I need explanations please about baptism

[LittleSoldier]

There are many, many people like you. I teach two CCD classes. One of them is a confirmation class (8th graders). Only a few of these kids parents take them to mass. So you know most of them are getting very little religious instruction at home. Yet, some of these kids are very devout in their own right. God attends to each one of us individually. We all get what we need, when we need it. Its just a matter of whether we respond to his will when we are called.

There are many people on this forum who will help you understand what you need to know. The simple truth of it is that when we are baptized we get the necessary grace to gain eternal life. This is a pure gift from God and it will enable you to do his will. But it will not force you to. You must cooperate with God, chosing to love him and your neighbor. Every time you worthily take communion, it adds to this grace and makes you more like Jesus, whether you realize it or not. If you fall from grace through sin, but are truly sorry that you did sin, you can regain grace through the sacrament of reconciliation. If you die in the state of grace, you will go to heaven and remember, if you are truly repentent, God will take you back, right until your last breath.

Does this help?

Yes, it does help, very much. Thank you. I’m not so much concerned about myself, because I was able to discover Truth with the help of God, a good friend, and a priest. But I worry about those who were in school with me (it was a Catholic parochial school). I wonder how many people left the Church because they weren’t properly educated and if they ever came back. I realize that God loves each and every one of us and that He didn’t abandon my classmates and will help them, but it still saddens me to know how confused and scared we were when we were taught things that the Church never teaches. It was a Catholic school! The teachers had the time and the obligation to teach us Truth and they didn’t. Instead we learned that God is cruel and we should all be afraid. We were taught that the sisters were “holy people” yet they treated us like they considered us less than human. When my sister was practicing to receive her First Holy Communion, she was slapped across the face by a nun who said she was sticking her tongue out (this was in the old days). Of course my sister wasn’t sticking out her tongue. It’s ridiculous and it hurt her very much.

My sister is now agnostic and will never become Catholic and this is part of the reason. I apologize for taking this thread off-topic but it is relevant in a way because it shows that, like me, others were terrorized instead of being loved and being taught about the Sacraments. It’s just such a waste.

I am trying to understand Baptism but I still don’t understand the necessity of using water. I understand that water is a symbol and maybe I haven’t gotten to the part about why it’s a necessity yet. I wonder if it would be OK, in an emergency, to spit on one’s hand and to use that as water. I don’t mean this as any sort of disrespect for the Church (I don’t want to get banned), but I’m wondering.

I am very concerned about this and not just for me. I made a terrible mistake when I didn’t have my son baptised in the Church. It’s a long story. I didn’t have custody of him yet I should have done whatever I could have to have him baptised, or to baptise him myself if it came to that. I don’t know why I didn’t do that, except that I was in a bad place right then. I’m sure he was baptised by the people who adopted him (another long story) but not in the Catholic Church. It was my responsibility to baptise him and I can’t do it now. I pray for him every day and I desperately want to believe that it’s OK, but the truth is that I didn’t have him baptised and I should have, even if it meant spitting on my finger and doing it myself.

 

[paul_c]

Yes, it does help, very much. Thank you. I’m not so much concerned about myself, because I was able to discover Truth with the help of God, a good friend, and a priest. But I worry about those who were in school with me (it was a Catholic parochial school). I wonder how many people left the Church because they weren’t properly educated and if they ever came back. I realize that God loves each and every one of us and that He didn’t abandon my classmates and will help them, but it still saddens me to know how confused and scared we were when we were taught things that the Church never teaches. It was a Catholic school! The teachers had the time and the obligation to teach us Truth and they didn’t. Instead we learned that God is cruel and we should all be afraid. We were taught that the sisters were “holy people” yet they treated us like they considered us less than human. When my sister was practicing to receive her First Holy Communion, she was slapped across the face by a nun who said she was sticking her tongue out (this was in the old days). Of course my sister wasn’t sticking out her tongue. It’s ridiculous and it hurt her very much.

My sister is now agnostic and will never become Catholic and this is part of the reason. I apologize for taking this thread off-topic but it is relevant in a way because it shows that, like me, others were terrorized instead of being loved and being taught about the Sacraments. It’s just such a waste.

I am trying to understand Baptism but I still don’t understand the necessity of using water. I understand that water is a symbol and maybe I haven’t gotten to the part about why it’s a necessity yet. I wonder if it would be OK, in an emergency, to spit on one’s hand and to use that as water. I don’t mean this as any sort of disrespect for the Church (I don’t want to get banned), but I’m wondering.

