An Anabaptist Catholic Law?

[gerhardd]

Canon 868 §1 states, "For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a well*founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this. "

I have a few questions concerning this law: Did Christ say “you may forbid the children to come to me if you don’t have a wellfounded hope they will be raised catholic”? Did Peter say, “The promise [of baptism for the remission of sin] is to your children if and only if there is a wellfounded hope they will be raised catholic”?

Does baptism save children or does raising them in the catholic religion save them? If raising children catholic is what ultimately saves them, how does the catholic religion differ from the Anabaptists?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Unless the parent(s) support the religious upbringing of the child, there is a grave danger that the child will fall away from the faith. This caution is true in any religion, and it is NOT unique at all to the Roman Catholic Church. I know of no religion that would baptize a child, if the parents were not actively involved with that church.

I converted to the Roman Catholic Church when I was 9 years old. But, they refused to baptize me, even though my mother (who was my sole legal parent) agreed to allow this to be done (I have her written, notarized approval). They refused to baptize me because I would be the only Catholic in my family, and because there was a very good chance that i would be drawn away from the faith. I was baptized when I turned 13.

Anabaptists are VERY different from Roman Catholics, in just about every aspect of their beliefs and practices.

Your “question” is designed to provoke, rather than to learn.

 

[jphilapy]

Does baptism save children or does raising them in the catholic religion save them? If raising children catholic is what ultimately saves them, how does the catholic religion differ from the Anabaptists?

You obviously are understanding the term “save” differently than Catholicism understands it.

You view saved as something that happens once for all time. We view saved as something that is ongoing. You were saved, you are being saved, you will be saved. When you get baptised, you get cleansed of your sins and then received the Holy Spirit. This is just the beginning of your salvation. You must work it out with fear and trembling.

The idea that you are saved at one instance of time in your life and this last for all of eternity is not even a concept taught in scripture.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

You obviously are understanding the term “save” differently than Catholicism understands it.

You view saved as something that happens once for all time. We view saved as something that is ongoing. You were saved, you are being saved, you will be saved. When you get baptised, you get cleansed of your sins and then received the Holy Spirit. This is just the beginning of your salvation. You must work it out with fear and trembling.

The idea that you are saved at one instance of time in your life and this last for all of eternity is not even a concept taught in scripture.

Actually, we know Mennonite folk-Anabaptists- who do not believe in “once saved, always saved.” We differ with them on other doctrines, though.
I think there’s a confusion sometimes between redemption & salvation. We’ve run into it more often with Baptist friends than Mennonites.

 

[KristinVT]

Hi gerharrd,

Short answer: Baptism saves and holding the Catholic faith saves. They are both part of our journey to eternal salvation.

Your profile says you’re Lutheran. Lutheran and Catholic views of baptism are virtually identical. Lutheran pastors do not baptize children of non-Christian parents either. Why? In short, because it would be dishonest. Baptism brings us into the Church, and includes promises to keep the faith. Baptism isn’t just a matter of throwing around the magic holy water and seeing where it lands.

On the other hand, because Catholics (and Lutherans) believe that baptism forgives original sin, their baptism policy is rather liberal compared to “Anabaptists.” From what I’ve seen, Catholics will baptize any child who has anything like a decent possibility of being raised in the Church.

When Jesus told the disciples to “let the children come to me,” that was because adoring parents were trying to push children into his arms. When Peter told the crowd that “The promise [of baptism] is for you and for your children,” he was talking to parents who intended to be baptized, not to parents who didn’t show up for baptism themselves. In both cases it is well implied that the parents are believers. Jesus and Peter did not invade the homes of unbelievers to baptize their children. (There was an infamous case of this in the 19th century, though: Google Edgardo Mortara.)

 

[StrawberryJam]

Canon 868 §1 states, "For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a well*founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this. "

I have a few questions concerning this law: Did Christ say “you may forbid the children to come to me if you don’t have a wellfounded hope they will be raised catholic”? Did Peter say, “The promise [of baptism for the remission of sin] is to your children if and only if there is a wellfounded hope they will be raised catholic”?

Does baptism save children or does raising them in the catholic religion save them? If raising children catholic is what ultimately saves them, how does the catholic religion differ from the Anabaptists?

