Infant Baptism Question

[Atemi]

Again, your bias blinds you.

I was going to say the same, but that would be unfruitful.

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.

OK.

So it would not be a sin for Catholic parents to forgo baptising their babies?

Is infant baptism optional in the Catholic family?

We need to clear this up.

Either it is optional or it is not. So far you have implied that it is.

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?

Where on Earth did I ever say that the RCC “forced” anyone to do anything?

Wow.

Do you not know what “mandate” means?

Here:

mandate -

1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative
2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one
3. an authoritative order or command
4. to authorize or decree
5. to order or require; make mandatory​

There is no “force” in there anywhere at all.

You have not understood what I was saying.

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

I am only repeating the RCC’s position to a Catholic and that constitutes “hate.”

LOL.

What can I do?

 

[Atemi]

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

First of all, thanks to Jeremy for his intellectual honesty in affirming my position. He could have just shut his mouth because I am no longer an RC, but he spoke up in truth. There is much to be said there.

As for you Randy, I appreciate the apology. I just do not understand how you were not aware of this. You even went so far as to vilify me by saying I “hate” the RCC because I merely affirmed the fact that she mandates infant baptism. You never even checked first.

Water under the bridge…

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

“Force” is not so much the issue.

It is commanded. Mandated.

The Apostles did no such thing.

That is my only point.

 

[I_Leatherman]

“Force” is not so much the issue.

It is commanded. Mandated.

The Apostles did no such thing.

That is my only point.

5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The ‘mandate’ has a Divine mandate.

 

[chosen_people]

If I have understood the Edgaro Mortara travesty, you and your family can be a follower of another religion, have no idea or intention to be baptized or want your infant child to be baptized, have no belief as to Catholicism or baptism, the person doing the baptism does not have to be a priest or use anything other than dirty bath water and does not require the consent or knowledge of the parents as to the baptism, the bath water “baptism” also makes you Catholic and therefore it also makes it improper to continue to live with your non Catholic parents. This at least according to Pius IX who being the pope at the time presumably understood something about Catholicism and baptism especially as I understand him to be infallible under the Catholic religion and also as he is a candidate for Catholic sainthood

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If I have understood the Edgaro Mortara travesty, you and your family can be a follower of another religion, have no idea or intention to be baptized or want your infant child to be baptized, have no belief as to Catholicism or baptism, the person doing the baptism does not have to be a priest or use anything other than dirty bath water and does not require the consent or knowledge of the parents as to the baptism, the bath water “baptism” also makes you Catholic and therefore it also makes it improper to continue to live with your non Catholic parents. This at least according to Pius IX who being the pope at the time presumably understood something about Catholicism and baptism especially as I understand him to be infallible under the Catholic religion and also as he is a candidate for Catholic sainthood

I know little about the “Edgaro Mortara” affair however I would ask you to consider this, if you were walking and found an abandon baby would you not help that child? Of course you would and how would you help? By doing what you think is best for the child. I am sure that was the core of the issue. Certainly only rare circumstances allow over riding the parents. Would you expect a Catholic not to do the same? In dire conditions anyone can act “Christ persona” this is known as licit, if the circumstances are not dire this is known as illicit. If the intent is real the action is valid, if the intent is other the action is known as invalid. So a Catholic believing a baby is in a dire circumstance can licitly administer a valid sacrament. Whether that is what happen to Edgaro Mortara is beyond my knowledge. As for why Edgaro Mortara was separated from his parents I have no idea. However the concept that it was based on a Catholic rule concerning their lack of a Catholic Baptism is not correct. Priests can, and occasionally do, baptize children of non-baptized parents, the standards are (1) dire circumstances, OR (2)the Priest believes the child is intended to be raised Catholic.

Concerning the water: In normal circumstances the Priest uses blessed water; commonly called holy water. In dire conditions any water will suffice. It may be possible to achieve the sacrament with out water; however I would have to refer to a true scholar on that issue.

I can not help you with the facts of the mentioned case I can help you with facts of a Catholic baptism. Hope that helps

 

[guanophore]

Is infant baptism optional in the Catholic family?

We need to clear this up.

Either it is optional or it is not. So far you have implied that it is.

Jesus commanded baptism, and the church teaches that Catholic parents are expected to raise their children in the faith, and lead them into al the sacraments.

On the other hand, the following of Christ is optional for every person. Each person, Catholic or not, has a choice to disobey the teachings of Christ at any point in their lives.

