Catholic Question

[Calm]

 

Oddly enough, I guess I am defending cdowis a little. I don't see why the modern Church can be so confident that every LDS baptism is invalid. Nor do I see how the modern Church can be so confident that ever Protestant baptism (using the proper form) is valid.

 

3DOP

Yes, I remember a number of conversations discussing the variations between Catholic and LDS baptism with you.  Pleasant days.  

 

I'm thinking whether or not you are actually defending him would depend on the point he was trying to make by claiming that all baptisms save LDS were acceptable in the Catholic Church.  Since he didn't hang around long enough to explain what difference that made, I guess we will never know.

[Ran]

Oddly enough, I guess I am defending cdowis a little. I don't see why the modern Church can be so confident that every LDS baptism is invalid. Nor do I see how the modern Church can be so confident that ever Protestant baptism (using the proper form) is valid.

 

I wonder if the CDF's determination applies to the ordinary context of LDS baptismal services that you'd find in a ward, in which the one baptizing—a LDS priesthood holder—is presumed to intend to do what the LDS Church does when the LDS Church baptizes. Such a context may give a reason for the Catholic Church to exclude presumption that the LDS priesthood holder intends, even implicitly, to do what the Catholic Church does when the Catholic Church baptizes.

There may be case-by-case situations that a diocese might investigate and maybe even forward to the CDF for clarification. Eg. an Evangelical seeking full communion in the Catholic Church—born to Catholic parents who instructed the hospital to baptize their newborn in case of an emergency, and the danger of imminent death led to this inquirer's baptism at the hands of a LDS nurse.

[ChristKnight]

Hey cal,

 

Just got home. I am ready for some fun at MD&DB! I've been out of town a couple of days or would have been participating.

 

As you may know, I think it is possible that from a Catholic perspective, some LDS baptisms are valid. The reason is that unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons use the proper form. If I am not mistaken, you invoke the Trinity, saying something like, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..." The problem with LDS baptisms is not the form but, form our perspective, a defective understanding of the Names being invoked. We can see this whenever we have a thread on the Trinity. I'll argue that your view is more compatible with ours than most LDS think. But most Mormons don't like the idea. I say most Mormons, not all.

 

Did you know that a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist can validly baptize if they invoke the names of the Person of the Blessed Trinity, with the intention of doing it on behalf of someone wanting true, Catholic, baptism, even though the minister is disbelieving? I do believe that many LDS baptisms are invalidated because of a positive rejection of the Catholic view of the Trinity. On the other hand, there are some who hold to a view called the Social Trinity which seems to me to be very close to our view, and there are others who, like a Hindu, might not be thinking much about it, just wanting to get "the job done". One who is not "doctrinaire" might be able to baptise.

 

In light of my opinion that some LDS baptisms might be valid in the way a Hindu baptism might or as a Social Trinitarian might baptise, I think the Church would be better served to have stayed with the older rule, which held that because the former baptism might be valid, conditional baptism is now in order. In the traditional circles that I travel in, it is customary to give conditional baptism to most converts. I was baptized by a Baptist. I have been conditionally baptized by a Catholic priest.

 

My objection to the current policy of the Catholic Church is twofold:

 

1) The Church should continue to conditionally baptise Protestant converts.

2) The Church should continue to conditionally baptise LDS converts.

 

Conditional baptism uses a form which says in effect, "If you are not baptised, I baptise thee..." This because we can only be baptised once according to the Catholic faith. Baptism leaves a permanent character on the soul that will never be removed. A baptised person can fall from grace and still go to Hell. (What a tragedy.) But the remedy for a fall from grace after baptism, cannot be another baptism.

 

Oddly enough, I guess I am defending cdowis a little. I don't see why the modern Church can be so confident that every LDS baptism is invalid. Nor do I see how the modern Church can be so confident that ever Protestant baptism (using the proper form) is valid.

