Utah Bishop Explains Catholic Church’s Decision To Prevent LDS Posthumous Baptisms

KUTV ^ | 5/7/2008 | Brian Mullahy

[Alex Murphy]

The Catholic Church is taking steps to prevent LDS Church members from performing baptisms for Catholics, after their deaths. In a 2NEWS interview, Catholic Bishop, John Wester explains the church’s decision.

The order was issued in a letter by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy. The Vatican’s directive calls the LDS practice of baptisms for the dead a “detrimental” practice and it directs each Catholic Bishop to “not cooperate with the erroneous practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

Bishop John Wester told 2NEWS’ Brian Mullahy that he views the letter as an “internal” document and that the purpose is to protect catholic records.

“I do think it’s important for people not to jump to conclusions,” said Bishop Wester. “It’s simply reminding us that our sacramental records are supposed to be preserved, taken care of and that they’re supposed to be kept confidential.”

But Father James Massa, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops went further, saying, “As Catholics, we have to make very clear to them (LDS Church) their practice of so-called rebaptism is unacceptable from the standpoint of catholic truth.”

2NEWS’ Brian Mullahy asked Bishop Wester how he reconciles his words with the words of Father Massa.

“I understand what Frather Massa is saying,” said Bishop Wester. “What he says is true, the Catholic and LDS Churches have two distinct theologies of baptism. We know that. We’ve always known that.”

The LDS practice of baptisms for the dead has also been condemned by Jewish groups who say that names of Holocaust victims are still in LDS genealogical database for unwelcome baptisms.

Like Jewish leaders in past, Bishop Wester met with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for a respectful conversation.

Bishop Wester says he wants to make sure that it is understood that the Vatican letter is not an attack on the LDS church and despite doctrinal differences; the two faiths can still live together peacefully, without straining relationships.

“Even though we have different theologies, we have found many ways to work together, we respect each other, we acknowledge the values we hold in common. That hasn’t changed,” said Bishop Wester.

[heartwood]

Nothing can prevent LDS from baptizing Catholics if they get hold of the names but what would be wrong is parishes handing over their baptismal lists.

If I have distant LDS cousins I suppose they’ve had our mutual ancestors baptized - doesn’t bother me, doubt it bothers the ancestors.

[Burkean]

I converted to the LDS faith while I was attending a Catholic university. The priest who was in charge of religious instruction was absolutely livid with me—he told me I could “never sever the ties to the Mother Church” and that I would always be a Catholic regardless of what I did.

[John Leland 1789]

And what can the RCC do in reality to prevent the LDS from practicing such “baptisms?” Nothing. Lists of names can be gotten a hold of so easily, as spam on the Internet demonstrates.

And what difference does it make anyway.

In my view, this all results from an inordinate emphasis upon a water ceremony anyway. Those reading this know that millions of Christians practice water baptism as a testimony and a proper biblical witness, but deny that water baptism has any salvific merit. (”Salvific” is one of those words I read so often in RCC writings. I guess I'm using it correctly; would need a Catholic glossary to know for sure, eh?)

Anyway, millions of Christians, even practicing water baptism, do not believe in “baptismal regeneration” (trade language for water baptism being necessary to the saving of a man's soul).

I've yet to see it proved in the Scriptures that water baptism is required in the current dispensation of grace. I see the cammand to Israelites/Jews in the early Acts period when the offer of their Davidic Kingdom was being offered (or rather, re-offered) to them. Then, as the Israelites in the homeland (Jerusalem and Judea) rejected Christ and the offer of His Kingship (Acts 2:19-26), and the Apostles turned to the Gentiles, I see an absence of the command “repent and be baptized.”

The ONE BAPTISM for the Gentiles appears to be the baptism performed (without water) by the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:1-6; 1 Cor. 12:13; Ephesians 4:3-7; etc) upon “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20). And water baptism is not mentioned once in the epistles of Paul written after the close of the Acts period (Eph.; Phil.; Col.; 1 & 2 Tim.; Titus; Philemon).

The only reason that someone would be so concerned about the LDS getting their name and performing some kind of non-bliblical baptismal rite for them after death is that they put entirely too much emphasis upon the rite of water.

[sevenbak]

I participated in an interview with Bishop Wester today as well, on this same story, but for a different news outlet. He went out of his way to tone down the rhetoric, saying it’s a decades old policy that is being reiterated. He also said it likely didn’t come from the Pope, but guideline committees.

http://video.ksl.com/sid_video/3252605.ram

Personally, I don’t see what all the hubbub is about. Catholics don’t recognize LDS baptism as valid anyway, so why would a posthumous baptism by proxy be any different? The LDS doctrine of Baptism for the Dead stems from the commandment that all men must be baptized. It is not even binding in the hereafter unless it is accepted in the hereafter.

