Infant Baptism Question

[Atemi]

The RCC today mandates water baptism for infants.

This is an absurd accusation, Atemi. The RCC does not “mandate” baptism for anyone! Jesus commanded that we be baptized

So first you say it is absurd, but then agree with me that the RCC does mandate/ commands that infants be water baptised.

Okey dokey.

Yet you say the Apostles only took the position of “allowing” or tolerating it.

The apostles followed Jesus’ command to baptize, and to make disciples. When believers brought their children and infants, baptism was not withheld from them, as Jesus said “suffere the little children to come unto me, and do not hinder them”.

Can you please cite your source that records infants being brought to the Apostles for water baptism.

**Why would the RC Magisterium today seem to think it knows better than the Apostles themselves?

I ask this in all honesty.**

If you want, we will get into the Fathers, and it will be easy for you to see that Baptism of infants has been the practice from the very beginning.

The fact is that the RCC today mandates infants be water baptised.

As another Catholic poster pointed out, the Apostles did not do the same.

I am not one to assume that any church father or anyone alive today knows better than the Apostles thelmselves regarding this matter.

The Scriptures are clear to baptise disciples…believers…only.

There you go adding that “only” again! Yes, it does say to baptize disciples, but it also says that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiation rite into the new covenant. Don’t limit God, Atemi!

Then you would baptise baby boys only, but that is not the case.

I do not limit God. I listen to His example and teaching in His Word.

There is no case where an infant is said to be water baptised in over 260 chapters of NT.

This is only a problem for you SS folks. Those of us that read and appreciate the Fathers can see that this has been practiced since the beginning.

But not mandated in the beginning as is plain from the faith and practice of the early church.

You are aware that not all Christian babies were being water baptised in the early centuries, right?

If Christ commanded that infants be baptised, or even suggested that they be baptised, surely that would be seen in the practice and teaching of the early church. But that is not what we see.

**Not just authorized, but mandated at threat of grave sin. **

This is another absurd accusation. No one has threatened a parent of grave sin for not baptizing an infant!

So how serious of a sin is it to deny one’s child the “priceless grace” of becoming a child of God?

Please explain how that is not serious at all, and cite any source you may have explaining that such behavior is only petty.

And what we have is an early church where they were not told to baptise their babies. If Original Sin is true…then that would be negligence beyond description. …

We just see it differently, Atemi. Catholics believe that children are gifts from God, and that God places these children in our families so that we can raise them in the faith, and make disciples out of them. We are to train up the children in the way that they should go, so that when they get old,they will not depart from it. We do believe it is negligence not to baptize a child, as well as failure to properly disciple a child in their faith.

Wait a second.

So this “negligence” and “failure” is not of grave matter to you?

But, as you can see from your own life, negligence does happen. If anyone has been a victim of grave sin, it is you!

Ahhh.

It was only a matter of time before the personal insults would start to flow. Thanks for taking the time to do so, guan.

…

 

[Atemi]

You need to learn your facts better. Eastern Catholics have, and still do give their infants Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist all as infants. In fact, if an Eastern Catholic goes to a Roman Catholic liturgy and takes his child up to receive the Eucharist, the priest is obligated by canon law to provide it.

Jeremy

I meant to say the RCC has anathemetized all who say that Catholic babies must be communed, just like they teach that all Catholic babies must be baptised.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent)

The argument for one (“suffer the little children”) somehow conveniently ceases to be the argument for the other.

In the earliest church, the church did not teach that babies must be water baptised.

That has since changed.

…

 

[jmcrae]

I meant to say the RCC has anathemetized all who say that Catholic babies must be communed, just like they teach that all Catholic babies must be baptised.

We strongly encourage it, but I know of no penalty for not doing so.

In the earliest church, the church did not teach that babies must be water baptised.

And yet, they often were. People have already listed the quotes from the Fathers that show that a great many of the Fathers were baptized as infants and in young childhood - that was the first generation of Christians who were born into the faith.

That has since changed.

I know of no one who was ever excommunicated for not baptizing their baby. We are strongly encouraged to baptize our babies, but there is no canonical penalty for not doing so.

 

[Randy_Carson]

False claim?