 

3DOP

 

Yes, I think that conditional baptisms for all converts to Catholicism would make the most sense (actually, I've always thought that the LDS view of this makes the most sense, coupled with the whole "one true church" view).  I also think that the Orthodox view  makes more sense to me than the Catholic, where they believe that the sacramental mysteries are present in the "true Church", because God has said so, but they don't know whether or not they are present elsewhere, so performing chrismation or baptism for converts "makes up" for anything deficient in the previous sacraments.  The Catholic view of valid baptisms, confirmations, Eucharist, etc in schismatic (i.e. Orthodox) and other churches doesn't really make sense to me.  Ah well.

 

Cdowis seemed to claim that the baptisms of all other churches are accepted, except for LDS.  I don't believe you're saying that (and we see from the lists Ran provided that there are many other churches whose baptisms are not accepted as valid...who knew the Armenian Apostolic Church was one??  I guess it's because of their understanding of the Trinity, no matter how ancient it is).

[boulder257]

Bump for CFR

 

Once again I have to display my ignorance, but what is "CFR?"

[3DOP]

Once again I have to display my ignorance, but what is "CFR?"

Hi boulder. Glory in not knowing!

 

Of course not everyone who knows are nerds of course, but there is a threshold beyond which there is no return. Try to limit the number of those things, whatever they are called, that you understand. So you really want to know? Okay. You asked for it. One step closer to nerdsville..."CFR" means "Call For References".

 

JJKO,

 

3DOP

 

Now was that worth it, I ask you?  

[aspire]

Last year I went through RICA at one if Bosie's local Catholic Church. RICA is the equivelant to LDS missionary lessons, but it is a 9 month long process. The RCC doesn't except LDS baptisms, and will only except other demolitions baptisms if the baptisms can be proven. I don't understand the offence that the RCC doesn't except LDS baptisms, when the LDS Church doesn't except any denomations baptisms but their own.

[Calm]

I don't find any offence in it either.

There are those who claim that Catholics see us as non Christians and that is why they refuse the validity of our baptism, but as been explained above that is not the motivation, though it possibly means in general we are not the body of Christ...though now I am worrying if this is just the RCC or also faiths they see as in schism with them (if I remember the term correctly).

[Damien the Leper]

Though I theologically lean Roman, I don't, like Rory said, believe that all LDS baptisms are invalid. I'm not sure I could in good conscience believe so.

However, I do not believe the LDS church is "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" in any sense of the phrase. But that is not to be misunderstood as an attack on the LDS church.

[aspire]

It was explained to me the RCC doesn't except the LDS baptism because of the way we understand the Holy Trinity the same way as the RCC and most other Christian denomations. Which is true. We believe in three individuals with one purpous, and the RCC see it as three in one. Somatics to me.

[Bart Burk]

It was explained to me the RCC doesn't except the LDS baptism because of the way we understand the Holy Trinity the same way as the RCC and most other Christian denomations. Which is true. We believe in three individuals with one purpous, and the RCC see it as three in one. Somatics to me.

I definitely see it as semantics to some extent.  I believe the view of the Godhead in both churches is closer than either side is willing to admit up until the point where LDS believe that God descended from other Gods.  That's the main problem.

[Damien the Leper]

I definitely see it as semantics to some extent.  I believe the view of the Godhead in both churches is closer than either side is willing to admit up until the point where LDS believe that God descended from other Gods.  That's the main problem.

I'm not aware that God having a father or this eternal pedigree ideology is official doctrine. The assertions made in the KFS are simply ideas and nothing more.

[Calm]

I think it is more the gap between the created and the Creator that is problematic to my view....Catholic have one as man is a fully created being, LDS don't as man is an eternal being who has existed along side God though God has created parts or us...given us a spirit body and created a world on which we can gain a physical body from earthly parents.

[Bart Burk]

I'm not aware that God having a father or this eternal pedigree ideology is official doctrine. The assertions made in the KFS are simply ideas and nothing more.

Then I will amend my remarks to say that "most LDS believe that God descended from other Gods."     I would also say that even if the LDS think there is a possibility that God had a Father that it would be a problem.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bart Burk

[why me]

I don't believe that the catholic church considers the lds church christian. So, they would not recognize lds baptisms. LIkewise for the JWs, they would not be considered christian either. I have had priests tell me that the mormons are not christians.

[Bart Burk]

I don't believe that the catholic church considers the lds church christian. So, they would not recognize lds baptisms. LIkewise for the JWs, they would not be considered christian either. I have had priests tell me that the mormons are not christians.

