Author Topic: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?  (Read 1442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DZ PLEASE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2934
  • Reputation: +734/-773
  • Gender: Male
  • "Lord, have mercy."
Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2017, 06:09:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Don't think of elephants.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12428
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #31 on: November 06, 2017, 06:13:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The intention needs to be the intent to do what the Church does, even if the person has an imperfect understanding of Catholic teaching on baptism or anything else.

    THIS ^^^

    And I would go a step further.  Let's take the example of a priest who's really a Mason or Communist who infiltrated the priesthood.  He's offering a Tridentine Mass and saying the words of the rite and performing the prescribed actions.  In his head he's thinking, "I do NOT intend to do what the Church does."  IMO, that would STILL be a valid Mass because he's intending to perform the actions that the Church does and to say the words that the Church does for the rite of Mass.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12428
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #32 on: November 06, 2017, 06:17:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is Cardinal Billot's explanation of what "the intention to do what the Church does" means:

    THIS ^^^

    We have the classic example of people creating scruples about the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre on the grounds that +Lienart was a freemason.  But this correct explanation of intention (from Billot) eliminates all doubt and scruple about nonsense like this.  No one can read the mind of the person conferring the Sacrament, so DOING what the Church does suffices.  Only if the person is insane, pretty much, would a Sacrament be invalid.  So, for instance, the classic case of a senile priest who walks past a bakery and prounounces the words of consecration.  That's NOT what the Church does and would be invalid.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12428
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #33 on: November 06, 2017, 06:18:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • People who deny the Trinity cannot intend to do what the Church does with the formula "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

    Completely disagree.  That's why atheists can even baptize.  See the Billot citation made by Jaynek.

    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #34 on: November 06, 2017, 06:43:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is not their heretical beliefs that make Mormon baptisms invalid.  In general, heretics can validly baptize.  In the case of Mormons, what they mean by "Father, Son, and Holy Spirity" is so different from what the Church means by those words, that Mormon baptisms are considered to lack correct form.

    So Kreuzritter is not making an "interesting point".  He is incorrect.
    Lol. Are you serious?
    What you just said is EXACTLY what I said.
    Their baptisms are nevertheless presumed invalid by the Church because Mormons deny the Trinity, and an Arian baptism would be invalid for exactly the same reasons: the intention is wrong. People who deny the Trinity cannot intend to do what the Church does with the formula "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

    Are you always this intentionally obtuse?


    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2934
    • Reputation: +734/-773
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #35 on: November 06, 2017, 06:56:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • How is it that we can reasonably assume that a Mormon is a heretic at all?
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #36 on: November 06, 2017, 06:57:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I agree that a Mormon baptism is invalid.  I said that if a Mormon intended to do a Catholic baptism, it could be valid.

    Consider this statement from Apostolicae Curae ():The 2001 document that you cited concerning the lack of validity of Mormon baptism clearly acknowledges that this is an exception.

    The Council of Trent used even stronger wording:
    "If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema."
    Ok, I take the first point, if by that you mean a baptism conferred upon a catechumen intending to join the Catholic Church and a Mormon assisting in that. But please give me the courtesy of being SEMANTICALLY CONSISTENT in your use of "-insert religion here- baptism". If I say "Arian baptism" and you take that to mean "Arians performing Catholic baptisms", then don't turn around and start using "baptisms performed by Mormons" in the latter sense and expect me to udnerstand this is the sense you intended.

    As to "Catholic rite", I'm not sure how that is distinct from the Mormon rite EXCEPT in intention.

    To the third, that hasn't been denied, the question being precisely the intention.

    In any case, what I said about Arian baptisms stands: an "Arian" baptism is no different to a "Mormon" baptism. No, NOT an Arian performing a Catholic baptism.

    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #37 on: November 06, 2017, 07:02:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Completely disagree.  That's why atheists can even baptize.  See the Billot citation made by Jaynek.
    What I wrote was in the specific context of non-Christians performing non-Christian "baptisms" with correct matter and form, in particular Mormons "baptising" Mormons within the Mormon cult as analogous to Arians baptising Arians. It was NOT about heretics performing Catholic baptisms.

    That little "detail" appears to have been lost somewhere along the way here.


    Offline Jaynek

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1739
    • Reputation: +546/-274
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #38 on: November 06, 2017, 07:04:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lol. Are you serious?
    What you just said is EXACTLY what I said.
    Their baptisms are nevertheless presumed invalid by the Church because Mormons deny the Trinity, and an Arian baptism would be invalid for exactly the same reasons: the intention is wrong. People who deny the Trinity cannot intend to do what the Church does with the formula "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

    Are you always this intentionally obtuse?
    The word "intention" has a very specific meaning in the context of Sacramental theology.  There is a danger that we will think we know what it means because we are familiar with it in our everyday language, but it is different.  It is important to understand how the word is used as a technical theological term in order to properly grasp the Church teaching.  I gave several citations to help with this.

    Jews deny the Trinity and yet it is possible for a Jew to perform a valid baptism (See Cardinal Billot quote.)  The Mormon denial of the Trinity is not what makes their baptism invalid.  

