Protestant + Catholic: Infant Baptism

[thetailwind]

This is not a new topic of study for me. I have been in a relationship with a catholic woman for 6 years. I engaged her just about a year ago, so we are almost on year 7. We are very compatible but we continuously bump heads on our differences in faith. Trust me, we WILL work this out before we get married, and we can push it back until we agree. I have read many parts of the 1983 canon and understand her obligation to raising offspring. I understand it’s to the best of her ability to raise the children catholic and I have no problem with my children being catholic; however, I would like them to do this in their own choosing. I had a 1 on 1 sit down with my local Parish to discuss my troubles thinking through this issue. He concluded that if an infant were to die before a catholic baby baptism, the decision on the baby’s soul would be with God to decide. If the baby were to die directly after baptism, the decision would be with God to decide.

To my understanding based on the discussion I had with the priest, infant baptism does not directly affect salvation due to the aforementioned scenario. It appears to me (the protestant) that it is more about immersion into the catholic faith as a child.

In an equally yoked catholic relationship, this makes perfect sense; however, I feel immersion as in infant does not respect my desire to have a child exposed to my faith as well.

I think the ideal compromise would be to raise them neutral from the beginning in a loving and Christian home, they would be exposed to both and due to the neutrality, it would allow God to work through them and ultimately lead them to where God needs/wants them. Maybe if they become catholic, their journey would influence mine. Who knows, God works in weird ways.

I would love for them to be raised under one church; however, the RCC really limits my participation in mass due to the difference in the actual presence(im sure ill address this in another post). Also, she doesn’t feel like taking communion in my church because we don’t have a priest that does the blessing.

Ultimately, lets assume for equal argument and perspective, my religion was ultra strict concerning raising children and expects nothing than absolute conformity in not having baptism until the age of comprehension, how would the catholic party honor the wishes of the other party without the catholic party requiring absolute conformity to the catholic faith.

If you have a link that helps a protestant feel comfortable with infant baptism and cites scripture or if it doesn’t, has a really good logical idea build that concludes in favor of infant baptism, please link it. Please remember that I am a protestant, and when I read the forums here, trying to understand things from a protestant around a bunch of Catholics, it can seem like a huge circle-jerk(no offense).

I have read many threads where a mixed couple raise their child catholic. If you are a mixed marriage couple who decided to raise your children protestant, it would help me understand how to work things out. Thanks in advance.

 

[1ke]

You haven’t resolved these major, fundamental, differences in 7 years, it is unlikely you will do so with “more time”.

Baptism is not optional for Catholic children, nor are the other sacraments.

Baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[thetailwind]

You haven’t resolved these major, fundamental, differences in 7 years, it is unlikely you will do so with “more time”.

Baptism is not optional for Catholic children, nor are the other sacraments.

Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Geeze, thanks for the encouragement.

Well we met in college and we really haven’t been focusing on this issue until about 1 year now.

Someone please give deeper thought into this. I already know what you mentioned 1ke

 

[1ke]

Well we met in college and we really haven’t been focusing on this issue until about 1 year now.

You have some very fundamental differences. I am being realistic, I find it unlikely that you will come to a resolution on the binary issues: baptism is necessary or it’s not; the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ or it’s not; the Church has authority or it doesn’t; the Sacraments give grace or they don’t; Divine Relvelation consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition or Sola Scriptura is true.

These aren’t things that can be compromised, like what color to pain the living room, whether or not your wife works, whether or not you move to Toledo.

Baptism is necessary for salvation?

yes. Parents have a grave responsibility to baptize their children and bring them up in the Faith.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM

Luke 23 tends to suggest that a criminal nailed to a cross obtained salvation without baptism. Don’t get me wrong, if you are able to, you should be baptized, but this example does not support that thought.

This story indicates there may be ways other than water baptism to be saved: baptism of desire and baptism of blood. The Church recognizes those two under some circumstances. I will point out however, that Christ had not yet fulfilled the Old Covenant with his death and resurrection, therefore the thief was actually still under the Old Covenant-- and therefore would have been preached to with the other Holy Souls in Sheol.

