Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[Huiou_Theou]

In Canon law the church talks about the age of reason as well; in the Latin rite it regulates the reception of communion. Today, my youngest boy – (last boy) – made his first communion. Without baptism and receiving the flesh and blood of Christ, no one can be saved. That is a direct teaching of Christ;
So far, what you have said here (if you think as you write) is compatible with Catholic understanding.

If a child will never reach the age of understanding, the law regulating communion is removed and the child may receive communion.
Regarding the child “understanding” and accountability – Jesus himself teaches explicitly that if he had not come and taught, those who sinned would not be guilty.
But now that he has taught, there is no more excuse.

Bravo! Your obedience in one matter could lead to obedience in all.
There is no scriptural reason to believe all infants are guilty from the womb. They have an excuse until the time Jesus has been preached to them. And he will be preached to all the baptized (PERIOD).

Regarding the obedience of baptism, it is mandated by the nature of St. Peter’s epistle, which speaks of Christ descending to the dead and preaching to those who had disobeyed since the time of Noah; St. Peter excludes those before Noah’s time. St. Peter is speaking of the first visible sign of Baptism – the flood. Baptism IS necessary, even for the damned – it’s effect is to remove sin; if the man IS sin, he will be removed. The ark, however, saved eight people who were baptized but not killed by the flood.

That is correct for one who mocks God at the time of baptism, for the moment the baptism is over – the sinner still mocks God. But it is NOT correct that baptism is ineffective without repentance; for a child who HAS done no wrong on their own – is saved by baptism. Noah, and his children were saved – and a pregnant wife would still have been saved. In the sea, (Read sea), the waters parted to allow the lives of Israelites to be spared. Even children in the womb of pregnant wives. This is spectacular, when you think of Moses who was sent into the water by Pharaoh to be killed – but the water saved Moses through an ARK. Yet that same water, now in the sea, killed Pharaoh and all his men. What you are failing to see about baptism is that the word means entering death. and only if it has been appointed that one die at the whim of God – is there a GUARANTEE of repayment.

What you are failing to see is that baptism is a visible sign of God – it is an INTRODUCTION to Jesus Christ, THE resurrection. Anyone who hides the sign of God, or distorts it as Pharaoh did – will eventually DIE into an ETERNAL death unless they reverse their ways and choose to enter baptism WITH Christ.
To not baptize a child is to put God’s mercy to the test by the parent and priest and anyone else who witheld baptism for the child. The very denial of baptism – (or circumcision) is tantamount to treason and abortion. It can only end in death if it is held onto while the water rises above ones neck – and then fills the lungs as the wrong kind of air.

Moses did not enter the ark of his own will. It was his sister who remembering the SIGN of Noah, placed moses in the Ark. That’s how Moses was saved. It’s a baptismal sign of one kind – as St. Peter mentions with regard to Noah.

 

[PLeeD]

Huiou Theou, thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful reply. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but I certainly appreciate the way you say it!

I am shocked at the idea that the Catholic church firmly believes unbaptized infants will go to hell. Is this documented in the catechism?

So it does require intelligence. That is the norm Jesus set?

No, it requires things like faith, belief, and repentance, all of which require a certain level of intelligence.

Maybe I haven’t asked this question explicitly; Is there anyplace in the bible where someone’s sins were forgiven due to baptism that didn’t include belief, faith, or repentance?

Every piece of scripture I’ve seen used to justify infant baptism based on forgiveness of sins without repentance has not included an actual baptism (man on the cot, the centurion, etc). It would help if I saw a scriptural example of a baptism that didn’t include some intellectual assent from the person being baptized.

Tell me,what happens with those born without the capability of repenting? Mentality retarded children,etc,etc?

I already did. I believe, and my church teaches, that they are not held accountable for their sins because they aren’t intellectually capable of repenting.

Diminished accountability for sin that isn’t recognized as sin by the sinner is a very Catholic idea, is it not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am shocked at the idea that the Catholic church firmly believes unbaptized infants will go to hell. Is this documented in the catechism?

As well you should be since this is not what the Church teaches. Infants who die without baptism are entrusted to the mercy of God.

Every piece of scripture I’ve seen used to justify infant baptism based on forgiveness of sins without repentance has not included an actual baptism (man on the cot, the centurion, etc). It would help if I saw a scriptural example of a baptism that didn’t include some intellectual assent from the person being baptized.