Why would the parents want to have a baptism in the Catholic church just to not end up taking the child to Catholic Church? Surely if they wanted to have the child baptised, they could find other churches to go to that won’t even require attendance from any of them at all.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Canon 868 §1 states, "For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a well*founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this. "

I have a few questions concerning this law: Did Christ say “you may forbid the children to come to me if you don’t have a wellfounded hope they will be raised catholic”? Did Peter say, “The promise [of baptism for the remission of sin] is to your children if and only if there is a wellfounded hope they will be raised catholic”?

Does baptism save children or does raising them in the catholic religion save them? If raising children catholic is what ultimately saves them, how does the catholic religion differ from the Anabaptists?

Obviously this is spoken as our Lord has found one Church. therefore, those who belonged to the Church would have their children baptized in the Church because that is where they all belonged. for those who think that they can be outside the Church and have rights to do as they please, for the CC is not the case. the Catholic Church is the One Church that cannot do as she pleases. everything she does is at the commnand of her Lord. i know that protestants come here and express their opinions how Christianity should be run, you guys make me scratch my head all the time.

anabaptists claim St John the baptist, the Catholic Church was found by Jesus. that is a big difference on itself.

 

[Publisher]

anabaptists claim St John the baptist, the Catholic Church was found by Jesus. that is a big difference on itself.

Ummmm…actually…No…they make no such claim…that is a “Catholic claim” made about the Anabaptists.

 

[1ke]

Why would the parents want to have a baptism in the Catholic church just to not end up taking the child to Catholic Church? Surely if they wanted to have the child baptised, they could find other churches to go to that won’t even require attendance from any of them at all.

People approach the Church for baptism for all sorts of reasons other than a desire to raise their child Catholic or a desire for their child to receive a saving Sacrament. Many times it has to do with making someone else happy or because it is seen as a cultural ritural, not a Sacrament.

I worked with a lapsed Catholic, married to a non-practicing Jew outside the Church. They had a child and she went to a local Catholic church to arrange for baptism. She was outraged that the priest deferred baptism. Why? Because she had no intention of ever stepping foot in the church again after the baptism. She just wanted the kid baptized b/c it was a Hispanic cultural thing (in her view) and her mother was bugging her to have the baby baptized. She and her husband were basically atheists and had no plan to live the faith or teach it to their child.

This happens ALL the time and the Church has a duty to instruct these parents on the seriousness of the Sacrament.

 

[StrawberryJam]

People approach the Church for baptism for all sorts of reasons other than a desire to raise their child Catholic or a desire for their child to receive a saving Sacrament. Many times it has to do with making someone else happy or because it is seen as a cultural ritural, not a Sacrament.

I worked with a lapsed Catholic, married to a non-practicing Jew outside the Church. They had a child and she went to a local Catholic church to arrange for baptism. She was outraged that the priest deferred baptism. Why? Because she had no intention of ever stepping foot in the church again after the baptism. She just wanted the kid baptized b/c it was a Hispanic cultural thing (in her view) and her mother was bugging her to have the baby baptized. She and her husband were basically atheists and had no plan to live the faith or teach it to their child.

This happens ALL the time and the Church has a duty to instruct these parents on the seriousness of the Sacrament.

I happen to think the Catholic Church is fully within her rights to do this. If a parent’s intentions are so superficial, then the Church has no duty to indulge that. That child can always get baptised on their own (with parent permission) as one poster here noted he did.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

When one is baptized Catholic one becomes forever subject to the Church rules on marriage, fast and abstinence etc. It is unfair to saddle a person with that and then not explain the rules to him.

 

[blackrobe]

Why would the parents want to have a baptism in the Catholic church just to not end up taking the child to Catholic Church? Surely if they wanted to have the child baptised, they could find other churches to go to that won’t even require attendance from any of them at all.

My experience, sad to say, is that many nominally Catholic parents who do not practice the Faith expect their pastors to baptize their children. I’m sure their reasons differ but among them are social considerations and a sort of superstitious misunderstanding of the sacrament.

Often when there is a baptism at my small parish I don’t recognize the family and sometimes never see them again. By contrast, at the oratory where I regularly worship with a very traditional Catholic congregation, all the baptized faithful can be seen at Mass every Sunday and frequently at weekday Mass as well.

