infant baptism

[Pax]

Leeann,

If your complaint about limbo is the best you’ve got for not accepting the authority of the Church, then IMHO you’ve got nothing at all in the way of a complaint. You’ve admitted that it was a speculation, and the Church still allows people to entertain that particular speculation.

Non-Catholic Christians have, as individuals, all kinds of theological speculations. They are their own authority in interpreting scripture and in entertaining speculations. Likewise, pastors do the same thing. Moreover, entire denominations do it as well. This doesn’t seem to bother you even though each of these individuals and groups believe themselves to be on the right track.

If the Church chooses to favor one speculation over another than there is absolutely no problem. The Church has never claimed that she has all of the answers to all things at all times. This is one of the strengths of the Church’s view on authority rather than a weakness. The Church recognizes the limits of her authority, knowledge, and even theological speculations.

When the Church lays down a doctrinal teaching with authority and states that it is binding on all members of the Church, then that is exactly right and appropriate. The Church’s restraint in other areas gives us more confidence rather than less confidence.

IMHO, you are simply looking at this from a position 180 degrees from that of common sense and logic. When we weigh how much we understand something we assign to that understanding a level of confidence commensurate with the level of understanding. Since limbo was never a fixed doctrine it was **by definition **subject to further study and change. Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I am a cradle Catholic and educated in the Catholic school system as a youth in the fifties and sixties. I had no problem understanding the teaching on limbo then, and I have no problem with the Church’s teaching now. I was not confused then, and I am not confused now. None of your worries or complaints are part of my experience, and they are not part of the experience of any Catholics that I know.

The teaching on the subject of what happens to unbaptized infants hasn’t really changed much, and exactly what happens to them remains unknown. We leave it to God’s mercy and the idea of “limbo” is a recognition of God’s mercy. That in itself should help give you some comfort when reflecting on the authority and view of the Church in this matter.

The greatest thing about both the teaching of limbo and the way the Church currently expresses herself is that the Church gives a warning to those in the Church that are indifferent to baptism, and she gives hope to all those that take her instruction and baptize their infants. The warning alerts those that need to “awake from their slumber” and, in this case, need to pay attention to the word of God concerning baptismal regeneration. There is nothing bad, weak, or evil in any of this. It is all positive.

 

[Philthy]

Leeann;:

To all who have been so gracious in responding to me over these past few days…I thank you!

However as the postings are developing, it is becoming clear to me that this “thread” is not the best one to be in, as it tends to go a bit off topic “infant baptism” - I wasn’t sure as stated in my initial query …and we carried right along with my query, however it related more to the question of why people are able to accept any of the RCchurch dogmas or any of the teachings as credible in view of past (or present) variations, changes, etc. - as in relation to its claim of being the TRUE church, with sole authority. etc.,etc.

The reason many posts delved into the issue of the authority of the Church was a direct result of your mistaken questioning of that authority based upon the theological speculation of Limbo. Your basis for undermining the Church was it’s change in stance on the Limbo issue - an issue it never took an unalterable stance on. Once one realizes this, your entire argument vaporizes.

The thread I discovered will hopefully just address that core issue…it’s “Ask An Apologist” under the Forums…Fr. Vincent Serpa is one of the respondents.

Running to another forum in hopes of getting someone to agree with a flawed version of history, infallible truths of the faith, and how the Church should behave regarding truths which have not yet become infallible, will not happen here on Catholic Answers.
That being said, I hope you do find the Truth and have the courage to embrace it.

 

[Philthy]

Leeann,

The greatest thing about both the teaching of limbo and the way the Church currently expresses herself is that the Church gives a warning to those in the Church that are indifferent to baptism, and she gives hope to all those that take her instruction and baptize their infants. The warning alerts those that need to “awake from their slumber” and, in this case, need to pay attention to the word of God concerning baptismal regeneration. There is nothing bad, weak, or evil in any of this. It is all positive.

Exactly!

 

[savedsinner]

I don’t believe that the ceremony itself, or the celebrant that is administering the act of baptism is “conferring any grace or regeneration”

In scripture we read of the many healings by Jesus and his Apostles.
I would say that these healings were the conferring of God’s grace to the individuals which healed by them.

Many of these healings were done by just a vocal command, like the Apostles saying “be healed in the name of Jesus”, or Jesus saying “you are healed” and the people were healed.

But there were many instances in the New Testament where the healing graces were administered through a physical manner, not just a vocal one.

Here are some examples I am speaking of:

Matthew 9:20-22
And behold, a woman who had suffered from a hemorrhage for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment; for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well.” Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.

