Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[cdowis]

Knowiedge of what a proper baptism involves is all it takes to see which church is the true church of Jesus Christ, and without that a person can't even see the kingdom of God.

Ahem, the RCC does not baptize? They have the authority handed down from Christ thru Peter, just as the LDS church claims.

[cdowis]

But it might come as a surprise that I think LDS have have dealt adequately with the argument many Catholics present for understanding Mt. 16 to say that the Church will never apostasize. Without proving us certainly wrong, you can offer reasonable alternatives. I have heard LDS alternatives that neutralize, if you will, the Catholic argument. That is why Mt. 16 carries only a little weight for me. Of course, admitting this as a Catholic, it is because the arguments presented by others against the claims of the Catholic Church appear to be similarly susceptible to "neutralization".

I missed that discussion, but I will take your word for it.

[3DOP]

I missed that discussion, but I will take your word for it.

Fair enough. Of course I think our interpretation is better but surely you have heard the one about how as Christ died so did the Church, as Christ rose so the Church...the gates of hell keeping neither down?

Maybe I have been too generous? Why does that not work for an LDS interpretation of Mt. 16? (For those trying to follow...verse 18, Douay-Rheims Catholic)

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This seems more difficult:

and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

---Mt. 28:20

But if I am not mistaken...this can be translated "even to the end of the age". This could mean, "until the apostasy."

Anyway...I thought I always remembered you as being one of the least impressed with Catholic arguments. If my memory is faulty, accept my apologies. In either case, I appreciate your present willingness to acknowledge the strengths I recognize. God bless.

3DOP

Edited April 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Ahem, the RCC does not baptize? They have the authority handed down from Christ thru Peter, just as the LDS church claims.

Again cdowis...much appreciated. I hope I don't seem like I am trying to be mr. smarty pants contradicting your willingness to appreciate Catholic claims. I am terribly pleased with your good will here. But you might as well know these things if you don't already.

Not AS the LDS Church claims. We hold that the minister of baptism may be a Jew, an heretic, even an atheist...if they have "the intention to do what the Church does." This intention is interpreted very loosely. It does not require knowledge of Catholic doctrine. The minister, even without true faith of their own, merely has to be willing to cooperate with the desire of one requesting baptism and use the proper form and matter.

This is why as a Catholic, I think at least some LDS baptisms are arguably valid. LDS could never argue reasonably that Catholic baptisms are valid because LDS take a narrower view of who qualifies as the minister of baptism. I think our broad view of the minister of baptism is very defensible and I would be willing to take some time to try to explain why if anyone was interested. But it is important to note that while Catholics, except in emergency, restrict licit baptism to the priest as minister, we allow that illicit baptisms are ofttimes valid.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited April 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[cdowis]

Fair enough. Of course I think our interpretation is better but surely you have heard the one about how as Christ died so did the Church, as Christ rose so the Church...the gates of hell keeping neither down?

Of course, I used that argument decades ago.

Anyway...I thought I always remembered you as being one of the least impressed with Catholic arguments. If my memory is faulty, accept my apologies. In either case, I appreciate your present willingness to acknowledge the strengths I recognize. God bless.

The reasoning needs to be selective and subtle, not a meat clever. LDS have a unique set of arguments, unavailable to others. Basically either the LDS or the RCC is true, and I have alot of respect for that church.

[cdowis]

Again cdowis...much appreciated. I hope I don't seem like I am trying to be mr. smarty pants contradicting your willingness to appreciate Catholic claims. I am terribly pleased with your good will here. But you might as well know these things if you don't already.

Not AS the LDS Church claims. We hold that the minister of baptism may be a Jew, an heretic, even an atheist...if they have "the intention to do what the Church does." This intention is interpreted very loosely. It does not require knowledge of Catholic doctrine. The minister, even without true faith of their own, merely has to be willing to cooperate with the desire of one requesting baptism and use the proper form and matter.

You are mistaken. Specifically, LDS baptism is not recognized. There are limits.

[3DOP]

You are mistaken. Specifically, LDS baptism is not recognized. There are limits.

cdowis.

I agree there are limits.

But non-recognition does not equal non-validity. The Catholic Church has only issued a fallible protocol not an infallible definition about LDS baptisms. As a faithful Catholic, I am free to say that the former policy, which received LDS converts through conditional baptism was a better policy than the latter. The most recent policy appears to be based on an assumption of a uniform doctrinal agreement shared by every LDS minister of baptism that is incompatible with Catholic schools of thought regarding the Trinity. I admit that perhaps many LDS baptisms are invalid. But there are some LDS ministers of baptism who accept what is called the Social Trinity, which is much closer to our own than some Protestant understandings of the Trinity whose baptisms are accepted unconditionally. I am more inclined to believe that these LDS baptisms are valid, than that the Protestant baptisms are invalid. Either way, my Church has exercised no infallible charism regarding this question and that leaves me free to question the current policy.

