JPII now baptised by proxy by LDS

[flameburns623]

Apparently, someone or several people in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have been baptised on behalf of the departed Pope John Paul II since his passing. My sources are the following:

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazi...-issue-142.asp

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?...pic=19521&st=0

For those unaware of this practice, the Mormons perform baptisms on behalf of the departed with the idea in mind that those who were not Latter-Day Saints in this life, and who did not have a proper opportunity in this life to learn of and to accept the gospel of Mormonism, will have such an opportunity in the next life. Because baptism, confirmation, and other ordinances must be performed by people living in 'mortality' (this present realm of existence), Mormons perform such baptisms by proxy on behalf of the departed. In Mormon doctrine, this does not 'obligate' the departed soul to anything but gives them the opportunity to accept the proxy ordinances if they choose to do so in the next life.

My personal perception of this is that while it may be a vain gesture on the part of the LDS, it is harmless and reflects well on the LDS to make such a gesture. By the same token, I hope that more than a few Roman Catholics will say prayers or have Masses performed on behalf of LDS Church leaders or other Mormons in their person sphere of acquaintance, as they pass on to the next life.

Any other thoughts?

[LilyM]

One of my local churches is still remembering JP2 in their Masses every Sunday

It makes something of a mockery of the Sacrament of Baptism as instituted by Christ - after all, the apostles didn't run around baptising the living on behalf of their dead comrades.

In fact it makes a mockery of the whole notion of the Sacraments - which are PERSONAL interactions with God.

[flameburns623]

Originally Posted by LilyM

One of my local churches is still remembering JP2 in their Masses every Sunday

It makes something of a mockery of the Sacrament of Baptism as instituted by Christ - after all, the apostles didn't run around baptising the living on behalf of their dead comrades.

In fact it makes a mockery of the whole notion of the Sacraments - which are PERSONAL interactions with God.

Except that Mormons thing that the Apostles DID 'run around baptising the living on behalf of their dead comrades'.

And for Mormons, the sacraments of Baptism are 'tokens' and not 'channels of grace': LDS theology doesn't have quite the same sense of things that Roman Catholics have.

I think it meaningful that your church has Masses for His Holiness every Sunday. Can you not perceive that the same sort of love is being expressed, albeit in a different form, by the LDS?

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by flameburns623

I think it meaningful that your church has Masses for His Holiness every Sunday. Can you not perceive that the same sort of love is being expressed, albeit in a different form, by the LDS?

Oh I'm sure they're doing it out of love for him, for which I commend them, and I know that their understanding is different from ours.

I still think, that as devoted as JP2 was to the Church he led, and as sincerely as he held to his faith, he would probably be turning in his grave at the idea.

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by LilyM

Oh I'm sure they're doing it out of love for him, for which I commend them, and I know that their understanding is different from ours.

I still think, that as devoted as JP2 was to the Church he led, and as sincerely as he held to his faith, he would probably be turning in his grave at the idea.

When LDS President Harold B Lee died around 30 years ago, I was informed by an acquaintance that the then Pope (it wouldn’t have been JP2) sent his widow a letter of condolence. Is that common? Do Popes generally do that?

zerinus

[Karin]

Originally Posted by zerinus

When LDS President Harold B Lee died around 30 years ago, I was informed by an acquaintance that the then Pope (it wouldn’t have been JP2) sent his widow a letter of condolence. Is that common? Do Popes generally do that?

zerinus

what does this (condolence letter) have to do with baptising dead people
Can you stay on topic?

[Eden]

Originally Posted by zerinus

When LDS President Harold B Lee died around 30 years ago, I was informed by an acquaintance that the then Pope (it wouldn’t have been JP2) sent his widow a letter of condolence. Is that common? Do Popes generally do that?

zerinus

I looked up Mr. Harold B. Lee and found that he died in 1973. Pope John Paul II was not Pope until 1978. The Pope in 1973 was Pope Paul VI. I have no idea what the connection between Mr. Lee, his wife and Pope Paul VI would be or why it would be relevant to this discussion.