My understanding is the Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of the churches descended from the Reorganization since these groups are generally Trinitarian in doctrine.  A good example is the article on page 19 of The Hastening Times of the Remnant Church:

 

http://www.theremnantchurch.com/Library/HTimes/Issue54Hasteningtimes.pdf  

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bart Burk

[3DOP]

I don't believe that the catholic church considers the lds church christian. So, they would not recognize lds baptisms. LIkewise for the JWs, they would not be considered christian either. I have had priests tell me that the mormons are not christians.

 

Hi why me,

 

Priests that understand Mormonism say this? I am sorry to say this but it really isn't a priest's calling to be an expert on this subject. Like many others he might be misinformed. It is just not fair to say what the Catholic Church considers about Latter-day Saints. Think about it. Your faith is misunderstood in America where it was born and thrives. I'll bet the priests you talked to were from North America. Do you think your faith is better known in Europe, Asia, and Africa where the Catholic Church also has roots? Do you think any pope has ever met a Mormon? I think it likely that none ever have.

 

I suggest that the question of whether Mormons are Christian has not been considered in any very definite manner by the Catholic Church. A decision which I consider unwise has been made about the baptism of LDS converts. That is all. I really don't think the Church has made any effort to say one way or the other about whether you may be considered Christian. To do so would require a precise definition of the meaning of "Christian". According to some definitions you are certainly and undeniably Christian. The Church has no ill will toward anybody and there is no reason for the Church to alienate Mormons by declaring that under no sense of the word, are Mormons Christian. That would be so wrong in so many ways. It would take a Council or a papal decree for that to happen.

 

As I have said, I think the Catholic Church has recently erred two fold, first, in its acceptance of every Protestant baptism (according to the proper form) and second, in its rejection of every LDS baptism (according to the proper form). Assuredly I agree with the Church that many more Protestant baptisms are valid in comparison to LDS baptisms. But the point is that there is reason for doubt about both. Not knowing, the most prudent course is to baptize converts conditionally. This is what the Church used to do with regards to both Protestants and Mormons. This shows the regard and respect for the possibility of a baptism that has occurred, while removing any doubt from the mind of the convert.  

 

3DOP

 

PS: I am 95% sure I was validly baptized as a Protestant. Am I glad that I cleared up the 5% with a conditional. You bet!    

Edited September 7, 2013 by 3DOP

[Calm]

I get the idea that some, both lds and Catholic...and others, believe that because the lds baptism is rejected that by definition that means the lds faith itself is not a Christian one.

I can't remember what, if there is one, specific technical Catholic definition of Christian exists...if it is defined as belonging to the body of Christ or not, but it seems to me that it can't just hang on whether or not one is baptised because the Catholic faith recognises the possibility of baptism by desire iirc where one is consider having been given the sacrament due to one's faith when one has been prevented in some way from a physical baptism...

Also...less certain on this...a baptism by blood in the sense of being martyred for one's faith though not having been able to have the physical sacrament aspect.

Sorry for not giving citations, at the moment I am lying in a rollaway bed at a sleep centre keeping my daughter company for a sleep study and doing research on an iPad just doesn't work for me. If 3DOP will correct me if I am wrong...or another Catholic, I would appreciate it.

[aspire]

So what if the RCC doesn't except LDS baptisms! The LDS Church doesn't believe that any other church on this earth except the LDS has the authority to baptize, therefore all other baptisms are null and void. The RCC doesn't think we are Christian because we don't understand the Holy Trinity as they do, but we (LDS) don't think they have the authority for any saving ordnances.

By the way if any of the above is untrue, please correct me. Personally I don't agree with the LDS' church which was why I was in the RICA in the first place. In RICA I gained even more respect for the RCC than I ever had before, but no I did not convert to the RCC. I'm still LDS.

[Bart Burk]

So what if the RCC doesn't except LDS baptisms! The LDS Church doesn't believe that any other church on this earth except the LDS has the authority to baptize, therefore all other baptisms are null and void. The RCC doesn't think we are Christian because we don't understand the Holy Trinity as they do, but we (LDS) don't think they have the authority for any saving ordnances.

