Catholic Views on Priesthood Authority

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Dyed in the wool, true blue - through and through. 

... while being willing to baptize people into the Catholic Church, though.  Kind of like a double agent working on both sides of the fence, for 2 distinct and separate countries/kingdoms. 

Hmm, which kingdom will your next baptism be for, I wonder.

 

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Are there (or could there ever be) exceptions to the rule?

Or is it just a universal axiom that Latter-day Saints can never perform a valid baptism - regardless of how well informed they are about Catholic doctrine, practice, and belief. 

 

Valid to who, though? For Catholics, to baptize someone into their Church/kingdom, you must do it their way, the way they would approve of.  The way they think it needs to be done.

For us, in our Lord's kingdom, in the one and only true church of Jesus Christ, we believe we must do it the Lord's way, the way our Lord has told us to do it, regardless of what the Catholic church has to say about it.

[Amulek]

30 minutes ago, Ahab said:

... while being willing to baptize people into the Catholic Church, though.  Kind of like a double agent working on both sides of the fence, for 2 distinct and separate countries/kingdoms. 

Hmm, which kingdom will your next baptism be for, I wonder.

I'm not talking about casually going about trying to baptize people into the Catholic faith. I am thinking of a really extreme / highly unlikely to ever occur in real life kind of situation here.

Say, for example, that I am flying home from a work trip with a female co-worker who happens to be pregnant. We have been friends for over a decade, and I know her to be a devout Catholic. She knows me to be an observant Latter-day Saint, but she also knows that I am more that just casually informed about Catholic doctrine / belief - more so than many of her own Catholic family members / friends, in fact.

Anyway, so we are flying home and the plan crashes.

Only the two of us survive and she goes into labor.

During the process she informs me that her child has a rare deformity where the brain develops outside of the skull, and even under the best of circumstances the child would not be expected to live more than a couple of minutes after being delivered. She expresses her desire to have her child baptized, and she's delighted to hear that, under extreme circumstances, that is something she can do herself. 

Only after delivering the child, she passes out from exhaustion and is unable to do so. With only moments left in mortality, I take a bottle of water, formulate in my mind the express intent to do as the Catholic church teaches / wishes, and then baptize the child accordingly. 

Does that count as a valid Catholic baptism, yea or nay? 

Personally, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't, but I would be interested to hear if that isn't the case.

 

Quote

Valid to who, though?

The Catholic church.

In my above hypothetical, that is the faith of my dear friend; and I would be acting to fulfill her clearly expressed wishes regardless of my personal feelings / beliefs. 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Amulek

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I remember coming across this (or perhaps something very similar written by then Cardinal Ratzinger) before.

I understand what is meant about the differences between our two church's ordinances in terms of Form and Intent - though, frankly, I think the objection on Form is rather weak as it's basically just a duplication / repackaging of the Intent objection. 

Be that as it may, I guess my question would still be: Under extreme circumstances, why couldn't an informed Latter-Day Saint perform a valid Catholic baptism?

I mean, I'm quite confident that I understand what the Catholic Church intends to do with respect to the sacrament of baptism.  

I understand the Catholic church's position when it comes to the ontological nature of God, the doctrine of original sin, the purpose of the sacraments, etc.

So what then would prevent me from formulating the necessary intent to perform a valid Catholic baptism? 

 

Hello,

Yes, an LDS member could perform a valid Catholic baptism, if, like you say, the person intends to do what the Catholic Church intends.

When the Catholic Church says LDS baptisms are invalid, it is referring to LDS baptisms in the LDS context, i.e. joining the LDS church.

[MiserereNobis]

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Are there (or could there ever be) exceptions to the rule?

Or is it just a universal axiom that Latter-day Saints can never perform a valid baptism - regardless of how well informed they are about Catholic doctrine, practice, and belief. 

I responded above before reading further posts, so I just want to reiterate here that there is no axiom that LDS cannot perform valid baptisms, but that baptism in the LDS context is not a valid baptism. The who doesn't matter. It's the how and why.

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Say, for example, that I am flying home from a work trip with a female co-worker who happens to be pregnant. We have been friends for over a decade, and I know her to be a devout Catholic. She knows me to be an observant Latter-day Saint, but she also knows that I am more that just casually informed about Catholic doctrine / belief - more so than many of her own Catholic family members / friends, in fact.

Anyway, so we are flying home and the plan crashes.

Only the two of us survive and she goes into labor.

During the process she informs me that her child has a rare deformity where the brain develops outside of the skull, and even under the best of circumstances the child would not be expected to live more than a couple of minutes after being delivered. She expresses her desire to have her child baptized, and she's delighted to hear that, under extreme circumstances, that is something she can do herself. 

Only after delivering the child, she passes out from exhaustion and is unable to do so. With only moments left in mortality, I take a bottle of water, formulate in my mind the express intent to do as the Catholic church teaches / wishes, and then baptize the child accordingly. 