I am very concerned about this and not just for me. I made a terrible mistake when I didn’t have my son baptised in the Church. It’s a long story. I didn’t have custody of him yet I should have done whatever I could have to have him baptised, or to baptise him myself if it came to that. I don’t know why I didn’t do that, except that I was in a bad place right then. I’m sure he was baptised by the people who adopted him (another long story) but not in the Catholic Church. It was my responsibility to baptise him and I can’t do it now. I pray for him every day and I desperately want to believe that it’s OK, but the truth is that I didn’t have him baptised and I should have, even if it meant spitting on my finger and doing it myself.

A few points.

First, things are not always as we see them and people’s true intent isn’t perfectly obvious to us, so try not to be so hard on your prior instructors. Its time to let it go and move on in a positive direction.

Second, God will find a way for those who seek him to find him. Not to worry. As for your sister, just set a good example in living your faith. . St. Francis used to say, " Preach often, use words when necessary." You don’t need to say much, actions speak louder than words. If you find yourself at peace, that won’t be lost on your sister.

Third, many Christian baptisms are valid for the Catholic Church. Typically, as long as it was done with the Catholic formula" immersing of pouring water over them three times and saying I baptize you in the name of the Father, the son and the Holy spirit", the baptism is valid and the child would not be rebaptized if he entered the Catholic Church. so be at peace.

Finally, yes water is reuired and it must be poured over the candidate three times, or the candidate must be immersed three times.

Look, what is done is done. Each day is a new day. Don’t dwell on the past. Focus on the future.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

*God back and read the thread of my conversation rather than take one post in isolation.

mdifrancesco*

made the manifestly unsupportable statement that Dismas was definitely not baptized. It is only fair that the one who made the claim has to prove it and so it is up to him to prove it. If you make such a claim you have to prove it.
There is no way you can prove it. Period

No one can prove whether Dismas was baptized, or not. Period.

So what’s your real point?

mdifrancesco made the manifestly unsupportable statement that Dismas was definitely not baptized. THE POINT->The one who made the claim has the obligation to prove his contention. Not the other way around.

 

[LittleSoldier]

2 Timothy 1:9
“who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity…”

Work your way in all you who THINK you know the truth. One day we will all stand before Him and give an account. When I stand before Him it will be relying on His Blood alone. My life, radically changed by His sacrifice I will bow before him. And everything I have done for His sake (the things which are not burned up), I will cast those crowns before Him. And He will say “well done good and faithfull servant”.
You on the other hand, will be surprised when you try to add all those things to the work He has already acomplished. You can pray to whoever you want at that time - it will do you no good.
I am exiting this forum - not to return. Some will say good ridance (and that’s okay). I learned some valuable things which will help me when witnessing to the lost.
May the Lord open your eyes to the Truth of His Word…

God doesn’t know how to spell “faithful?”

I know mdifrancesco left the forum (or claimed he did, but may still be here as a lurker and there is nothing wrong with that), but I am troubled by what appears to be gloating on his part - that when he faces God he will be rewarded with heaven, but when Catholics face God we will be rewarded with whatever punishment mdifrancesco has dreamed up (I think he means hell).

When I am standing (or rather face down on the ground) in front of God, I don’t think I would be happy if I thought that anyone else was going to be punished for anything. I find it extremely unlikely that I would be using that time to feel that I had avenged myself on people who disagreed with my views.

As one of the people who “debated” with mdifrancesco, I can say that I hope he does indeed face God and is rewarded with heaven. I wish the same for everyone, even myself. I’m very sorry that mdifrancesco left the way he did, but I’m not surprised.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LionHeart777]

Greetings all.

Little Soldier as you know I sent you a pm saying that I had received a nice pm from mdifrancesco as I had challenged him in another thread and perhaps crossed a line.

I wanted to post this to his credit in regards to the p.m. I think he felt like he was on the defensive and that he thought to debate seemed almost futile as everyone had their heals dug in. He did pose a question that seemed to communicate to me that although we have differences, wasn’t it possible that we were both heaven bound? From this I gather that he sees us as on the same team. I just wanted to post this because I think that it is to his credit and feel it would be beneficial for maybe him and us to pray for one another. * LH777 steps off soap box*

seriously though, I wanted people to know this, especially everyone that read his last post on this thread. I hope he comes back and we can converse.

