerk and the bishop. The ward clerk will, at the time he fills out the certificate of blessing, make up a membership record card with the name of the baby, date of birth, date of blessing, name of the one who blessed the baby, names of mother and father, and other information. Your new baby will then be on the official membership records of the Church.

Sounds like a baptismal certificate, doesn't it?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/priesth...g_children.html

[charity's child]

It is not incorrect.

An LDS baby blessing gives the baby an official church membership record. Now we can argue semantics all day long about members of record differ from real members or whatever--but since an LDS baby blessing generates an official church membership record, as does a Catholic infant baptism, I don't see where you can disagree with my comparison.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

Sounds like a baptismal certificate, doesn't it?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/priesth...g_children.html

on the other hand, my mother was blessed as a young girl but was never a member of the church. Her parents weren't member, she never had home teachers. She eventually joined the church, but that was because she sought the church, they never looked for her.

[Nemesis]

My topic description "A new understanding with the Mormon church and its doctrines" was supposed to lure the non/members who seek understanding with our doctrines. Perhaps I shall change it to be more direct.

All of my posts are for the non-members or even those members who want to know the "why's" (why do we believe what we believe) about some of our doctrinal points.

So are you here to discuss something or to preach? We allow one but not the other. We expect to you see you engage in the discussion if you want these threads kept alive.

Nemesis

[3DOP]

There is a kind of historical basis for this claim, in that Augustine held, as the Church does today, that because grace is supernatural, it cannot be conveyed through the natural union of a man and a woman. Even if two canonizable saints conceived a child, the child would not receive the life of grace through them. Yet if Adam and Eve had never fallen, God would have instilled sanctifying grace in all their offspring from conception in additional to the natural existence the child would receive from his parents. That in a nutshell is the doctrine of Original Sin; it has a link to carnal knowledge, but not at all what the OP claims.

That is a fair and accurate statement. But it appears that non-Catholics hostile to the practise of infant baptism have been rooting around in the Augustinian corpus, who are incapable of making this distinction. So yes, even though no champion of the "anti-pedobaptists" has appeared to offer any evidence from St. Augustine, I can imagine there are probably sections of his writing that would at least seem to support this objectionable teaching proposed by Kartereo as the scheme from which pedobaptism springs. But it is one thing to teach that the effects of the original sin IS transferred through the conjugal embrace, and quite another to say that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." The first is acceptable and correct, the latter is neither.

I think it might be noteworthy to point out further that the circumcision of the male procreative member, from the times of Abraham, could be interpreted as symbolic of the fact that the seed of Adam, and thus the effects of his original sin, is passed on through all of his male descendants at least. I don't think I can speak with certainty to the questions raised by Tom about the Virginal Conception of an Immaculate Mother. But it would lend weight to the reason why in regard to circumcision, there was no parallel rite for females in the Abrahamic covenant if the female only has the "symptoms of original sin without carrying the virus", if you will permit such a way of expression. The Virginity of the Mother of the Saviour would be significant then mainly because it was necessary that the father of the Second Adam, not be a carrier of the First Adam's disease.

I would make one further point. Our LDS friends seem to think it is a highly unjust economy which permits the children to partake of the sins of Adam. But do they not embrace just such an economy when they allow that with regard to the righteousness of the Second Adam, Christ, the children partake? Yes, they believe in the vicarious economy of justice when it is favorable unto them. It is certainly a convenient belief. But the basis of true justice is not convenience. I suggest that it is an unjust and imbalanced system which holds we may vicariously enjoy the benefits of Christ's atonement, but not partake vicariously of the fall of Adam. We can't approve a system of vicarious justice that is applicable when favorable but not applicable when unfavorable. If most Mormons can be taken at their word though, that appears to be the kind of confused system of divine justice in which they believe.

[TOmNossor]

Im sorry but you are actually wrong. Mormons baptize people that comes from other faiths regardless if they have already been baptized...the Mormons do not recognize baptism from other faith what so ever

So, you are suggesting that since Catholics have some criteria from which to accept non-Catholic baptism or reject non-Catholic baptism they are not re-baptizers when they re-baptize a LDS or a JW.

But, LDS who utilize a criteria, but reject all baptism outside of valid priesthood authority are re-baptizers.

Are there any Catholics on this thread who would like to embrace Servantâ??s ideas here?