Matthew 14:35-36
And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent round to all that region and brought to him all that were sick, and besought him that they might only touch the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

Mark 6:56
And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

Mark 7:32-35
And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech; and they besought him to lay his hand upon him. And taking him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, “Eph’phatha,” that is, “Be opened.” And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.

Mark 8:23-25
And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” And he looked up and said, “I see men; but they look like trees, walking.” Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly.

John 9:6-7
As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Acts 5:15-16
“so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.”

Acts 19:11-12
And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

My question to you is why were so many of these healing miracles shown to be done by a physical means since they could have all be done by just a vocal command or a prayer.

I know the main reason was to show the faith of the individuals, but is that the only reason?

Could it be that God was preparing us to accept his sacraments as a physical means to transfer an invisible grace?

After reading about these miracles and how they were administered, why would it be hard for you to believe that the waters of baptism could be “conferring any grace or regeneration” as you put it?

Combine these miracles with what is written in Ezekiel:

I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

And in Acts:

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Why would it be hard for anyone to accept the regenerational powers of baptism?
And if it does have regenerational powers, why would it be hard for someone to accept the fact that it could be administered to infants.
Remember, some of the sick in these healing miracle passages were brought by others to be healed, they didn’t come on their own accord.

 

[Leeann]

Leeann,

If your complaint about limbo is the best you’ve got for not accepting the authority of the Church, then IMHO you’ve got nothing at all in the way of a complaint. (no…it’s not all…but as stated before…but in order to stay on topic of this particular “thread” on Infant Baptism - it was what best related to the topic…at that time…)You’ve admitted that it was a speculation, and the Church still allows people to entertain that particular speculation.

Non-Catholic Christians have, as individuals, all kinds of theological speculations. They are their own authority in interpreting scripture and in entertaining speculations. Likewise, pastors do the same thing. Moreover, entire denominations do it as well. This doesn’t seem to bother you even though each of these individuals and groups believe themselves to be on the right track.

( Well…this is a Catholic forum…that’s where I thought I would get a Catholic perspective, …and I’ve indicated a few times that whether it’s RCChurch or any other **denomination or **faith that claims to have “sole authority” or by being a member of it is the only way for salvation - is wrong)

If the Church chooses to favor one speculation over another than there is absolutely no problem. The Church has never claimed that she has all of the answers to all things at all times.This is one of the strengths of the Church’s view on authority rather than a weakness. The Church recognizes the limits of her authority, knowledge, and even theological speculations.

(if that statement is true…some may view it as a “strength”…others may view it as a “loophole” that can be used whenever necessary.)

When the Church lays down a doctrinal teaching with authority and states that it is binding on all members of the Church, then that is exactly right and appropriate. The Church’s restraint in other areas gives us more confidence rather than less confidence.

…how about confusion…pretty confusing times way back then…even for the church leaders…took a long while to sort it out…well kind of sort it out…it’s still in “limbo” really.

IMHO, you are simply looking at this from a position 180 degrees from that of common sense and logic. When we weigh how much we understand something we assign to that understanding a level of confidence commensurate with the level of understanding. Since limbo was never a fixed doctrine it was **by definition **subject to further study and change. Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill.

(…centuries of mixed “divine understanding” to finally come to an (almost) conclusion - that Catholics must have “Hope”…)

I am a cradle Catholic and educated in the Catholic school system as a youth in the fifties and sixties. I had no problem understanding the teaching on limbo then, and I have no problem with the Church’s teaching now. I was not confused then, and I am not confused now. None of your worries or complaints are part of my experience, and they are not part of the experience of any Catholics that I know.

( Well, as long as it hasn’t affected you directly, that’s wonderful…how about the ones it did affect…for centuries…or the teaching even “prior” to limbo…the burning in hell one…must have affected someone - the changing and confusion within the very “leadership” of the RCChurch was evident.)

The teaching on the subject of what happens to unbaptized infants hasn’t really changed much, and exactly what happens to them remains unknown. We leave it to God’s mercy and the idea of “limbo” is a recognition of God’s mercy. That in itself should help give you some comfort when reflecting on the authority and view of the Church in this matter.

The greatest thing about both the teaching of limbo and the way the Church currently expresses herself is that the Church gives a warning to those in the Church that are indifferent to baptism, and she gives hope to all those that take her instruction and baptize their infants. The warning alerts those that need to “awake from their slumber” and, in this case, need to pay attention to the word of God concerning baptismal regeneration. There is nothing bad, weak, or evil in any of this. It is all positive.