Where on Earth did I ever say that the RCC “forced” anyone to do anything?

Wow.

Do you not know what “mandate” means?

I thought you meant order, or require. You also made statements that households might be baptized against their will, which made it sound like you thought they might be “forced”. You also noted that babies can’t decide, so if they are baptized, they have no choice in the matter, which might also be interpreted as “forced”.

*mandate* -

1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative
2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one
3. an authoritative order or command
4. to authorize or decree
5. to order or require; make mandatory​

There is no “force” in there anywhere at all.

You have not understood what I was saying.

Thank you for clearing that up.

What can I do?

Accept that baptism replaces circumcision in the new covenant, that it is commanded by Jesus, and that Jesus said the little ones should come to Him, and that this has been the practice since the early days of the Church.

“Force” is not so much the issue.

It is commanded. Mandated.

The Apostles did no such thing.

That is my only point.

You are assuming that this was not apostolic practice and command based upon your Sola Scriptura model? The apostles and their successors did baptize infants, and Jesus commanded that all were to be baptized. I have a question, though. Why do you think it is a problem to baptize babies, or do you?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Steve,

Assumming you’re still reading, and recognizing I didn’t have the patience to read a lot of what got said here…here are some important points to remember RE: Infant baptism:

It is neither specifically mentioned or excluded in scripture, however, the earliest traditions of the Church mention it.

Within Catholicism we don’t believe “Once Baptised always Saved”…so yes, a child can be baptised and then later turn away from Christ, just as an adult can.

The Covenant between God and Israel was initiated with the circumcision of children, and this foreshadows baptism, which initiates us into the new covenant…if it was ok with God to circumcise kids into the old covenant, then why not baptise babies into the new?

 

[Atemi]

**Is infant baptism optional in the Catholic family?

We need to clear this up.

Either it is optional or it is not. So far you have implied that it is.**

Jesus commanded baptism, and the church teaches that Catholic parents are expected to raise their children in the faith, and lead them into al the sacraments.

On the other hand, the following of Christ is optional for every person. Each person, Catholic or not, has a choice to disobey the teachings of Christ at any point in their lives.

The RCC does not teach that water baptism is optional for Catholic babies.

This is being silly now.

**Where on Earth did I ever say that the RCC “forced” anyone to do anything?

Wow.

Do you not know what “mandate” means?**

I thought you meant order, or require.

Yes. Require.

That is what it means.

You also made statements that households might be baptized against their will, which made it sound like you thought they might be “forced”.

No. I did not say that. Catholic posters have said that.

If you think baptising unbelievers, which is what Catholic posters claimed the Apostles did, is not forcing, then that is your business.

You also noted that babies can’t decide, so if they are baptized, they have no choice in the matter, which might also be interpreted as “forced”.

Well of course.

But we are talking about the mandate of the RCC to baptise infants where the Apostles had no such thing.

The forcing of baptism upon those who cannot count the cost of following Christ beforehand is another issue.

**“Force” is not so much the issue.

It is commanded. Mandated.

The Apostles did no such thing.

That is my only point. **

You are assuming that this was not apostolic practice and command based upon your Sola Scriptura model?

No.

Also upon the history and ECF model as well.

There was clearly no command that Christian babies be water baptised.

The apostles and their successors did baptize infants, and Jesus commanded that all were to be baptized.

You can cite no Apostle saying they baptised any infants at all. No need to insert your own opinion.

My point is that clearly Jesus did not command that infants be baptised because that was not the teaching of the early church…for quite a while.

…

 

[mikeledes]

By grace.

Greetings. How does this occur in the case of a baby?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[jmcrae]

My point is that clearly Jesus did not command that infants be baptised because that was not the teaching of the early church…for quite a while.

How long is “quite a while”? Polycarp had to have been baptized as an infant in 69 AD, which is well within the Apostolic era.

 

[Atemi]

How long is “quite a while”? Polycarp had to have been baptized as an infant in 69 AD, which is well within the Apostolic era.

Firstly, Polycarp’s statement is only assumed to mean he was water baptised as an infant. He never says he was water baptised as a baby, but only says that he has served God since infancy. Merely saying one has served God all their life is not making a statement about water baptism. Many in the early church were water baptised later in their Christian walk, even on their deathbed, but could probably say the same as Polycarp in one fashion or another.

Secondly, even if Polycarp was water baptised as an infant, that does not mean it was an Apostolic command. We can see that from all the other early Christians who were not baptised as infants.

…

 

[jmcrae]

… even if Polycarp was water baptised as an infant, that does not mean it was an Apostolic command. We can see that from all the other early Christians who were not baptised as infants.

There are plenty of Catholics today who don’t get baptized until adulthood, too. It makes for a weird situation when they come to RCIA, because there isn’t really a category for “Fully catechized, not baptized,” so you’re right that, officially, this situation isn’t supposed to occur - but we have no evidence that it was supposed to occur back then, either.

 

[mikeledes]

Martin Luther on Infant Baptism:

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.

Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.

For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God. even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe.

Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God’s Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?

Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.

Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.

For more, go to this link:

apuritansmind.com/Baptism/LutherMartinCatechismInfantBaptism.htm

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here is a Lutheran defense of infant baptism using the Bible and the early Church Fathers:

orlutheran.com/trinfbap.html

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JimG]

I don’t think it is correct to say that the Church requires baptism of infants. In some cases, the Church will actually require parents to defer the baptism of an infant, if it cannot be assured that there is a reasonable expectation that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith.

That situation is more common than it used to be. Some parents who do not practice their faith, nevertheless bring their child for baptism; however the priest, before baptism, is required to have some moral assurance that the child will be raised in the faith. If not, then the baptism is to be deferred, perhaps pending catechesis of the parents. I myself have had the experience of being asked to be a godparent for a child wherein the parents were not actively practicing their faith. Being able to have the child baptized in such a case is not a given. That’s one reason we now have baptism classes.

Reading this discussion brought another issue to my mind. Do protestant denominations which do not permit baptism of infants, allow children to attend worship services or Sunday school classes before making a profession of faith? If so, it seems to me that the same objection could be raised: one is essentially brining them into and indoctrinating them in a religion to which they have not given adult consent.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So it would not be a sin for Catholic parents to forgo baptising their babies?

Is infant baptism optional in the Catholic family?

We need to clear this up.

Either it is optional or it is not. So far you have implied that it is.

I have not said that one way or the other.

What I have tried to say from the outset (going back to posts #7, #10 and subsequent) is that the Catholic Church does not chase down the parents of a newborn child and force them to bring the child to the Church for a baptism ceremony. Nor is there any threat that I have ever heard made to expectant parents. This is why I questioned the use of the word “mandate” from the beginning of your posts.

Here is the definition I had checked:

man·date http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif/man-deyt]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation*noun, verb, ***-dat·ed, -dat·ing. **
*–noun *1.a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: *The president had a clear mandate to end the war. *2.a command from a superior court or official to a lower one. 3.an authoritative order or command: *a royal mandate. *4.(in the League of Nations) a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former Turkish territory or German colony. 5.a mandated territory or colony. 6.Roman Catholic Church. an order issued by the pope, esp. one commanding the preferment of a certain person to a benefice. 7.Roman and Civil Law. a contract by which one engages gratuitously to perform services for another. 8.(in modern civil law) any contract by which a person undertakes to perform services for another. 9.Roman Law. an order or decree by the emperor, esp. to governors of provinces. *–verb (used with object) *10.to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law.

From this definition, it is evident that “mandate” can mean “command” or “authorize”.

Did the Apostles “authorize” infant baptism. I believe they did for several reasons:

1. No verse of scripture prohibits infant baptism.
2. Several verses imply infant baptism.
3. The ECF’s not only did not speak against infant baptism, but several wrote in favor of it. For example, Irenaeus wrote that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.” (Against Heresies II 22: 4)
4. Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.” Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.”

Where on Earth did I ever say that the RCC “forced” anyone to do anything?

Wow.

Do you not know what “mandate” means?

I do. Which is why I specifically asked which of two major meanings you intended.

You were trying to make the case that the Catholic Church has overstepped the authority of the Apostles in a post you made earlier.

Further, and perhaps I misread you here, I felt you were trying to state that Catholic parents really have no choice in this matter.

You seemed to be wielding the term “mandate” as a club to beat us with because you object to infant baptism and you wish to assert that we as parents have no say in the matter.

I would contend that faithful parents will want to baptize their children soon after birth and this is mandated by the Church according to canon law (apparently), but there is no way that the Church can force any parent to do this against his or her will.