 

[thetailwind]

Sorry for my redaction. I wanted to remove it and come back later with deeper thoght to support it.

 

[runningdude]

… I had a 1 on 1 sit down with my local Parish to discuss my troubles thinking through this issue. He concluded that if an infant were to die before a catholic baby baptism, the decision on the baby’s soul would be with God to decide. If the baby were to die directly after baptism, the decision would be with God to decide.

To my understanding based on the discussion I had with the priest, infant baptism does not directly affect salvation due to the aforementioned scenario.

I don’t know the details of this conversation, so its possible there is a subtle point that isn’t be conveyed… However, a newly baptized baby is guaranteed heaven within Catholic thought, because the child is free from original sin and is not yet capable of actual sin.

It appears to me (the protestant) that it is more about immersion into the catholic faith as a child.

In an equally yoked catholic relationship, this makes perfect sense; however, I feel immersion as in infant does not respect my desire to have a child exposed to my faith as well.

Unfortunately, that is kind of the point . The Catholic Church teaches itself to be the only true church. It sees no reason to expose a child to other faiths. The Church only wishes salvation for the child, and does not want to risk jeopardizing this with confusion over to conflicting beliefs.

I think the ideal compromise would be to raise them neutral from the beginning in a loving and Christian home, they would be exposed to both and due to the neutrality, it would allow God to work through them and ultimately lead them to where God needs/wants them. Maybe if they become catholic, their journey would influence mine. Who knows, God works in weird ways.

This is the kind of situation the church wishes to avoid. Raising the child in a “neutral” faith environment too easily becomes a no faith environment, as the child is being taught conflicting beliefs. Its too easy for the parents to dilute the meaning out of both their faiths or to just give up all together.

I would love for them to be raised under one church; however, the RCC really limits my participation in mass due to the difference in the actual presence(im sure ill address this in another post). Also,** she doesn’t feel like taking communion in my church** because we don’t have a priest that does the blessing.

As a Catholic, your fiancee is not permitted to receive communion in a non-Catholic setting. ** Its not a case of not “feeling like” it**. She is simply obeying the rules of her faith - as Christians, we are all called to put God before family. Please, respect her faith. Undermining it by speaking flippantly of it will only harm your marriage and the faith of your children.

Ultimately, lets assume for equal argument and perspective, my religion was ultra strict concerning raising children and expects nothing than absolute conformity in not having baptism until the age of comprehension, how would the catholic party honor the wishes of the other party without the catholic party requiring absolute conformity to the catholic faith.

There is no way to reconcile conflicting beliefs like this. Further, a priest would likely strongly discourage such a marriage between such people, and could even go so far as to refuse to celebrate such as marriage. The Catholic Church takes the raising of children within the faith very seriously, though the Catholic parent would not be blamed if he or she made an honest attempt to raise the children Catholic but failed.

If you have a link that helps a protestant feel comfortable with infant baptism and cites scripture or if it doesn’t, has a really good logical idea build that concludes in favor of infant baptism, please link it. Please remember that I am a protestant, and when I read the forums here, trying to understand things from a protestant around a bunch of Catholics, it can seem like a huge circle-jerk(no offense).
…

I’ve chosen to be patient, but using offensive language, especially language referring to acts considered immoral to faithful Catholics, is not a good way to get helpful advice. Adding “(no offense)” does not mitigate the offensiveness of your words.

 

[TigerKitty]

Yours is a difficult situation and I can relate, as my sister (raised Catholic, now lapsed) is married to a Primitive Methodist (also lapsed). They were married in the catholic church and have not had either of their two children baptised.

Please consider also the effects on your extended families. These are not trivial, and can also strain the marriage relationship. My sister feels bad that she was not allowed to baptize the children, as her husband promised he would allow when they were married. I believe that this makes her resent him on a subconscious level. To me (and I am horrified by this), her husband has forbid her to ever take the children into a catholic church, so she has to take them to church behind his back for “special” occasions. The children have been to mass only 3 or 4 times in their young lives. (And he DID say it would be OK for any future kids to be baptized BEFORE they were married.)