1250 The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.Are you saying that denying a child the priceless grace of God is not a grave matter?

You say I am making a false claim, but I know of no educated Catholic parent in their right mind that believes baptising one’s child in Catholicism is optional from the standpoint of the teaching of the Church.

Since you say the RCC does not command that infants in Catholic families be baptised, then it is your position that such is optional according to RC teaching?

That would make a curious thread for sure.

…

Again, your bias blinds you.

Note that paragraph 1250 says, “The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.”

And this is true. The Child would be denied a priceless grace should the parents elect not to baptize the child.

However, the Church cannot “mandate” (why this word is so important to you is a mystery) or FORCE any parent to baptize a child against his or her will.

It is a sad fact that parents make the decisions to deny the sacraments to their children every day.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that the Catholic Church can** force - FORCE - **parents to baptize their children?

Wow. Your view of the Church is so twisted there is no wonder you hate her so.

Fulton Sheen was right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is, in fact, mandated in Canon law:

Jeremy

If the Canon Law mandates this, then I stand corrected, and I offer full apologies to Atemi.

However, I think we disagree completely on what level of compliance the Church can force its members to attain.

My point is that no parent is forced to baptize a child if they do not wish to do so - Canon law notwithstanding. How would this be done?

Children are not baptized or confirmed more often than we care to admit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Something important to point out about that debate was that the other side was wanting to baptize younger than eight days - this was not a question of “should we baptize babies, or should we wait until they are older,” but rather, “Is it okay to baptize my seven day old baby, or do I have to wait the extra day?”

If Jeremy’s quote from Canon 867.1 is correct, then parents are encourage to baptize BEFORE the infant is even born.

Have you ever heard of this practice?

 

[jmcrae]

If Jeremy’s quote from Canon 867.1 is correct, then parents are encourage to baptize BEFORE the infant is even born.

Have you ever heard of this practice?

I think it is referring to the preparation classes for baptism; not the actual ceremony itself. But if the mother has completed the classes by the time the baby is born, she can then bring him to the Church for baptism as soon as she is able to walk.

EDIT: Looking at the text, I can see where the confusion occurred - I suspect that you may have been reading the semi-colon as a comma.

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

It would be clearer to place a period in place of the semi-colon, and start a new sentence where it says, “… as soon as possible after the birth …” so that it doesn’t seem as though the baptism itself could occur before the birth.

 

[guanophore]

What the Scriptures do tell us is WHO to baptise: those that have repented and become believers and disciples of Jesus Christ.

There is no need to list all the folks not to baptise when it is clear about who to baptise.

When God gives us a command, we should not seek to do what He did not tell us but what He did.

…

I agree, Atemi, that when the Lord gives us a command that we should do as He says. We don’t know if the people that John were baptizing were all adults, since it says that ALL judea went out to John. It says that the Apostles baptized in Jesus’ stead. Maybe they were of all ages.

We look to the early fathers, who were much closer to the practices of the time than we are now for guidance and we see that there has been a tradition of baptizing infants from the beginning.

If your Sola Scriptura prevents you from appreciating what the Fathers have to say on this point, then all that matters is that you became baptized when you believed. God does not say you can’t be saved because you are narrow minded!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree, Atemi, that when the Lord gives us a command that we should do as He says. We don’t know if the people that John were baptizing were all adults, since it says that ALL judea went out to John. It says that the Apostles baptized in Jesus’ stead. Maybe they were of all ages.

We look to the early fathers, who were much closer to the practices of the time than we are now for guidance and we see that there has been a tradition of baptizing infants from the beginning.

If your Sola Scriptura prevents you from appreciating what the Fathers have to say on this point, then all that matters is that you became baptized when you believed. God does not say you can’t be saved because you are narrow minded!

Odds are that he was baptized twice…once as a Catholic in infancy, and once when he joined his “Bible Church” after saying the sinner’s prayer.

My sister (never Catholic) has been baptized three times.

 

[guanophore]

Odds are that he was baptized twice…once as a Catholic in infancy, and once when he joined his “Bible Church” after saying the sinner’s prayer.

My sister (never Catholic) has been baptized three times.

I believe it. I have been baptized three times myself, having been exposed when I was young and naive to the chick tracts, and thinking the infant baptism I had didn’t “take”. Lord have mercy! I finally got past the basics.

