Incorrect advice on Baptism?

[Fan_of_Trent]

A close relative recently adopted two children at different times. The first boy was three when adopted and the second an infant. The eldest is now six years old and the infant is now one years old. Because the legal adoption process takes a very long time, the eldest’s adoption is official but the infants adoption is not. Thus, the oldest boy can certainly be baptized. I am uncertain if the infant could satisfy the requirements of canon law; the child is hers - that is final - just the paperwork is left.

Apparently she approached a nun at her Church who instructed her to wait so that both children could be baptized at the same time. This is contrary to my understanding of the importance of baptizing children ASAP so long as the canonical requirements have been satisfied. This bothers me, because we are talking about the salvation of souls here. IMHO this sister, however well intentioned, has reduced Baptism itself to little more than some sort of symbolic ceremony and my relative has accepted this as the gospel truth. I’ve suggested she approach a member of the ordained clergy, ie. a Priest, who may have a different view.

At least one child could be Baptized into the Cathollic Church and cleansed of original sin. Does the Church not teach that parents should baptize their children as soon as possible. This advice given by the nun seems, at least to me, to be erroneous and rather disturbing. Am I wrong?

 

[adrift]

I don’t think you are wrong. Just because a person speaking belongs to a religious order, doesn’t meant they know what they are talking about. Canon law still says to baptize as soon as possible. There are some who have bought into the theory that children will go to heaven even if not baptized. The Church leaves it to the mercy of God. It is taking a chance. I wouldn’t do it.

 

[MaeganFlinchum]

Does anyone truly believe that God would send a baby to hell for not being baptized? I completely agree that babys should be baptized ASAP but if the baby wasn’t baptized through no fault of it’s own then it will CERTAINLY not go to hell.

 

[Allegra]

Does anyone truly believe that God would send a baby to hell for not being baptized? I completely agree that babys should be baptized ASAP but if the baby wasn’t baptized through no fault of it’s own then it will CERTAINLY not go to hell.

Just because you write the word “certainly” in all caps, it does not mean it is actually certain. In fact, the Church trusts these children to the mercy of God, but we don’t know for certain. It isn’t worth the risk, in my opinion.

 

[MaeganFlinchum]

I don’t believe in the risk of a baby burning in hell for all an eternity by no fault of it’s own.

 

[MaeganFlinchum]

Just because you write the word “certainly” in all caps, it does not mean it is actually certain. In fact, the Church trusts these children to the mercy of God, but we don’t know for certain. It isn’t worth the risk, in my opinion.

Ok you’ll have to excuse my latest response. I now understand and agree 100%. Thanks! and God Bless!

 

[Dorothy]

I don’t believe in the risk of a baby burning in hell for all an eternity by no fault of it’s own.

I never heard that an unbaptized baby went to hell. I had heard (theological speculation) that they would be in limbo where there was natural happiness.

The Catechism says is best when it says they are left to the mercy of God. I trust Him best of all.

 

[MaeganFlinchum]

Oh I wish I could delete that! There was a misunderstanding on my part! So no worrys we don’t believe they go to hell, but that they are left to the mercy of God, and Limbo is not an official Church teaching.

 

[hannajomar]

Just because the children are adopted does not mean they need to be Baptized at the same time. When my brother was born, my parents had him Baptized when he was a baby. They didn’t wait 2 and a half years until I was born so both of their children were Baptized together. If I was in your friend’s shoes, I would contact the parish office to have my older son Baptized. And when the younger son’s paperwork is final, then contact the parish again to have him Baptized as well.

If it was a difference of a few weeks, it makes sense to have them Baptized together. But who knows how long the younger boy’s paperwork will take to come through. And the older boy is approaching the age of reason, so I highly recommend Baptism so he will be able to receive his other sacraments on time.

God bless your friend and her family!

 

[dchezik]

Hi Everyone!
One thing being on the list has done for me is to appreciate Jesus’ disgust with the legalisms of the Scribes and the Pharisees. When they jumped on him for picking corn on the Sabbath, He responded: “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.”

Now you guys are doing it all over again! I mean, do you realize what’s at stake? Imagine the horror of a child writhing in torment in the fires of hell for all eternity because someone didn’t say a few dedicatory words over him as they sprinkled holy water on him! It wasn’t the child’s fault!

I don’t mean to be grandiose in my comparisons or unkind to those of you who are sincere and well-meaning, but I can understand Jesus’ disgust with the formal legalisms of the Scribes and Pharisees, and I am amazed at his tolerance! I’m afraid I fall short.

“Ffffff, Fffff, Fffff.” That’s me shaking the dust off my sandals as I leave this crazy site.

 

[MaeganFlinchum]

Thank you finally!!! Exactly what I was saying!

 

[malcido]

I would advise the parents to further investigate this. Perhaps it was specific to our parish, but my niece was baptised before her adoption paperwork was complete for exactly the reasons that you go into regarding the necessity of baptism. The baptismal certificate was withheld until the paperwork was completed and turned in to the parish office.