 

[Matariel]

God back and read the thread of my conversation rather than take one post inisolation.

mdifrancesco made the manifestly false statement that Dismas was definately not baptized. That is a manifestly false statement. I told him:
There is no way you can prove it. Period

Didn’t he have Baptism of Desire, since he longed to do the right thing and had no means with which to be physically baptized?

 

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by TazDinGo So Catholics think that baptizing a 1 month kid saves the child ?

(Saves -no-cleans him of original sin yes.Our salvation is something to be worked on on a daily basis.)

This is a very good point. Most of the misunderstanding between Baptists and Catholics with regard to salvation is the difference in meaning. The Apostles taught that salvation had elements that have been completed (such as baptism), some that are in progress (strive for holiness, without which no one will see God) and some that will not be completed until the end of this life.

I think it is problematic, though, to use the term “worked on” in reference to salvation when having dialogue with our separated brethren. It gives the impression that salvation is not really a 'free gift" but has to be achieved. In cases such as this, the scriptural reference to “work out” is more applicable. In Baptism, the HS comes to dwell in the human soul, and this free gift in us “works out” of us what has been worked in us by God. We cooperate in this “working out” of our salvation, but the impetus comes from the seal received in baptism, and not in ourselves.
"TazDinGo:

When we are infants and we get baptized the kid has no idea what hes doing or what his parents are doing to him. He does not understand anything. And if baptism saves, then i think everyone in this world would get baptized.

It is true that the infant has no idea. However, scripture does not state that one must have ideas in order to be saved. Faith is necessary. Knowledge is not.

TazDinGo:

Basically baptism according to the Bible does not save.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Catholics understand the Scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. The Reformers became separated from these teachings about 500 years ago, and began to read and understand the bible apart from the Apostolic teachings.

Just saying “Im saved” doesn’t actually mean you are,

Doggone it! I was sure I saw that somewhere in the Bible.

Did you read anything that has been posted.?Your somewhat limited view of scripture and and no-immersion baptism has has tainted anything you.First we were invaded by SDA’s now by baptists.give us a break! How about looking into what you really believe?How about perfecting yourself?I never see any of that with your ilk.You assume your own perfection and self righteousness that is truly astounding and an arrogance way out of proportion to your knowledge.

CAF is here to be invaded by such persons. Where else can they go? Catholic Answers has the Catholic Answers!

The spiritual descendents of the Reformers cannot be held responsible for the heresies of their ancestors. They have never been exposed to the full gospel, and believe the abbreviated version they have inherited is all that exists.

 

[guanophore]

How did the thief enter the Kingdom Of God without BEING baptized ? Please answer with concrete reasons.

How do you know he was not? Scripture said that all of Judea came to be baptized!

Maybe the thief fell from grace after he was converted.

Maybe he was converted/baptized, before or during his legal case, and then was condemned to death.

In any case, we know that God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. The command to be baptized does not apply to Him, but to us!

Anyhow, every person who dies on the cross next to Jesus, confessing Him as Lord, gets a free ticket.

 

[guanophore]

Basically according to your doctrine, he did not go to heaven. But Christ clearly told him that he will inherit the Kingdom of Christ if he believes.

It is the doctrine of the Apostles, who taught that no one entered heaven before Jesus opened the gates (ascended Himself). Since this did not happen for 40 days after the resurrection, all who died in faith prior to that were in “paradise” (the place of the righteous dead), what the Jews called “Abraham’s bosom”.

These are the firstfruits, who accompanied Him to heaven when He ascended.

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Catholics understand the Scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. The Reformers became separated from these teachings about 500 years ago, and began to read and understand the bible apart from the Apostolic teachings.

Do you have any specific examples of Protestant or Reformed Christians who understand the Bible apart from Apostolic teachings? No Protestants/Reformers I know of do.

 

[guanophore]

Do you have any specific examples of Protestant or Reformed Christians who understand the Bible apart from Apostolic teachings? No Protestants/Reformers I know of do.

The error of Sola Scriptura is one of the main ones, upon which other errors are based. The material in this thread is another, where modern evangelicals do not know/accept that the Apostles baptized infants. This emanates from reading the NT in separation from the Apsotolic Traditions. It is called “believers baptism”, and is embraced by those who derive their theology from what they glean out of the scriptures.

