On the validity of sacraments

[Northern Crofter]

if his ecclesiastical jurisdiction is orthodox

I would argue that this is what invalidates a Mormon baptism, not their intent - it cannot be a Trinitarian baptism if done by someone ordained by a cult that rejects the Trinity in the first place.

c. Trinitarian intent must be present. The person being baptized, or the parent of the child being baptized must intend for this symbolic washing to be baptism. The person performing the baptism must intend to be baptizing the person or child into Christ.

I would disagree that the baptism of a child is invalid if their parents' and/or minister lacks "Trinitarian intent."

The question of whether the person performing the baptism intends with Trinitarian intent to be baptizing the person or child into Christ, is not clear...

I agree. And I think Article 26 is addressing that. I will add that I believe this is also addressed in WCF 28.6 when it states that "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered...."

...in South Asia some ancient Churches claim to be Trinitarian... Are baptisms performed by those bodies valid?

Does claiming to be Trinitarian =/= intent in your thinking? I am comfortable sticking with the WCF (28.2) as to validity without bringing in intent:

"The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water,

"wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,

"by a minister of the gospel lawfully called thereunto."

If in on the other side of the veil ones baptism turns out to have not been "valid," it is ultimately of no consequence: "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it...." (WCF 28.5).

 

[yeutter]

"by a minister of the gospel lawfully called thereunto."

If in on the other side of the veil ones baptism turns out to have not been "valid," it is ultimately of no consequence: "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it...." (WCF 28.5).

Is a clergyman in a Monophysite or Nestorian Church a minister of the Gospel lawfully called thereunto? Or is a Monophysite or a Nestorian a cultist?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Is a clergyman in a Monophysite or Nestorian Church a minister of the Gospel lawfully called thereunto? Or is a Monophysite or a Nestorian a cultist?

I would not consider clergy who publicly believed either to be a minister of the Gospel. Those who reject the human nature of Christ destroy half (and thus the entirety) of the Gospel - the belief that Christ came to save His people both physically and spiritually; He "being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion" (WCF 8.2).

Both Nestorianism and Monophysitism were condemned as heretical at the Council of Chalcedon which I believe most reformed, orthodox Christians accept as authoritative. I think of a cult as a group that often religiously follows (if not worships) its leader whereas heresy is the act of going against the stated doctrine of the Church. I think Monophysitism and Nestorianism could both be identified as both.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think of a cult as a group that often religiously follows (if not worships) its leader whereas heresy is the act of going against the stated doctrine of the Church. I think Monophysitism and Nestorianism could both be identified as both.

I have huge problems with Miaphysites and Nestorians, but I do not know that they blindly follow a cult leader. Most Nestorians are closer to Theodore of Mopsuestia than they are to Nestorius. Miaphysites do revere Severus of Antioch, and he was probably the most ardent anti-Chalcedonian, but he is nowhere near in importance in their views as Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I have huge problems with Miaphysites and Nestorians, but I do not know that they blindly follow a cult leader. Most Nestorians are closer to Theodore of Mopsuestia than they are to Nestorius. Miaphysites do revere Severus of Antioch, and he was probably the most ardent anti-Chalcedonian, but he is nowhere near in importance in their views as Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria.

I largely agree. When I defined a cult as religiously following a leader, I was thinking of the origin - Nestorians were originally followers of Nestorian so I think it is fair to use both the cult and heresy labels. I will grant that Miaphysites are more ubiquitous (and therefore not named after a lone originator). I don't think the modern definition of "cult" (blindly following a charismatic personality) always applies - you can have a cult following without the object of adoration even being aware of it. But I think in this discussion that whether or not they were/weren't cults is irrelevant - both were heresies so I would not regard their followers as able to be legitimate ministers of the Gospel.