By the way if any of the above is untrue, please correct me. Personally I don't agree with the LDS' church which was why I was in the RICA in the first place. In RICA I gained even more respect for the RCC than I ever had before, but no I did not convert to the RCC. I'm still LDS.

It is RCIA -- Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.

[Yirgacheffe]

That is a nasty place over there and 3 has offered a reliable explanation that motivates them. They are at least misguided and at worst choosing evil rather than preach the redeeming joy of the Savior.

I have concluded that if you really want to know about Catholicism just read and get to know some individual Catholic people. We have a lot in common and my relationships are invaluable to me.

I've looked around that site the past couple of days reading posts in different areas and I don't see it as bad as you all have cracked it up to be.  Adding it up quickly there are over 10 million posts there and very few have anything to do with the LDS church.  Even in the area for non-Catholics and the apologetics area I see very little LDS discussion.  There are more posts in the social area than in the non-Catholic area.  And Catholic life has the most posts of all. 

 

The couple of posts I did see on LDS didn't seem all that awful either, a bit of attitude towards LDS yes but then I've gotten the same thing from LDS missionaries toward my beliefs (or rather lack of). 

[aspire]

It is RCIA -- Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.

Yes. Loved it.

[savedbygrace]

Erin,

 

What do you mean "this board"? It seems unclear whether you are referencing MD&DB or Catholic Answers. I almost spoke up when why me mentioned "this board's counterpart". I don't see Catholic Answers as "this board's counterpart". Catholic Answers is a business. It is non-profit but it provides a significant income to a handful of professional apologists who regularly beg for money. The problem with professional apologetics is that the more one's continuing livelihood is tied up with previously published opinions, the more difficult it is to be objective regarding truths that are less popular. I believe that to some extent, Catholic Answers is compromised by a fear of saying things that could alienate its income base. Sadly, one of the safer kinds of activity involves negativity toward other religions.

 

I am not saying that the books, magazines, articles, and pamphlets that they publish are as irresponsible as the message board. But I think they have found a ready supply of knuckleheads who enjoy being stupid against other religions on their website. They have banned me but I still get e-mails asking for money. Some of you probably do as well. Well, those who love to see people like us banned and ridiculed help pay the bills. As a Protestant (in the early 90's), I received significant help from their literature and even some good telephone counselling when I was converting. But the monster that has developed since the internet would seem to argue against the idea of professional apologists. In my opinion the harm they do possibly outweighs the good. Ironically, one of my major beefs with them as that they are heavily influenced and have often been staffed by recently converted Protestants, even a few ministers who wanted to become Catholic but didn't want to go to work. New converts should think a little bit, and consider that if they were wrong in the recent past, maybe they should be quiet for a while. In no case should new converts start immediately making money from their conversions.

 

In my opinion, this board (MD&DB) does not have a Catholic counterpart. if anyone wants to understand the Catholic faith, they should understand that there are many Catholics like me who wouldn't necessarily agree with everything at Catholic Answers. Nobody is wrong about everything, and I agree with them on a lot of things. But in my opinion, the laypeople who make the money and who run the organization are compromised (To say nothing about the goons assigned to monitor the various discussion forums).

 

3DOP

Hi 3DOP, I agree with a lot you say about Catholic Answers. I have cringed so many times when reading through some of the posts relating to LDS. Don't get me wrong, there have been times when  I have contributed to these, but I hope in a less vitriolic manner.  And at times I have expressed my concern at the tone and content of some of the posts, and wondered why they haven't been locked for their aggression and lack of charity. But the most aggressive of those ex LDS continues to bait and insult, it is quite shaming, especially when LDS stop engaging and are branded cowards. There is a big drive on over there to raise funds with personnel reportedly being laid off and taking pay cuts. Well maybe it has had its day, maybe something new is needed.

[3DOP]

I've looked around that site the past couple of days reading posts in different areas and I don't see it as bad as you all have cracked it up to be.  Adding it up quickly there are over 10 million posts there and very few have anything to do with the LDS church.  Even in the area for non-Catholics and the apologetics area I see very little LDS discussion.  There are more posts in the social area than in the non-Catholic area.  And Catholic life has the most posts of all. 

