Do babies receive the Holy Spirit at baptism?

[WesleyF]

Baptism, confirmation and communion are a symbol of the Holy Trinity: when we are babtized we are cleansed of our original sin and are received back to the Father; when we are confirmed we receive te Holy Spirit, and when we receive first communion we receive the Son and continually do so every time afterward.

So we receive the Holy Spirit at confirmation and not at baptism. Is that what you’re implying?

 

[Marc_Hanna]

Second, in my own private interpretation, I don’t think that it’s on the basis of the parents’ faith that the infant receives the regeneration of the water and the Holy Spirit. When the catechism says that “Christian parents will recognize that this practice * also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them,” I read this rather as saying that the infant can be baptised, chrismated, and brought into full communion with the Church by virtue of the fact that the infant Is now in the ecclesia domestica that his or her parents provide for the nurturance of the child’s faith so that his or her nascent faith won’t be later shipwrecked.

But you can’t be shipwrecked if you aren’t first out to sea, so when I was myself a catechumen ten years in the Church preparing for my own baptism, I was taught that infants are admitted to the Holy Eucharist by virtue of their own faith in a sense, because faith is a mystical thing. Infants indeed have faith according to what I’ve been taught in my own Eastern Catholic tradition, though not a rational or self-reflective faith (like faith is often thought of in the West). When the curse is made null for them they are restored to the state of Adam and Eve before the fall: only this time, unlike the old Adam and Eve, they now have an opportunity to grow to maturity and reach perfection surrounded by a supportive community and with access to the Holy Mysteries with God himself dwelling in them.

Perhaps this is a different perspective just in the Eastern quarters of the Catholic Church. I once heard that in the Latin West it is believed that Adam and Eve were already perfect or mature before the fall. In the East, we usually think of them as spiritual infants.*

I like your description, but one thing I would like to add; expounding on the old vaccination analogy, when we bring our children for vaccinations it is not we that cure them but rather the vaccine within them; so likewise, it is the miracle of God’s saving grace that works within the child (or adult) in baptism. The child neither understands nor can reflect on their immunity in either case.

 

[Marc_Hanna]

So we receive the Holy Spirit at confirmation and not at baptism. Is that what you’re implying?

Yes, sorry for not being more explicit.

 

[WesleyF]

So thistle has got it wrong then. Thistle, are you Catholic?

 

[thistle]

So thistle has got it wrong then. Thistle, are you Catholic?

I did not get it wrong. We are baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes into us at baptism. That’s also what the Catechism says.

 

[davidv]

So thistle has got it wrong then. Thistle, are you Catholic?

No, Thistle didn’t get it wrong.

As Catholic Christians we are members of a family, God’s family. Family members are in relationships with each other. After initial introductions (Baptism), relationships either grow or die. One of the ways that the “installments” another poster refered to are provided are through the Sacraments. Each of the Sacraments present an “installment” of grace, an opportunity to grow in relationship with God and each other.

 

[WesleyF]

The Holy Spirit comes into us at baptism. That’s also what the Catechism says.

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit comes into us at baptism?

If the Holy Spirit comes into us at baptism, what happens at confirmation?

 

[Marc_Hanna]

In the catechism excerpts quoted, I didn’t see anything that said that we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism. It did say that the Holy Spirit was working in the process, but to conclude that as receiving the Holy Spirit is rather interpretive to say the least.

I mean no disrespect to those stating the contrary.

 

[ekthanatos]

I agree with Marc Hanna, per my first post above.

 

[davidv]

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit comes into us at baptism?

In the CCC, article 1266. See the bold part.

From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

If the Holy Spirit comes into us at baptism, what happens at confirmation?

He comes again to “confirm” our commitment as disciple of Christ.

 

[Marc_Hanna]

Still, I find that a little interpretive, for quite often in scripture we are told of the consequence of something (be it good or evil), but that consequence is not an immediate result.

For example, God told Adam that if he ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die, but indeed he did not die for many hundreds of years later.

In the passage quoted from Acts 2:38, the future deponent tense of the word translated as “ye shall receive” (ληψεσθε) does not indicate anything except that the event shall happen in the future. It is simply predictive and does not express the receipt of the Holy Spirit as a direct result of baptism.

 

[Marc_Hanna]

Continued . . .

Take for example the ten commandments:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”

Same Greek word as when Peter said “ye shall receive”, yet many Jews indeed did take the name of the Lord in vain.

edit: added

And I would just like to reiterate from my previous post, that in the early church there was little to no distinction between baptism and confirmation. Therefore it is quite likely that Peter supposed that confirmation would be automatically included in the baptism.

 

[notsmart]

Maybe babies don’t need too much of the Holy Spirit at baptism, because they are starting off pretty holy to begin with.
But, as they grow up they can rapidly loose or gain holiness.
I believe some people are more filled with the Holy Spirit than others.

 

[jpjd]

The OP asked: “Do babies receive the Holy Spirit at baptism?”

The answer is Yes. Read this excerpt from an article by Fr. John Hardon:

“By the sin of Adam, mankind lost its share in the divine life. By the death of Christ, the second Adam, this life can now be restored. Baptism restores what we call our supernatural life…We have a name for the source of this supernatural life. We call it sanctifying grace. St. Augustine calls it the soul of the soul. What our soul is to our body, giving it natural life, sanctifying grace is to the soul, giving it supernatural life.
To be noted, however, is that sanctifying grace is already the created effect of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity. We may therefore say that the most important effect of the sacrament of Baptism is to have the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, dwell in our souls. This indwelling is called the uncreated grace that we have received when we were baptized and are to retain when the Lord calls us to our everlasting destiny.”

(bold is mine)

 

[BRB]

in the early church there was little to no distinction between baptism and confirmation. Therefore it is quite likely that Peter supposed that confirmation would be automatically included in the baptism.

This would seem to be the case … for adults. Take example of Paul’s conversion … he received H.S. first, and then was Baptised shortly thereafter.

However, clearly in case of infants … and delayed confirmation at age of accountability is needful.

Also, in adults … a significant delay between baptism and confimation can occur. As the account already discussed here points out.

Finally, we can send away (greave) the H.S. Unconfessed mortal sins accomplishes this. So, each time we exhibit contrition of mortals, confess them … we have H.S. restored “graced” again.

Hence the old saying ‘fallen from grace’. Anyone fallen from grace and not promptly taking necessary remediation … is tempting eternity with potential/actual apostasy.

 

[Marc_Hanna]

One priests beliefs do not necessarily reflect that of church doctrine. I think the Eastern rite Catholic churches would strongly disagree with his position.

 

[davidv]

One priests beliefs do not necessarily reflect that of church doctrine. I think the Eastern rite Catholic churches would strongly disagree with his position.

Do you have an official docrinal statement for them that shows this?

Edit:
Fr. Hardon’s explanation is completely in line with the CCC articles presented earlier in the thread.

 

[notsmart]

One priests beliefs do not necessarily reflect that of church doctrine. I think the Eastern rite Catholic churches would strongly disagree with his position.

I will be Latin Rite, so I don’t think what eastern rites say will apply to me.

 

[Marc_Hanna]

I will get back to you on an actual doctrinal statement, as I don’t have the time to research right now. I do find however, that except in individual articles, the Catholic Church seems to have avoided explicitly stating her doctrine on this issue in official doctrinal statements, and this could very well be one of those issues that do not have universal agreement.

 

[Marc_Hanna]

Regarding my last post . . .

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is clear from the diversity of practice at the present day, that there is much uncertainty as to the doctrine concerning confirmation. It is certain that the sacrament is validly and lawfully administered in the Church; but this does not solve the theological questions regarding its institution, matter, form, and minister.

At the time of the Council of Trent the difficulty was felt to be so great that the assembled Fathers contented themselves with only a few canons on the subject. They defined that confirmation was not “a vain ceremony but a true and proper sacrament”; and that it was not “in olden days nothing but a sort of catechism in which those who were entering upon youth gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church” (can. i). They did not define anything specific about the institution by Christ; though in treating of the sacraments in general they had already defined that “all the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ our Lord” (Sess. VII, can. i). Nothing whatever was said about the form of words to be used; and regarding the matter they merely condemned any one who should maintain “that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred chrism of confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost” (can. ii). The third and last canon defined that the “ordinary” minister of the sacrament is a bishop only, and not any simple priest.

This guarded language, so different from the definite canons on some of the other sacraments, shows that the council had no intention of deciding the questions at issue among theologians regarding the time and manner of the institution by Christ (direct or indirect institution), the matter (imposition of hands or anointing, or both), the form (“I sign thee”, etc., or “the seal”, etc.), and the minister (bishop or priest).

Elsewhere (Sess. VII, can. ix) the council defined that in confirmation a character is imprinted in the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign on account of which the sacrament cannot be repeated; and again (Sess. XXIII) the council declared that “bishops are superior to priests; they administer the Sacrament of Confirmation; they ordain the ministers of the Church; and they can perform many other things over which functions others of an inferior rank have no power”.

Concerning the administration of the sacrament from the earliest times of the Church, the decree of the Inquisition (Lamentabili sane, 3 July, 1907) condemns the proposition (44): “There is no proof that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles; the formal distinction, therefore, between the two sacraments, Baptism and Confirmation, does not belong to the history of Christianity”. The institution of the sacrament has also been the subject of much discussion as will appear from the following account.