AMDG
jsa

 

[gerhardd]

jphilapy: “You obviously are understanding the term “save” differently than Catholicism understands it.”

Yes, I view salvation as what God does in baptism not what parents promise to do. Parents will not keep their promises. The eternal promise of baptism will never fail because it is guaranteed by Christ, “Baptism now saves us.”.

KristinVT: “Short answer: Baptism saves and holding the Catholic faith saves.”

That is not in dispute. The Canon teaches that being brought up catholic saves children not the catholic faith.

KristinVT:“Your profile says you’re Lutheran. Lutheran and Catholic views of baptism are virtually identical. Lutheran pastors do not baptize children of non-Christian parents either. Why? In short, because it would be dishonest. Baptism brings us into the Church, and includes promises to keep the faith. Baptism isn’t just a matter of throwing around the magic holy water and seeing where it lands.”

The dishonestly lies with Lutheran pastors and Catholic priests who refuse to do what they have been called by God to do (i.e., baptize babies brought by parents)… In the Lutheran rite of Holy Baptism, the child confesses his catholic faith not his parents. Lutheran doctrine denies that the confession, faith, and intention of parents, etc. save the child.

KristinVT:“On the other hand, because Catholics (and Lutherans) believe that baptism forgives original sin, their baptism policy is rather liberal compared to “Anabaptists.” From what I’ve seen, Catholics will baptize any child who has anything like a decent possibility of being raised in the Church.”

Legalizing Catholics, Lutherans, and Anabaptists have created a new law, not found in scripture, that forbids the baptism of children brought by parents. They differ among each other in degree not in doctrine.

KristinVT:“When Jesus told the disciples to “let the children come to me,” that was because adoring parents were trying to push children into his arms. When Peter told the crowd that “The promise [of baptism] is for you and for your children,” he was talking to parents who intended to be baptized, not to parents who didn’t show up for baptism themselves. In both cases it is well implied that the parents are believers. Jesus and Peter did not invade the homes of unbelievers to baptize their children. (There was an infamous case of this in the 19th century, though: Google Edgardo Mortara.)”

The promise of baptism belongs to children regardless of the belief or intention of their parents. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. Contrary to your Calvinist Canon, Christ says nothing about the belief or intention of parents that would forbid baptism.

The Mortara case was not forced baptism. The babysitter was acting as the agent of the parents and, therefore, the baptism was legal according to scripture. The Canon is wrong to permit forced baptism of dying children and also wrong to forbid the baptism of children who are voluntarily brought to baptism by their parents.

StrawberryJam: “Why would the parents want to have a baptism in the Catholic church just to not end up taking the child to Catholic Church? Surely if they wanted to have the child baptised, they could find other churches to go to that won’t even require attendance from any of them at all.”

Not relevant. The Catholic Church should be following Christ’s example not a business model that views success in terms of attendance.

 

[Kaninchen]

The Mortara case was not forced baptism. The babysitter was acting as the agent of the parents and, therefore, the baptism was legal according to scripture.

Acting as the agent of the parents? Are you saying they asked her to baptise the child?

 

[JonNC]

KristinVT:“Your profile says you’re Lutheran. Lutheran and Catholic views of baptism are virtually identical. Lutheran pastors do not baptize children of non-Christian parents either. Why? In short, because it would be dishonest. Baptism brings us into the Church, and includes promises to keep the faith. Baptism isn’t just a matter of throwing around the magic holy water and seeing where it lands.”

Hi gerhardd,
Do you have a reference you can link to regarding what I’ve bolded?

Additionally, one thing Lutheran and Catholic clergy have in common is the fact they are held accountable, at least initially at the diocese/synod level. To accuse them of being dishonest when they are being faithful to the practices of their communions is, I think, inaccurate.

Jon

 

[Esdra]

People approach the Church for baptism for all sorts of reasons other than a desire to raise their child Catholic or a desire for their child to receive a saving Sacrament. Many times it has to do with making someone else happy or because it is seen as a cultural ritual, not a Sacrament.

I worked with a lapsed Catholic, married to a non-practicing Jew outside the Church. They had a child and she went to a local Catholic church to arrange for baptism. She was outraged that the priest deferred baptism. Why? Because she had no intention of ever stepping foot in the church again after the baptism. She just wanted the kid baptized b/c it was a Hispanic cultural thing (in her view) and her mother was bugging her to have the baby baptized. She and her husband were basically atheists and had no plan to live the faith or teach it to their child.