    You do not properly understand why Mormon baptisms are invalid so you are drawing an incorrect conclusion about Arian baptisms.  Perhaps it would help if you reread the passages that I have cited.  Ladislaus is giving good explanations too.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2934
    • Reputation: +734/-773
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #39 on: November 06, 2017, 07:04:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is a distinction that was lacking, at least in clarity; perhaps a bit of acknowledgment is in order?
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Jaynek

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1739
    • Reputation: +546/-274
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #40 on: November 06, 2017, 07:10:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • In any case, what I said about Arian baptisms stands: an "Arian" baptism is no different to a "Mormon" baptism. No, NOT an Arian performing a Catholic baptism.
    Arians considered themselves to be Catholics and therefore they intended their baptisms to be Catholic baptisms.  To the best of their knowledge, they thought they were doing what the Church does.  That meets the requirement for Sacramental intent.  This is not affected by their doctrinal errors.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is


    Offline Jaynek

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1739
    • Reputation: +546/-274
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #41 on: November 06, 2017, 07:13:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is a distinction that was lacking, at least in clarity; perhaps a bit of acknowledgment is in order?
    It is likely that I am not explaining it well.  It is a complicated topic.  And it is especially confusing that "intent" has a different meaning than we are used to.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2934
    • Reputation: +734/-773
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #42 on: November 06, 2017, 07:25:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is likely that I am not explaining it well.  It is a complicated topic.  And it is especially confusing that "intent" has a different meaning than we are used to.
    I think we'll survive this round ma'am.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #43 on: November 06, 2017, 09:17:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • You do not properly understand why Mormon baptisms are invalid so you are drawing an incorrect conclusion about Arian baptisms.  Perhaps it would help if you reread the passages that I have cited.  Ladislaus is giving good explanations too.
    Please stop being presumptuous. There is nothing in what I have written that indicates a misunderstanding unless you take me out of context. I agree precisely with all the quoted passages, and I maintain that ARIAN BAPTISMS are invalid just as are MORMON BAPTISMS because both, in denying the Trinity, mean by "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"  something entirely different from what the Church means by them, to the point that their intention in administering and receiving Mormon baptisms, in the context of their baptismal rites, cannot be the to do what the Catholic Church does, i.e., he intends to do what the  LDS church does and that is to baptise someone into the LDS church and its three strange beigns of Mormon theology and only Mormons know what else, and this intention is blatantly and publically manifest. THis is totally different to the case of a Mormon performing a Catholic baptism.
    The document I referenced, which clealry states that there is a deficiency in intention of the celebrating minister of a Mormon baptisms due to their understanding of God:
    III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister.
    Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism ...

    ... The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

    If there is error here it was in my saying that they also have valid form, when it's just the objective formula but not the substance of the words (as I said, one may as well baptise in the name of Hindu deities). But this is semantics: if we look at form instead of intention, the same argument applies again to both Mormons and Arians. Arians understood somehting radically different by the Trinitarian formula.

    An Arian performing a Catholic baptisms, fine, but an Arian performing an Arian baptism? How is that ontologically different to a Mormon baptism?


    For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2:18:42.


    Here Athanaius plainly says  that though the Arians (after Nicea) use the name sof Father and Son, they really baptise into the "Creator and creature" because of their false understanding of the Trinity.

    Also, Mormons aren't heretics. One has to be a validly baptised Christian to be a heretic and a believer in the Trinity and Incarnation to be Christian. I'm not sure I'd call Arians, at least post-Nicea, heretics either.




    Offline Jaynek

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1739
    • Reputation: +546/-274
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?
    « Reply #44 on: November 06, 2017, 09:55:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please stop being presumptuous. There is nothing in what I have written that indicates a misunderstanding unless you take me out of context. I agree precisely with all the quoted passages, and I maintain that ARIAN BAPTISMS are invalid just as are MORMON BAPTISMS because both, in denying the Trinity, mean by "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"  something entirely different from what the Church means by them, to the point that their intention in administering and receiving Mormon baptisms, in the context of their baptismal rites, cannot be the to do what the Catholic Church does, i.e., he intends to do what the  LDS church does and that is to baptise someone into the LDS church and its three strange beigns of Mormon theology and only Mormons know what else, and this intention is blatantly and publically manifest. THis is totally different to the case of a Mormon performing a Catholic baptism.
    The document I referenced, which clealry states that there is a deficiency in intention of the celebrating minister of a Mormon baptisms due to their understanding of God:
    III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister.
    Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism ...

    ... The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

    If there is error here it was in my saying that they also have valid form, when it's just the objective formula but not the substance of the words (as I said, one may as well baptise in the name of Hindu deities). But this is semantics: if we look at form instead of intention, the same argument applies again to both Mormons and Arians. Arians understood somehting radically different by the Trinitarian formula.

    An Arian performing a Catholic baptisms, fine, but an Arian performing an Arian baptism? How is that ontologically different to a Mormon baptism?


    For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2:18:42.


    Here Athanaius plainly says  that though the Arians (after Nicea) use the name sof Father and Son, they really baptise into the "Creator and creature" because of their false understanding of the Trinity.

    Also, Mormons aren't heretics. One has to be a validly baptised Christian to be a heretic and a believer in the Trinity and Incarnation to be Christian. I'm not sure I'd call Arians, at least post-Nicea, heretics either.
    The document you referenced to show that Mormon baptisms are invalid itself says: "Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians."

    If you would like a pre-V2 source, here is a dialogue written by St. Jerome that mentions that baptisms by Arians are valid. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16