J
JMMJ
Guest
This isn’t what the Church teaches.
- Status
J
JMMJ
Guest
Are you suggesting that a person who is baptised as an infant, raised in Catholic tradition and with education encompassing all areas of the faith, makes the usual sacraments, but who is not a believer as an adult has just as much chance of getting to heaven as those of you who are firm believers? I am talking about someone who rejects Church teachings. (assuming they never do reach a point of believing)
Last edited:
The Pope didn’t say that sentence in English. He said : “Non bisogna rifiutare mai il Battesimo…” which doesn’t translate with “one shouldn’t refuse baptism…”, but with “never refuse baptism…”
I am not fluent in Italian (just enough to order at a restaurant and follow along the psalms and readings in one of my favorite monasteries), but I recall one of my first lessons which was precisely how about “non bisogna” didn’t mean, like it does in French (“il n’y a pas besoin de”), “no need to…” but “do not”. If that wasn’t enough, “mai” means “never”.
G
goout
Guest
I am not the arbiter of a person’s eternal disposition. Only God is. And I don’t believe in calculations like “I have a better chance than you…etc”. Christ, if nothing else, asks us to stop calculating our wages and love.
Eternal bliss is to know God, to be united to God and the whole of humanity through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ.
Baptism is the gateway to eternal life. If you reject Christ, you know the reasons why. If you are of ill-will to Christ and others, then you are living in ill-will, or bad faith, or whatever you’d like to call it.
If you were abused by parents who distorted the Catholic faith, for instance, then culpability is probably not present. This would be a situation where one did not freely choose to reject Christ, necessarily.
No one can parse all the bad things that can happen, and that’s not the point of Gospel to spell out our damnation.
The Gospel is good news. Freedom. Faith. Hope. Love.
Last edited:
K
Kindnessmatters
Guest
The child’s consent is, in effect, suspended until he reaches maturity and he is given the opportunity to affirm his choice to be Catholic at confirmation. Prior to that he lacks the maturity to excercise his free will and on his behalf, the parents, godparents and church welcome him into the faith and promise to teach and look over his faith life.
J
JMMJ
Guest
Well that will be news to a lot of Bishops, Priests, Nuns, and theologians (and, dare I say it, many here at CAF). Glad that is the way you see it, though.
V
VeryBlessed
Guest
The wonderful thing about baptism, is that there are two participants, God and the one being baptized. We can be confident then that at least one of the two participants - God - will always have that active desire. God always hold up his end of the bargain, he always means the sacrament. I heard someone say that during infant baptism, God makes a commitment to the infant; but the infant, when it is old enough, can choose to embrace what God has already chosen to give them, or reject it. God may never stop loving us even if we reject him, but I think he REALLY wants to be loved in return. Just as we want from each other.
The fact that we have a yearly chance to reaffirm our baptismal vows illustrates that God wants our active desire, he wants us to choose to love him back. Otherwise we could fulfill the great commission by standing on the sidewalk and spraying people with holy water…
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
As Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant and of entrance into the people of God, so is baptism the sign of the New Covenant. A baby being circumcised didn’t have a choice, but was brought into the family of God and the Old Covenant without its consent. Similar to baptism. That’s one way I view it.
God Bless
God Bless
G
goout
Guest
ok, what specifically are you talking about.
I just quoted you the catechism twice.
c’mon,.
J
JMMJ
Guest
What I am saying is it is wrong for parents to decide their offspring’s spirtual journey through this life. They have a right, perhaps, to decide what spiritual direction they will use to guide their child to adulthood. They don’t have a right to obligate the child through that child’s entire life.
How many times do we read here, “A baptised Catholic is obligated to marry in the Catholic Church”. That is Church teaching. Now the person who has rejected the Church really doesn’t care what the Church has to say about it. However, there are consequences. Family shunning family. These things happen. It is a big ball of relationship mess, and all because the Church assumes the authority of telling an infant what it is going to be in life.
I disagree with it. That is all I am saying. I know people justify it all day, every day. Still, I disagree with it.
How many times do we read here, “A baptised Catholic is obligated to marry in the Catholic Church”. That is Church teaching. Now the person who has rejected the Church really doesn’t care what the Church has to say about it. However, there are consequences. Family shunning family. These things happen. It is a big ball of relationship mess, and all because the Church assumes the authority of telling an infant what it is going to be in life.