I can understand your viewpoint, as you say this is what you’ve been taught to believe right from infancy and throughout your whole life.

 

[Leeann]

The reason many posts delved into the issue of the authority of the Church was a direct result of your mistaken questioning of that authority based upon the theological speculation of Limbo. Your basis for undermining the Church was it’s change in stance on the Limbo issue - an issue it never took an unalterable stance on. Once one realizes this, your entire argument vaporizes.

Running to another forum in hopes of getting someone to agree with a flawed version of history, infallible truths of the faith, and how the Church should behave regarding truths which have not yet become infallible, will not happen here on Catholic Answers.

Implying that I am “running to another forum in hopes of getting someone to agree” with me…is a presumptious on your part, especially when I tried to explain that I have found an area that is simply more suitable for my query…leaving this thread on Infant Baptism open for queries that are in fact just that…directly about Infant Baptism…not taking up your time and others time…trying to respond to both issues…the Infant Baptism and “credibility” thing.

That being said, I hope you do find the Truth and have the courage to embrace it.

 

[Leeann]

Just discovered that the Apologists format is different to the normal threads…but have found two active threads under Non-Catholic Religions - one about “Power and Responsibility” of the “Papacy” - how do non-Catholics view it - and another one on the “If you are a Christian what is the real reason you are not Catholic”.

These seem more appropriate areas…and should keep me busy, if these past few days by being in here is any indication!

I would love to stay in this thread…but my “time” and my other duties simply can’t be stretched that far.

Once again, thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
God Bless

 

[Pax]

I can understand your viewpoint, as you say this is what you’ve been taught to believe right from infancy and throughout your whole life.

And correctly so, since it was never taught to me as a binding doctrine to be Catholic.

There really is no problem and you should be careful in giving any credence to your speculative ideas about people being confused or hurt by the doctrine over the centuries. There is no evidence that this is the case.

 

[jmcrae]

Assuming that this is the same “church” and with the same “untainted” - “unbroken” authority that was described in the beginnings of the early church.

This is a perfectly credible assumption - history does not show anything to the contrary, and there is no other church with sufficient pedigree to be “the one.”

We have a set of facts:

1. Jesus promised that His Church would last forever.
2. Jesus set the Apostles, in union with Peter, in authority over the Church.
3. The Apostles appointed successors, and gave them authority to appoint other successors.
4. There is one, and only one, Church around today that was also around in the time of the Apostles, and after the time of the Apostles, was there in 200 AD, and 300 AD, and 400 AD, and 500 AD, and continuously for 2,000 years. Unlike certain gnostic sects that pop in and out of existence every few centuries, and unlike the Protestant churches, which only began to exist during the 1500s, and unlike various schismatic organizations which, though they carry a valid Apostolic succession, don’t consider themselves to be in union with the See of Peter.

 

[Leeann]

And correctly so, since it was never taught to me as a binding doctrine to be Catholic.

There really is no problem and you should be careful in giving any credence to your **speculative ideas about people being ****confused or hurt **by the doctrine over the centuries. There is no evidence that this is the case.

Hi Pax

No speculation…it’s all documented as for people being confused…well…the leaders were confused at that time…back and forth…and back and forth…it’s all written down in that “official Vatican document” and as for people being hurt…well that’s mentioned too, although the concern seems to be explicitly for “this period in time”…

BBC News report:

For centuries many Roman Catholics have believed that the souls of babies who die before baptism remain in limbo.

But the concept has never been part of official Church teaching, and it is thought Pope Benedict may be keen to do away with it.

The Pope has been quoted as dismissing the notion as a mere “hypothesis”.

The Catholic Church is concerned about the grief suffered by the parents of stillborn babies, which could be compounded if they believed the souls of their children were to be excluded from heaven.

(This last part is stated also in the official doc. I’ve been referring to these past few days with regards to the concern for the “grief and GUILT” that these parents suffer…nice…“Guilt” …