[Karin]

Originally Posted by Eden

I looked up Mr. Harold B. Lee and found that he died in 1973. Pope John Paul II was not Pope until 1978. The Pope in 1973 was Pope Paul VI. I have no idea what the connection between Mr. Lee, his wife and Pope Paul VI would be or why it would be relevant to this discussion.

it has nothing to do with the topic...but some folks like to throw things in now and then to derail or shift the focus of the thread away from something.

[scriabin]

1 Corinthians 15:29 ---

"Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?"

There was a practice of baptizing for the dead at the time of the apostles. From the context of the passage Paul is actually saying the practice is efficacious.

I don't know what the Church states on this matter. Anybody know?

[Karin]

Originally Posted by scriabin

I don't know what the Church states on this matter. Anybody know?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/camorm2.htm

[cestusdei]

Originally Posted by scriabin

1 Corinthians 15:29 ---

"Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?"

There was a practice of baptizing for the dead at the time of the apostles. From the context of the passage Paul is actually saying the practice is efficacious.

I don't know what the Church states on this matter. Anybody know?

No one knows much. The Corinthian church had many problems. Paul had to write them frequently. Apparently some of them did this and Paul used it as a springboard. It wasn't done elsewhere that we know of and it died out in Corinth. Paul doesn't approve of it or ask that it be spread elsewhere. The Corinthians also spoke in tongues, do Mormons? No, in fact they absolutely discourage it. So, there is a Corinthian practice that Mormons do not imitate.

[dosdog]

Originally Posted by cestusdei

No one knows much. The Corinthian church had many problems. Paul had to write them frequently. Apparently some of them did this and Paul used it as a springboard. It wasn't done elsewhere that we know of and it died out in Corinth. Paul doesn't approve of it or ask that it be spread elsewhere. The Corinthians also spoke in tongues, do Mormons? No, in fact they absolutely discourage it. So, there is a Corinthian practice that Mormons do not imitate.

Corinthians -Historically, this passage has been the source of much speculation and some confusion. One second century sect, the Cataphrygians (Montanists), seem to have developed the practice of baptizing actual corpses based on a misunderstanding of this verse (see Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, p. 119).

In order to understand this or any other Biblical passage, it is important to examine the context to understand what is being talked about.

The entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians deals with the resurrection. False teachers had infiltrated the church at Corinth, teaching "that there is no resurrection of the dead," (vs. 13).

Tertullian refers to the practice of those who “were vainly baptized for the dead” (Against Marcion, 5.10). But observe that even he characterizes the practice as vain.

It is a Vile Pagan Practice and needs to be condemned along with anyone who performs it

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by Eden

I looked up Mr. Harold B. Lee and found that he died in 1973. Pope John Paul II was not Pope until 1978. The Pope in 1973 was Pope Paul VI. I have no idea what the connection between Mr. Lee, his wife and Pope Paul VI would be or why it would be relevant to this discussion.

The relevance was in the last paragraph in post that I was replying to. The paragraph was as follows:

I still think, that as devoted as JP2 was to the Church he led, and as sincerely as he held to his faith, he would probably be turning in his grave at the idea.

I should have thought that if the Pope was courteous enough to send the widow of the president of the LDS Church a letter of condolence after he had died, knowing full well their practice of baptizing for the dead, that he wouldn’t be “turning in his grave” should they baptize him by proxy after he was dead. Makes sense, no?

zerinus

[Karin]

Originally Posted by zerinus

The relevance was in the last paragraph in post that I was replying to. The paragraph was as follows:


I should have thought that if the Pope was courteous enough to send the widow of the president of the LDS Church a letter of condolence after he had died, knowing full well their practice of baptizing for the dead, that he wouldn’t be “turning in his grave” should they baptize him by proxy after he was dead. Makes sense, no?

zerinus

No...makes no sense!
And why baptise someone that ALREADY has been Baptised?
Or did you guys think that a condolonce letter was an ok to go ahead and baptise him when he was dead...why not baptise him when he was alive??

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by Karin

No...makes no sense!
And why baptise someone that ALREADY has been Baptised?
Or did you guys think that a condolonce letter was an ok to go ahead and baptise him when he was dead...why not baptise him when he was alive??

YOU have never made any sense to me, and I don't think that you ever will.

zerinus