Infant Baptism

[3DOP]

Hi Tom,

I don't have much time right now. But I woke up wanting to give a word from a ways back where you asked if any Catholics agreed with Servant. I did not, but that wasn't saying much. It seemed like you were comparing Mormon ideas on baptism which I do not understand with Catholic ideas. It seems like maybe you resolved those differences a little anyway, but if you would like to restate your question I might be able to say that I actively disagreed. Otherwise, I didn't quite follow the argument enough to be qualified. Gotta go.

R

[Servant]

Servant,I wanted you to review the below and tell me if you think I understood the Catholic baptism.Now, to the post to which I am responding:I hope I understand, but if I do not, perhaps you can correct me.Catholic baptism is a Catholic sacrament. To be valid the baptizer must use the proper material (water), words (â??I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritâ?), and have the proper intent. The intent is complex in that it certainly includes an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Also, if the baptism is merely symbolic in the intent of the baptizer, then that can make the baptism invalid for lack of proper intent. There are possible other intent arguments. As a sacrament Catholic baptism is a vehicle of grace. It changes the recipient permanently. It is thus never re-done. It however is conditionally done and it is also done when Catholic believe there was an invalid baptism.

when Im speaking about Catholic baptism im speaking of how it is normally done..it is done correctly...the intent and all

what you said is correct...but what is the likely hood that it is done "wrong"? Catholics dont believe it to be just water....and the orthodox christians dont either...

the only case is if a lay person or a friend like a born again christian does it...then it would be not correct..you are right...

for the ones who think it is just water nothing more...why would they do it in an emergency case? that is the only time when someone is baptized when it is a matter of life or death...

If one not removed from the records of the CoJCoLDS through either request or excommunication requires a restoration of the baptismal sacrament, then I am mistaken in my understanding.I am still quite confident that if there was a restoration of the baptismal sacrament, the records would record the original baptism date rather than record that there was a complete redo.I see the change you made and I will use the changed post (it was fine before you changed it!).Charity, TOm

I was told I would get baptized again...from a LDS member...I think he works there not sure if he is the president or not but there is a stake house on my way to pick up my daughter...and I will pass the elders or lds members daily on the way to pick her up...cant help but not talk to them you know especially when they say hi first...they know my faith and all and this was one of the subjects...maybe that person is wrong who knows?

[soren]

I had never thought about the â??baby blessingâ? verses â??baptized memberâ? with respect to membership / covenantal nature.

I like something Cal said. There are different covenantal levels within the CoJCoLDS.

At the most, the blessed baby is a semi-covenantal member with a family and ward family committed to their growth in the gospel. They are covered by the atonement of Christ as are all babies before the age of accountability, but they are â??members of recordâ? in the CoJCoLDS too.

My point, however, is that D&C 20:70-71 rules out interpreting baby-blessing as a membership ritual, and that denying the babies can be "received into the Church" rules out all degrees of membership, a hard line being drawn at baptism in D&C 20:68. Because Matt 19:14 prohibits barring children from the Kingdom of Heaven, I maintain a direct contradiction exists. I have yet to see an explanation of infant membership that is able to satisfy the demands of both texts. Saying that children are members of record or that they participate in Church activities hardly answers for the definitive membership in the Kingdom opened to them in Matthew.

A question has occurred in my mind since this thread began. Is my daughter a member of record in the LDS Church? When she was born, my father-in-law attended her baptism. Knowing what he believes about that practice I considered it very gracious of him, and I allowed him to take my daughter to his church one Sunday and told him he could go ahead and bless her if he wanted. He was quite pleased to hear this. I did not participate in or even attend that service, but I have suddenly begun to wonder. Did I give them permission to enroll her and did they follow through on it? I had assumed on the basis of D&C 20 that they would not. It's no big deal, and I don't intend to make trouble by asking him, but I gotta wonder now.

I just read about a fourth of "Marriage and Concupiscence" and will read the rest later. I don't yet seem see anything to compel the idea that original sin is caused by concupiscence in the proper sense. He seems simple to be saying that like breeds like, and fallen flesh begets fallen flesh even if it has been redeemed. I may modify my position when I've read the whole thing, but that is my tentative stance.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I am still quite confident that if there was a restoration of the baptismal sacrament, the records would record the original baptism date rather than record that there was a complete redo.