"The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die Without Being Baptised"
In these times, the number of infants who die unbaptised is growing greatly. This is partly because of parents, influenced by cultural relativism and religious pluralism, who are non-practising, but it is also partly a consequence of in vitro fertilisation and abortion. Given these developments, the question of the destiny of such infants is raised with new urgency. In such a situation, the ways by which salvation may be achieved appear ever more complex and problematic. ( really??? - and why would that be??? His “way” for salvation has never changed ) The Church, faithful guardian of the way of salvation, knows that salvation can be achieved only in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. (Oh…so you DO know the way - why is it so complex and problematic then…does it interfere in some way with other “official dogma” maybe…)Yet, as mother and teacher, she cannot fail to reflect on the destiny of all human beings, created in the image of God,[2] and especially of the weakest. Being endowed with reason, conscience and freedom, adults are responsible for their own destiny in so far as they accept or reject God’s grace. Infants, however, who do not yet have the use of reason, conscience and freedom, cannot decide for themselves. (and has this changed with infants over the centuries in some way…why “now” have you only come to realize this and made an attempt to really clarify this issue??? )Parents experience great grief and feelings of guilt when they do not have the moral assurance of the salvation of their children, and people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian. From a theological point of view, **the/U] development of a theology of hope and an **ecclesiology of communion, together with **a recognition ****of the **greatness of divine mercy, challenge an unduly restrictive view of salvation. In fact, the universal salvific will of God and the correspondingly universal mediation of Christ mean that all theological notions that ultimately call into question the very omnipotence of God, and his mercy in particular, are inadequate. (Finally!!!)

Note: the mention of “recognition of the greatness of divine mercy” is last in the list of the “reasoning” methods.

 

[Leeann]

This is a perfectly credible assumption - history does not show anything to the contrary, and there is no other church with sufficient pedigree to be “the one.”

We have a set of facts:

1. Jesus promised that His Church would last forever.
   
   Body of believers
2. Jesus set the Apostles, in union with Peter, in authority over the Church.
   
   Yes He did…but we don’t agree what the meaning of “church” is, as evident from #1…so that’s what you’ve been taught, that’s what *you *believe
3. The Apostles appointed successors, and gave them authority to appoint other successors.
   
   Yes…
4. There is one, and only one, Church around today that was also around in the time of the Apostles, and after the time of the Apostles, was there in 200 AD, and 300 AD, and 400 AD, and 500 AD, and continuously for 2,000 years. Unlike certain gnostic sects that pop in and out of existence every few centuries, and unlike the Protestant churches, which only began to exist during the 1500s, and unlike various schismatic organizations which, though they carry a valid Apostolic succession, don’t consider themselves to be in union with the See of Peter.

By pointing to what you take as factual history…well again…it depends on “where” and “whom” you get your facts from…and back to square one…the “credibility” of that source, the “human” fallible part of history.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

By pointing to what you take as factual history…well again…it depends on “where” and “whom” you get your facts from…and back to square one…the “credibility” of that source, the “human” fallible part of history.

Its just as credible as the history of how the New Testament was canonized, yet you accept the 27 books of the New Testament without a blink of an eye.

By what authority did the bishops in union with Pope Damasus I canonize the NT if not by the authority that we are talking about? You can’t have your cake and eat it too

 

[CentralFLJames]

By pointing to what you take as factual history…well again…it depends on “where” and “whom” you get your facts from…and back to square one…the “credibility” of that source, the “human” fallible part of history.

Who do you take as a credidible source of factual history Leeann? Do you have a private source of credible and infallaible history that you would care to share with the others here? Is it in the secular domain or in an ecclesial domain and how long have they been around and how credible are they? Or you just speaking rhetorically and indealistically?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Is the BBC your credible & infallable source Leeann?
BBC faces huge fine in phones scandal
BBC’s Iraq Scandal Topples Second Official
Has the BBC learned its texting scandal lessons?
BBC scandal not a first
BBC historic broadcast was fraud say experts
BBC’s Bill Thompson Hates Being Fingered As a Fraud
AntiSemetic BBC: Corrupt Media Pays to Cover-up
Ofcom fines the BBC for unfair conduct of viewer and listener competitions

James

 

[jmcrae]

Yes He did…but we don’t agree what the meaning of “church” is, as evident from #1…so that’s what you’ve been taught, that’s what you believe

Actually, it’s what I discovered by doing my own research - I am an adult convert.

I used to believe in the “invisible church” idea, until I realized that the Bible really does show Jesus giving actual authority to the Apostles, and then re-read the Book of the Acts of the Apostles with the assumption that Jesus had given them earthly authority over the rest of the members of the Church - and all of a sudden, it just made so much more sense.

By pointing to what you take as factual history…well again…it depends on “where” and “whom” you get your facts from…

Encyclopedia Britannica, the Bible, and my Grade 8 Social Studies teacher, who was Hindu. We had a unit on Comparative Religion (this was secular public school - keep in mind I wasn’t Catholic, yet) and in the section on Christianity, she just assumed that Jesus, a Jewish leader living in Israel, had founded Christianity, and that its current leader is the Pope who lives in Rome, going back in an unbroken succession to St. Peter, who had been appointed by Jesus as the first leader.

and back to square one…the “credibility” of that source, the “human” fallible part of history.