This happens ALL the time and the Church has a duty to instruct these parents on the seriousness of the Sacrament.

Hi,

the thing with baptism as a “cultural event” is really interesting.

You know what? I live in a Catholic dominated Country (Austria, Europe) and this happens all the time here. I’ve never heard of a priest deferring baptism 'though.

In my opinion this is also the reason why Baptists, Anabaptists and other denomination with a strong emphasis on “giving ones life to Jesus” say that Catholics ain’t Christians.
I guess they see all the Catholics who are only Catholics on the paper (and I tell you, nearly all Catholics [as well as Lutherans and similar Protestants] are only Lutherans/Catholics etc on the paper!) - and then see that they can’t be Christians because they don’t live their religion.
I can understand them that they see the need to “evangelize” them, really.

I don’t know how the situation is in the US where Catholicism is only a minority religion…

I’ve talked to my mom ones (who is Catholics, like the rest of my family) and she said, she would let the child get baptised because otherwise it can’t partake on “social events” like first communion or confirmation. Or in kindergarten won’t understand what the procession on St. Martin’s Day etc.
In general the chance that a child here in Austria is “properly” raised Catholic is rather low. I mean basic things maybe be taught, like going to Church on Sunday (but the child, like me in former times, don’t even know why it has to go to such a “boring” event) or maybe even that there are saints and that you can honour Mary… - But the child won’t understand - like I also didn’t really understand. Even R.I. is nit obligatory in schools anymore - anyone’s free to visit Ethics instead - and many do so, especially in Junior High.
And even R.I. teacher’s don’t teach “Catholic Doctrine” anymore, but rather different stances of the CC on ethical topics like suicide or abortion. - If they’d do other, nobody of the students/pupils would pay attention because they are simply not interested in such a boring and “from yesterday” institution like the CC.
And what is most brutal for me as a “born again Christian” : even the bible is very seldom taught…

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[JonNC]

=Esdra;7304604]
In my opinion this is also the reason why Baptists, Anabaptists and other denomination with a strong emphasis on “giving ones life to Jesus” say that Catholics ain’t Christians.

Define “giving one’s life to Jesus”. I suspect that one who has given one’s life to Jesus would know better than to judge the faith of others.

I guess they see all the Catholics who are only Catholics on the paper (and I tell you, nearly all Catholics [as well as Lutherans and similar Protestants] are only Lutherans/Catholics etc on the paper!) - and then see that they can’t be Christians because they don’t live their religion.
I can understand them that they see the need to “evangelize” them, really.

Define “living one’s religion”. Some would say the fact that I enjoy a beer, or dancing is evidence that I’m not living my religion.
Honestly, I won’t question the faith of others, but I’m not particularly open to “evangelizing” from folks who reject the sacramental, salvific nature of Baptism, or who fail to discern the real presence in the Lord’s Supper.

Jon

 

[gerhardd]

Gerhardd: "The Mortara case was not forced baptism. The babysitter was acting as the agent of the parents and, therefore, the baptism was legal according to scripture. "
Kaninchen:“Acting as the agent of the parents? Are you saying they asked her to baptise the child?”

No, the parents, being sectarian Jews, probably did not ask their Catholic babysitter to baptize their child. However, they voluntarily placed their child in the babysitter’s care. The babysitter had the responsibility and the authority of the parent of a dying child. Therefore, the babysitter’s actions cannot be considered forced baptism of a type that is illegally permitted by the Catholic Canon: “An infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.”

The babysitter did not sin when she baptized the dying baby. On the other hand, the Pope committed a horrible sin when he kidnapped the baby from his parents in order to raise him Catholic.

The Pope’s sin stems from a false belief, engendered by an Anabaptist Canon, that baptism doesn’t really save the child but that raising a child catholic does. The Pope refused to trust that Almighty Christ would keep His baptized child in the catholic faith but the Pope must save the Mortara child himself by his supposed “good work” of raising the child catholic.

Jon: "Do you have a reference you can link to regarding what I’ve bolded (In the Lutheran rite of Holy Baptism, the child confesses his catholic faith not his parents.)?