I disagree with it. That is all I am saying. I know people justify it all day, every day. Still, I disagree with it.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
I’m sorry you have had such negative experiences of Christianity.
By imperfect analogy, some parents leave their children large sums of wealth. They might set up a large trust fund when the child is born or when they are young.
All at the same time this wealth
1 gives the child freedom and opens up a privileged life of possibilities
2 opens up responsibilities that come with this gratuitous windfall, that the child did not specifically ask for.
Some kids might snort the money up their nose. Should the parents not give good things out of fear of the future?
If you hope for anything wonderful in life, it opens up responsibilities concomitant with the goodness that is possible. We don’t float off into the clouds without a struggle, neither should we be crushed by the prospect of growing up in responsibility either.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
@JMMJ
In my opinion, when we disagree with something, I think it is important to always look at the broader picture and where a train of thought leads.
If you disagree with parents baptizing an infant because the infant might not like it later in life, then what are parents allowed to do? I’ve worked in schools and seen lots of young people and the decisions parents make everyday of their lives impact their child:
What they believe
Where they live
The daily routine
The schedules of the parents
The neighborhood
The cultural background
Money
The rigor or lack of rigor towards education
Etc. etc.
So baptism is just a natural part of a Catholic parent raising their child as a Catholic. A Muslim raises their child as a Muslim. An apatheist raises their child as an apatheist. An old school communist raises their child with old school communist values. Many protestants don’t baptize infants, then they still raise them from early childhood with all of their values and religious beliefs.
It’s just the most basic structure of society that parents raise their children with a set of values and beliefs, including participating in their religious life. There is the absurd notion from some radicals that all parents in the world should raise children to be “neutral” but this is extremely flawed because there is no such thing as neutral; it’s just a subversive way of somebody saying that they want other people’s children to be raised how they want them to be raised, and of course history is very familiar with this idea of controlling and manipulating the youth with 19th century socialism, 20th century fascism, etc.
Last edited:
D
Dewey83
Guest
Parents who are baptizing their children in the Catholic Church believe that that is the first step in the path to eternal life with God. Of course they want that for their children!
The path to salvation may look a little different for someone who has been baptized than for someone who hasn’t, but the basics of how to live your life are the same.
Social consequences for marrying outside of the Church are not generally going to be better or worse if someone is not baptized as an infant. People are going to care in a Catholic family no matter what, and any negative actions or shunning might be accelerated if people know that the parents did not baptize their child.
The path to salvation may look a little different for someone who has been baptized than for someone who hasn’t, but the basics of how to live your life are the same.
Social consequences for marrying outside of the Church are not generally going to be better or worse if someone is not baptized as an infant. People are going to care in a Catholic family no matter what, and any negative actions or shunning might be accelerated if people know that the parents did not baptize their child.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Good ‘rhetorical’ question. The answer is: it depends.
Primarily, it depends on whether you’re culpable for your rejection of the Church’s teaching.
This is getting tiresome. Have you read what the article says about the very words of the pope, or only their commentary on it? (Yes, I quoted the commentary, but also included the link to the article.)
Here’s a more complete quotation, in case you haven’t looked:
So, here’s the thing: the commentator will say what he wishes. However, when he’s reporting on what the Pope says, we should look to the pope’s words. Francis doesn’t use the word “should”, so your arguments dissolve into nothingness. The pope says – even in translation! – “it is never necessary to refuse baptism”.
No “should”.
No “subjunctive”.
And therefore… no “option given to the priest.”
I hope this resolves your problems with the issue.
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
Thank you everybody for all the enthusiastic and insightful responses! Very edifying and inspiring to see all the responses! Praise God for the gift of community!
I will summarize the points brought up for further discussion. My main aim is really to find consistency and coherence across all the mentioned facts/beliefs. So, I am very grateful that all of your support in aligning and reconciling the supposed differences that I am going to highlight below.
A summary of all the learning points (i.e. truth) I gathered from the discussion and further points of clarification:
1. Truth in my opinion: Catholic parents have the responsiblity to raise their children as Catholic. (Similarly, parents have the right to support their children in survival needs.) Parents surely should support their child in their best capacity, all in the best interest of the child, independent of how the child will respond and grow in future (be it spiritual, physical, etc).