 

The couple of posts I did see on LDS didn't seem all that awful either, a bit of attitude towards LDS yes but then I've gotten the same thing from LDS missionaries toward my beliefs (or rather lack of). 

 

 

 

Hi Yirgacheffe,

 

Since you were quoting someone who affirmed my evaluation, I presume I am among those who have made Catholic Answers seem as "bad as you all have cracked it up to be."

 

To me, the difference between here and there is when someone there opens certain subjects that call for discussion, only one side is permitted to defend its position. Here you get a "call for references" when you propose something unpopular. There, if one painstakingly offers references and articulately defends an unpopular position the post will be quickly deleted by the monitors and if you don't desist you get banned. The approach they have to minority opinions is censorial. I was surprised I got banned. I was really trying to tip toe carefully. I wasn't the only one. It seems like a lot of bans came at the same time and were always the people I agreed with. I wonder if the monitors got the word from up higher. Get rid of the people who are defending _______________. As I remember I got banned for suggesting that if one should defend a particular position that had arisen, that deletions and discipline will follow. I didn't offer any defense except for explaining why it was an off limits subject for someone of my persuasion.

 

I guess the names of the two boards are appropriate. Catholic Answers provides answers to questions. It is what is advertised. It does not allow for discussion by those who disagree with their answers. In that respect, they do a great job. I agree with 90% of what they teach. But one needs to understand that they are not interested in having a critical evaluation of what they teach. I think the answers they gave are usually Catholic, but not always.

 

Mormon Dialogue and Discussion is also what it advertises. So I am not trying to make Catholic Answers seem all bad. It has value and has helped many people including me back before the internet. My main point was that there is no way that LDS should consider Catholic Answers as any kind of counterpart to this place.

Edited September 7, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Hi Yirgacheffe,

 

Since you were quoting someone who affirmed my evaluation, I presume I am among those who have made Catholic Answers seem as "bad as you all have cracked it up to be."

 

To me, the difference between here and there is when someone there opens certain subjects that call for discussion, only one side is permitted to defend its position. Here you get a "call for references" when you propose something unpopular. There, if one painstakingly offers references and articulately defends an unpopular position the post will be quickly deleted by the monitors and if you don't desist you get banned. The approach they have to minority opinions is censorial. I was surprised I got banned. I was really trying to tip toe carefully. I wasn't the only one. It seems like a lot of bans came at the same time and were always the people I agreed with. I wonder if the monitors got the word from up higher. Get rid of the people who are defending _______________. As I remember I got banned for suggesting that if one should defend a particular position that had arisen, that deletions and discipline will follow. I didn't offer any defense except for explaining why it was an off limits subject for someone of my persuasion.

 

I guess the names of the two boards are appropriate. Catholic Answers provides answers to questions. It is what is advertised. It does not allow for discussion by those who disagree with their answers. In that respect, they do a great job. I agree with 90% of what they teach. But one needs to understand that they are not interested in having a critical evaluation of what they teach. I think the answers they gave are usually Catholic, but not always.

 

Mormon Dialogue and Discussion is also what it advertises. So I am not trying to make Catholic Answers seem all bad. It has value and has helped many people including me back before the internet. My main point was that there is no way that LDS should consider Catholic Answers as any kind of counterpart to this place.

 

Now I think about it is pretty ironic. It is very ironic. One of the subjects that gets you banned is if you challenge the Vatican II teaching on ecumenical dialogue and discussion. No ecumenical dialogue or discussion allowed about ecumenical dialogue and discussion!

Edited September 7, 2013 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

Now I think about it is pretty ironic. It is very ironic. One of the subjects that gets you banned is if you challenge the Vatican II teaching on ecumenical dialogue and discussion. No ecumenical dialogue or discussion allowed about ecumenical dialogue and discussion!

The other thing that will get you banned is if you defend the nonsense passed off as LDS doctrine that is erroneous. As someone that has a high affinity for Catholicism, I was banned for what I thought was censorship. If you demonstrate the weakness of the argument you will be banned. May e things have changed, but I strongly doubt it. I have not visited in several weeks, but I have several years of participation. I am limiting my comments to the non-Catholic thread.