[sevenbak]

No wish to debate here, just answering your question from the LDS perspective.

We can look at all of the scriptures in the Book of Acts where individuals accepted Christ and in every case it resulted in baptism. Even in those instances where it says that one must believe to be saved, the result is still baptism. This should be our model.

Acts 2: 37-38, 41
Acts 8:12
Acts 8:13
Acts 8: 36-38
Acts 9:18
Acts 10:47-48
Acts 16:14-15
Acts 18:8
Acts 16:30-33
Acts 19:5
Acts 22:16

When we consider the scriptures we find that baptism occurs in every instance that individuals accept Christ. Never do the scriptures teach that we shouldn’t be baptized. There are those who seem to argue that we don’t need it. For them Acts 2:37-38 could be altered to read:

Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them...you accepted Jesus—so you’re done! You don’t need to repent or be baptized because those are works and works aren’t necessary.

We have a clear model from the scriptures. We can continue to ask why we need baptism, but the question of should we be baptized has already been answered.

Is baptism essential for salvation? Are those who aren’t baptized damned? The answer to those questions may remain hotly debated, but the answer is irrelevant. Those who spend time arguing about this seem to have forgotten they aren’t the Judge and their time spent arguing won’t change it. Jesus Christ is the author of salvation. He is the judge. It is up to Him to save whom he will. In other words, he makes the decisions, not us. All we can do is to trust him. We can do this by following the scriptures and being baptized. The rest is up to Him.

[pankot]

Theologically speaking, one cannot be baptized more than once in any faith. This is because it is the Holy Spirit who works, not the person or the faith or the baptizer. To baptize more than once is to insult the Holy Spirit by saying, in effect, the Holy Spirit failed the first time. And you really don’t want to do that. (Luke 12:10)

[Enough_Deceit]

“Personally, I don’t see what all the hubbub is about. Catholics don’t recognize LDS baptism as valid anyway, so why would a posthumous baptism by proxy be any different? The LDS doctrine of Baptism for the Dead stems from the commandment that all men must be baptized. It is not even binding in the hereafter unless it is accepted in the hereafter.”

I SO agree with you FRiend.

[John Leland 1789]

Water baptism being a model or precept by example is accepted by me. I maintain the practice of it; but for believers only — not for infants. I will only baptize those who can personally, openly testify that they have already experienced regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5) upon their understanding and receiving the Cross-work of Christ and His Resurrection as their only hope of eternal life.

My post was/is for those very many people (very many who also read these pages) who, like me, who do not believe in baptismal regeneration any any way, shape, or form. I would even refuse to baptize anyone who has some idea that getting into a baptistery is somehow necessary to be saved.

So, I'm not debating you either. My words were/are meant to encourage others, who already deny baptismal regeneration, but who are weak in in their Biblical study of it. I hope they will take my comments to launch a re-newed study. I hope they will consider the transitional de-emphasis upon water for salvation progressively through the New Testament.

I am hoping some will consider the audiences preached to, particularly in Acts chapters 1 through 7, where the the Church of the current dispensation is not the subject or issue. Israel re-establishing their position with Jehovah is the issue in those chapters (which Israel denied and failed to do)so that they may see the return of their Messiah and the setting up of His Kingdom on earth.

There is a progressive turning to the Gentiles after the stoning of Stephen. And the answers to the question, “What must I do to be saved,” differ from that of Mark ch. 16 and Acts ch.s 1-7.

Paul separates the Gospel from water baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:17, and states that he was NOT sent to baptize. That refers to the elements of his commission. Since he did water baptize some people and household, the practice must have a difference in emphasis and purpose when applied to the Gentile populations. The commission God gave to the “Apostle to the Gentiles” differs from the commission that God gave the Twelve in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:7-9)with regard to the Nation of Israel (all Twelve Tribes represented there, by the way) — Acts chs. 1-7.

There is no debate with you. You won't agree with these things. I am not trying to change your mind. I was/am writing with a view beyond you to those who read these pages who already have partial understanding of these things, deny that water saves, but who need a few words to further encourage their study.

At the same time, for those who have enjoyed salvation by the Grace of God and regeneration by faith and the work of the Holy Spirit, I would baptize those in water as a testimony of such a faith in the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ — God's means to reconcile the world unto Himself.

[sevenbak]

We can agree on one thing, that baptism of little children is just wrong. The whole need no physician, but they that are sick.

This goes right to this thread topic as well. The LDS view against infant baptism does not sit well with Catholics.

Here's what the Book of Mormon has to say on the matter, it doesn't mince words at all!

Moroni 8:

5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:
8 listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect clove casteth out all fear.
17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.
18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from ball eternity to all eternity.
19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the cjudgment-seat of Christ.
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.
25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;
26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the holy Ghost, which comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

[John Leland 1789]

Some of those verses in Moroni 8 sound like commentary on some passages in Romans chs. 5, 6, and 7 rather than being any new revelation.