But, this is separate from the question I have, which is very specific to “Infant Baptism”. My understanding of baptism, no doubt is a gift of grace from God, always requires faith and the free will and cooperation of the individual. Why does it not apply in “Infant Baptism”? @Gorgias @TK421 @CorydonMundi @John_Martin @JMMJ @Angel_Bradford @fhansen @Kindnessmatters @SeekerOfTruth7 @jan10000
I will summarize the points brought up for further discussion. My main aim is really to find consistency and coherence across all the mentioned facts/beliefs. So, I am very grateful that all of your support in aligning and reconciling the supposed differences that I am going to highlight below.
A summary of all the learning points (i.e. truth) I gathered from the discussion and further points of clarification:
1. Truth in my opinion: Catholic parents have the responsiblity to raise their children as Catholic. (Similarly, parents have the right to support their children in survival needs.) Parents surely should support their child in their best capacity, all in the best interest of the child, independent of how the child will respond and grow in future (be it spiritual, physical, etc).
But, this is separate from the question I have, which is very specific to “Infant Baptism”. My understanding of baptism, no doubt is a gift of grace from God, always requires faith and the free will and cooperation of the individual. Why does it not apply in “Infant Baptism”? @Gorgias @TK421 @CorydonMundi @John_Martin @JMMJ @Angel_Bradford @fhansen @Kindnessmatters @SeekerOfTruth7 @jan10000
Help me to understand this:
Last edited:
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
*Tag @Dewey83 for Point 1
2. Sacraments of Christian Initiation includes Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist.
Beyond historical development, I begin to question the practice of Confirmation and Eucharist immediately after Infant Baptism by the Eastern Traditions. The Sacrament of Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity”. This is logical and possible for individuals who has a prior maturation of faith initiated by the baptism of desire to receive all the Sacraments of Christian Initiation following RCIA/RCIY. But, for infants, how does the maturation of faith work in the Eastern Traditions? @Angel_Bradford @CoffeeCatholic @Gorgias
2. Sacraments of Christian Initiation includes Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist.
Beyond historical development, I begin to question the practice of Confirmation and Eucharist immediately after Infant Baptism by the Eastern Traditions. The Sacrament of Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity”. This is logical and possible for individuals who has a prior maturation of faith initiated by the baptism of desire to receive all the Sacraments of Christian Initiation following RCIA/RCIY. But, for infants, how does the maturation of faith work in the Eastern Traditions? @Angel_Bradford @CoffeeCatholic @Gorgias
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
- Truth in my opinion: God is always loving, merciful and just. It is possibly beyond us to judge if an individual, baptised or unbaptised, will be saved ultimately. Because we lack the capacity to judge the living and the dead, so we will leave it to God. What we can do is to love God and His people in our best capacity, at any stage of our lives (including as infants, as parents, etc). @fhansen
The baptismal grace comes from God. The person who baptise, be it a clergyman or in emergency situation, a layperson, is a vessel/instrument of God to baptise the candidate. Baptism will require both the person who baptise and the candidate who is baptised to freely cooperate and partake in the sacrament of Baptism in their best capacity in accordance to God’s will. (Consistent with what Pope Francis mentioned) @John_Martin @Gorgias
5. Truth in my opinion: Baptism marks the initiation of a Christian life, liberated from sins by the grace of God, living freely in Christ.
I agree with you, freedom is not simply freely doing whatever we want, by freely choosing to live and grow in our unique image of God, consistent with our identity as a child of God. But, my question lies in infant baptism. (Refer to point 1) @goout
We are always free to choose how we want to respond and act. But, we are never free to choose the outcomes of our actions/responses (i.e. the consequences). As long as we act in our best capacity in accordance to God’s will, we faithfully believe that God who is ever wise, just and loving, will lead us uniquely to Him. Morality and Laws are a manifestation of God’s wisdom beyond our limited wisdom, hence, we follow faithfully and prudently in our best capacity. @JMMJ @Gorgias @Jesuslover
Now, this opens up another question I have. My understanding of the natural physiological process of life is as such that once a person is dying or close to death, they will end up in a incapacitated state (terminal delirium).
In that case, won’t everyone end up in a state that lacks reason? Can the principles of “infant baptism” be applied to people at end of life? Yet, this sounds absurd too if applied so. What do you think? @Vico
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
- Status