This may be extreme, compared to your situation, as it sounds to me like you want your children to know Christ, and to be raised in the church, participating in worship services.

All I can add is that I (and the rest of my family) am (are) very upset that my sister has married a man who promised to let the children be raised catholic, and who has gone back on that promise. As I understand it, raising children in the church is a “contingency” of a catholic marriage, and outright refusal to do so makes the marriage sacramentally invalid. (And please, if I’m wrong about this, someone correct me.) So that begs the question, if you don’t want the children raised catholic, why do you want to have a catholic marriage? If your prospective wife is a practicing catholic, not baptizing the children may be more difficult than she realized, and it might create a horrible strain on your relationship.

I just wanted to say that my sister has expressed a desire to return to the church, but she does not feel free to because of her husband’s demands that she not go into a catholic church. Please pray for him (and her). I think that what he’s demanding is unspeakably evil.

 

[Spirithound]

He concluded that if an infant were to die before a catholic baby baptism, the decision on the baby’s soul would be with God to decide. If the baby were to die directly after baptism, the decision would be with God to decide.

To my understanding based on the discussion I had with the priest, infant baptism does not directly affect salvation due to the aforementioned scenario. It appears to me (the protestant) that it is more about immersion into the catholic faith as a child.

Salvation is not “God’s decision”. For the unbaptized, we entrust their salvation to the mercy of God. Decisions come and go and are somewhat transitory. Rather, when we invoke “the mercy of God”, we are simply saying that there might be some mechanism for salvation that has not been revealed yet. For the newly baptized, and all those in a state of grace, salvation is God’s promise.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

He concluded that if an infant were to die before a catholic baby baptism, the decision on the baby’s soul would be with God to decide. If the baby were to die directly after baptism, the decision would be with God to decide.

To my understanding based on the discussion I had with the priest, infant baptism does not directly affect salvation due to the aforementioned scenario. It appears to me (the protestant) that it is more about immersion into the catholic faith as a child.

Given that baptism removes all sin, including original, and that a baby is not capable of sinning and falling out of the state of grace that baptism puts him in, then we have that a baptized baby is in a state of grace. Those who die in a state of grace go to heaven. Of course it is God’s choice, it just so happens that God has already made the choice and told us what it is.

As for those babies who die without baptism - well we are hopeful (some of us more hopeful than others) but ultimately uncertain.

And yes, exposing a child to the Catholic faith from a young age is considered important, because we believe the Catholic faith to contain the fullness of revealed truth and hence to give the best bet at salvation.

That is, and I mean no disrespect, we think you’re wrong, and while we respect you and your beliefs, we still think they’re wrong and do not see exposing children to something that is wrong as though it were right as a good thing. (Please understand that I’m not trying to be rude, just blunt so you see the basic issue at the core of the problem.) Obviously, you also think we’re wrong and could say more or less the same thing to us, but there you go.

And yes, the obligation to raise children Catholic does include an obligation to baptize them early.

In an equally yoked catholic relationship, this makes perfect sense; however, I feel immersion as in infant does not respect my desire to have a child exposed to my faith as well.

This is of course a problem. But the immersion is pretty much required of Catholics. It is why Catholic are recommended to marry other Catholics. My father was baptist and my mother Catholic. Me and my three brothers were raised Catholic. From what I understand this caused quiet a bit of friction early on (initially over my oldest brothers’ baptism), but it was smoothed out by the time I was old enough to remember things (the advantages of being number 3, I suppose). This will likely cause friction for you as well, though I hope you can work it out.

I think the ideal compromise would be to raise them neutral from the beginning in a loving and Christian home, they would be exposed to both and due to the neutrality, it would allow God to work through them and ultimately lead them to where God needs/wants them. Maybe if they become catholic, their journey would influence mine. Who knows, God works in weird ways.

Neutral doesn’t exist. What you believe is either correct, or incorrect. If you raise your children without teaching them that either what you believe or what your future wife believes is correct, then you are raising children who you both believe to have incorrect beliefs. In all likelihood, rather than allowing your children to pick one or the other, it would teach them that it doesn’t matter.