[...]

TOm,

I hope you are well my brother (and many thanks to Rory and Soren for participating in this thread... always a pleasure reading your views). Now we just need David to pop in for it to be a real party.

You are correct regarding â??re-baptismâ? and membership records. According to Elder Ballard (September 1990 Ensign, pg 12) -- Emphasis mine:

After the rebaptism of a person who has not been endowed in the temple, his or her membership record shows the original baptism date, with no reference to the excommunication. A man who previously held the priesthood but was not endowed should generally be ordained to his former priesthood office. Again, his membership record will show his original ordination date, with no reference to excommunication.

A person who was endowed in the temple before being excommunicated may regain priesthood and/or temple blessings only through the ordinance of restoration of blessings. This is a special ordinance performed by a General Authority as directed by the First Presidency. Afterwards, a new membership record is created, showing the original dates of baptism, endowment, sealing, and (if applicable) priesthood ordinationsâ??with no reference to excommunication.

I think this makes it quite clear that the ordinance of rebaptism serves a different purpose than the initial baptism (why else would only the initial be reflected on what is essentially a temporal version of the â??Book of Lifeâ??).

-Stuart

[saemo]

I am actually moving some in my thoughts on the similarity between Catholic and LDS baptism. With Catholic Girl and Servant and many Catholic theologians speaking of Baptism as sacramental grace delivered one way from God to man, I wonder how much room there is for a genuine covenantal aspect for Baptism.Saemo, is it possible that only confirmation involves covenant and thus baptism in Catholicism is non-covenantal? I would find this HUGELY problematic, but it would enable me to agree much more with Servant's view.Charity, TOm

Tom, a couple of thoughts on this.

One towards the post where you listed the OT covenants. We believe Christ fulfilled all of the Old Covenants. In fact we believe Jesus when He said that HE is the New Covenant.

Thinking on this perhaps a large difference in beliefs between LDS and Catholic is that we believe that our baptism unites us with this New Covenant, who is Jesus Christ Himself. So while you have focused on the grace of baptism, which are many, and in a sense as supernatural or metaphysical as being one in the Body of Christ.

It is this uniting to Christ, to God, that our Covenant is most clearly seen.

From the CCC:

1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection. Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.

1270 "Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church" and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.

This is the Covenant we belong to, and like all Covenants with God, we have a responsibility that is made binding by our baptism.

[Calm]

If a person is baptized with wrong intent, it will cancel the consequences of original sin and mark their soul to make them members of the Christian community, but they will not be sanctified unto salvation until they repent of their wrong intentions.

Thank you. This is quite interesting as it is extremely different from the underlying assumptions/understandings of what is involved in LDS baptisms (and it makes it understandable why so many might have problems with baptism for the dead).

It would appear---please correct me if I'm wrong here---that what matters most in Catholic baptism in order for the baptism to be valid is the intent/heart of the person doing the baptism (but here it would appear that even if all that was done was correct form and understanding, the baptism would be valid even if the person doing it was under the impression it didn't count). This is opposite (up to a point) LDS belief where it is the intent/heart of the person receiving the baptism that is central. The baptism can be valid only if the person truly accepts it, whether at the time of the baptism or in the future, it is meaningless in all ways without that acceptance.

It is very interesting that they are perceived as members of the Christian community through the baptism no matter what their personal beliefs are in Christ or intent to follow him (though perhaps I am overstating what you meant by "mark[ing] their soul".

In some ways, this is similar to how LDS perceive what is happening with resurrection. All will receive this gift, the consequences of physical death (like original sin) are cancelled whether they want it or not (of course, no sacrament is required here, quite unlike baptism).

God is the true actor here, the human counterpart may not want to even be his representative but can still fulfill the role, the individual receiving the sacrament may intend it as a total mockery or be totally unaware yet the baptism is still valid and has a significant, eternal effect on the individual that can't be removed no matter what he does.

What does excommunication imply both in a mortal sense and an eternal one?

I am assuming that even with baptism, a person who chooses to live a horrible life and does not seek forgiveness may end up being damned, baptism only allows for the possibility of sanctification, it does not require it. Am I correct? Or is there a minimum advantage (such as avoiding hell) that can be expected?