Here’s Luther’s Order of Infant Baptism: godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f5.htm. As far as I know, all modern Lutheran orders of infant baptism (with the exception of WELS Christian Worship) require the child to personally confess his catholic faith (e.g., LCMS Lutheran Service Book; ELS, Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary; etc.). Note: Many Confessional Lutherans consider WELS CW baptismal rite, although completely valid, to be a poor witness to scripture.

Jon: “Additionally, one thing Lutheran and Catholic clergy have in common is the fact they are held accountable, at least initially at the diocese/synod level. To accuse them of being dishonest when they are being faithful to the practices of their communions is, I think, inaccurate.”

I don’t know about Catholic clergy but only the documents that Lutheran clergy are held accountable to at any level are Holy Scripture and the Book of Concord. If a Lutheran pastor refuses to baptize children brought to him by their parents, he is not being faithful to scripture or to the BOC: “The Gospel assigns to those who preside over churches the command. . . to administer the Sacraments” Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops

 

[JonNC]

=gerhardd;7306465]Jon: "Do you have a reference you can link to regarding what I’ve bolded (In the Lutheran rite of Holy Baptism, the child confesses his catholic faith not his parents.)?

Here’s Luther’s Order of Infant Baptism: godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f5.htm. As far as I know, all modern Lutheran orders of infant baptism (with the exception of WELS Christian Worship) **require the child to personally confess his catholic faith **(e.g., LCMS Lutheran Service Book; ELS, Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary; etc.). Note: Many Confessional Lutherans consider WELS CW baptismal rite, although completely valid, to be a poor witness to scripture.

I guess my confusion is over how an infant confesses his/her catholic faith.

Jon: “Additionally, one thing Lutheran and Catholic clergy have in common is the fact they are held accountable, at least initially at the diocese/synod level. To accuse them of being dishonest when they are being faithful to the practices of their communions is, I think, inaccurate.”

I don’t know about Catholic clergy but only the documents that Lutheran clergy are held accountable to at any level are Holy Scripture and the Book of Concord. If a Lutheran pastor refuses to baptize children brought to him by their parents, he is not being faithful to scripture or to the BOC: “The Gospel assigns to those who preside over churches the command. . . to administer the Sacraments” Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops

I’m not at all arguing your point about baptizing children. A baptized infant whose parents do not fulfill their promise to bring the child up in the catholic faith, is still better off than the unbaptized child. What I’m saying is that an LCMS pastor, for example, is part of the synod, and is accountable to it. It was your charge of dishonesty that I was respondiong to.

Jon

 

[Kaninchen]

Gerhardd: "The Mortara case was not forced baptism. The babysitter was acting as the agent of the parents and, therefore, the baptism was legal according to scripture. "
Kaninchen:“Acting as the agent of the parents? Are you saying they asked her to baptise the child?”

No, the parents, being sectarian Jews, probably did not ask their Catholic babysitter to baptize their child. However, they voluntarily placed their child in the babysitter’s care. The babysitter had the responsibility and the authority of the parent of a dying child. Therefore, the babysitter’s actions cannot be considered forced baptism of a type that is illegally permitted by the Catholic Canon: “An infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.”

The babysitter did not sin when she baptized the dying baby. On the other hand, the Pope committed a horrible sin when he kidnapped the baby from his parents in order to raise him Catholic.

Actually, the story was somewhat ‘grubbier’ than the official version and wasn’t exactly unique.

What on earth does ‘sectarian Jew’ mean, by the way?

The Pope’s sin stems from a false belief, engendered by an Anabaptist Canon, that baptism doesn’t really save the child but that raising a child catholic does. The Pope refused to trust that Almighty Christ would keep His baptized child in the catholic faith but the Pope must save the Mortara child himself by his supposed “good work” of raising the child catholic.

Christian sectarian interpretations of something I see as meaningless in the first place aside, if somebody had done the same thing to one of my children, I might consider an action for minor physical assault but nothing more.

The Mortara Affair took place because of the temporal power of Pius IX, he could do it so he did it. Unfortunately for him and his successors, he was to pay a heavy price - it played wonderfully into the Italian nationalist cause and lost him support amongst the only people who could save the ‘Papal States’ - the French and the Austrians.