 

[Ignatius]

Didn’t he have Baptism of Desire, since he longed to do the right thing and had no means with which to be physically baptized?

If one makes the leap to presume that he never received ordinary baptism. Jesus and the Apostles were going about baptizing for three years.
It is also possible that a martyrs baptism of blood may apply.

 

[Matariel]

If one makes the leap to presume that he never received ordinary baptism. Jesus and the Apostles were going about baptizing for three years.
It is also possible that a martyrs baptism of blood may apply.

Wait; I know there was the symbolic Johannine baptism, which was merely symbolic; but how could he have received the Sacrament of Baptism before the Church had even been born out of Christ’s side on the Cross?

 

[Jolly_Joe]

How could Jesus and the Disciples have Communion before the Cross?

Seems about the same to me, God is not bound by his created time like we are.

If we start with time and try to shoehorn God into it we end up with problems.

 

[diggerdomer]

The error of Sola Scriptura is one of the main ones, upon which other errors are based. The material in this thread is another, where modern evangelicals do not know/accept that the Apostles baptized infants. This emanates from reading the NT in separation from the Apsotolic Traditions. It is called “believers baptism”, and is embraced by those who derive their theology from what they glean out of the scriptures.

Does the Catholic Church teach that Apostles baptized infants? Where? I couldn’t find a reference. All I could find were references to where (as the New Testament witnesses) “households” were baptized which presumably could have (but we can’t say for sure) included infants). thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

If one makes the leap to presume that he never received ordinary baptism. Jesus and the Apostles were going about baptizing for three years.
It is also possible that a martyrs baptism of blood may apply.

Jesus baptized for three years? Only in John 3 is there a reference to Jesus baptizing, and this is apparently clarified in John 4. Where do you get the idea that Jesus baptized for three years?

 

[Matariel]

Does the Catholic Church teach that Apostles baptized infants? Where? I couldn’t find a reference. All I could find were references to where (as the New Testament witnesses) “households” were baptized which presumably could have (but we can’t say for sure) included infants). thanks.

St. Peter heavily implies that the Apostles baptized infants. I can’t remember where, but I think in Acts, St. Peter says “this promise is for you and your children”, in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Does the Catholic Church teach that Apostles baptized infants? Where? I couldn’t find a reference. All I could find were references to where (as the New Testament witnesses) “households” were baptized which presumably could have (but we can’t say for sure) included infants). thanks.

1. If the Apostles didn’t baptize infants, the Catholic Church wouldn’t. It’s a Capital-T Tradition that came to us FROM the Apostles.

2)There was debate in the early church about infant baptism, but it was debate over whether an infant needed to be 8 days old to be baptized. It was never about whether or not they should be baptized.

3)You should be able to find this teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and here is a list of relevant Scripture passages.

 

[Matariel]

2)There was debate in the early church about infant baptism, but it was debate over whether an infant needed to be 8 days old to be baptized. It was never about whether or not they should be baptized.

And this controversy arose because some priests thought they should be baptized eight days after birth because Baptism is the new circumcision, which occured on the eighth day. But the Church said no, because children should be baptized ASAP, as there was, back then, a great risk of children dying early back then.

BTW, the Church has never dogmatically defined where unbaptized infants go, but instead “entrusts them to the mercy of God”. Some theologians at one time posited “Limbo” but that was never a doctrine of the Church, just theological speculation.

 

[diggerdomer]

1. If the Apostles didn’t baptize infants, the Catholic Church wouldn’t. It’s a Capital-T Tradition that came to us FROM the Apostles.

that’s not necessarily true. There are many capital-T Traditions that we have no way of knowing the Apostles practiced (or even know for a fact they didn’t).

2)There was debate in the early church about infant baptism, but it was debate over whether an infant needed to be 8 days old to be baptized. It was never about whether or not they should be baptized.

No, in fact, it was about whether infants should be baptized or if baptism should only be conferred on adults (who can make a rational choice/decision). Tertullian, for instance, recognized the practice of infant baptism, but taught against it (nothing about 8 days vs. a different time).

3)You should be able to find this teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and here is a list of relevant Scripture passages.

CCC 1250 does not address (let alone prove) your previous points. Ditto for the Scripture references you cite…infant baptism is certainly coherent with Tradition but not definitively defined.