[Calm]

for the ones who think it is just water nothing more...why would they do it in an emergency case?

Because they are asked to do so and are compassionate if unbelievers, yet are the only ones available?

I was told I would get baptized again...from a LDS member...I think he works there not sure if he is the president or not but there is a stake house on my way to pick up my daughter...and I will pass the elders or lds members daily on the way to pick her up...cant help but not talk to them you know especially when they say hi first...they know my faith and all and this was one of the subjects...maybe that person is wrong who knows?

They may have misunderstood your question or they may have misunderstood the situation or they may just be mistaken.

Attending another church (in the sense of being a member) is, I believe, grounds for excommunication. But unless the excommunication (or name removal) actually took place, a restoration of blessings does not take place.

[soren]

Thank you. This is quite interesting as it is extremely different from the underlying assumptions/understandings of what is involved in LDS baptisms (and it makes it understandable why so many might have problems with baptism for the dead).

It would appear---please correct me if I'm wrong here---that what matters most in Catholic baptism in order for the baptism to be valid is the intent/heart of the person doing the baptism (but here it would appear that even if all that was done was correct form and understanding, the baptism would be valid even if the person doing it was under the impression it didn't count). This is opposite (up to a point) LDS belief where it is the intent/heart of the person receiving the baptism that is central. The baptism can be valid only if the person truly accepts it, whether at the time of the baptism or in the future, it is meaningless in all ways without that acceptance.

It is very interesting that they are perceived as members of the Christian community through the baptism no matter what their personal beliefs are in Christ or intent to follow him (though perhaps I am overstating what you meant by "mark[ing] their soul".

In some ways, this is similar to how LDS perceive what is happening with resurrection. All will receive this gift, the consequences of physical death (like original sin) are cancelled whether they want it or not (of course, no sacrament is required here, quite unlike baptism).

God is the true actor here, the human counterpart may not want to even be his representative but can still fulfill the role, the individual receiving the sacrament may intend it as a total mockery or be totally unaware yet the baptism is still valid and has a significant, eternal effect on the individual that can't be removed no matter what he does.

What does excommunication imply both in a mortal sense and an eternal one?

I am assuming that even with baptism, a person who chooses to live a horrible life and does not seek forgiveness may end up being damned, baptism only allows for the possibility of sanctification, it does not require it. Am I correct? Or is there a minimum advantage (such as avoiding hell) that can be expected?

It is worth noting that in the Catholic Church, priests are not supposed to baptize people if they know they had the wrong intention. St. Augustine actually wrote a treatise called "On Faith and Works" against an group of Church members, whose identity is lost to history, who were baptizing people indiscriminately, on the assumption that baptism would save them if they did not repent, believing instead that moral instruction should follow baptism. Against this error Augustine quipped beautifully that "It says put off the old man and put on the new, not put on the new man and put off the old."

[Calm]

My point, however, is that D&C 20:70-71 rules out interpreting baby-blessing as a membership ritual, and that denying the babies can be "received into the Church" rules out all degrees of membership, a hard line being drawn at baptism in D&C 20:68. Because Matt 19:14 prohibits barring children from the Kingdom of Heaven, I maintain a direct contradiction exists. I have yet to see an explanation of infant membership that is able to satisfy the demands of both texts. Saying that children are members of record or that they participate in Church activities hardly answers for the definitive membership in the Kingdom opened to them in Matthew.

Let me see if I've got this right: The issue is not the perception who is and who isn't a member to you, but what you perceive as a contradiction--Matthew saying children are in the Kingdom of Heaven (and Moroni for that matter) and D&C saying they are not to be "received into the Church of Christ".

I believe this is resolved by the nonequivalence of "Church of Christ" in this context with the "Kingdom of Heaven".

One is speaking of the mortal organization that is the authorized representative of God on earth, the other (as is Moroni) is speaking of the eternal reality of Heaven.

See here (hopefully this will work) for a listing of "Church of Christ" in modern scripture: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=w...hecked&bw=1

And here is the listing for "Kingdom of Heaven": http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=w...hecked&bw=1

Note that even when the Church of Christ is already in existence, the Kingdom of Heaven is spoken of as a future event (at least for those on earth at that time), obviously (in LDS scripture) two different things though with overlap (the ultimate hope being all those in the Church of Christ on earth will be admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven along with many others including those who accept it in the spirit world).

