Necessity of baptism & Easter Vigil

[CompSciGuy]

Hi

A thread was recently closed (one which I have no intention of bringing up again) regarding baptism and infants, and I saw some responses from Catholics saying that “we cannot presume that God will have any mercy on the unbaptized.” I was wondering then about something. I understand that baptism is necessary and it is a sacrament and confers grace and brings life to the soul and everything. But I am wondering, if we have no certainty of God’s mercy upon the unbaptized, then why do we wait a whole year before baptizing people at the Easter Vigil? If an unbaptized person can’t be certain that God will have any grace for them before baptism, then the Church should baptize them right away instead of waiting until the Easter Vigil, don’t you think? Such a person could easily get in an accident and die without baptism.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi

A thread was recently closed (one which I have no intention of bringing up again) regarding baptism and infants, and I saw some responses from Catholics saying that “we cannot presume that God will have any mercy on the unbaptized.” I was wondering then about something. I understand that baptism is necessary and it is a sacrament and confers grace and brings life to the soul and everything. But I am wondering, if we have no certainty of God’s mercy upon the unbaptized, then why do we wait a whole year before baptizing people at the Easter Vigil? If an unbaptized person can’t be certain that God will have any grace for them before baptism, then the Church should baptize them right away instead of waiting until the Easter Vigil, don’t you think? Such a person could easily get in an accident and die without baptism.

Catechumens who are faithfully attending RCIA classes are in a different situation than people who are not baptized because of neglect or because they have no intention to become Christians - Catechumens have “baptism of desire” and we can be morally certain that they go to Heaven if they die prior to their scheduled baptism, because of the firm intention in their hearts to learn and practice the Catholic faith.

Baptism also brings with it (especially for adults) a great many obligations and duties; it is only fair to the Catechumens to ensure that they are fully instructed before we bind them to these obligations and duties.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Catechumens who are faithfully attending RCIA classes are in a different situation than people who are not baptized because of neglect or because they have no intention to become Christians - Catechumens have “baptism of desire” and we can be morally certain that they go to Heaven if they die prior to their scheduled baptism, because of the firm intention in their hearts to learn and practice the Catholic faith.

So, a catechumen is entitled to baptism by desire. But (according to some posters on this forum) an unbaptized infant isn’t?

Baptism also brings with it (especially for adults) a great many obligations and duties; it is only fair to the Catechumens to ensure that they are fully instructed before we bind them to these obligations and duties.

I thought those responsibilities come with confirmation. If they come with baptism, then this brings up the question, why baptize babies if they aren’t fully instructed? Are they old enough to be bound to these obligations and duties? (I am not saying that we shouldn’t baptize babies, I just don’t see the connection here in what you’re saying)

 

[TrueLight]

So, a catechumen is entitled to baptism by desire. But (according to some posters on this forum) an unbaptized infant isn’t?
Infants cannot have baptism by desire because they are too young.

From the Catechism of Trent

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

Whereas, adults are old enough to desire with all their hearts to be baptized but their baptism may be delayed until they have been catechized.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jewish converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

I thought those responsibilities come with confirmation. If they come with baptism, then this brings up the question, why baptize babies if they aren’t fully instructed? Are they old enough to be bound to these obligations and duties? (I am not saying that we shouldn’t baptize babies, I just don’t see the connection here in what you’re saying)

That’s why you have the solemn responsibility of the parents/godparents. As the catechism also points out, in the same way a baby needs help receiving the sustenance that it needs (milk), and in fact will die without the milk, the same way the infant needs the parent’s and sponsor’s help.

The difference between baptism and confirmation:

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Confirmation.shtml
Hence Pope Melchiades accurately evolves the difference between them, writing as follows: In Baptism man is enlisted into the service, in Confirmation he is equipped for battle; at the baptismal font the Holy Ghost imparts fullness to accomplish innocence, but in Confirmation he ministers perfection to grace; in Baptism we are regenerated unto life, after Baptism we are fortified for the combat; in Baptism we are cleansed, after Baptism we are strengthened; regeneration of itself saves those who receive Baptism in time of peace, Confirmation arms and makes ready for conflicts.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi
? If an unbaptized person can’t be certain that God will have any grace for them before baptism, then the Church should baptize them right away instead of waiting until the Easter Vigil, don’t you think? Such a person could easily get in an accident and die without baptism.

the Church foresees and answers this concern as she has from her earliest days. The person preparing for baptism is a catechumen, and is considered to have already asked for baptism and hence salvation. Should they die before baptism they receive a Crhistian burial and are considered to have received baptism by desire. there is no problem in this regard.

“posters in the forum” do not make or interpret Church law. The catechism citation on infants who die without baptism has been given, and no poster here may add or subract from that through personal opinion.