By my estimation your (Servantâ??s) view is:

• - Extraordinarily myopic (what a Catholic does gets viewed with such a positive light it is good and what a LDS does gets no such privileged view and perhaps a negative light), OR
  - It evidences some huge disconnect in our conversation. I am seeing things quite differently than Servant and thus cannot make heads or tails of the rational for her views, OR
  - The rational for this position is severely lacking and I should not be expected to understand it.
  

mormons even rebaptize people who comes back into the mormon faith for example i was born and baptized as a mormon and i left the church and if i come back i would have to be baptize again....

Again, I wonder if you are reading what I write. I responded to this and claimed that like the Catholic â??conditional baptismâ? where someone sometimes immersed in water with the proper formula MAY be conditionally baptized by being re-immersed in water with the proper formula and intend IN CASE the original intent was flawed or ??? As I explained, as the article I linked and Cal linked explained, LDS baptism is not a compete re-do, but a restoration of a previously done sacrament.

...the forumula is but not the context of it...only because the mormons can rebaptize if needed...

Actually, you should read more about the Catholic rejection of the LDS baptism. To my knowledge there is not a single word about the overarching purpose being flawed. Instead the LDS concept of the Trinity is not the Nicene concept of the Trinity so the baptism is not valid. I actually am a Social Trinitarian who does not include God the Mother in the Godhead, so it seems to me that the Catholic ruling has little to do with my view (I can embrace Nicea as understood by the majority of Bishops at Nicea, not as understood by Athanasius IMO however).

All that being said, I think the radically emphasis upon covenant with LDS baptism and the practice of restoring the baptism through a baptism COULD be used to suggest that the LDS purpose is flawed on more than just understanding of the Trinity lines. Interesting!

BTW, I hope you meant no disrespect by not capitalizing â??Mormonâ? in the last section you wrote.

Catholic is not the case....it is two different baptisms nothing similar at all...well except the water and that is about it...

IMO your words evidence more about your disposition toward your former faith than they do about a genuine comparison between the two baptismal practices.

LDS have solid parallels for 6 of the 7 Catholic sacraments.

Baptism

Confirmation

Holy Orders

Eucharist

Matrimony

Extreme Unction (the old name, I do not remember off the top of my head the new name).

In fact, Vatican II moved Extreme Unction ever so slightly closer to the LDS practice by removing SOME of the practical restrictions that previously focused this practice toward being a ONE time END-OF-LIFE activity (called Last Rites) rather than a blessing and anointing by authority.

The 7th Catholic sacrament, reconciliation, is not very formalized within LDS practice, but it is not without its parallels.

Myself, being a former Catholic, a present LDS, and one who knows that if he ever believes the devil is at the head of the CoJCoLDS he would be a Catholic immediately and in a confessional in less than 24hours; I see a number of parallels. Of course I cannot remember considering myself anti-Catholic for any reason other than to promote what I believe the be Godâ??s church, the CoJCoLDS. I really do not think I hold or have a grudge against the Catholic Church. Of course perhaps I would be the last to know.

Charity, TOm

********************************************************************

********************************************************************

********************************************************************

TOm, while there is much to disagree with in your post, I'll only point out something here. When an infant is baptized, godparents make promises, covenants, on behalf of the infant and they also make promises themselves. These are between the family and God.

At a later time, when the child is older and has learned their Catholic faith, they are confirmed. Prior to their confirmation they reaffirm their baptismal vows and then they are asked by the priest or bishop:

"If you have firmly resolved to live in accordance with the holy doctrine of Christ, ever to remain faithful to His Church, to avoid sin, to love God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself, declare now this your will, and promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, before your parents, teachers, and the whole congregration"

The child who is about to be confirmed replies: "This we have firmly resolved and do solemnly promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, our Lord and Savior, before our parents, pastor, teachers, and the whole congregration."

So this idea that you have is rather erroneous.

I have defended Catholic baptism utilizing the fact that parents and god parents (and indeed the entire parish community) make a profession of faith on the behalf of the infant who cannot.

I think there is much room for the viewing of Catholic sacraments in a covenantal way, but it has been my experience that most formal theology emphasizes the communication of unmerited Grace from God to the sacrament recipient ALMOST to the exclusion of the covenantal nature of the sacrament. This is Dr. Reynoldâ??s point and IMO it is valid if not absolute.

I will acknowledge however that there is not within Catholicism a sacrament without human presence (and acceptance is not a term that would be condemned by too many theologians) and there is not within Mormonism a covenant without divine Grace.

Charity, TOm

********************************************************************

********************************************************************

********************************************************************

3DOP,

So that I might offer a quote rather than some general thoughts, let me offer this from the NewAdvent.org in their introduction to On Marriage and Concupiscence

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

Wherein He expounds the peculiar and natural blessings of marriage. He shows that among these blessings must not be reckoned fleshly concupiscence; insomuch as this is wholly evil, such as does not proceed from the very nature of marriage, but is an accident thereof arising from original sin. This evil, notwithstanding, is rightly employed by marriage for the procreation of children. But, as the result of this concupiscence, it comes to pass that, even from the lawful marriage of the children of God, men are not born children of God, but of the world, and are bound with the chain of sin, although their parents have been liberated therefrom by grace; and are led captive by the devil, if they be not in like manner rescued by the self-same grace of Christ. He explains how it is that concupiscence remains in the baptized in act though not in guilt. He teaches, that by the sanctity of baptism, not merely this original guilt, but all other sins of men whatever, are taken away. He lastly quotes the authority of Ambrose to show that the evil of concupiscence must be distinguished from the good of marriage.

Linking sex to original sin in Augustine is common in many places. I was of the opinion that it was not some LDS perversion (some straw man), and I am more convinced now.

Infant baptism preceded (and was part of the genesis) of the doctrine of original sin. While original sin can certainly be defended by use of the Bible properly translated, it is well accepted that the linchpin (or perhaps the most powerful) verse Augustine used in support of this doctrine was a mistranslation. I like the idea that a parish exercises faith in the baptism of a baby. Infant baptism IMO is not Godâ??s way, but I would not call it evil.

Will you agree with me that what Kartereo proposed was wrong?

I can agree with that. I think Augustine would find Theology of the Body to be shocking. I also would suggest that if marriage can be called a vocation, marital procreation cannot be viewed as sinful within Catholicism.

Charity, TOm

[Servant]

So, you are suggesting that since Catholics have some criteria from which to accept non-Catholic baptism or reject non-Catholic baptism they are not re-baptizers when they re-baptize a LDS or a JW.

But, LDS who utilize a criteria, but reject all baptism outside of valid priesthood authority are re-baptizers.

Are there any Catholics on this thread who would like to embrace Servantâ??s ideas here?

By my estimation your (Servantâ??s) view is:

- Extraordinarily myopic (what a Catholic does gets viewed with such a positive light it is good and what a LDS does gets no such privileged view and perhaps a negative light), OR

- It evidences some huge disconnect in our conversation. I am seeing things quite differently than Servant and thus cannot make heads or tails of the rational for her views, OR

- The rational for this position is severely lacking and I should not be expected to understand it.

only because the context of the baptism is different...

you said that our baptisms are similar and they are not...I answered you and now you want to critize and say that it is wrong...ok...whatever..

tell us can a person who was baptized a mormon be rebaptize as a mormon yes or no?

Again, I wonder if you are reading what I write. I responded to this and claimed that like the Catholic â??conditional baptismâ? where someone sometimes immersed in water with the proper formula MAY be conditionally baptized by being re-immersed in water with the proper formula and intend IN CASE the original intent was flawed or ??? As I explained, as the article I linked and Cal linked explained, LDS baptism is not a compete re-do, but a restoration of a previously done sacrament.

It doesnt matter if the person is immersed or pouring of the head because in the bible it shows both.....ok then answer my question above...I was baptized mormon left the church....if i come back would i have to be rebaptize? or a "re-do" lol???? the answer is yes....

Catholics dont do that...Catholics who are baptized Catholics if they leave and go to become a mormon let's say and they of course have to get rebatpized if that person comes back that person will not have to get another baptism because the very first one is all is needed...

IMO your words evidence more about your disposition toward your former faith than they do about a genuine comparison between the two baptismal practices.

LDS have solid parallels for 6 of the 7 Catholic sacraments.

Baptism

Confirmation

Holy Orders

Eucharist

Matrimony

Extreme Unction (the old name, I do not remember off the top of my head the new name).

it is minister to the sick

In fact, Vatican II moved Extreme Unction ever so slightly closer to the LDS practice by removing SOME of the practical restrictions that previously focused this practice toward being a ONE time END-OF-LIFE activity (called Last Rites) rather than a blessing and anointing by authority.

please provide a catholic source that states that...

Myself, being a former Catholic, a present LDS, and one who knows that if he ever believes the devil is at the head of the CoJCoLDS he would be a Catholic immediately and in a confessional in less than 24hours; I see a number of parallels. Of course I cannot remember considering myself anti-Catholic for any reason other than to promote what I believe the be Godâ??s church, the CoJCoLDS. I really do not think I hold or have a grudge against the Catholic Church. Of course perhaps I would be the last to know.

you know I hear this all the time...they will throw a misconception or the faith wrong or distorted...and then they will say i know because "I used to be Catholic"....

the same goes for me...if i said something that was wrong about the mormon faith and said "I used to be a Mormon" as that means it is right...no...it doesnt mean nothing...

it is one thing to talk about the journey of faith than to use it to mkae it seem more creditable...i can admit that I understand alot of the mormon faith and dont agree/believe with and there are alot that i just dont get....

[TOmNossor]

only because the context of the baptism is different...

you said that our baptisms are similar and they are not...I answered you and now you want to critize and say that it is wrong...ok...whatever..

I am criticizing you for saying that Catholics do not â??re-baptizeâ? because when they do re-baptize they reject the first baptism as invalid.

But LDS do â??re-baptizeâ? even though when they do â??re-baptizeâ? (in the situation we are discussing) they re-baptize because they reject the first baptism as invalid.

tell us can a person who was baptized a mormon be rebaptize as a mormon yes or no?

It doesnt matter if the person is immersed or pouring of the head because in the bible it shows both.....ok then answer my question above...I was baptized mormon left the church....if i come back would i have to be rebaptize? or a "re-do" lol???? the answer is yes....

First, you said â??the person is immersed or pouring of the head because in the bible it shows both,â? while I do not think the â??baptism ONLY by immersionâ? is a slam dunk argument by any stretch, I was unaware of any place in the Bible where â??sprinklingâ? is advocated. The best Biblical argument is that because of the dearth of water and the volume of baptisms, it must have been sprinkling. This IMO is a weaker argument than the fact that baptism in the Bible means immersion.

Second, I ask:

â??Can a Catholic validly baptized by a Catholic 4 year old little boy with proper intent be â??re-baptizedâ? with parents, godparents, and parish? While the second baptism is a â??conditional baptismâ? it involves ALL of the components of a normal baptism. I merely argue based upon Calâ??s post and the Ensign article she linked that LDS â??re-baptismâ? like Catholic conditional baptism may appear to be a re-do, it is not.

please provide a catholic source that states that...

I cannot. Since a Catholic did not say it, it is untrue?

you know I hear this all the time...they will throw a misconception or the faith wrong or distorted...and then they will say i know because "I used to be Catholic"....

That is not exactly what I am/was saying, but what I was saying was prideful in retrospect. I withdraw it. Sorry!

Charity, TOm

[Catholic Girl]

Second, I ask:

â??Can a Catholic validly baptized by a Catholic 4 year old little boy with proper intent be â??re-baptizedâ? with parents, godparents, and parish? While the second baptism is a â??conditional baptismâ? it involves ALL of the components of a normal baptism. I merely argue based upon Calâ??s post and the Ensign article she linked that LDS â??re-baptismâ? like Catholic conditional baptism may appear to be a re-do, it is not.

I cannot. Since a Catholic did not say it, it is untrue?

That is not exactly what I am/was saying, but what I was saying was prideful in retrospect. I withdraw it. Sorry!

Charity, TOm

This is not an equivalent comparison! We cannot be confident that a baptism perfomed by a 4 year-old is valid because he most likely lacks the proper intent due to an obvious lack of understanding. I have a 4 year-old and have had several 4 year-olds.

And no, even if the baptism were valid--that person who he baptized would not be "re-baptized" the second time.

It's sort of like when I got an extra MMR shot. I already had my immunity...I wasn't supposed to get that extra MMR shot, but a mistake was made. Did it harm me? No. Did it change anything? No. Was I now inoculated against Measles, Mumps, and Rubella? No, I already had been.

[Servant]

I am criticizing you for saying that Catholics do not â??re-baptizeâ? because when they do re-baptize they reject the first baptism as invalid.

But LDS do â??re-baptizeâ? even though when they do â??re-baptizeâ? (in the situation we are discussing) they re-baptize because they reject the first baptism as invalid.