From what I've read, there appears to be a closer direct connection between the mortal Church (often called the Body of Christ) and the eternal Church (which is probably just seen as those who exist in Heaven in oneness with God?) than exists among LDS. I think our 'borders' for the Kingdom of Heaven are more fluid when applied to mortality because there is a significant part of the next life (post death, prejudgment) that we include in what we describe as a time of probation.

---

It occurs to me that Catholics may have the same perceived issues--if unbaptized infants are not automatically admitted into the Body of Christ/Church/Kingdom of Heaven in Catholic doctrine (this is unknown and left up to God), how do you resolve this issue? "Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ" and "1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation."--http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

[Calm]

I've been reading the Catechism on Baptism and several questions occur to me.

One is why wait to baptize anyone? If baptism is merely the beginning of faith, why not baptize anyone and teach them following the baptism as you do infants?

"1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism": This seems to make a distinction between the natural man (the fallen nature) referred to by soren above as the result of Adam's sin and "original sin". I am now confused again by what is "original sin" just when I thought soren had cleared it all up for me with his discourse (very illuminating) on the supernature vs. nature.

And last, are unbaptized children still not allowed to be buried in consecrated ground? If so, what is the reasoning? If not, what is the reasoning for the change?

"1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and co-heir with him,69 and a temple of the Holy Spirit."

This is an issue to me for baptisms of those who are not serious about being baptized, but are either going through the motions or doing it for a joke or to gain acceptance in order to manipulate others (or any number of other sinful reasons) as I do not see the godly rationale in total purification of not only the sins 'inherited' from others, but the sins one has consciously chosen and continues to choose after baptism. I can understand it for someone's whose intent is incomplete, but not for someone whose intent is a complete opposite of faith.

[Servant]

Because they are asked to do so and are compassionate if unbelievers, yet are the only ones available?

They may have misunderstood your question or they may have misunderstood the situation or they may just be mistaken.

by who? the one getting baptized? suppose that person was a baby? more than likely it would be the ones available...if it is someone other than the priest doing it...who cant get there on time..yes

Attending another church (in the sense of being a member) is, I believe, grounds for excommunication. But unless the excommunication (or name removal) actually took place, a restoration of blessings does not take place.

well in order for that I would have to call and say this or that...but if i did then i would have to acknowledge that the lds church to be true....why would i go out of my way to call to get "excommunicated" or have a name removal...if i dont believe in the slightest that the church is even true? I would have to think it is true to some degree to even do that...you know? to me it doesnt matter if my name is still on the lds records or not because I dont believe it to be true at all...so my name being on the records means nothing to me...it would have to mean something if i had my name removed...right?

I dont think normally people who leave the church because they dont find it to be true to go to that church and say "hey im leaving because I dont think it is true so remove my name"...instead they just leave and care less if their name is there or not because they dont believe the church to be true...

i dont know that is just my take on it...maybe others do go out of their way and have their name removed but is this always the case?

does this mean im still a "mormon" in the eyes of the lds church?

[Calm]

well in order for that I would have to call and say this or that...but if i did then i would have to acknowledge that the lds church to be true....why would i go out of my way to call to get "excommunicated" or have a name removal...if i dont believe in the slightest that the church is even true? I would have to think it is true to some degree to even do that...you know? to me it doesnt matter if my name is still on the lds records or not because I dont believe it to be true at all...so my name being on the records means nothing to me...it would have to mean something if i had my name removed...right?

In the sense that you don't want to be associated with the organization, yes....I don't see the reasoning that acceptance that your name is on its records somewhere and it bothers you that therefore you must believe it's true anymore than I see a woman wanting to get her maiden name back after a divorce means she still feels the marriage is valid or she still loves the guy.

[Calm]

does this mean im still a "mormon" in the eyes of the lds church?

