Validity Of Certain Sacraments

[Apotheoun]

Interestingly, some people think that simply referring to Denzinger trumps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that the CDF has rejected Mormon baptism, even though the matter and form are correct, and the general intention is to do what the Church does, speaks volumes. In fact, the article that accompanied the CDF notification, which was written by Fr. Ladaria, S.J., admits that doctrinal errors do not normally invalidate baptism, but in the case of Mormonism, which rejects faith in the Triune God, it does invalidate the ritual. Clearly, the rejection of Mormon baptism by the Catholic Church is based upon the Mormon Church's, and by extension the Mormon minister's, lack of Trinitarian faith. So even though a Mormon has general intention to wash away sin through baptism, the theological errors present within his "faith" specifically vitiate that desire, because the desire itself is motivated by a heretical tritheistic / polytheistic theology. Thus, the theological errors of Mormonism make Mormon baptism invalid.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 September 2009 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1254353755' post='1975181']
Interestingly, some people think that simply referring to Denzinger trumps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that the CDF has rejected Mormon baptism, even though the matter and form are correct, and the general intention is to do what the Church does, speaks volumes. In fact, the article that accompanied the CDF notification, which was written by Fr. Ladaria, S.J., admits that doctrinal errors do not normally invalidate baptism, but in the case of Mormonism, which rejects faith in the Triune God, it does invalidate the ritual. Clearly, the rejection of Mormon baptism by the Catholic Church is based upon the Mormon Church's, and by extension the Mormon minister's, lack of Trinitarian faith. So even though a Mormon has general intention to wash away sin through baptism, the theological errors present within his "faith" specifically vitiate that desire, because the desire itself is motivated by a heretical tritheistic / polytheistic theology. Thus, the theological errors of Mormonism make Mormon baptism invalid.
[/quote]

I think that Florence had in mind the possibility of a kindhearted pagan who, at a dieing person's request, baptizes with the intent to do what the Church does. His intent is not opposed to Church teaching, but adverts to whatever "the Church" is (i.e., the true Church). Mormons - like Evangelicals - have an intention motivated by error ("Jesus recommended baptism only as a symbolic witness") with serious, public repudiations of the Church's intent intimately involved with the ritual. What seems most problematic to me is that the Mormon, like the "Low-Protestant", defines baptism as something fundamentally different than the Catholic Church or "High-Protestant". For us, baptism is a soteriological sacrament of God; for them, baptism is a symbolic act of Man. In other words, the Evangelical baptism cannot properly be called a baptism at all because it redefines it, calling their apple by the name of our orange.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='30 September 2009 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1254363984' post='1975352']
I think that Florence had in mind the possibility of a kindhearted pagan who, at a dieing person's request, baptizes with the intent to do what the Church does. His intent is not opposed to Church teaching, but adverts to whatever "the Church" is (i.e., the true Church). Mormons - like Evangelicals - have an intention motivated by error ("Jesus recommended baptism only as a symbolic witness") with serious, public repudiations of the Church's intent intimately involved with the ritual. What seems most problematic to me is that the Mormon, like the "Low-Protestant", defines baptism as something fundamentally different than the Catholic Church or "High-Protestant". For us, baptism is a soteriological sacrament of God; for them, baptism is a symbolic act of Man. In other words, the Evangelical baptism cannot properly be called a baptism at all because it redefines it, calling their apple by the name of our orange.
[/quote]
Many of the difficulties surrounding these sacramental questions have to do with the Western acceptance of St. Augustine's position. Eastern Christians tend to follow the sacramental position advocated by St. Cyprian.

Click the link below to read a brief exposition on the differences:

[url="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/306942/Re:%20specific%20Orthodox%20disagree#Post306942"][u]The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology of Sacraments outside the Church[/u][/url]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 September 2009 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1254364715' post='1975360']
Many of the difficulties surrounding these sacramental questions have to do with the Western acceptance of St. Augustine's position. Eastern Christians tend to follow the sacramental position advocated by St. Cyprian.

Click the link below to read a brief exposition on the differences:

[url="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/306942/Re:%20specific%20Orthodox%20disagree#Post306942"][u]The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology of Sacraments outside the Church[/u][/url]
[/quote]

Odd. Do the Orthodox merely shrug off St. Cyprian's [i]Unity of the Church[/i]? Its fourth article, I mean.

EDIT: I should clarify; I've been under the impression that Cyprian is held in high esteem by many Eastern Christians and the particular document I mention above seems to come down hard on the idea of breaking communion with Peter's successor.

Anyway, thank you for the information. I know that Augustine formulated the "from the work, worked" theology of the sacraments in response to Donatism (ironically enough, the Donatists used some lines from Cyprian - including a tidbit from the document I've referenced, here - to defend their ideas).