You are making it sound that we can rebaptize anybody and everybody that is NOT true.

the only time when a person gets baptize to be catholic if that person was lets say Mormon...or JW or born again or people thinking it is just a symbole...the church doesnt see them being baptize at all...so it isnt a rebaptize...they would first have to recognize it to be a baptized person to call it a rebaptized...

a Catholic cant be baptized again...Luther cant be baptized again...alot of protestants cant be baptize again because their baptism is valid...so they can become catholics without being baptize...the LDS is different...a Mormon can be baptize and leave the church and come back and be baptize again...a big big difference..from what you are trying to say...

Can a Catholic validly baptized by a Catholic 4 year old little boy with proper intent be â??re-baptizedâ? with parents, godparents, and parish? While the second baptism is a â??conditional baptismâ? it involves ALL of the components of a normal baptism. I merely argue based upon Calâ??s post and the Ensign article she linked that LDS â??re-baptismâ? like Catholic conditional baptism may appear to be a re-do, it is not.

if there is an emergency matter of life or death...any catholic can baptize a baby or child and it will be valid.....period...

I cannot. Since a Catholic did not say it, it is untrue?

you are the one who stated it...but you can not provide it because a Catholic did not say it? what? since a catholic did not state it...but a non catholic stated it...as if that person has more authority over the Catholic Church even though this person isnt catholic...this would be lilke me saying something about the Mormons...and since im not a mormon and a mormon didnt state it but I did... that means it has to be true...see how silly that is?

your argument is void to me...and meaningless...if your statement was true then you would have no problem documenting it from a catholic source...

[TOmNossor]

This is not an equivalent comparison! We cannot be confident that a baptism perfomed by a 4 year-old is valid because he most likely lacks the proper intent due to an obvious lack of understanding. I have a 4 year-old and have had several 4 year-olds.

And no, even if the baptism were valid--that person who he baptized would not be "re-baptized" the second time.

It's sort of like when I got an extra MMR shot. I already had my immunity...I wasn't supposed to get that extra MMR shot, but a mistake was made. Did it harm me? No. Did it change anything? No. Was I now inoculated against Measles, Mumps, and Rubella? No, I already had been.

Catholic Girl,

Did you read the quotes from the Ensign article that claimed that the re-baptism in LDS thought IS NOT a redo of the ordinance, but a restoration of the original ordinance.

The specific case I am speaking of involved 3 baptisms actually.

The first was by the 3-5 yo little boy. His father explained to him the errors he made and the intent of baptism, but somehow was not clear that it was preferable that his baby sister be baptized by the parish priest in a couple weeks as scheduled.

The 3-5yo decided to â??do it rightâ? and by all accounts probably did.

So, you are correct the conditional baptism is only a sacrament if the original was not a sacrament (in Catholic thought).

But, according to the articles I linked, the re-baptism for the excommunicated member is only a restoration of the original sacrament, not another sacrament.

I really do not see how it is appropriate to make allowances for the Catholic conditional baptism and not the LDS practice. Ultimately, it is not too important because if you judge LDS by Catholic rules or Catholics by LDS rules both religions fail miserably. I merely ask that LDS practices be given the same type of fair shake as Catholic practices.

Now, I want to return to a comment I made to you before. I will paste the entire comment at the end of this post, but I will add my additional point now.

TOm, while there is much to disagree with in your post, I'll only point out something here. When an infant is baptized, godparents make promises, covenants, on behalf of the infant and they also make promises themselves. These are between the family and God.

At a later time, when the child is older and has learned their Catholic faith, they are confirmed. Prior to their confirmation they reaffirm their baptismal vows and then they are asked by the priest or bishop:

"If you have firmly resolved to live in accordance with the holy doctrine of Christ, ever to remain faithful to His Church, to avoid sin, to love God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself, declare now this your will, and promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, before your parents, teachers, and the whole congregration"

The child who is about to be confirmed replies: "This we have firmly resolved and do solemnly promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, our Lord and Savior, before our parents, pastor, teachers, and the whole congregration."

So this idea that you have is rather erroneous.

It occurred to me before Servantâ??s post and her post points to this truth too.

The Catholic sacrament IS still quite valid without a full covenantal expression. In the case of the 4-6 year old, Catholic radio was quite clear that most like sacramental baptism did occur. The covenantal expressions are appendages to the sacrament, but not essentials (or so it seems to me).

Here is my original post and I still think it reasonable, but I think Dr. Reynoldâ??s position is even stronger in light of the MINIMUM that must be present for a valid Catholic baptismal sacrament.