Most who leave the Church don't make the effort from what I've seen, either because they still feel emotional or spiritual attachment in some way (when asked if they want to remove it, they refuse) or because it just doesn't mean enough and they don't care if the Church sees them as a member or not.....and yes, if you are on record as a member, you will be considered a member and a responsibility in some form of your local bishop if he learns of your existence---even if all that amounts to is an attempt to check up on you in cases of disaster, a yearly contact of (hopefully)goodwill to see how you are doing and if the Church can do anything for you, etc. If a member's location is not known, there is likely someone somewhere attempting to track them down. Extensive resources are committed to this. The Church takes seriously its covenant to care for those of its community no matter what their current opinion of that covenant is.

[saemo]

I've been reading the Catechism on Baptism and several questions occur to me.

One is why wait to baptize anyone? If baptism is merely the beginning of faith, why not baptize anyone and teach them following the baptism as you do infants?

Your answer is in the CCC. Faith is required. For infants, the faith of the parents and godparents, for an adult, their own faith.

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.⁵⁴ But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.⁵⁵ Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).⁵⁶ The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

"1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism": This seems to make a distinction between the natural man (the fallen nature) referred to by soren above as the result of Adam's sin and "original sin". I am now confused again by what is "original sin" just when I thought soren had cleared it all up for me with his discourse (very illuminating) on the supernature vs. nature.

Our fallen nature is a result of original sin.

And last, are unbaptized children still not allowed to be buried in consecrated ground? If so, what is the reasoning? If not, what is the reasoning for the change?

This one I don't know. I'll have to search.

"1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and co-heir with him,69 and a temple of the Holy Spirit."

This is an issue to me for baptisms of those who are not serious about being baptized, but are either going through the motions or doing it for a joke or to gain acceptance in order to manipulate others (or any number of other sinful reasons) as I do not see the godly rationale in total purification of not only the sins 'inherited' from others, but the sins one has consciously chosen and continues to choose after baptism. I can understand it for someone's whose intent is incomplete, but not for someone whose intent is a complete opposite of faith.

Sin can separate us from what God gives us. And so we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession).

[saemo]

Most who leave the Church don't make the effort from what I've seen, either because they still feel emotional or spiritual attachment in some way (when asked if they want to remove it, they refuse) or because it just doesn't mean enough and they don't care if the Church sees them as a member or not.....and yes, if you are on record as a member, you will be considered a member and a responsibility in some form of your local bishop if he learns of your existence---even if all that amounts to is an attempt to check up on you in cases of disaster, a yearly contact of (hopefully)goodwill to see how you are doing and if the Church can do anything for you, etc. If a member's location is not known, there is likely someone somewhere attempting to track them down. Extensive resources are committed to this. The Church takes seriously its covenant to care for those of its community no matter what their current opinion of that covenant is.

My family makes sure my records follow me around. For the most part "the Mormons" leave me alone. I get a monthly letter from a total stranger (that rotates between people) who write me like we've been friends for decades. No harm, but I find it amusing.

[saemo]

And last, are unbaptized children still not allowed to be buried in consecrated ground? If so, what is the reasoning? If not, what is the reasoning for the change?

From the Code of Canon Law:

[Calm]

Your answer is in the CCC. Faith is required. For infants, the faith of the parents and godparents, for an adult, their own faith.

Understood, but why the need to go through significant education first for older seekers if they have enough faith to ask for the baptism in the first place?

[Calm]

Our fallen nature is a result of original sin.

That is not how I understood soren's explanation (please correct me, soren, if I get this wrong). Our fallen nature was Adam's original/natural/untouched by God state, he fell from the height that God raised him to (as opposed to created in). Adam's fallen state and thus man's state is our "natural man".

The original sin appeared from what soren said to be the removal of the glorification that God blessed Adam and Eve with, but it seems the consequences are one and the same---man's natural man/fallen state.

It would seem to me to be more appropriate to say that man has lost the 'taint' of glorification that God blessed Adam with rather than having been "tainted" with original sin which implies a positive presence---and both soren and DOP stated the result of original sin is a pure negative, an absence.

A few clarifying questions (feel free to add additional info):

Is "original sin" the act of Adam sinning against God? If so, is that the 'pure negative' (though I don't see how an action can be a negative...lack of action maybe) or is it the result of the action that is the negative (the withdrawal of God's presence)?