One of the weaknesses of your faith tradition is the insistence that everything has to be found in scripture (in and of itself an unbiblical requirement). You won’t see it that way, of course, but Jesus did not leave behind a book…he left behind a Church upon which He bestowed real authority.

By the authority of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that infants may be baptized.

History shows this has been the practice of the Church from the very beginning…even if scripture itself is not sufficiently explicit to settle the dispute.

This won’t satisfy you, but at some point we have to part ways in our discussion because non-Catholics do not accept the authority of the Church to settle these matters.

 

[NotWorthy]

uhh, I wouldn’t say that.

If the child is truly (present tense) unbaptized, then it means not even baptism of desire. The church does not know what happens to a child who doesn’t receive the sacrament visibly TO US. Jesus, himself, can baptize with the holy spirit at the moment of death; we don’t know if he did or not. The church will not make a proclamation either way with respect to children other than the holy innocents who died at the hands of Herod. (Who were mostly circumcised, if they were Jewish).

But if the child IS not baptized, by definition – they are in hell. The church does proclaim that knowledge.

So, should I rephrase the statement to read, “The Church does not know what happens to a child who dies at two months who has not been visibly baptized within the norms of the Church Sacraments?”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Now you’ve really got my attention!

Oh, he has an answer for that, too.

*In Fr Matt’s second argument for infant baptism, he alluded to Luke 18:15-16 where babies were brought to Jesus and the disciples rebuked them. Jesus then said, “Permit them to come…for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”. *

But THESE children were BROUGHT to Jesus. Don’t prevent the PARENTS or don’t rbuke the CHILD?

If children were walking, they were old enough to obey or disobey their parents – (or are they all prodigy walkers?)

Roman 1:29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers,
Roman 1:30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Children go astray FROM THE WOMB.

Psalm 57:4 The wicked are alienated from the womb;** they have gone astray from the womb**: they have spoken false things.

assume Fr Matt is saying this verse is teaching babies need salvation. But notice Jesus did not say babies need salvation. Jesus is saying the opposite. Jesus said the kingdom BELONGS to them.

*YES! The kingdom belongs to children BROUGHT to Jesus OR obedient to their parents (and not misguided priests.).

The only thing we know about those children is that they were trying to come to Jesus through someone else.

The passage you are quoting starts with Luke 17:20;

Luke 17:20 And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answering them and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

I’m sure the CoG would love this phrase as well.
But the observant Catholic (not Pharisee) will notice the Sign of NOE in Luke 17:26.

Luke 17:27 They did eat and drink, they married wives and were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Surely, the flood destroyed any pregnant and wicked mothers outside of the ARK?


No God doesn’t want that kind of baptism ever again. Of course!

http://s110.photobucket.com/albums/.../n100/justhope_36/Emoticons/th_2741376811.jpg

The kingdom is JESUS’S, so it comes WHENEVER he comes.
This too, like Hebrews, is eschatalogical talk; Already here, but not fully…

In the passage about “THEM”, identify who they are (hint: those last mentioned). We know there were a few OSAS pharisees in the group (St. Paul is a pharisee, so were some of Jesus’ followers). BUT Which of these brought the children to Jesus?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So, should I rephrase the statement to read, “The Church does not know what happens to a child who dies at two months who has not been visibly baptized within the norms of the Church Sacraments?”

No, that’s too verbose – like me. How about just saying “sacramentally” baptized?
seeing is believing… eh?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou, thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful reply. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but I certainly appreciate the way you say it!

I am shocked at the idea that the Catholic church firmly believes unbaptized infants will go to hell. Is this documented in the catechism?

You’re welcome. I enjoy a little mental titilation.

I empathize with your shock. This isn’t something that people like, or even that I have liked, because of how many people imagine children must be. I hope I don’t cause a painful faith crisis.

I’ll cite the Catechism, but I’m going to do it in a certain way because the point is subtle and easily confusing to someone not bringing to mind all the scripture required for mastery of the subject. I am going to be quoting snippets of the part of the catechism about the consequences of Adam’s sin. CCC402 onward trying to bring some of this to mind for you by underlining points I think need to be stressed and elipsis to indicate where I am cutting out text.

CCC400 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay.”