This would also fail to to meet the obligation to raise children Catholic.

Ultimately, lets assume for equal argument and perspective, my religion was ultra strict concerning raising children and expects nothing than absolute conformity in not having baptism until the age of comprehension, how would the catholic party honor the wishes of the other party without the catholic party requiring absolute conformity to the catholic faith.

This would present an extreme problem. Chances are the Catholic would be unable to honor the wishes of the other. If the non-Catholic were also unable to, then they probably shouldn’t get married. One of them would have to break their church’s rules, which would be along the same line as (probably unconsciously) either saying that they think their church is wrong, or they think that their love for their future spouse is more important than God (which is not generally a good thing to think).

If you have a link that helps a protestant feel comfortable with infant baptism and cites scripture or if it doesn’t, has a really good logical idea build that concludes in favor of infant baptism, please link it. Please remember that I am a protestant, and when I read the forums here, trying to understand things from a protestant around a bunch of Catholics, it can seem like a huge circle-jerk(no offense).

see scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html. catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism.

Two things to note: we don’t believe that baptism guarantees salvation at death, only that it puts a person in a state of grace (which can be lost by mortal sin), and that if one dies in a state of grace then he is saved.

Second, Paul says that baptism is the new circumcision, and circumcision was and is done to infants. There are not any (that I am aware of) explicit accounts of infant baptism in scripture because scripture recounts a time before Christians were having children on a regular basis (that is, there were no “cradle Catholics” yet). But Scripture certainly does not say that baptism is to be restricted to adults. And there are (possibly) implicit accounts of infant baptism - From the second link above:

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

 

[Usige]

I think the ideal compromise would be to raise them neutral from the beginning in a loving and Christian home, they would be exposed to both and due to the neutrality, it would allow God to work through them and ultimately lead them to where God needs/wants them.

The few times I have seen this approach ultimately the child has chosen no religion when they were a teen/young adult. As others have said when religious expression are not at the forefront (or confused) then the child is given to believe that any spiritual path (including non-christian paths) are equally valid.

Ultimately, lets assume for equal argument and perspective, my religion was ultra strict concerning raising children and expects nothing than absolute conformity in not having baptism until the age of comprehension, how would the catholic party honor the wishes of the other party without the catholic party requiring absolute conformity to the catholic faith.

In the above scenario I would think this would be a non-starter. Your future spouse has to do everything in her power to remain Catholic and to raise her children in the Catholic faith. I seem to remember it is part of getting a dispensation for marrying a non-Catholic (something to the effect of “I promise to do all in my power to share the faith with our children by having them baptized and raised as Catholics.”) If she goes into the marriage agreeing to raise them in a “neutral environment” then she is giving a false promise in order to receive dispensation to marry you.

I know this is going to sound harsh, but it is the crux of why the church discourages interfaith marriages. When both parties are heavily vested in their religious practices then someone will likely feel slighted or the children get confussed. The Church teaches with the fullness of the Truth, so withholding Church teaching would be tantamount to a lie of omission. Your spouse is required to raise the children Catholic to the best of her ability even if you would prefer them not to be. That just goes with marrying a Catholic; no two ways round it.

 

[thetailwind]

Sorry for the term circle jerk I did not know it was of sexual meaning. I always thought it was just a bunch of people agreeing around people who already agree

 

[thetailwind]

Thanks iron donkey for the links. I’ll read them during lunch.

 

[thetailwind]

Thanks iron donkey for the links. I’ll read them during lunch.

Those links were helpful. I couldn’t wait until lunch. I dislike the “on the fence” feel. I read all of the verses and the whole article in each link respectively. There is only one thing that make my Protestant mind question or be confused.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

Its hard for me to understand how a baptized person may not believe(initially). It seems like there are tons of Adult baptisms in the bible and they are easy to understand. For Example in acts 8 we see a group of adults being baptized but not yet receiving the spirit. This is difficult for me to process because in Protestantism, they go hand in hand, believe and be baptized… What is the origin of the delay? Was Philip not qualified as a spiritual vessel yet could perform baptism but not lay hands on them? Is this apostolic power?