[Calm]

From the Code of Canon Law:

[saemo]

Understood, but why the need to go through significant education first for older seekers if they have enough faith to ask for the baptism in the first place?

The catechumenate process has existed since the early Church. The early Church had two types of converts, Jews and pagans.

Faith is required, but a very specific faith. Faith that Jesus Christ is the Christ, the anointed one, who suffered, died and rose again on the third day, for our sins and our salvation.

You are accustomed to converting those who have already been converted.

But, your question has been asked by many, including Christians who wished to be baptized into the Catholic Church. Their faith exists.

As a person who went through the process, understanding grows and faith does as well. I would not have skipped the catechumenate process. It is really, quite amazing, if not miraculous.

[Calm]

Sin can separate us from what God gives us. And so we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession).

I realize that we are dealing with the spiritual and trying to give it concrete form is probably inherently inappropriate, but it will be easier for me to understand if I attach a 'step by step' process.

So feel free to tell me this is a mystery or something else if my efforts are more confusing.

It appears to me that what baptism does in Catholic doctrine is create a potential state--the soul is prepared to receive God by a cleansing (purification of sins) as well as some fundamental alteration that allows the natural to interact with the supernatural (which is what becoming part of the Body of Christ allows for). What follows is either acceptance and a continual process of seeking God in order to maintain the purified state (since the nature that commits the sins has not been removed but only joined with the supernature state, sins will continue) and eventually overcome the natural man, in effective removing it from ourselves through God's grace.

Someone who is baptized without intent or with evil intent still has that potential and the supernature within him, he is just not making use of them (or not communing/communicating with God). For him to make use of them at sometime in the future, he must use the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Am I close?

[Calm]

The catechumenate process has existed since the early Church. The early Church had two types of converts, Jews and pagans.

Faith is required, but a very specific faith. Faith that Jesus Christ is the Christ, the anointed one, who suffered, died and rose again on the third day, for our sins and our salvation.

You are accustomed to converting those who have already been converted.

But, your question has been asked by many, including Christians who wished to be baptized into the Catholic Church. Their faith exists.

As a person who went through the process, understanding grows and faith does as well. I would not have skipped the catechumenate process. It is really, quite amazing, if not miraculous.

So it would appear that it is not necessary, but merely desirable.

Are you not converting the converted if they have this correct understanding and this correct faith, but have not been baptized?

[Servant]

Most who leave the Church don't make the effort from what I've seen, either because they still feel emotional or spiritual attachment in some way (when asked if they want to remove it, they refuse) or because it just doesn't mean enough and they don't care if the Church sees them as a member or not.....and yes, if you are on record as a member, you will be considered a member and a responsibility in some form of your local bishop if he learns of your existence---even if all that amounts to is an attempt to check up on you in cases of disaster, a yearly contact of (hopefully)goodwill to see how you are doing and if the Church can do anything for you, etc. If a member's location is not known, there is likely someone somewhere attempting to track them down. Extensive resources are committed to this. The Church takes seriously its covenant to care for those of its community no matter what their current opinion of that covenant is.

really? well they are not trying hard enough...im listed in the phone book with the same name and all...funny...but there is no "emotional or spiritual" attachment with me...I can care less if they have my name on there or not...it doesnt matter what they consider me as...for me and God goes...Im not a mormon...by spirit or by emotional or by nothing...zip....zelch...oh well...

[Servant]

In the sense that you don't want to be associated with the organization, yes....I don't see the reasoning that acceptance that your name is on its records somewhere and it bothers you that therefore you must believe it's true anymore than I see a woman wanting to get her maiden name back after a divorce means she still feels the marriage is valid or she still loves the guy.

really? i dont see it that way...not at all....

[saemo]

So it would appear that it is not necessary, but merely desirable.

Are you not converting the converted if they have this correct understanding and this correct faith, but have not been baptized?

Well, since the Catholic Church has said it is necessary, it makes it necessary.

The catechumenate process as I said has existed since day one. However, for a time (centuries) it was not used. Vatican II retrieved the tradition. I believe it was a wise, if not divinely guided decision. I meet so many Catholics who do not know their faith. This makes people prone to leaving Catholicism. And in some areas of the world, superstition has taken root. Proper understanding, which comes through education, is required to combat both.