Does that count as a valid Catholic baptism, yea or nay? 

Personally, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't, but I would be interested to hear if that isn't the case.

This would absolutely be a valid baptism.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm not talking about casually going about trying to baptize people into the Catholic faith. I am thinking of a really extreme / highly unlikely to ever occur in real life kind of situation here.

Say, for example, that I am flying home from a work trip with a female co-worker who happens to be pregnant. We have been friends for over a decade, and I know her to be a devout Catholic. She knows me to be an observant Latter-day Saint, but she also knows that I am more that just casually informed about Catholic doctrine / belief - more so than many of her own Catholic family members / friends, in fact.

Anyway, so we are flying home and the plan crashes.

Only the two of us survive and she goes into labor.

During the process she informs me that her child has a rare deformity where the brain develops outside of the skull, and even under the best of circumstances the child would not be expected to live more than a couple of minutes after being delivered. She expresses her desire to have her child baptized, and she's delighted to hear that, under extreme circumstances, that is something she can do herself. 

Only after delivering the child, she passes out from exhaustion and is unable to do so. With only moments left in mortality, I take a bottle of water, formulate in my mind the express intent to do as the Catholic church teaches / wishes, and then baptize the child accordingly. 

Does that count as a valid Catholic baptism, yea or nay? 

Personally, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't, but I would be interested to hear if that isn't the case.

As I see it, it would count as a valid Catholic baptism only if their doctrine/teachings stated that it would count as a valid Catholic baptism, or if one of their teachers with authority to approve of it as valid said that it was valid.

It's their church so they get the say on what is and is not valid in or to their church..  

Edited August 10, 2020 by Ahab

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I responded above before reading further posts, so I just want to reiterate here that there is no axiom that LDS cannot perform valid baptisms, but that baptism in the LDS context is not a valid baptism. The who doesn't matter. It's the how and why.

That comports with my thinking / understanding as well. 

I appreciate your comments (many of them, actually, not merely those on this particular thread). 

Thanks!

 

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That comports with my thinking / understanding as well. 

I appreciate your comments (many of them, actually, not merely those on this particular thread). 

Thanks!

 

Thank you for the kind words and for trying to understand the Catholic position

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Actually yes, my intention would be for them to become a member of the Holy Catholic Church. 

 

Since I believe this is allowed (to be corrected by Catholics if necessary), my question is would this be a problem for Saints (Latter-day kind) due to the scripture about infant baptism or would it be seen as a kindness since even though we would be doing it with the intent of performing a Catholic baptism, we would see it as without a redemptive effect, we ourselves would know the child was not accountable. Are we perpetuating that condemned  idea if in an emergency we performed a infant/child baptism  (say we came upon a car wreck with a parent who was dying and worried about their child and asked us to perform the baptism then)?  I don’t see it as doing that, but wonder if others would. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since I believe this is allowed (to be corrected by Catholics if necessary), my question is would this be a problem for Saints (Latter-day kind) due to the scripture about infant baptism or would it be seen as a kindness since even though we would be doing it with the intent of performing a Catholic baptism, we would see it as without a redemptive effect, we ourselves would know the child was not accountable. Are we perpetuating that condemned  idea if in an emergency we performed a infant/child baptism  (say we came upon a car wreck with a parent who was dying and worried about their child and asked us to perform the baptism then)?  I don’t see it as doing that, but wonder if others would. 

I would, which is why I wouldn't do something like that even if it would give others some pleasure to see me do something like that because they might seriously believe it was okay or even a good thing for me to do.  

It's like a theme I have for my overall life. I try my best to find out and then do only what I feel is right and a good thing to do.  I don't do what others want me to do even if they think I should do what they want me to do. 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Since I believe this is allowed (to be corrected by Catholics if necessary), my question is would this be a problem for Saints (Latter-day kind) due to the scripture about infant baptism or would it be seen as a kindness since even though we would be doing it with the intent of performing a Catholic baptism, we would see it as without a redemptive effect, we ourselves would know the child was not accountable. Are we perpetuating that condemned  idea if in an emergency we performed a infant/child baptism  (say we came upon a car wreck with a parent who was dying and worried about their child and asked us to perform the baptism then)?  I don’t see it as doing that, but wonder if others would. 

There is a temple recommend question which asks, "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" 

If we're really talking about one of these lifeboat scenarios though, I can't imagine an ecclesiastical leader holding that against someone.

Now, if the person participating in the ordinance was someone notable in the church or the event garnered wide publicity, I suppose it might then be necessary for the Church to take some kind of visible action so as to not be seen as condoning a doctrine / practice which it does not officially endorse, but again I think that would be a pretty unlikely outcome. 