TOm, while there is much to disagree with in your post, I'll only point out something here. When an infant is baptized, godparents make promises, covenants, on behalf of the infant and they also make promises themselves. These are between the family and God.

At a later time, when the child is older and has learned their Catholic faith, they are confirmed. Prior to their confirmation they reaffirm their baptismal vows and then they are asked by the priest or bishop:

"If you have firmly resolved to live in accordance with the holy doctrine of Christ, ever to remain faithful to His Church, to avoid sin, to love God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself, declare now this your will, and promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, before your parents, teachers, and the whole congregration"

The child who is about to be confirmed replies: "This we have firmly resolved and do solemnly promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, our Lord and Savior, before our parents, pastor, teachers, and the whole congregration."

So this idea that you have is rather erroneous.

I have defended Catholic baptism utilizing the fact that parents and god parents (and indeed the entire parish community) make a profession of faith on the behalf of the infant who cannot.

I think there is much room for the viewing of Catholic sacraments in a covenantal way, but it has been my experience that most formal theology emphasizes the communication of unmerited Grace from God to the sacrament recipient ALMOST to the exclusion of the covenantal nature of the sacrament. This is Dr. Reynoldâ??s point and IMO it is valid if not absolute.

I will acknowledge however that there is not within Catholicism a sacrament without human presence (and acceptance is not a term that would be condemned by too many theologians) and there is not within Mormonism a covenant without divine Grace.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

You are making it sound that we can rebaptize anybody and everybody that is NOT true.

Again, you seem to be arguing that since you do not â??re-baptize everybody,â? Catholics are not subject to the criticism that they â??re-baptize.â? This seems like a position immune from logical exploration.

Again, is there any Catholic who agrees with Servantâ??s logic here?

the LDS is different...a Mormon can be baptize and leave the church and come back and be baptize again...a big big difference..from what you are trying to say...

Did you read the quotes and the article I linked?

LDS QUALIFY what you call re-baptism just like Catholics QUALIFY what they call conditional baptism. Why should I accept Catholic qualification of conditional baptism and not call you â??re-baptizersâ? if you will not accept LDS qualification of our restoration baptism but instead declare us â??re-baptizers?â?

if there is an emergency matter of life or death...any catholic can baptize a baby or child and it will be valid.....period...

You may be only imprecise or you may not understand Catholic theology.

The truth is that â??an emergency matter of life or deathâ? is not NECESSARY to make a non-priestly conferred baptism valid.

Also, if you mean â??any Catholicâ? then you are again not correct. It is not ones communion with the Pope that makes the able to baptize in Catholic thought (at least not today).

If you mean â??any catholicâ? like a Protestant might use the term, then it is unusual for a Catholic to use â??catholicâ? in a Protestant way, but I think you could make your point.

you are the one who stated it...but you can not provide it because a Catholic did not say it? what? since a catholic did not state it...but a non catholic stated it...as if that person has more authority over the Catholic Church even though this person isnt catholic...this would be lilke me saying something about the Mormons...and since im not a mormon and a mormon didnt state it but I did... that means it has to be true...see how silly that is?

your argument is void to me...and meaningless...if your statement was true then you would have no problem documenting it from a catholic source...

The facts IMO point to the truth of my claim.

â??Extreme Unctionâ? or â??Last Ritesâ? were very restricted before Vatican II such that they were almost regulated to ONLY be performed when imminent and certain death were to occur. After Vatican II, â??blessing of the sickâ? is less restricted.

I make the observation that this CHANGE / DEVELOPMENT moves Catholicism in practice closer to Mormonism.

If you need a Catholic to tell you this, I think you will wait a long time, but it IMO is rather obviously true to the marginally informed.

Servant, it is my best guess that you animus towards the CoJCoLDS results in you making statement that are virtually undefendable. I hope my â??going strongly after youâ? does not offend you. I just want to make it clear that your statements are tortured IMO.

Charity, TOm

[Catholic Girl]

Catholic Girl,

Did you read the quotes from the Ensign article that claimed that the re-baptism in LDS thought IS NOT a redo of the ordinance, but a restoration of the original ordinance.

The specific case I am speaking of involved 3 baptisms actually.

The first was by the 3-5 yo little boy. His father explained to him the errors he made and the intent of baptism, but somehow was not clear that it was preferable that his baby sister be baptized by the parish priest in a couple weeks as scheduled.