Directly after that scene, Philip baptizes the Eunich, but it doesn’t say that the Eunich received the full spirit like the Samrians did. What happened here? I don’t know what to conclude from this. On the same note, does the RCC acknowlege Acts 8:36?

 

[runningdude]

… (And he DID say it would be OK for any future kids to be baptized BEFORE they were married.)

…As I understand it, raising children in the church is a “contingency” of a catholic marriage, and outright refusal to do so makes the marriage sacramentally invalid. (And please, if I’m wrong about this, someone correct me.) …

I just wanted to say that my sister has expressed a desire to return to the church, but she does not feel free to because of her husband’s demands that she not go into a catholic church. Please pray for him (and her). I think that what he’s demanding is unspeakably evil.

You’re partially correct. Lying about an openness toward raising the children Catholic could be grounds for find the marriage null - such as secretly planning to never allow the children to be baptized . However, I should warn that if the husband were telling the truth and then changed his mind about permitting baptism after the marriage, there is no “contingency” clause that would retroactively invalidate the marriage. A good faith marriage cannot be dissolved; only some severe defect (such as lying) might prevent the marriage from being properly celebrated from the start.

 

[runningdude]

Those links were helpful. I couldn’t wait until lunch. I dislike the “on the fence” feel. I read all of the verses and the whole article in each link respectively. There is only one thing that make my Protestant mind question or be confused.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

Its hard for me to understand how a baptized person may not believe(initially). It seems like there are tons of Adult baptisms in the bible and they are easy to understand. For Example in acts 8 we see a group of adults being baptized but not yet receiving the spirit. This is difficult for me to process because in Protestantism, they go hand in hand, believe and be baptized… What is the origin of the delay? Was Philip not qualified as a spiritual vessel yet could perform baptism but not lay hands on them? Is this apostolic power?

Directly after that scene, Philip baptizes the Eunich, but it doesn’t say that the Eunich received the full spirit like the Samrians did. What happened here? I don’t know what to conclude from this. On the same note, does the RCC acknowlege Acts 8:36?

The Catholic Church teaches that the default, natural, human response is to worship God. A baby, free of personal sin and newly cleansed by baptism, will have a more perfect relationship with God in those first months and years than will ever be possible later in life.

 

[thetailwind]

You partially correct. Lying about an openness toward raising the children Catholic could be grounds for find the marriage null - such as secretly planning to never allow the children to be baptized . However, I should warn that if the husband were telling the truth and then changed his mind about permitting baptism after the marriage, there is no “contingency” clause that would retroactively invalidate the marriage. A good faith marriage cannot be dissolved; only some severe defect (such as lying) might prevent the marriage from being properly celebrated from the start.

I don’t want that to happen in my relationship. Maybe God has brought the biggest wedge by having my significant other be catholic so that someday I may be Catholic as well. I certainly don’t want to close any doors. 6 Years of building a strong wedge, 1 year to pry with I suppose. I certainly wouldn’t have been on this forum perusing more information if she were not with me. Pray for us plz.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Its hard for me to understand how a baptized person may not believe(initially). It seems like there are tons of Adult baptisms in the bible and they are easy to understand. For Example in acts 8 we see a group of adults being baptized but not yet receiving the spirit. This is difficult for me to process because in Protestantism, they go hand in hand, believe and be baptized… What is the origin of the delay? Was Philip not qualified as a spiritual vessel yet could perform baptism but not lay hands on them? Is this apostolic power?

A couple points:

• Baptism, being seen as the sacrament by which one enters the Church (becomes part of the Body of Christ, and the priesthood of all believers, etc) is reserved to those who will in fact be staying in the Church. For infants, this means their parents will raise them Catholic (if it appears that this will not occur, the priest is actually supposed to delay baptism). For adults, this means they explicitly wish to enter and stay in the Church.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm):

Faith and Baptism

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents’ help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

• The reception of the spirit in these passages is part of the basis for the sacrament of confirmation (catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Confirmation.htm). This sacrament is ordinarily conferred by a Bishop (Successor of an Apostle). (So Philip the Deacon could not have done the laying on hands thing, since he was neither an Apostle nor a Bishop.)