Edited October 1, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='30 September 2009 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1254365859' post='1975374']
Odd. Do the Orthodox merely shrug off St. Cyprian's [i]Unity of the Church[/i]? Its fourth article, I mean.
[/quote]
As I am sure you are aware, there are two versions of St. Cyprian's [i]De Unitate Catholicae Ecclesiae[/i], and both are authentic.

St. Cyprian held that grace was intrinsically connected to the Church, and so heretics cannot celebrate the holy mysteries.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 September 2009 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1254366157' post='1975379']
As I am sure you are aware, there are two versions of St. Cyprian's [i]De Unitate Catholicae Ecclesiae[/i], and both are authentic.

St. Cyprian held that grace was intrinsically connected to the Church, and so heretics cannot celebrate the holy mysteries.
[/quote]

Both versions seem clearly, thoroughly attached to Peter's office as a vital center of unity. I'm glad you've made me think of Cyprian's differences with Augustine on this issue. I suppose I subconsciously wrote off Cyprian in favor of Augustine because the Donatists used him in their defense (stupid, I know).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='01 October 2009 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1254396523' post='1975515']
Both versions seem clearly, thoroughly attached to Peter's office as a vital center of unity.[/quote]
Yes, but the second version, as revised by St. Cyprian himself, makes it clear that he sees all bishops as holding St. Peter's office.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='01 October 2009 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1254396523' post='1975515']
I'm glad you've made me think of Cyprian's differences with Augustine on this issue. I suppose I subconsciously wrote off Cyprian in favor of Augustine because the Donatists used him in their defense (stupid, I know).[/quote]
The Eastern Church's were never really influenced by St. Augustine's theology. In fact, the bishop of Hippo's writings were not translated into Greek until the mid to late 14th century.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 September 2009 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1254353755' post='1975181']
Interestingly, some people think that simply referring to Denzinger trumps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[/quote]

Even more interestingly, some people think that their interpretation of a CDF document trups the teachigns of an ecumenical council of the Universal Church.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 September 2009 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1254353755' post='1975181']
Clearly, the rejection of Mormon baptism by the Catholic Church is based upon the Mormon Church's, and by extension the Mormon minister's, lack of Trinitarian faith. So even though a Mormon has general intention to wash away sin through baptism, the theological errors present within his "faith" specifically vitiate that desire, because the desire itself is motivated by a heretical tritheistic / polytheistic theology. Thus, the theological errors of Mormonism make Mormon baptism invalid.
[/quote]

The fact that a pagan, according to an ecumenical council, can baptize validly means that one does not have to belive in the Trinity to baptize validly.

As long as the person baptizing intends to do what the Church does, and thus means the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as the Church means them, he can baptize validly. Obviously Mormons do not mean "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as the Church intends those words.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='30 September 2009 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1254363984' post='1975352']
I think that Florence had in mind the possibility of a kindhearted pagan who, at a dieing person's request, baptizes with the intent to do what the Church does.[/quote]

I would agree with that.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 October 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1254421877' post='1975715']
The fact that a pagan, according to an ecumenical council, can baptize validly means that one does not have to belive in the Trinity to baptize validly.[/quote]
Evidently the CDF has not read as much on this issue as you have.

Mormon baptism is held to be invalid because Mormons hold a position on the Trinity that is clearly heretical.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='01 October 2009 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1254422035' post='1975724']
Evidently the CDF has not read as much on this issue as you have.

Mormon baptism is held to be invalid because Mormons hold a position on the Trinity that is clearly heretical.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the CDF had no intention of contradicting the Council of Florence.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 October 2009 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1254422171' post='1975728']
I'm pretty sure that the CDF had no intention of contradicting the Council of Florence.
[/quote]
Wow, not only are you better informed than the CDF, but now you even have access to the internal workings of the congregation's proceedings.

You can always write to the CDF in order to get a clarification.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='01 October 2009 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1254422364' post='1975731']
Wow, not only are you better informed than the CDF, but now you even have access to the internal workings of the congregation's proceedings.

You can always write to the CDF in order to get a clarification.
[/quote]

Maybe I will.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 October 2009 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1254422514' post='1975740']
Maybe I will.
[/quote]
That would be a good idea.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='30 September 2009 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1254363984' post='1975352']
. . . Mormons - like Evangelicals - have an intention motivated by error ("Jesus recommended baptism only as a symbolic witness") with serious, public repudiations of the Church's intent intimately involved with the ritual. What seems most problematic to me is that the Mormon, like the "Low-Protestant", defines baptism as something fundamentally different than the Catholic Church or "High-Protestant". For us, baptism is a soteriological sacrament of God; for them, baptism is a symbolic act of Man. In other words, the Evangelical baptism cannot properly be called a baptism at all because it redefines it, calling their apple by the name of our orange.[/quote]
This is well stated. A man's theology influences his intentional activity.