CCC402 – All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners.
…
CCC403 …
"Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
…
292 CF. Council of Trent: DS 1514

CCC404 … original sin is a mystery we cannot fully understand …
… It is a sin … that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

CCC405 … Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin …

CCC406 … By our First father’s sin, the devil has acquired a certain dominion over man, even though man remains free … Our sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”

Notice, CCC496 is still about original sin, which belongs to “us”, even those who do not have any actual sins. And therefore, original sin = captivity in the devil’s kingdom. That kingdom is made of the dirt, earth, that we now walk in this creation.
The council’s citied say explicitly that man who dies in mortal sin, or in original sin alone, is damned.

Let me be clear, we are in hell any time we are apart from Christ. It isn’t the fullness of hell. There is a hell of the now, and a hell of eternity which are the same things but with a mysterious difference. Scripture says that this “WORLD” will be rolled up, the sky and all, and thrown into the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Some angels can be men too, for the Greek word angel just means “messenger” strictly speaking.)

The point is that this world BELONGS to the devil; he won it unfair and square in the garden of Eden and for this reason, we are in rebellion against the king of this world.

A child who is here, who never dies into christ – is doomed to an eventual corruption unless something is DONE to take them out of this world. Jesus has given man power over death, that power is baptism.

No, it requires things like faith, belief, and repentance, all of which require a certain level of intelligence.

Perhaps, if you read what I have written – you will modify your questions. We may be talking past each other.

Maybe I haven’t asked this question explicitly; Is there anyplace in the bible where someone’s sins were forgiven due to baptism that didn’t include belief, faith, or repentance?

No, because baptism IS faith. You’ll have to ask the question again – because I can guess at what you meant; and I’ll think about it while you think about asking the question a bit better.

Every piece of scripture I’ve seen used to justify infant baptism based on forgiveness of sins without repentance has not included an actual baptism (man on the cot, the centurion, etc). It would help if I saw a scriptural example of a baptism that didn’t include some intellectual assent from the person being baptized.

That’s Moses; saved in his life here; by his sister in the river. I don’t think you understand why I am saying this to you – it’s cryptic. But I’ll give you an apparent contradiction to come after me with: Man can only truly be baptized ONCE yet Moses did go through the Sea later.

I’ll think about your question for a while, though, to see if there is an easier and clearer example that doesn’t require as much scriptural background.

Punishment is in proportion to sin; But all of us suffer here on earth guilt or not, we must at least die once – this world is literally hell’s tinder (the fuel of the fire). As long as we are born here the Cathoic church’s teaching can’t be refuted entirely. But it is a subtle point.

Did I help or confuse?

 

[PLeeD]

Quote by PLeeD

All I can think to add to clarify my question is what is in bold:

Is there anyplace in the bible where someone’s sins were forgiven due to baptism that didn’t include **active **belief, faith, or repentance on the part of the person being baptized? That is, where the person being baptized is a passive participant as in the case of an infant?

The man on the cot and the servant of the centurions can be said to be passive participants, but they weren’t reported to be baptized…

 

[PLeeD]

As well you should be since this is not what the Church teaches. Infants who die without baptism are entrusted to the mercy of God.

That is great to hear. And yet, there seems to be a difference of opinion on the part of some Catholics in this discussion.

One of the weaknesses of your faith tradition is the insistence that everything has to be found in scripture (in and of itself an unbiblical requirement). You won’t see it that way, of course, but Jesus did not leave behind a book…he left behind a Church upon which He bestowed real authority.

I completely understand this, but I’m not at the point where I can accept what the Catholic church says about herself. Maybe one day, but it’s not looking likely in the short term.

By the authority of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that infants may be baptized.

If this is the case, only that the infant may be baptized, then I don’t have any problem with the practice. My concern arises when I’m told an infant must be baptized or face hell.

This won’t satisfy you, but at some point we have to part ways in our discussion because non-Catholics do not accept the authority of the Church to settle these matters.

Right, which I’m perfectly happy to do. As long as I keep learning new things then I’ll be satisfied!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That is great to hear. And yet, there seems to be a difference of opinion on the part of some Catholics in this discussion.

I can see why you might think that; but it is just that some of us are more aware of the details of how children are entrusted to God’s mercy.

If this is the case, only that the infant may be baptized, then I don’t have any problem with the practice. My concern arises when I’m told an infant must be baptized or face hell.

Yep; because you are thinking sacramental baptism. And, by mistake, perhaps “they” are too. But the question is, what does baptism do? Why does Anyone need it?