So in the end, the question is: what is your point?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is a Lutheran defense of infant baptism using the Bible and the early Church Fathers:

orlutheran.com/trinfbap.html

God Bless,
Michael

Of great interest:

**V - The Practice of the Early Church

**

Those who deny infant baptism have a problem. They must explain why the fathers of the Church’s first centuries speak of infant baptism as a universal custom. The Fathers is what we now call Pastors who led the Church after the death of the apostles. When we examine the writings of Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (d. 240), Origen (d. 254), Cyprian (d. 258), and Augustine (d. 430), we see that they all spoke of infant baptism as accepted custom (though Tertullian disagreed with it).

Irenaeus remarks, “For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).

In his commentary on Romans, Origin writes, “The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Romans Commentary, 5.9).

Cyprian writes, “In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

And in his Enchiridion, Augustine declares, “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin” (Enchiridion; ch. 43).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Saint Augustine

On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I)

Chapter 24 [XIX.]—Infants Saved as Sinners.

And let no one suppose that infants ought to be brought to baptism, on the ground that, as they are not sinners, so they are not righteous; how then do some remind us that the Lord commends this tender age as meritorious; saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven?” Matthew 19:14 For if this “of such”] is not said because of likeness in humility (since humility makes [us] children), but because of the laudable life of children, then of course infants must be righteous persons; otherwise, it could not be correctly said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” for heaven can only belong to the righteous. But perhaps, after all, it is not a right opinion of the meaning of the Lord’s words, to make Him commend the life of infants when He says, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven;” inasmuch as that may be their true sense, which makes Christ adduce the tender age of infancy as a likeness of humility. Even so, however, perhaps we must revert to the tenet which I mentioned just now, that infants ought to be baptized, because, although they are not sinners, they are yet not righteous. But when He had said: “I came not to call the righteous,” as if responding to this, Whom, then, did Thou come to call? immediately He goes on to say: “—but sinners to repentance.” Therefore it follows, that, however righteous they may be, if also they are not sinners, He came not to call them, who said of Himself: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” They therefore seem, not vainly only, but even wickedly to rush to the baptism of Him who does not invite them,—an opinion which God forbid that we should entertain. He calls them, then, as a Physician who is not needed for those that are whole, but for those that are sick; and who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Now, inasmuch as infants are not held bound by any sins of their own actual life, it is the guilt of original sin which is healed in them by the grace of Him who saves them by the laver of regeneration.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Chapter 25.—Infants are Described as Believers and as Penitents. Sins Alone Separate Between God and Men.

Some one will say: How then are mere infants called to repentance? How can such as they repent of anything? The answer to this is: If they must not be called penitents because they have not the sense of repenting, neither must they be called believers, because they likewise have not the sense of believing. But if they are rightly called believers, because they in a certain sense profess faith by the words of their parents, why are they not also held to be before that penitents when they are shown to renounce the devil and this world by the profession again of the same parents? The whole of this is done in hope, in the strength of the sacrament and of the divine grace which the Lord has bestowed upon the Church. But yet who knows not that the baptized infant fails to be benefited from what he received as a little child, if on coming to years of reason he fails to believe and to abstain from unlawful desires? If, however, the infant departs from the present life after he has received baptism, the guilt in which he was involved by original sin being done away, he shall be made perfect in that light of truth, which, remaining unchangeable for evermore, illumines the justified in the presence of their Creator. For sins alone separate between men and God; and these are done away by Christ’s grace, through whom, as Mediator, we are reconciled, when He justifies the ungodly.

newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

 

[guanophore]

The RCC does not teach that water baptism is optional for Catholic babies.

This is being silly now.

My point is that people have free will, and can choose to disobey the commandments of jesus.

You also made statements that households might be baptized against their will, which made it sound like you thought they might be “forced”.

No. I did not say that. Catholic posters have said that.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

If the poster believes that whole families were coerced into baptism without personal faith…all with the acceptance of the Apostles…that will need some evidence. If you think baptising unbelievers, which is what Catholic posters claimed the Apostles did, is not forcing, then that is your business.

When you brought the word “coerced” into the discussion I understood that you meant against their will, or forced.

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.

Indeed, this is exactly what we see. I agree that it is vague in the NT.

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.

So this “negligence” and “failure” is not of grave matter to 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.
…

It is not personal at all, Atemi. Anyone who was baptized Catholic and then their parents and Godparents failed to fulfill their promises to teach them the faith is a victim of a grave sin. I count myself among the victims too. It is not your fault, therefore, not a personal insult. It is an indictment upon those who took those vows before God, and failed to fulfill them.