Heb 6:1-2

6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

 

[SoonerServant]

The Catholics here seem to have missed the memo. God gives direct commands and indirect commands, but COMMANDS non the less. When he told Noah to build the ark, He told him which kind of wood to use. He didn’t need to tell him which ones not to use, did he? This is an indirect command. By the way, “households” and many other locations such as this were numbered only by the number of adult males… Like when it says Jesus fed 5000. This was more than likely the adult male count. There were probably closer to double this when you include children and women.

 

[guanophore]

The Catholics here seem to have missed the memo. God gives direct commands and indirect commands, but COMMANDS non the less. When he told Noah to build the ark, He told him which kind of wood to use. He didn’t need to tell him which ones not to use, did he? This is an indirect command. By the way, “households” and many other locations such as this were numbered only by the number of adult males… Like when it says Jesus fed 5000. This was more than likely the adult male count. There were probably closer to double this when you include children and women.

You know, you are absolutely right. I bet Jesus and the Apostles told the men not to feed their families!

Matt 14:20-21
20 And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. 21 And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children."

 

[SoonerServant]

The hard part for me about ifant baptism, is that in the bible, it says it was thoughs who heard and believed. You can’t tell me an infant can believe anything. Btw, who ever started this thread, you might want to go the root of the tree, original sin. But you’ll encounter many of the same problems. Namely, taking scripture out of context. I’m sure they’ll go straight to David as usual.

 

[SoonerServant]

LOL, this act was never a literal count. Also, note," Those who ate were A-B-O-U-T five thousand…" Once again, they never gave an exact count. I’m not even going to put a clever smiley b/c that’s GAY.

 

[jmcrae]

The hard part for me about ifant baptism, is that in the bible, it says it was thoughs who heard and believed. You can’t tell me an infant can believe anything.

How about Luke 1:44?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If the Canon Law mandates this, then I stand corrected, and I offer full apologies to Atemi.

However, I think we disagree completely on what level of compliance the Church can force its members to attain.

My point is that no parent is forced to baptize a child if they do not wish to do so - Canon law notwithstanding. How would this be done?

Children are not baptized or confirmed more often than we care to admit.

I would not apologize just yet, the canon obligates, it is simply a form of saying the parent is responsible for the baby (da). This goes hand in hand with the other (1250) teaching mentioned, which says the child should remain in the baptismal grace until the age of reason then and only then can the Eucharist be allowed.

The core problem here which is becoming clear (1) some one wants to pick and chose the scriptures they follow. Notice the jailer’s household is being dismissed because it hurt the argument made, same for the Apostle’s direction. (2) a Protestant wants to interpret the Catholic rules for us, however they either wish to misalign these rules, or lack patients for the explaination .

 

[guanophore]

The core problem here which is becoming clear (1) some one wants to pick and chose the scriptures they follow. Notice the jailer’s household is being dismissed because it hurt the argument made, same for the Apostle’s direction. (2) a Protestant wants to interpret the Catholic rules for us, however they either wish to misalign these rules, or lack patients for the explaination .

I think I will go with the example of Peter:

Acts 10:46-48
Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days."

Since it has not been forbidden, let’s get on with it! Let’s pray that all our children receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[SoonerServant]

lol, I’m going to go with the catholic answer on this. They didn’t say there were children either.

 

[jemfinch]

The Catholics here seem to have missed the memo. God gives direct commands and indirect commands, but COMMANDS non the less. When he told Noah to build the ark, He told him which kind of wood to use. He didn’t need to tell him which ones not to use, did he? This is an indirect command.

Yes, and Jesus did give a command that we follow by baptizing our infants:

And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them."

By the way, “households” and many other locations such as this were numbered only by the number of adult males.

“Numbered by” and “included” are two totally different concepts. The Bible doesn’t sat “the adult men in the household were baptized;” it said, “the household” was baptized. A household includes children if children are there.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Btw, who ever started this thread, you might want to go the root of the tree, original sin. But you’ll encounter many of the same problems. Namely, taking scripture out of context. I’m sure they’ll go straight to David as usual.

Romans is usually my first destination in that argument.

Jeremy