 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

There is a temple recommend question which asks, "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" 

If we're really talking about one of these lifeboat scenarios though, I can't imagine an ecclesiastical leader holding that against someone.

Now, if the person participating in the ordinance was someone notable in the church or the event garnered wide publicity, I suppose it might then be necessary for the Church to take some kind of visible action so as to not be seen as condoning a doctrine / practice which it does not officially endorse, but again I think that would be a pretty unlikely outcome. 

 

I would hope that such a person would at least disclose such supports or promotions to their ecclesiastical leaders and that the ecclesiastical leaders would tell such persons whether or not they felt that was acceptable behavior.

... rather than a member just supposing on his own that that is okay or that he is not supporting or promoting some teaching or practice contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Members of the Church need to be taught what is or is not acceptable behavior including what they should or should not support.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

There is a temple recommend question which asks, "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" 

If we're really talking about one of these lifeboat scenarios though, I can't imagine an ecclesiastical leader holding that against someone.

Now, if the person participating in the ordinance was someone notable in the church or the event garnered wide publicity, I suppose it might then be necessary for the Church to take some kind of visible action so as to not be seen as condoning a doctrine / practice which it does not officially endorse, but again I think that would be a pretty unlikely outcome. 

 

We would be performing a religious rite to assist another not of our faith. I see it as a charitable act in one sense. Any action we take would be done by their command and we are simply complying to assuage their concerns. Of course, for us we do not believe an infant baptism has any merit due to their own state of innocence. Yet, in such an emergency or critical time our beliefs are secondary for the moment. Afterwards, we may choose to discuss our beliefs, but at that moment it is not the time to teach our beliefs. 

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

We would be performing a religious rite to assist another not of our faith. I see it as a charitable act in one sense. Any action we take would be done by their command and we are simply complying to assuage their concerns. Of course, for us we do not believe an infant baptism has any merit due to their own state of innocence. Yet, in such an emergency or critical time our beliefs are secondary for the moment. Afterwards, we may choose to discuss our beliefs, but at that moment it is not the time to teach our beliefs. 

Do you believe our own beliefs should ever be secondary at ANY moment?  Why should we ever defer to someone else's beliefs?  Because it would help them to feel good to think that we agree with them, even though we really don't?  

I don't think anyone should ever compromise their own beliefs, even if it would help other people to feel good about their beliefs.  We need to stand up for and act on our own beliefs, at all times, and in all places.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I would hope that such a person would at least disclose such supports or promotions to their ecclesiastical leaders and that the ecclesiastical leaders would tell such persons whether or not they felt that was acceptable behavior.

... rather than a member just supposing on his own that that is okay or that he is not supporting or promoting some teaching or practice contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sure. I'm not suggesting that people ought to intentionally withhold pertinent information from their ecclesiastical leaders when it comes to their personal worthiness. 

I'm just saying that if you are talking about a one-off, once in a lifetime kind of exception to a general guideline, I honestly don't see how a responsible, loving, spirit-guided priesthood leader would be interested in trying to meet out punishment for your own spirit-guided, good faith efforts to render aid and comfort to one of your fellow brothers / sisters. 

 

Quote

Members of the Church need to be taught what is or is not acceptable behavior including what they should or should not support.

Thankfully, we have access to the Spirit for things like that.

He can teach us all things. 

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

Sure. I'm not suggesting that people ought to intentionally withhold pertinent information from their ecclesiastical leaders when it comes to their personal worthiness. 

I'm just saying that if you are talking about a one-off, once in a lifetime kind of exception to a general guideline, I honestly don't see how a responsible, loving, spirit-guided priesthood leader would be interested in trying to meet out punishment for your own spirit-guided, good faith efforts to render aid and comfort to one of your fellow brothers / sisters. 

Yeah, more like helping to give counsel and discipline to a fellow disciple.  That's what leaders and judges of Israel are for, I think.  People with good intentions often do bad things and they need to be taught how to do better things.

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

Thankfully, we have access to the Spirit for things like that.

He can teach us all things. 

Yes, and our ecclesiastical leaders on this planet can help too.  The council of 3 in heaven are not the only people who are able to help us.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Do you believe our own beliefs should ever be secondary at ANY moment?  Why should we ever defer to someone else's beliefs?  Because it would help them to feel good to think that we agree with them, even though we really don't?  

I don't think anyone should ever compromise their own beliefs, even if it would help other people to feel good about their beliefs.  We need to stand up for and act on our own beliefs, at all times, and in all places.

I disagree with your premise. Charity is our over-riding principle when we assist others of other faiths. When I pray with a Muslim or serve them, my beliefs are active. I may not be acting in the role of a High Priest, but I am acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ should act.  

I misspoke above and you may be reacting to my statement; however, if I am asked by another to perform an infant baptism and there are no other options, I would gladly serve them. I suspect I would also offer a priesthood blessing to that child also. 

I think your priorities are confused. You should, first and foremost, be a disciple of Jesus Christ. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

I disagree with your premise. Charity is our over-riding principle when we assist others of other faiths. When I pray with a Muslim or serve them, my beliefs are active. I may not be acting in the role of a High Priest, but I am acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ should act.  

I misspoke above and you may be reacting to my statement; however, if I am asked by another to perform an infant baptism and there are no other options, I would gladly serve them. I suspect I would also offer a priesthood blessing to that child also. 

I think your priorities are confused. You should, first and foremost, be a disciple of Jesus Christ. 

There is always the option of saying No, however nicely you want to say it, or just not doing what others want you to do when you know they are asking you to do something which is wrong.  And baptizing an infant is always wrong.

A disciple of Jesus Christ does what Jesus would do and Jesus would never baptize an infant because he would know that is wrong, however much somebody else may want you to do it.

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

There is always the option of saying No, however nicely you want to say it, or just not doing what others want you to do when you know they are asking you to do something which is wrong.  And baptizing an infant is always wrong.

A disciple of Jesus Christ does what Jesus would do and Jesus would never baptize an infant because he would know that is wrong, however much somebody else may want you to do it.

We have a difference of opinion. 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Ahab said:

Members of the Church need to be taught what is or is not acceptable behavior including what they should or should not support.

Members of the church need to grow up and go by the spirit instead of being robots and slavishly accepting what others say.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/10/2020 at 4:25 PM, Ahab said:

I don't do what others want me to do even if they think I should do what they want me to do. 

 

23 hours ago, Ahab said:

 

Members of the Church need to be taught what is or is not acceptable behavior including what they should or should not support.

These two notions directly contradict each other

[Ahab]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

These two notions directly contradict each other

No, actually, they really don't, and considering how well I thought you understood language I am a bit surprised that you would think that.

And FYI, just in case you don't know, the following 2 statements do not contradict each other, either:

Members of the Church need to be taught what is or is not acceptable behavior including what they should or should not support.

Members of the church need to grow up and go by the spirit instead of being robots and slavishly accepting what others say.

[3DOP]

On 8/9/2020 at 1:06 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Hey Rory,

I was taught the same in the SSPX, but I also got the feeling in informal discussions that some who attend SSPX chapels don't see it the same way. It's sad when there are divisions between traditional Catholic communities (I'm thinking of the sniping that happens sometimes between SSPX and FSSP).

I hadn't noticed that you live in St. Mary's until now. I guess I don't pay much attention to things written under people's avatar. How long have you been there? It's seems like a bit of a haven. How do the local non-SSPX feel about the influx of the trads? Is there a local Novus Ordo church? How are relations there? I've been curious. (derail time...)

Hi Jesse,

To your inquiries...and your concerns...not necessarily in order...Several of my best friends here go to the Fraternity...I respect them greatly.

Yes. We moved. FFF. Faith. Family. Finances. One hopes in that order of priorities.

Almost two years now, we have been in St. Marys, KS.

I guess it is a "haven". I left Portland. What would not be a haven from such a political mess? Still...I will never not love Portland.

Influx of Trads? Hardly anybody here in St Marys is from Kansas.

As an outsider, I have a desire to be a Kansan, that I don't perceive in my fellow (mostly Trad) Kansas despising Kansans. I think it is okay, yea, crtainly good,  to like where you live. There is always something likeable. I like...nay...I love Kansas. Blue sky...all the year round...but especially the winter, January, not quite frozen. when it is so damp, and gray, and dark, and...less cold by degrees in Portland...but more to the bone. I will take a bright cold Kansas winter.

Every day at the factory, we kneel and pray...I think you would approve...everybody is not SSPX. As far as I know, some are those horrible Prots (kidding)...others are those hateful Novus Ordos. (kidding) But we pray together. It is good. Our times? Where does one look? Not everyone hates God. Here is much good will...Love. "If you are going, to St Marys...be sure to where some flowers in your hair..."

Rory

Edited August 16, 2020 by 3DOP

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/8/2020 at 11:17 AM, 3DOP said:

According to Catholic teaching, baptism leaves a permanent mark, or character on the soul. One cannot become unbaptized.

This is extremely important to understand. Emphasis mine. To assert that one can become unbaptized seems to insult the power of God and baptism. No person on earth can invalidate a valid baptisms. Persons who think they can are obviously performing an invalid baptism to begin with.

[Ahab]

Just now, Damien the Leper said:

This is extremely important to understand. Emphasis mine. To assert that one can become unbaptized seems to insult the power of God and baptism. No person on earth can invalidate a valid baptisms. Persons who think they can are obviously performing an invalid baptism to begin with.

I suggest you study up on what is possible with the  keys of the kingdom of God, specifically the power to both bind and loose in heaven and on this Earth.  What is done can be effectively undone very easily.