The 3-5yo decided to â??do it rightâ? and by all accounts probably did.

So, you are correct the conditional baptism is only a sacrament if the original was not a sacrament (in Catholic thought).

But, according to the articles I linked, the re-baptism for the excommunicated member is only a restoration of the original sacrament, not another sacrament.

I really do not see how it is appropriate to make allowances for the Catholic conditional baptism and not the LDS practice. Ultimately, it is not too important because if you judge LDS by Catholic rules or Catholics by LDS rules both religions fail miserably. I merely ask that LDS practices be given the same type of fair shake as Catholic practices.

Now, I want to return to a comment I made to you before. I will paste the entire comment at the end of this post, but I will add my additional point now.

It occurred to me before Servantâ??s post and her post points to this truth too.

The Catholic sacrament IS still quite valid without a full covenantal expression. In the case of the 4-6 year old, Catholic radio was quite clear that most like sacramental baptism did occur. The covenantal expressions are appendages to the sacrament, but not essentials (or so it seems to me).

Here is my original post and I still think it reasonable, but I think Dr. Reynoldâ??s position is even stronger in light of the MINIMUM that must be present for a valid Catholic baptismal sacrament.

I have defended Catholic baptism utilizing the fact that parents and god parents (and indeed the entire parish community) make a profession of faith on the behalf of the infant who cannot.

I think there is much room for the viewing of Catholic sacraments in a covenantal way, but it has been my experience that most formal theology emphasizes the communication of unmerited Grace from God to the sacrament recipient ALMOST to the exclusion of the covenantal nature of the sacrament. This is Dr. Reynoldâ??s point and IMO it is valid if not absolute.

I will acknowledge however that there is not within Catholicism a sacrament without human presence (and acceptance is not a term that would be condemned by too many theologians) and there is not within Mormonism a covenant without divine Grace.

Charity, TOm

I get your point, however I cannot reconcile the problem of a re-baptism being a "restoration of the original ordinance" and not a redo of the ordinance when that original baptism was REVOKED.

[Catholic Girl]

Again, you seem to be arguing that since you do not â??re-baptize everybody,â? Catholics are not subject to the criticism that they â??re-baptize.â? This seems like a position immune from logical exploration.

Again, is there any Catholic who agrees with Servantâ??s logic here?

Did you read the quotes and the article I linked?

LDS QUALIFY what you call re-baptism just like Catholics QUALIFY what they call conditional baptism. Why should I accept Catholic qualification of conditional baptism and not call you â??re-baptizersâ? if you will not accept LDS qualification of our restoration baptism but instead declare us â??re-baptizers?â?

You may be only imprecise or you may not understand Catholic theology.

The difference is that Catholic theology does not allow for MEN to revoke what Christ has given.

[Servant]

Again, you seem to be arguing that since you do not â??re-baptize everybody,â? Catholics are not subject to the criticism that they â??re-baptize.â? This seems like a position immune from logical exploration.

Again, is there any Catholic who agrees with Servantâ??s logic here?

catholic girl does...

The difference is that Catholic theology does not allow for MEN to revoke what Christ has given.

thank you catholic girl

tom, it seems that you are not really dont have a down set understanding of the Catholic Baptism...you are trying to make them similar...when in fact they are completly different...the only thing similar is the water...

Did you read the quotes and the article I linked?

LDS QUALIFY what you call re-baptism just like Catholics QUALIFY what they call conditional baptism. Why should I accept Catholic qualification of conditional baptism and not call you â??re-baptizersâ? if you will not accept LDS qualification of our restoration baptism but instead declare us â??re-baptizers?â?

i see that you are avoiding one main factor here....again I ask you since I was born and baptize mormon and left the church and if I come back I would have to get rebaptized....Catholic doesnt work like that...since Im baptized as Catholic if I leave the church and become something else and want to come back to a Catholic Church i would not have to be baptized again..see the DIFFERENCE NOW???

You may be only imprecise or you may not understand Catholic theology.

The truth is that â??an emergency matter of life or deathâ? is not NECESSARY to make a non-priestly conferred baptism valid.

Also, if you mean â??any Catholicâ? then you are again not correct. It is not ones communion with the Pope that makes the able to baptize in Catholic thought (at least not today).