I didn’t get it from Catholic sources, if that’s what you’re trying to imply. Secular historians and historians from other religions who have no bias either way take all of this stuff as fact.

 

[Leeann]

Its just as credible as the history of how the New Testament was canonized, yet you accept the 27 books of the New Testament without a blink of an eye.

By what authority did the bishops in union with Pope Damasus I canonize the NT if not by the authority that we are talking about? You can’t have your cake and eat it too

That’s my point…the “human” fallible part of the “history” - even in relation to the “history” of “how” the New testament was canonized…the history of what the “RCChurch” has recorded and maintained over the years as being “true” - has nothing to do in relation to the “truth” that is within His word.

The fact that God chose to use the people of that particular time, their intellect, the “power” that they had garnered to themselves…only highlights *His *omnipotence and authority…by using people, whomever and whatever the circumstances. ( perhaps that may answer your question of “under what authority” ).

Any other denominations that accept the NT and use it and abide and trust in it’s teachings as being His divine truth, don’t rely on the source of the “history” to define “who has sole authority over interpreting it” or of on “how” it got to be here, as much as to the fact that by the grace of God - and His power - and **His **authority…He accomplished it.

The *validity and authority of His word *is conveyed by the Holy Spirit to his “church” - every true believer…that’s why the NT is believed and taught and cherished by other faiths and denominations aside from the RCChurch.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Thank you for articulating our teaching about infallibility. I love it when a protestant stumbles upon it without realizing it. Yes, God does “chose to use the people of that particular time”, or any particular time, and those people were and are the bishpos in union with the pope. And this authority is from God, in the person of Jesus Christ: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven…” The Church’s infallibility and authority are from God, but they are none-the-less real.

And BTW: History is not fallible, becuase truth is truth. George Washington was the first president of the United Staes. That is history and that is truth. There’s no “fallible” or “infallible” to it. Its just the facts.

 

[jmcrae]

The fact that God chose to use the people of that particular time, their intellect, the “power” that they had garnered to themselves…only highlights His omnipotence and authority…by using people, whomever and whatever the circumstances. ( perhaps that may answer your question of “under what authority” ).

Perhaps God had a specific reason for using the Catholic Pope, instead of (say, for instance) Joe Blow the Eskimo.

Any other denominations that accept the NT and use it and abide and trust in it’s teachings as being His divine truth, don’t rely on the source of the “history” to define “who has sole authority over interpreting it” or of on “how” it got to be here, as much as to the fact that by the grace of God - and His power - and **His **authority…He accomplished it.

Without a reliable interpreter, the Bible is just so much paper and ink. The Mormons interpret it one way, the Presbyterians another, and the Methodists yet another - they cannot all be correct, and yet, this is the most important information in the whole world. How useful is it, though, if you can’t really know what any of it means, for sure?

 

[Popes_Soldier]

…Joe Blow the Eskimo…

LOL !!!


.

.

.

 

[Leeann]

Thank you for articulating our teaching about infallibility. I love it when a protestant stumbles upon it without realizing it. Yes, God does “chose to use the people of that particular time”, or any particular time, and those people were and are the bishpos in union with the pope.

Obviously so at that particular time…or the Gospels wouldn’t have come into being as we know them…
However, stating that** " those people were and are **" the bishops in union with the pope"…is contradictory of “history” that is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia where it sites, as one example an instance in the “history” of the “Church” where bishops weren’t always in union with some popes…resulting in conflicts of a violent nature at times…resulting in bloodshed…(as you said…you can’t have your cake and eat it too)…either they were all in union, or they were not.
That’s history and recorded also…and from a Catholic source.

And this authority is from God, in the person of Jesus Christ: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven…” The Church’s infallibility and authority are from God, but they are none-the-less real.

By simply quoting that scripture and applying it to “the Church” because that is it’s “claim” and “teaching” - doesn’t make it “true” .

And BTW: History is not fallible, becuase truth is truth. George Washington was the first president of the United Staes. That is history and that is truth. There’s no “fallible” or “infallible” to it. Its just the facts.

It’s the way that one may present those facts, that can alter the truth of recorded “history”.

“It is error alone which needs the support of government.
Truth can stand by itself.”
– Thomas Jefferson

When this thought is applied to the RChurch, it’s history, and it’s credibility stands out - the “errors” need “support” of an “assumed authority” to support it.
Whereas God’s “truth” can stand by itself."

I

Anyway…again this leading away from your topic here…“Infant Baptism”.