I guess that old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing still plays in some quarters.

Only the priesthood of God can administer a baptism that will satisfy the divine decree that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

(I’m guessing) He would not want you making a slothful habit of freeloading, but would he send you home hungry? I imagine he would say, eat up, then go and next time RSVP so we can do it up right.

There is a distinction made in Catholic theology between “valid” and “licit”. Crudely speaking, “valid” depends on the faith of the sacrament receiver, “licit” on the legitimacy of the giver.

If a defrocked priest (or even a fraudulent priest) offers me mere bread but says “[this is] the Body of Christ” and I believe it to be so, then God himself transsubstantiates it on my behalf (in a “your faith has saved you” kind of way). Or if a priest on a desert island has no unleavened bread available and uses leavened bread (or a cookie) as an emergency substitute, that is illicit but still valid. And on and on.

This line of thinking starts with “it doesn’t seem fair that…” and ends “with God all things are possible”.

This logic of course has its limits. The Catholic Church views itself as the One True Holy Catholic (i.e. universal) and Apostolic Church. That means it is the sole licit and valid successor to Peter. Consequently, acceptance of well-meaning faith from “defective” Christian churches is intended and offered as an upgrade. Implicit in the validity of this offer is eventual acknowledgement by the receiver of this. Explicit and intentional disavowal of Catholic primacy impedes not only the licitness but also the validity of the sacrament.

# 6, #14:

I think you are not fully grasping what Catholics mean by ecumenism (as opposed to Protestants). Ecumenism is not a meeting of equals, but the attempt to seek out lost sheep, a sort of passive proselytization. Its purpose is not issue-specific (like Prop. 8) — for that there are ad hoc working groups. It is intended to hold open the door, but ultimately has no effect if the person does not walk in. Very recently, the U.S. Catholic Bishops came under attack for making this explicit regarding Jews.

For Catholics, ecumenism is distinct from mere interfaith dialogue, which has no such restriction or hidden agenda.

In other words, Prop. 8 will never buy Mormons validity with the Vatican. Gratitude, but not validity. To the Vatican, LDS is still a heretical cult (not that anyone should care!)

Personally, I wish other religions offered something like this. I would arrange to receive all of them after my death, just to cover my bases.

I have found it curious that those who do not recognize our baptism are so opposed to our baptism for the dead and block access to records for family history research. If, in their eyes the baptism is invalid, that we don’t have true priesthood, why do they object so strenuously to baptism for the dead. What difference should it make for their ancestors; just some Mormon got wet needlessly. Of course, the principle of agency applies to the dead and living, and our baptisms are ‘just in case’ the dead accept it.