If you mean â??any catholicâ? like a Protestant might use the term, then it is unusual for a Catholic to use â??catholicâ? in a Protestant way, but I think you could make your point.

ha ha ha I find this commical because you havent got the Catholic view correctly at all...

The facts IMO point to the truth of my claim.

â??Extreme Unctionâ? or â??Last Ritesâ? were very restricted before Vatican II such that they were almost regulated to ONLY be performed when imminent and certain death were to occur. After Vatican II, â??blessing of the sickâ? is less restricted.

I make the observation that this CHANGE / DEVELOPMENT moves Catholicism in practice closer to Mormonism.

If you need a Catholic to tell you this, I think you will wait a long time, but it IMO is rather obviously true to the marginally informed.

using your logic then if I say that the LDS believes in pink unicorns it must be true because a LDS did not say it...you are being silly

Servant, it is my best guess that you animus towards the CoJCoLDS results in you making statement that are virtually undefendable. I hope my â??going strongly after youâ? does not offend you. I just want to make it clear that your statements are tortured IMO.

going strong? well if you think by insulting and throwing up anything you like but cant back up your claim being "strong" then so be it lol...but......your argument alone is quite weak with errors in the Catholic belief...

[Catholic Girl]

catholic girl does...

thank you catholic girl

tom, it seems that you are not really dont have a down set understanding of the Catholic Baptism...you are trying to make them similar...when in fact they are completly different...the only thing similar is the water...

Well, in defense of TOm--that's not what his point was. It was that both religions have specific conditions where another baptism may be necessary and you can't use Catholic guidelines to determine LDS situations and vice versa.

However, his comparison was still inadequate. His and the Ensign's defense that a re-baptism is simply "a restoration of the original ordinance" and not a redo when that original LDS baptism was revoked as is the claim when an LDS member leaves voluntarily or involuntarily is not even in the same universe as a conditional Catholic baptism.

[saemo]

So, you are suggesting that since Catholics have some criteria from which to accept non-Catholic baptism or reject non-Catholic baptism they are not re-baptizers when they re-baptize a LDS or a JW.

But, LDS who utilize a criteria, but reject all baptism outside of valid priesthood authority are re-baptizers.

Are there any Catholics on this thread who would like to embrace Servant's ideas here?

I think you are not catching Servant's point...a Catholic who has had a valid baptism will never, ever, be re-baptized again for any reason. This is the point she is making regarding re-baptism for ex'd or resigned members. This is unheard of in Catholicism. You know, "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

I get your point as well though I think that you should point out the wording of a conditional baptism so that people are not confused in the intent.

Extreme Unction (the old name, I do not remember off the top of my head the new name).

In fact, Vatican II moved Extreme Unction ever so slightly closer to the LDS practice by removing SOME of the practical restrictions that previously focused this practice toward being a ONE time END-OF-LIFE activity (called Last Rites) rather than a blessing and anointing by authority.

I think that you almost have it. Extreme Unction is known by a few names. The CCC calls it the "Sacrament of Anointing the Sick". Anointing the sick did not come to be at Vatican II, though I agree that prior to Vatican II it was taught as a blessing of the sick who were near to death. This blessing did not imply that death was imminent, in fact, the purpose was to bring healing to the soul and in some cases brought healing to the body. Vatican II retrieved from TRADITION the practice of blessing those who are sick but are not near to death. It wasn't an attempt to copy LDS practice.

From the Council of Trent:

"It is also declared, that this unction is to be applied to the sick, but to those especially who lie in such danger as to seem to be about to depart this life: whence also it is called the sacrament of the departing. And if the sick should, after having received this unction, recover, they may again be aided by the succour of this sacrament"

I have defended Catholic baptism utilizing the fact that parents and god parents (and indeed the entire parish community) make a profession of faith on the behalf of the infant who cannot.

I think there is much room for the viewing of Catholic sacraments in a covenantal way, but it has been my experience that most formal theology emphasizes the communication of unmerited Grace from God to the sacrament recipient ALMOST to the exclusion of the covenantal nature of the sacrament.

This is not my experience. I clearly understood the baptismal vows before I was baptized. I understand my baptism in both ways, very clearly.

This is Dr. Reynold's point and IMO it is valid if not absolute.

I will acknowledge however that there is not within Catholicism a sacrament without human presence (and acceptance is not a term that would be condemned by too many theologians) and there is not within Mormonism a covenant without divine Grace.

I think that you and Reynold's are being too abstract. (Just my opinion.)