Regards,

Mr. Liberal Catholic, aka 3DOP

[Ahab]

Ahem, the RCC does not baptize?

Not properly, because they don't have anyone properly qualified to baptize.

They have the authority handed down from Christ thru Peter, just as the LDS church claims.

They claim to have what we have, but the fact that they claim it doesn't mean they have it.

[Ahab]

Again cdowis...much appreciated. I hope I don't seem like I am trying to be mr. smarty pants contradicting your willingness to appreciate Catholic claims. I am terribly pleased with your good will here. But you might as well know these things if you don't already.

Not AS the LDS Church claims. We hold that the minister of baptism may be a Jew, an heretic, even an atheist...if they have "the intention to do what the Church does." This intention is interpreted very loosely. It does not require knowledge of Catholic doctrine. The minister, even without true faith of their own, merely has to be willing to cooperate with the desire of one requesting baptism and use the proper form and matter.

This is why as a Catholic, I think at least some LDS baptisms are arguably valid. LDS could never argue reasonably that Catholic baptisms are valid because LDS take a narrower view of who qualifies as the minister of baptism. I think our broad view of the minister of baptism is very defensible and I would be willing to take some time to try to explain why if anyone was interested. But it is important to note that while Catholics, except in emergency, restrict licit baptism to the priest as minister, we allow that illicit baptisms are ofttimes valid.

Regards,

3DOP

If good intentions were enough you would have a good point, but they're not. A man must be authorized to act in God's name and even then the man must do as God has instructed, without any unauthorized deviations.

I'm pretty sure that whoever came up with the idea of sprinkling as an acceptable substitute was thinking it would still be as good with God, and even when someone follows the proper procedures they still need to be an authorized minister otherwise their service is not in the service of God.

Kinda like how anyone seeing someone speeding on a highway might think they can pull a car over for speeding, maybe even going to the trouble of getting a flashing red light to put on their car to make their car look more like an authorized police car. Or like how anyone may want to administer in a marriage ceremony for a couple while knowing exactly what should be said. Without the proper authority it's not a valid ordinance, even if the only thing lacking is the proper authority. The proper authority, itself, is very important and crucial.

[Tacenda]

If good intentions were enough you would have a good point, but they're not. A man must be authorized to act in God's name and even then the man must do as God has instructed, without any unauthorized deviations.

I'm pretty sure that whoever came up with the idea of sprinkling as an acceptable substitute was thinking it would still be as good with God, and even when someone follows the proper procedures they still need to be an authorized minister otherwise their service is not in the service of God.

Kinda like how anyone seeing someone speeding on a highway might think they can pull a car over for speeding, maybe even going to the trouble of getting a flashing red light to put on their car to make their car look more like an authorized police car. Or like how anyone may want to administer in a marriage ceremony for a couple while knowing exactly what should be said. Without the proper authority it's not a valid ordinance, even if the only thing lacking is the proper authority. The proper authority, itself, is very important and crucial.

I think when they say baptized by water they mean the water in the womb, silly as it sounds. And then as they say, you need to be born again. And yes indeed, get baptized by immersion as Jesus did as a showing of your dedication and faith. Edited April 16, 2013 by Tacenda

[Ahab]

I think when they say baptized by water they mean the water in the womb, silly as it sounds. And then as they say, you need to be born again. And yes indeed, get baptized by immersion as Jesus did as a showing of your dedication and faith.

A proper baptism also includes being baptized by the Holy Spirit, which happens after someone with the proper authority places his hands on the head of someone who has been baptized in water and given the command to receive the Holy Ghost.

[cdowis]

Not properly, because they don't have anyone properly qualified to baptize.

They claim to have what we have, but the fact that they claim it doesn't mean they have it.

Are you familiar with "argument by tautology"? I think I proved my point.

[cdowis]

If good intentions were enough you would have a good point, but they're not. A man must be authorized to act in God's name and even then the man must do as God has instructed, without any unauthorized deviations.

Perhaps they were authorized to make deviations.

I'm pretty sure that whoever came up with the idea of sprinkling as an acceptable substitute was thinking it would still be as good with God, and even when someone follows the proper procedures they still need to be an authorized minister otherwise their service is not in the service of God.

OK, and the RCC does not have the authority? You got the cart before the horse.

Kinda like how anyone seeing someone speeding on a highway might think they can pull a car over for speeding, maybe even going to the trouble of getting a flashing red light to put on their car to make their car look more like an authorized police car. Or like how anyone may want to administer in a marriage ceremony for a couple while knowing exactly what should be said. Without the proper authority it's not a valid ordinance, even if the only thing lacking is the proper authority. The proper authority, itself, is very important and crucial.

OK, so the RCC claims that authority

[Ahab]

Are you familiar with "argument by tautology"? I think I proved my point.

You can think what you want.