Some further information to curtail any confusion that may arise if you read more about the sacrament of Confirmation and current practices surrounding it:

Ordinarily the sacrament of confirmation is performed by the bishop (Apostolic successor), but it can be performed by a priest using chrism oil consecrated by the bishop. While baptism can be conferred by absolutely anyone, this is not true of confirmation.

For adult converts, these days, there usually is no delay. Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist are all received at once. It is my understanding that the Eastern Churches will do this for infants as well. The western Church (Roman Catholics) delay confirmation of infants as a matter of custom, I believe so that the bishop himself can confirm most people (as it is not feasible for the bishop to travel around and confirm every infant).

Directly after that scene, Philip baptizes the Eunich, but it doesn’t say that the Eunich received the full spirit like the Samrians did. What happened here? I don’t know what to conclude from this. On the same note, does the RCC acknowlege Acts 8:36?

First, the RCC acknowledges the entire bible, although we may interpret certain parts differently than you. So yes.

Philip did not confer the sacrament of Confirmation on the Eunuch. As a deacon (as I understand), he was unable to. But he did baptize the Eunuch, and he did wait until the Eunuch was willing to actually join the Church before doing so, as is proper.

Note that the Samarians recieved the Holy Spirit from the Apostles later when they got there, not by Deacon Philip. I would guess that the Eunuch eventually had the same thing done by someone who could do it, but of course this is only speculation on my part.

 

[thetailwind]

Note that the Samarians recieved the Holy Spirit from the Apostles later when they got there, not by Deacon Philip. I would guess that the Eunuch eventually had the same thing done by someone who could do it, but of course this is only speculation on my part.

Interesting. so should the Eunice have died before an Apostle laid hands on him. He would have been saved by baptism of desire. For example, under a normal scenario a person who believes and gets baptized achieves 100% of what is instructed biblically. Lets say the Eunich was 99% committed but an apostle was delayed due to bad weather and that same bad weather causes a tree to fall and Kill him. He is saved right?

 

[runningdude]

Interesting. so should the Eunice have died before an Apostle laid hands on him. He would have been saved by baptism of desire. For example, under a normal scenario a person who believes and gets baptized achieves 100% of what is instructed biblically. Lets say the Eunich was 99% committed but an apostle was delayed due to bad weather and that same bad weather causes a tree to fall and Kill him. He is saved right?

The Church teaches that it is the Holy Spirit that cleanses us at Baptism (old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml, paragraph 1215). Confirmation is not strictly necessary for salvation, however it provides access to the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. One receives access to salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and access to the gifts in Confirmation. The Holy Spirit is given in both sacraments, though more fully in Confirmation - complementing that already giving in Baptism.

Had Eunice not committed any sin between Baptism and being struck by the tree, he would indeed be saved. However, had the Apostle given him Confirmation before being struck dead, he would have greater graces and joy in Heaven!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Interesting. so should the Eunice have died before an Apostle laid hands on him. He would have been saved by baptism of desire. For example, under a normal scenario a person who believes and gets baptized achieves 100% of what is instructed biblically. Lets say the Eunich was 99% committed but an apostle was delayed due to bad weather and that same bad weather causes a tree to fall and Kill him. He is saved right?

As running dude said, the baptism would have been enough (assuming the Eunuch had not managed to destroy his state of grace, and not get restored to it, before getting hit by the tree) . The Eunuch was in fact baptized, and hence in a state of grace, and so would have been saved by (through?) the baptism. Confirmation is something separate (though related).

Baptism by desire would come into play if, say, Fred were a catechumen (wants to and is studying to become Christian, not yet baptized), and got hit by a tree before he was baptized:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

I would tend to think that this is part of the reason why we can delay baptism of adults who want to convert somewhat, but are uncertain about what happens to unbaptized infants and do not want to delay their baptism (since an infant is not capable of desiring baptism, this baptism by desire does not really help us there).