AugustineA Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Yes, the Responsum ad Dubium on the invalidity of Mormon baptism is on the Vatican website, as is the doctrinal explanation, which can be summarized as saying that the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity diverges so completely from that of the Catholic Church that the intention of the minister to do what the Church does cannot be presumed to be present, or at least that is a general summary of the reasoning that is given for the Responsum. Nevertheless - as I indicated in another post - the baptism of the Arian heretics, and other groups that denied the full divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit (and thus the doctrine of the Trinity), has traditionally been accepted as valid, and yet their Trinitarian heresy seems no worse, but perhaps a bit less far-fetched, than that of the Mormons. I did find the rejection of Mormon baptism interesting, and I do not have a problem with it, but that is probably because as an Eastern Catholic I do not accept the Augustinian view of the sacraments, which has - at least until quite recently - been the dominant theory in the Latin Church. Responsum ad Dubium on Mormon Baptism Explanation of the Responsum ad Dubium Thanks for posting links. I'm going to have to pick your brain on the Augustinian vs Eastern Catholic (Orthodox?) view of sacraments some time. Edited September 21, 2013 by AugustineA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 The Eastern Christian world basically adopted the sacramentology of St. Cyprian of Carthage, which developed during his disputes with Pope St. Stephen in the middle of the 3rd century; while the Latin Church basically adopted the position of St. Augustine, which was heavily influenced by his interactions with the Donatist heretics in the early 5th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AugustineA Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 The Eastern Christian world basically adopted the sacramentology of St. Cyprian of Carthage, which developed during his disputes with Pope St. Stephen in the middle of the 3rd century; while the Latin Church basically adopted the position of St. Augustine, which was heavily influenced by his interactions with the Donatist heretics in the early 5th century. That seems to be a pretty big generalization. I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, but I do know Augustine fought ardently against the Donatists. He published his work, On Baptism, to refute Donatist sacramentology. He spent years debating them, and wasn't he kidnapped or something by donatists? Also, this may be a stretch. I don't want to presume anything. But if you think the Catholic church has a faulty view of its sacraments, why are you eastern catholic and not Orthodox? Just trying to gain some light on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Don't the Eastern theologians agree that the Eucharist *IS* Christ's Body and Blood, they just don't go into detail about substance and accidents? I'm just wondering why the Eastern view was brought up.. isn't their view different from transignification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 These are lies or mis information, 1.Jesus appears in the host for the faithful even if the priest is a heretic. 2. Therefore transubstantiation always appears for the faithful. 3. I think there may only be one exception and that is something to do with how the host is made, though unsure if that in anyway stops jesus from coming to those whom are ignorant of the fact and faithful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 I can't give you an answer. Heck, Rome itself has become less consistent on these things. I was surprised by Rome's rejection of Mormon baptism, because although I agree that Mormonism is heretical, that has not be enough in the past for the Roman Church to reject the baptism of a particular group. Arians didn't believe in the Trinity and yet the Roman Church would have argued that Arian baptism was valid. I only skimmed through Fr. Scanlon's article, so I will re-read it later more closely. If rome rejects the mormon baptism it would be because they don't baptise in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit . Not in the name of the grand creator, the precious little one and mysterious master. Not saying that is how mormons baptize but i heard barak obamas church does something like that on ewtn. Also i think i heard mormons believe that God is three separate persons or there is serious error in there belief of what and who the holy trinity is, therefore there baptisms even if in the name of the father,son and holy ghost under there belief of what the holy trinity is causes it to be invalid. Unsure exactly why rome would say but i'm sure with good reason if she did, these are just my possibly feeble attempt to explain a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Also, this may be a stretch. I don't want to presume anything. But if you think the Catholic church has a faulty view of its sacraments, why are you eastern catholic and not Orthodox? That is one of those mysteries you'll never get an a satisfactory answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Hey Tardis. Stella Captus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) That seems to be a pretty big generalization. I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, but I do know Augustine fought ardently against the Donatists. He published his work, On Baptism, to refute Donatist sacramentology. He spent years debating them, and wasn't he kidnapped or something by donatists? Also, this may be a stretch. I don't want to presume anything. But if you think the Catholic church has a faulty view of its sacraments, why are you eastern catholic and not Orthodox? Just trying to gain some light on the situation. Well my post was not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of the different approaches; instead, it was simply meant to give a broad overview of the differences between East and West on the issue. That said, I do not remember speaking about either position as "faulty." I think I called the distinct viewpoints different, but I never said that one or the other was faulty. I think I also said that I found the recent (i.e., within the last twelve years) decision of the CDF on Mormon baptism interesting. Why did I find it interesting? Because in some ways it is closer to the Cyprianic approach of the Eastern Churches - both Orthodox and Catholic - than to the Augustinian views that have been dominant in the West for more than 1,000 years. Edited September 21, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AugustineA Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Well my post was not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of the different approaches; instead, it was simply meant to give a broad overview of the differences between East and West on the issue. That said, I do not remember speaking about either position as "faulty." I think I called the distinct viewpoints different, but I never said that one or the other was faulty. I think I also said that I found the recent (i.e., within the last twelve years) decision of the CDF on Mormon baptism interesting. Why did I find it interesting? Because in some ways it is closer to the Cyprianic approach of the Eastern Churches - both Orthodox and Catholic - than to the Augustinian views that have been dominant in the West for more than 1,000 years. Yes, I probably shouldn't have used the word faulty. Maybe we can start another thread on the broader interpretations of the sacraments between the Orthodox and Catholic. I don't want to derail this thread. It would be cool if it wasn't necessarily in the debate section. That way we could pool the information. Interestingly, someone else in a trad forum noticed the same thing you did, declaring Arian baptism valid and not Mormon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 Don't the Eastern theologians agree that the Eucharist *IS* Christ's Body and Blood, they just don't go into detail about substance and accidents? I'm just wondering why the Eastern view was brought up.. isn't their view different from transignification? Yes. It's a mystery, and, from what I have seen, Eastern Orthodox Christianity does not get into the technicalities of how, when and why it happens. It is just believed that it does happen, and it is a mystery that is accepted by faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts