B
bella_56
Guest
Which do you think is better, being baptized as a child to stick to traditional Catholic norms or being baptized as an adult-and why? Is one better than the other?
- Status
P
palmas85
Guest
If you die unbaptized you run the risk of not making it to heaven. I personally would not have risked such a thing with my children.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
As a week old infant! Because until the child is Baptized they are separated from God’s grace and satan has full access to the childs soul!!
B
BamaRider
Guest
As Catholics I don’t think it is a case of “like better.” We baptize our infants to prepare them for what is ahead. Orignial sin needs to be removed, so our children can prepare for Confession and 1st Communion in a state of grace. which for most Catholic children happens around 6 or 7 years of age.
But to answer your question, I come down precisely on the side of infant Baptism.
But to answer your question, I come down precisely on the side of infant Baptism.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Baptism is a gift from God, in which the stain of original sin is removed from the soul. Why wait to give this gift to a person?
I agree with another poster who said, Baptize them in the first week of their life.
Jim
I agree with another poster who said, Baptize them in the first week of their life.
Jim
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Baptism is a precious gift! What more priceless gift could be given to somebody, freedom from original sin,and adoption as God’s own child? Why not start off these precious lives right from the start?
Not only do I come strongly down on the side of infant baptism, but also infant confirmation (chrismation) and phaedocommunion!
However, if a person has missed the papal barge, there is nothingwrong with them being baptized as adults.
Not only do I come strongly down on the side of infant baptism, but also infant confirmation (chrismation) and phaedocommunion!
However, if a person has missed the papal barge, there is nothingwrong with them being baptized as adults.
What exactly are you getting at here? Like BamaRider said, “better” is probably not an appropriate word to use.
Are you wondering if baptisms ought to be deliberately delayed so that it can be conferred later on adults? If that’s what you mean then I agree with all others who say absolutely not. No baby should be deprived of the benefits, bother eternal and immediate, of baptism.
If you are looking at this from a more ‘sign’ oriented point of view then I would have to say that baptism of an adult can be a very powerful experience for both the recipient of the sacrament and for those who observe. A think adult baptism may provide a better ‘witness’ than infant baptism to those of little or marginal faith.
But saying it’s better to delay baptism so adults can have powerful experience is kind of like waiting to buckle a child into a car safety seat/seat belt until he is old enough to ask for it just because it would be so much more meaningful for seatbelt users and non-seatbelt users alike.
C
catherine_m
Guest
I think being baptised as an infant is best. If you are baptised as an adult then you can only start to receive the Sacraments as an adult and miss out on alot as a child.
H
Heath_Bar
Guest
Following the example of Jesus, who was taken to the temple to be presented as an infant, I believe that infant baptism is best. If we protect our children with vaccinations from disease, blankets for warmth, protections from bodily harm in all ways we can think of, then why not remove the stain of original sin so that we can protect our childrens’ souls, which are infinitely more important than their bodies?
B
bella_56
Guest
OK so, what I am trying to ask here before you all depress me haha IS: wouldn’t experiencing baptism as an adult, meaning being fully aware of Gods awesome love and grace upon us be more meaningful to an individual than say receiving it as a baby that even though you are pardoned of Original Sin you aren’t aware of it? And yes, I am a Catholic and maybe I’m just trying to ask questions here to look for guidiance from wise folks. Thank you for all who understand and aren’t trying to put me down by questioning my whole system. Aren’t we all a work in progress?
S
Spiller
Guest
Nope.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Hi again… It seems we both have dealt with the same issue here, so I will link you to my blog articles that relate to this. Hopefully you’ll find the answers there.
**The Case For Infant Baptism
**
How Is A Catholic Saved?
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
**The Case For Infant Baptism
**
How Is A Catholic Saved?
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
D
down_under
Guest
yes it would be that is why the catholic church (read the apostles) came up with confirmation. Presicely so that the individual would be put into the position his parents were in so many years ago, and will have the chance to have that wonderful meaningful experience for themselves.
J
Joannm
Guest
That is not why the CHurch “came up with confirmation.” Confirmation was originally part of baptism, as it is still in the Eastern Rites. The reason why confirmation was separated from baptism was because of the great numbers of people being baptized and the growing practice of baptizing infants soon after birth, the bishop could not preside at all these baptisms. So the fina anointing with Chrism was held off until the bishop could get around to the parishes to do it. Sometimes it would be years before he could get there. It eventually developed into this rite of passage into Adult Christianity which it was never originally intended.
My opinion is to follow the Eastern Rite of keeping the proper order for the sacraments of initiation, baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, and do it all at the same time with infants.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Gee, down under, it isn’t. JoannM gave you the gist of it. If you do a search, there is tons of information right here on CAF as to why confirmation should be kept with baptism, and the history of the initiation sacraments. I would only add that confirmation is not a “come to Jesus moment” but the action of the Holy Spirit, through the bishop, who is the minister of the sacrament. While the consent of those over seven is required, and baptismal promises are renewed, the confirmand is not the minister of this sacrament. Here is an article from my diocese paper about a parish trying to reestablish the correct order of the sacrments, with the bishop’s approval.
Short answer: Maybe. (Are you shocked and surprised?)
Yes, having cognitive skills might make the whole thing more meaningful. However, is baptism simply a “feelings” type of thing, something to be “experienced” with deep sensualness? A feel-good moment, one of several in a lifetime?
Or is baptism a sacrament our Lord commanded, with grace available to even the smallest human being? Is it better to grow up as the child of the King of the Universe- for in baptism, in addition to having original sin gone, we are adopted as God’s children- or to save that adoption so we can grow up as at the very least, children of the world, but have a feelings experience?
How many individuals would blow off baptism in adulthood, denying themselves that grace? Parents are not just obeying the Church when they have their infant baptized as soon as possible. They are giving that child a tremendous gift of being raised in grace, in the life of the Church.
S
Spiller
Guest
Largely because it was felt that a separate first communion and confirmation would help retain people within the Church during their formative years.
C
CBS
Guest
Then what about RCIA students then? Why do they have to go through a lengthy six month to a year long learning process before getting baptized?
What happens if during that process you get T-boned by a semi and die unbaptized?
I’m not trying to start arguments, I’m genuinely interested in the reasoning for this. Shouldn’t RCIA student be screened by a priest for sincerity, then baptised, then receive the other sacrements?
Why is that courtesy extended to child, but not an adult capable of of deciding that they choose the Catholic Church to be there home, especially if my Protestant Baptism is “invalid.”
D
down_under
Guest
When you are talking about converts you are right when you are talking about infants you are WRONG. It was never done that way for those born into the church. Even in biblical times “whole households” were baptised as soon as the head of the household believed. there are several examples of this. baptism is the sign of the new covenant. the sign of the old covenant was a lot less plesant and done to infants within 8 days after they were born. Christ did nothing to suggest that this would change, and the apostles continued with infant baptism right into the new testment. and the church does not agree with you here. Infants have been brought straight into the covenants since there were covenants. If you are talking converts (unbaptised older than infant converts) this an entirely different bag. So you know when the Pope decides to change infant baptism he will let you know. till then lets stick with the perscribed formula.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Do you even know what you are talking about, regarding confirmation or infant baptism? I am FOR infant baptism- also infant confirmation, and infant First Communion.When you are talking about converts you are right when you are talking about infants you are WRONG.No, I’m not, and you prove to me that I am. It was never done that way for those born into the church. Even in biblical times “whole households” were baptised as soon as the head of the household believed.Yes everybody, even the kids, and the babies. there are several examples of this. baptism is the sign of the new covenant. the sign of the old covenant was a lot less plesant and done to infants within 8 days after they were born. Christ did nothing to suggest that this would change, and the apostles continued with infant baptism right into the new testment. I am not against infant baptism. Did you even read what I wrote, or just spout off?and the church does not agree with you here. SINCE WHEN!?!?!? I agree with infant baptism. I also agree with infant chrismation, and infants receiving the Eucharist. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!?!? Infants have been brought straight into the covenants since there were covenants. If you are talking converts (unbaptised older than infant converts) this an entirely different bag. So you know when the Pope decides to change infant baptism he will let you know. till then lets stick with the perscribed formula.That is quite uncalled for!
As has been stated on CAF numerous times, a lot by me, the Eastern Church- which is every bit as Catholic as the Western, or Roman Church, and is fully united with the pope and Rome- baptizes, confirms and gives infants First Communion. Those children are just Catholic as Latin Catholic babies, and receive the Eucharist through their childhoods, not merely at seven or eight. They receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are sealed with them not when they have jumped through numerous hoops, or hit a certain age, but shortly after birth.
You show me in Church documents regarding infant confirmation and pheadocommunion, or any other source for that matter, where it says this, that confirmation is ONLY for the teens or older children- which is what you said.
Meantime, here is the Latin (Roman) canon law for confirmation:
ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0840-1165.htm#par1865
And the CCC entry:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art2.htm
And the article from my dicoese newspaper about a parish that is going back to keeping confirmation BFORE First Communion:
observer.rockforddiocese.org/Archives/2008Archives/April42008/HolyCrossParishMakesAReturntoTradition/tabid/1148/Default.aspx
And this might be hlepful for you, a quiz on Confirmation by the US Catholic bishops’ web site:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/confirmation.htm
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
And here is a parish in Australia, all Catholic even though it is Maronite, where the initation sacraments are kept together or not deferred until the child is almost old enough to head to a tavern after to celebrate:
saintjoseph.org.au/Services.php?cat=show&id=37
And in the Diocese of Wollongong , children are confirmed at Year Six, which would be abut ten or eleven years old- not teenagers for sure.
And here is an article on confirmation from Catholic Weekly in Australia. it states that, indeed, confirmation and baptism were conferred on infants, and that confirmation and baptism are “double sacraments.”
saintjoseph.org.au/Services.php?cat=show&id=37
And in the Diocese of Wollongong , children are confirmed at Year Six, which would be abut ten or eleven years old- not teenagers for sure.
And here is an article on confirmation from Catholic Weekly in Australia. it states that, indeed, confirmation and baptism were conferred on infants, and that confirmation and baptism are “double sacraments.”
- Status