I don't agree, neither do I believe that young children do not COMMIT sin. I have raised seven children, and I watch four grandchildren (thus far), and I believe that they are born with a sin nature, and are guilty of rebellion against authority from very early on. But they do not have the capacity to understand what sin is, nor are their consciences yet livened or quickened to know how to repent and seek justification for sin. I would say that the same is true of many of varying ages who suffer from natural mental disorders (e.g. congenital retardation) that prevent them from understanding the sin issue.

Very young children and the severely mentally handicapped are, however, are in a state of “no law” and “no imputation of guilt,” and therefore, if not called “saved,” they are at least “safe” from judgment. I believe that this is verifiable in Romans chapters 5-7; etc.

Right. We would not water baptize infants, very young children, or the severely mentally handicapped, who cannot personally and deliberately testify of regeneration through faith in Jesus Christ. It brings confusion to do so, and is wholly unnecessary.

Since the 4th Century, the Roman Catholic Church has scorned, and often severely persecuted the (Immersed) Water-Baptized believers of many names and designations. I believe that it has been principally a matter of CONTROL. The RCC doesn't control us nor our ministries, nor our ministers, nor our churches, nor our wealth, nor our lands, NOR OUR CONSCIENCES. And this bugs the snot out of them!

So the RCC has spent incalculable resources re-writing histories and producing false and ludicrous histories trying to make the whole world believe that Peter was a pope; that the original churches were Catholic (by their definitions), and that there were no churches that descended from the Apostles that were actually indigenous and independent (totally self-governing under the leadership of Christ the Head), unless, of course, they were heretical (again, by the RCC’s own definitions).

Basically, the RCC (like others, too), in affect, say, “This is what we are, and this is what we believe, and this is what we insist, so this is what the Bible must be talking about.” It's their own circular reasoning, since NO earthly church (denominationally speaking) is named in the Scriptures. “Since we insist upon what we insist upon, by our tradition and papal authority, Matthew 16:13-19 certainly must be talking about us,” say they.

To keep up with circular reasoning, the RCC (and many others, too) must produce competing authorities with the Bible (new scriptures, tradition, re-written histories, councils, papal authority, etc.), and then say that God has ordained them to interpret the Bible in the light of their own extra-Biblical “authorities.” Of course, then they must return to “Well, we have the Keys to the Kingdom” (although they are never once named in the Bible as having any such keys — nor is anyone else currently living on earth so named). And so the circle continues, round and round and round — the religious merry-go-round.

[JimKalb]

This is just an example of bad reporting. The Church isn’t “taking steps to prevent LDS Church members from performing baptisms for Catholics after their deaths.” They’re simply saying they won’t cooperate in the practice. If someone wants to interpret that as an insult to the Mormons it’s not the Church’s problem.

[big'ol_freeper]

Bingo.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I've yet to see it proved in the Scriptures that water baptism is required in the current dispensation of grace.

Better brush up on your studies.

"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

[sevenbak]

I suppose you equally condemn the NT apostles, and even Christ himself for similar language in the OT? God is the same, and His prophets are consistent, His words are truth, and truth is universal.

Christ Himself established His gospel in it's fullness to these people shortly after his Ascension into Heaven after His resurrection.

http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/11/

They had His words, and His words and teachings were similar to his ministry in Jerusalem. This is why the BOM is another Testament of Christ. His words are true, and in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established.

[Godzilla]

They had His words, and His words and teachings were similar to his ministry in Jerusalem. This is why the BOM is another Testament of Christ. His words are true, and in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established.

John - you noticed that the passage from the bom read like a commentary on the nt. Not suprising since Smith relied upon the KJV for verbatum copying of passages. The bible already has 66 witnesses and does not need a made-up tale from a peep stone to verify its testamony.

[Carl from Marietta]

One thing is absolutely certain, the thief on the cross wasn't baptized, and that day he was with Christ in paradise.

Or have Catholics and LDS members stricken that from their bibles as well?

Man cannot understand grace, so they institute a whole host of rites in a vain attempt to "justify" themselves. Wake up people!

[Pyro7480]

One thing is absolutely certain, the thief on the cross wasn't baptized, and that day he was with Christ in paradise.

That's called "baptism of desire" in Catholic theology.

[sevenbak]

Paradise is not heaven, but a place where good souls await the resurrection, and final judgment.

Did you notice that when Christ was resurrected he said to Mary “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father”

3 days had passed since he and the thief were in paradise, and he still hadn't been to where the Father was.

Have non Catholics and non LDS stricken that from their bibles as well?

[sevenbak]

Putting a limit on God’s words and prophets?

Did you miss this thread?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2011789/posts