Right, which I’m perfectly happy to do. As long as I keep learning new things then I’ll be satisfied!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

All I can think to add to clarify my question is what is in bold:

Is there anyplace in the bible where someone’s sins were forgiven due to baptism that didn’t include **active **belief, faith, or repentance on the part of the person being baptized? That is, where the person being baptized is a passive participant as in the case of an infant?

The man on the cot and the servant of the centurions can be said to be passive participants, but they weren’t reported to be baptized…

I would need to look at the details of those incidents, and it is getting late.
Let me reverse this question, though, and see what you think of a hypothetical question. (I’ll have to do the bold moves tomorrow.)

Here is a man, in a garden, with his wife (no children yet); and they have been talking about having a child, and whether or not to baptize it. The man says, yes, let’s baptize the child – but the woman says, “I want him to make his own decision”. So the husband looks at her and asks, “why when God says baptize?”; And the woman asks in response “Did God REALLY say we had to baptize INFANTS, THOUGH?!”

The man was stumped. He looked at the fruit on two trees, with their seeds inside them, and he knew one was rotten. He told his wife, I think one of those fruits is disgusting inside – which one would you choose?

The woman looked at the two fruits, they looked the same. One might even be prettier – and so she said; that one has to be good. The husband grimaced, and said “You can have it. I’ll take the other one and eat it instead”.

The woman glared at him and said. “Oh yeah!?”
He said, “Yeah”,
And they both ate the fruit that looked the same on the outside, but was different in the chewey place in the middle – and neither one of them would admit they were wrong.

Now I ask you, Was the woman #1 Right, #2 Wise in choosing like she did ?
Why or why not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

All I can think to add to clarify my question is what is in bold:

Is there anyplace in the bible where someone’s sins were forgiven due to baptism that didn’t include **active **belief, faith, or repentance on the part of the person being baptized? That is, where the person being baptized is a passive participant as in the case of an infant?

The man on the cot and the servant of the centurions can be said to be passive participants, but they weren’t reported to be baptized…

Nor was the thief on the cross. However, that was probably a case of implicit desire.

As for the question at hand, it does not matter whether there is an example in scripture or not. The Bible does not record everything that Jesus did nor all the actions of the apostles.

What does matter is that the Church has been given “all authority” by Christ, and that Church has infallibly determined that infant baptism is acceptable.

History shows that this has been the case from the very beginning.

 

[Mickey]

The AoG believes there is an “age of accountability” where a child become intellectually aware of sin, and at that point they become accountable. Children under that age are not accountable for their sin.

What is the origin of this teaching?

 

[Mickey]

and yet you use the same “pure speculation” to insert the faith of the paralyzed man, for nowhere in the story does Jesus act on the man’s faith, but on “their faith”… the men who lower him down.

Yes. And this sounds much like what St Hippolytus is saying here:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

 

[Mickey]

If the Church did not practice infant baptism from the beginning, how did the practice spread so quickly throughout the entire world without apparent objection?

Indeed! If infant baptism was an innovation, there would have been a great uproar. It would have been addressed in a Council. It would have been declared as a heretical practice. And yet history is silent.

 

[Mickey]

That is great to hear. And yet, there seems to be a difference of opinion on the part of some Catholics in this discussion.

That is because Huiou is mistaken.

The CCC says this:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Every piece of scripture I’ve seen used to justify infant baptism based on forgiveness of sins without repentance has not included an actual baptism (man on the cot, the centurion, etc). It would help if I saw a scriptural example of a baptism that didn’t include some intellectual assent from the person being baptized.

I understand what you are asking,but what I think you are forgetting is that the first converts were adults,since there were no cradle Christians. So yes,scripture does present those more than likely capable of repenting. However,but no where does scripture teach “accountability” as the norm or the requirement in order to be baptized. Second,if infant baptism were a heresy or false,then where are the scores of records from the early Christians in an uproar? We have documents combating other heresies,why not infant baptism?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That is because Huiou is mistaken.

Mickey, how I long to have you in a special place – and not in any fireplace.

Let me confess, professionally, that in the hypothetical question I just asked him, it isn’t entirely fiction; it isn’t me quoting the bible for my own sake. It’s just me and a conversation I had with two women. One, I thought was going to be my wife – and which I never married except in my mind; the other was a professed cradle Catholic friend at a workplace who decided to speak on baptism of her ~7 year old son at the company “meal” (lunch/family feely).

I tell you, no matter what I said – I was wrong. Now, I know you don’t know me from Adam, and you have no reason to trust me. But, you’re telling me (and everyone else) that I am wrong. I’m no politician, and I am easy to crucify.
But, Do you really want to be the one to do it?

I cited the Catechism, and I’ll go cite the COUNCIL of TRENT and ORANGE and … if I need to. We can discuss the ECF’s including Augustine until we are black and blue. But scripture can’t contradict scripture, and the Catechism can’t contradict another Catechism. It’s the same God who guides both.

I just hope my purgatory is here, and I will be allowed to pray for sustainable (lower?) taxes, and a happy death. Hell hath no wrath like a woman spurned. (Even if you didn’t want to do it.)

You’re asking / challenging me on what authority I make my judgment – and I’ll be forced to answer you like Jesus did:

Luke 7:28 For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of men, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But** he that is the lesser** in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

( Lesser is literally, least, perhaps a DOG. )

Or if you baptize that one, then I still am forced to use this one:

Luke 20:3 And Jesus answering, said to them: I will also ask you one thing. Answer me:
Luke 20:4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?
Luke 20:5 But they thought within themselves, saying: If we shall say, From heaven: he will say: Why then did you not believe in him?
Luke 20:6 But if we say, of men: the whole people will stone us. For they are persuaded that John was a prophet.

Jesus sure won that one, didn’t he? The pharisees were always getting stoned or stoning. They never bothered to look into the heart of the matter – they were THE authority and power of the day. But in the end, they had him dead to rights, they CRUCIFIED him. They let him know that they had the Authority of Moses, and don’t you forget it. The prophet to come was “LIKE ME” said Moses, not the vice of the verse.

Matth 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Matth 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: ** but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not. **

I tell you solemnly, I have been treated the same way by my own church, my own brothers and sisters; but not yet the pope. I shudder at the thought. Like unto the mental misery of Padre Pio – All I can say is, how dare I say “I am the Good Shepherd” When only GOD is Good? If I say such a thing, “I could have made it all up!” Shall I worship a baby? Am I nuts?

And so you quote me the CCC and I am trying to say “look out!”, we’re quoting the same authority!

The CCC says this:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

And I have to ask you if you read what I wrote? I mean, sometimes people stumble onto Augustine and find out for themselves intoxicated, so much so that they keep right on stumbling several days later. You don’t want to be introduced to SAINT Augustine. His works were so bootlegged, that a stolen copy of his draft work – unedited – left his desk and caused a semi-pelagian harassery. (no one wants that again, do they?)

I’m sure your intentions are good, for you. I’m sure the guy that stole Augustine’s work thought he wastn really putting Augustine in a fix. After all, Augustine was the author of the book – there was no copyright from preventing him for making a zerox of the book.

But, please, have mercy. I don’t want a fight and I don’t want to be called a heretic by implication if not by outright said words. If I am mistaken, where’s the mark? How could I have really done better?

Moses had a sister, Mary, who saved him from a fight he couldn’t win as a baby – what do I have? I am a basket case on my own. There are authorities and powers over me that say things, awful things, and brothers who I anger without meaning. I am wrong, wrong, wrong.

If I missed a stake, it’s a mistake. If I missed a steak it’s really a mistake. If dotted my I’s, crossed my T’s, and wondered “what punishment will come if I duck?”
Who am I that you would come after me?

 

[Mickey]

I tell you, no matter what I said – I was wrong.

Yes. You are mistaken.

And I apologize for not reading the remainder of your post. I find it very difficult to read your prolonged dissertations on this forum.

But make no mistake…you are in error. And most of the Catholics on this forum would concur.

VATICAN CITY (CNS)-- After several years of study, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven….

The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.

But there is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and “wants all human beings to be saved,” it said. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ’s special love for “the little ones,” it said….

The 41-page document, titled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized,” was published in Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service. Pope Benedict XVI authorized its publication earlier this year.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

The man on the cot and the servant of the centurions can be said to be passive participants, but they weren’t reported to be baptized…

That’s an unfair clarification, for the sacrament of Baptism had not been instituted (Acts 2:38).

The effects are pretty similar. To have one’s sins forgiven, one must receive Grace. Hence, I would say the effects of the paralyzed man would come pretty close to duplicating the effects of baptism.