refusing baptism to a child ...can that still be done???!!!

[Walking_Home]

I’m fully aware of the Church’s teaching on what happens to unbaptized infants, including the recent commission’s report.

What all of this says to me is that the Church doesn’t really believe that baptism brings with it a “mark” and the grace that causes us to seek faith, as is taught to be the case, and that all the arguing done with the Protestants over the efficacy of infant baptism was just a bunch of talk.

I sure hope that those who believe–as I do–that God has infinite mercy for those who die unbaptized through no fault of their own and provides an extra-sacramental means of salvation for them, are not hoping in vain.

Thank you for your concern and consideration Good Daughter.

---

Well----Here is the “fruit” of the ITC report. I really wish our Pope could see----what the ITC report has unleashed on the Church.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

As far as i knew it wasn’t… i know it is not anglican teaching thats for sure.

Indeed? The Episcopal (Anglican) church just a block away from our house has pretty much the same rules as the Catholic parishes in the area, and it is “broad church”. The female priestess of the place seems to think it’s important that infant baptism not be just a pretty ceremony, an opportuntity to dress Baby in an heirloom christening gown and get gifts. The Episcopal church which considers itself “high church” in our downtown district has baptismal classes for parents, and requirements for godparents.

Lutherans of the Missouri and Wisconsin synods also have rules and regs. Perhaps your friend would like to try the equivalent of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, or the United Methodist in some (not all) locales. They seem to have that broad-minded look your friend requires.

 

[jmcrae]

---

Well----Here is the “fruit” of the ITC report. I really wish our Pope could see----what the ITC report has unleashed on the Church.

No - we have never been allowed to baptize a healthy baby in no perceptible danger of death, who is unlikely to be raised in the Catholic faith.

That’s why we have never baptized Jewish, Hindu, Moslem, or Protestant babies.

 

[gospel_life]

That’s why we have never baptized Jewish, Hindu, Moslem, or Protestant babies.

Really?

I might have thought it might be because their parents weren’t presenting them for baptism.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

It is not babies only who require some evidence of their upbringing in/practicing of the faith.

Catechumens also undergo instruction for 1-3 years before they can be baptized as has been the case since the beginning of the Church.

Within the Anglican “communion” there are a variety of belief surrounding baptism-- talk about schizophrenic… within **one **“denomination” you can believe whatever you want about baptism… from a Catholic understanding of the Sacrament to a symbolic only understanding. So, please come down off your high horse about the Anglican Communion’s superiority. Pull the plank out of your own eye-- women’s ordination, gay ordination, support of abortion, contraception, and allowing of divorce-- before looking at what you perceive to be a speck in the Catholic eye.

I am ever thankful I saw the EC for what it was and left it 15 years ago for the Catholic Church.

I would bounce that comment right back at you mister high horse!!! As i recale just this week a cermony for ordaining women was conducted in spain and the women came to canada. You act like your own church has no such voices… hmmm strange!

 

[Future_Prodigy]

of course their “could be”, that is why the priest exercises his best judgement using the facts given to him by the parents. It is they who must present the child for babtism, by the way, not the godparents, and not the grandparents. However, we are discussing a specific situation raised in OP, about a person who left the faith over it, which proved that the grandparents were not adherents of the Faith either, since they were so ready to ignore the teachings. OP has just raised this issue as an excuse to rant about it, repeatedly ignoring the distinction that has been made between denial and delay of the sacrament, in order to attack the Church’s authority over the sacraments. A grandparent who was truly concerned with their grandchild’s salvation would also have been concerned over their own child’s salvation, and been working strenuously to bring her back to the Church and have her marriage blessed.

First of all you know nothing about me so dont make ANY remarks you would not make to my face, i always laugh at how the internet is a shot of courage for so many posters here.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Wow, I guess I just have a totally different view here. The comment was made early in the thread

The Church does not consider baptism to be merely a ritual, but necessary to salvation. Whether it has meaning to the person later on is up to the person, but that does not change the fact that according to the Church, the grace necessary for salvation is imparted through this “ritual”. As such, it objectively cannot be “empty” regardless of the state of the parents.

I personally find a great inconsistency present here. As Catholics we are rightfully “pro life” and consistently stand against the physical abortion of a person’s life. Yet in the next breath we are willing to risk aborting the child’s *eternal *life by “delaying” the baptism necessary to achieve that eternal life. To say that there may be some misplaced priorities here would be something of an understatement.

We are all in “danger of death” every single minute of our lives. We have no guarantee from one second to the next being permitted another breath outside of God’s will.

To be playing “russian roulette” and holding the baby’s salvation hostage as a ploy to bringing the parents “in line” to me is an incredibly dangerous policy. And what does it say of our reasons for seeking God? That we believe we can coerce people into living a Catholic faith, and that we teach them to do so by threat? Uh, ok…I can see where that is likely to achieve a “conversion of heart”, which is the only true purpose of our faith. Instead we’ll accept any external appearance of “living the faith” regardless of what might really be happening.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the actions, or lack of them, of a third-party caretaker being relevant to the situation. The fact that the baby is brought forward for baptism, to me, should cause us to jump for joy. For now we–the community–not only get a chance to do our part in helping to bring this baby to salvation, but we also get the opportunity to model the love of God to the parents, and possibly bring them to a conversion of heart. That kind of conversion comes from seeing love and joy modeled, not from threats.

The “delay vs deny” semantics to me are just a red herring. How long are we going to “delay”? And are we going to continue to do so, into denial, if the parents just don’t yet understand the benefits of compliance? I’m sure that that will help them greatly in coming to love God and respect the Church.

I’m sorry, but to me this is just another heavy-handed tactic that greatly resembles what the Spanish conquistadors did when coming to this country, in giving the Native people a choice to convert or die. I would have thought by now that the Church of the Prince of Peace would have evolved a little further.

Thank you and may God bless you… when i say the same thing im attacking the church and all other sorts of bs (when if anyone had known me theyd know i have been exploring the conversion to rome for a long time now).

 

[1ke]

First of all you know nothing about me so dont make ANY remarks you would not make to my face,

You haven’t encounted Annie often, then, if you believe she would not say it to your face. She surely would, and I would too. I haven’t said anything on this thread that I haven’t said on others.

i always laugh at how the internet is a shot of courage for so many posters here.

It’s not the internet that gives courage, it’s the Truth of Christ.

After sidewalk counseling at Planned Parenthood, nothing much phases me anymore, ever. I’ll tell the truth online or in person.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

I too am going to follow ncjohns path, i am losing inner peace and going down a path i would like to not follow! God Bless, and take care everyone

 

[puzzleannie]

First of all you know nothing about me so dont make ANY remarks you would not make to my face, i always laugh at how the internet is a shot of courage for so many posters here.

I would not say anything here I would not say to your face, so take it in that spirit. i would and have said it to parents, grandparents and prospective godparents. I have no right to say anything else because it would not be true. This is an extremely serious issue, in the (we will assume hypothetical) case posed in OP the child is being denied the sacrament by the intrasigence of the parents, which is being reinforced by the attitude of the grandparent, and this is a tragedy.