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

Hi Everyone!
One thing being on the list has done for me is to appreciate Jesus’ disgust with the legalisms of the Scribes and the Pharisees. When they jumped on him for picking corn on the Sabbath, He responded: “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.”

Now you guys are doing it all over again! I mean, do you realize what’s at stake? Imagine the horror of a child writhing in torment in the fires of hell for all eternity because someone didn’t say a few dedicatory words over him as they sprinkled holy water on him! It wasn’t the child’s fault!

I don’t mean to be grandiose in my comparisons or unkind to those of you who are sincere and well-meaning, but I can understand Jesus’ disgust with the formal legalisms of the Scribes and Pharisees, and I am amazed at his tolerance! I’m afraid I fall short.

“Ffffff, Fffff, Fffff.” That’s me shaking the dust off my sandals as I leave this crazy site.

Thank you for visiting.

Thank you finally!!! Exactly what I was saying!

For the record though, the Catholic Church believes and mandates the baptism of infants, born to or in the care of Catholics, as soon as reasonably possible. It’s part of the Catholic Faith for a reason. Here’s a quote from a Catholic website that sums it up in my opinion:

The Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation has not changed. Christ Himself, after His Resurrection, couldn’t have spoken more clearly about the need for baptism, when He commanded the Apostles to go forth and baptize all nations (Matt. 28: 19-20). As the Catechism teaches, “through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God” (CCC 1213 ). It is only logical that Catholic parents should want to have their newborn children baptized as soon as possible, to free them from original sin and make them members of the Church.

As we have seen in this space so many times before, canon law follows theology. So it isn’t at all surprising to find that canon 867.1 states that parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks after birth. And the very next paragraph, canon 867.2 , adds that if the child is in danger of death, he is to be baptized immediately.

Thus it should be clear that waiting for months, or even years, to have one’s child baptized is not only not in keeping with the Church’s theological teaching, it is also contrary to canon law. It is difficult to imagine a legitimate reason why Catholic parents, who truly believe in basic tenets of our faith like original sin and God’s grace, would fail to arrange for their children to be baptized as soon as possible.

… in 1927, Pope Benedict XVI himself was baptized the same day that he was born.

catholicexchange.com/how-soon-should-a-baby-be-baptized/

God is not bound by Sacraments, but he did give them to us as a means to salvation. As has already been said, it isn’t worth the risk.

God Bless.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Hi Everyone!
One thing being on the list has done for me is to appreciate Jesus’ disgust with the legalisms of the Scribes and the Pharisees. When they jumped on him for picking corn on the Sabbath, He responded: “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.”

Jesus also had some things to say about baptism. Read John 3.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

So while we might hope that unbaptized children be saved through the mercy of God, we have no firm reason to believe that they will. Whether you understand this or not is irrelevant because we are saved on God’s terms, not your terms. The disgusting legalism here to me seems to be the nun putting off baptism just so the children can be baptized at the same time, as if that makes a difference.

 

[thistle]

Hi Everyone!
One thing being on the list has done for me is to appreciate Jesus’ disgust with the legalisms of the Scribes and the Pharisees. When they jumped on him for picking corn on the Sabbath, He responded: “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.”

Now you guys are doing it all over again! I mean, do you realize what’s at stake? Imagine the horror of a child writhing in torment in the fires of hell for all eternity because someone didn’t say a few dedicatory words over him as they sprinkled holy water on him! It wasn’t the child’s fault!

I don’t mean to be grandiose in my comparisons or unkind to those of you who are sincere and well-meaning, but I can understand Jesus’ disgust with the formal legalisms of the Scribes and Pharisees, and I am amazed at his tolerance! I’m afraid I fall short.

“Ffffff, Fffff, Fffff.” That’s me shaking the dust off my sandals as I leave this crazy site.

Jesus was not against the laws. He was against the Scribes and Pharisees being hypocrites because they did not abide by the laws.

 

[thistle]

A close relative recently adopted two children at different times. The first boy was three when adopted and the second an infant. The eldest is now six years old and the infant is now one years old. Because the legal adoption process takes a very long time, the eldest’s adoption is official but the infants adoption is not. Thus, the oldest boy can certainly be baptized. I am uncertain if the infant could satisfy the requirements of canon law; the child is hers - that is final - just the paperwork is left.

Apparently she approached a nun at her Church who instructed her to wait so that both children could be baptized at the same time. This is contrary to my understanding of the importance of baptizing children ASAP so long as the canonical requirements have been satisfied. This bothers me, because we are talking about the salvation of souls here. IMHO this sister, however well intentioned, has reduced Baptism itself to little more than some sort of symbolic ceremony and my relative has accepted this as the gospel truth. I’ve suggested she approach a member of the ordained clergy, ie. a Priest, who may have a different view.

At least one child could be Baptized into the Cathollic Church and cleansed of original sin. **Does the Church not teach that parents should baptize their children as soon as possible. **This advice given by the nun seems, at least to me, to be erroneous and rather disturbing. Am I wrong?

YES!

Can. 867 §1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

§2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay.