T
Titus
Guest
**Amen to that! **
- Status
F
frommi
Guest
Although we got rid of limbo last year…
And again, I’m not suggesting a 52 week waiting period…
The adult catechumenate requires lengthy classes and a period of enlightenment…(although once someone has been received into the rite they are entitled to a catholic burial).
Why shouldn’t a priest just baptize an adult who shows up on their doorstep? Doesnt the original sin argument apply there as well?
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Not to my logic, and here’s why:
An adult is coming into the Church from a completely different background. It could be athiest, and it could be one of the many protestant denominations, or Jewish, or Muslim, or anything in between. An adult, if you will, is not “the Household of Faith” pertaining to the Church. And while he or she has a sponsor, the catechumate is still an adult. He or she needs to know what’s what if he or she is going to make a real commitment.
A baby is coming into the Church under the juristiction of his or her parents, and godparents. At least one parent is already a member of that “Household of Faith”. He or she is entering a gradual, lifelong catechumate.
My :twocents:
On the other point mentioned: Yes, I wish Latin bishops would restore Confirmation to immediately after Baptism. It’s not only the matter of the original order (although that’s the most excellent reason). it’s not only the fact that so many people are misinformed about Confirmation, turning it into a rite of passage for teenagers.
It would save tons of headaches for bishops in traveling around to confirm. It would save DREs and parents tons of headaches chasing after certificates and a host of improperly clad “young adults” who are out to push their parents buttons.
If Latin bishops want to reserve Confirmation to themselves, it’s my opinion that they should set up a system where the parents, with the right notification from their parish, can take their baby to the Cathedral several times a year for that purpose.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
sacraments are governed by canon law, and the Particular Law of each diocese governs how that applies in each diocese according to local circumstances. Ours does not forbid but does discourage baptism during lent. the actual Rites for the sacraments are in the sacramentary, which, like the lectionary, is modified for each country by the bishops.
J
justinmyrtr
Guest
there is typicly no weddings or baptizm’s during lent, lent is a time of sacrafice and reflection, not celebration. this does not exclude extremes circumstanses of course. also most parishes would like at least 30 days notice anyway. so what’s the big deal?
B
Brendan
Guest
Really? Where is that Vatican doc. All I’ve read was that the Church has no definitive knowledge on the salvic status of an unbaptized infant, but allows us to hold we may hope for their salvation.
Why should I settle for that when I could have the absolute assurance of Baptism for my child?
F
frommi
Guest
Who’s disputing anything about the assurance of salvation?
Under your argument, we should basically baptize at conception.
Sacraments belong to the community…and thus the pastor can decide when its appropriate to baptize…if he chooses to wait through the 5 weeks of Lent…that’s not something completely out of bounds.
V
vince2paul
Guest
Recently, I read somewhere that Baptism shouldn’t be done on Holy Thursday. Not sure where I read it.
J
jmcrae
Guest
There would be no priests available on that day, anyway, since they have to go to their Cathedral Church and renew their vows to their Bishop, as well as attend him while he blesses the holy oils, and then bring them back to the parish. This is followed by the Maundy Thursday Mass, which is the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I am trying not to be 'mudgie-ish today, so take these as words from a kindly late-middle-aged woman, and not a curmudgeon on the Maxine trail of life.
Because canon law determines sacraments and their reception, with Particular Law governed by the diocese (bishop or those he appoints)- not the local parish liturgist, not the “community”, not the Arts & Environment Committee, not the religious sister acting as pastoral associate.
Canon law states Catholic parents are obliged (obligated) to have their infants baptized within a few weeks of birth. “A few” is usually considered about 3 weeks. If a baby is born shortly before or in the early part of Lent, then that baby, by canon law, needs to be baptized in Lent. I suggested Sunday because Sunday is always a Little Easter, in Lent or otherwise.
As far as 30-day notice goes: Some parishes schedule baptisms monthly, some twice a month, some as the need to baptize comes along. Every parish should want the parents (and often the godparents) to attend some sort of faith formation class, the length determined by the parish under guidelines from the diocese. It could be chatting with Father on baptism. It could be a Saturday morning class. It could be several classes. But a priest is obligated to baptize the baby of at least one Catholic parent if he sees that there is hope for the child to be raised as a Catholic.
In sfp’s case, the odds are probably pretty darn good. In Brendan’s case, the chance is 99 99/100 good (I know Brendan a little better from being on CAF). So, those babies should be baptized in Lent, as soon as whatever preparations have been made, such as the babies’ births. :twocents:
S
sfp
Guest
??
??Since it is unthinkable to suggest that Christ was stained by original sin, maybe I’m misunderstanding your quote above!
Jesus’s Baptism was an EXAMPLE. (He didn’t “need” baptism, He’s God…He was humbling himself to show John the Baptist the significance of our Baptism)
Yes, many examples revealed in the Bible show that adults were being baptized. This is because they were converting in droves from polytheism. IF those converts’ families had already been Christians, then they “would” have been baptized as infants.
The Bible refers to Baptism as “the circumcision of Christ,” and every good Jew knew that circumcision occured within 8 days of birth!)
Frommi, Baptism “now saves us,” as the Bible says. So, you asked why not wait 6 weeks?..because we don’t know if our child will live tomorrow.
It’s our obligation to do everything we can to give our children the gift of salvation through Baptism.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I took it to mean Brendan was using an extreme example to make a point, and that there is only One Person who didn’t need Baptism. I’m also pretty sure he’s on your side about this, bapitzing infants quickly.??
Since it is unthinkable to suggest that Christ was stained by original sin, maybe I’m misunderstanding your quote above…
S
sfp
Guest
B
Brendan
Guest
I did NOT say that Christ was stainded by sin, rather, just the opposite.??
Since it is unthinkable to suggest that Christ was stained by original sin, maybe I’m misunderstanding your quote above!:
That Christ could HARDLY die in the state of sin, as in the negation of, that it could not happen.
F
frommi
Guest
If you’re that concerned, then baptize the child yourself.??
Frommi, Baptism “now saves us,” as the Bible says. So, you asked why not wait 6 weeks?..because we don’t know if our child will live tomorrow.
It’s our obligation to do everything we can to give our children the gift of salvation through Baptism.
S
sfp
Guest
You say that as if I “shouldn’t” be concerned.
Since the Church wants us to have our children baptized “within the first FEW WEEKS” after birth (since Baptism carries with it “salvific grace”), then why shouldn’t we encourage it??
Your comments are as if you believe baptism is merely a “symbol!” Do you?
S
sfp
Guest
Sorry about that, I thought I must have misunderstood, since it didn’t sound consistent with your other posts.
B
Brendan
Guest
Or, more likely, I would bring the child to a priest that had a fulller understanding of the effects of Baptism.
F
frommi
Guest
Absolutely not…You say that as if I “shouldn’t” be concerned.
Since the Church wants us to have our children baptized “within the first FEW WEEKS” after birth (since Baptism carries with it “salvific grace”), then why shouldn’t we encourage it??
Your comments are as if you believe baptism is merely a “symbol!” Do you?
Is it not worth mentioning that very early in the church’s history only the bishop could baptize? And he came around every couple years to do that?
F
frommi
Guest
Once again, I forget how much more you know than the average priest…
- Status