Before I came to understand more about the Catholic Church I, too, strongly disagreed about infant baptism. The reason being, as a Baptist I had an entirely different view of baptism. To us, baptism isn’t like an initiation into the faith, but an outward sign of obedience *after *receiving Christ as Lord and Saviour. It’s a step we take after receving salvation to ceremoniously “wash away” our sins and “be born again” of water and spirit. As a Baptist who is learning more about Catholicism, I see the Catholic view of it clearly now and agree with it.
Before, I thought it was so wrong to baptize an infant who obviously had no choice or say in the matter. From a Baptist POV, baptism is the last step, not the first, and we view it differently so it’s understandable why many non-infant-baptizing people think it doesn’t make sense. So to me it was like a Catholic confirming an infant. But I now see what it really means in the Catholic Church and I really like the idea of it.
So I think that if other Protestants think the way I did, then you can see why it’s such an issue to them. They have probably never had it explained properly. My Catholic husband explained it to me, but not very well, and when we had our first son baptized I was very unsettled about it. Now we are having our 10wk old baptized in a couple of weeks and I am very happy about it after finding out more about the meaning of it.
There are two issues to consider when the topic of infant baptism arises.
The first is what happens to a person when they are baptized. Is it really someonthng an adult does as a sign of obedience? Is that it? Jesus just wants us to take some action that has no meaning other than a demonstration that has no other significance. All that really happens to you when you are baptized is you get wet.
There are several places in the Old Testament where God promises through His prophets that He will raise up for Himself a royal priesthood. In another place the term is a priestly people, and a nation of priests in yet another. That is intersting. Has He done that? What does that mean? There is a lot of theology here. What is a priest? Many religions have priests, maybe most. A priest is someone who offers sacrifice.
Jesus is called the eternal high priest. Think about the two adjectives there. He is a priest forever, eternally. That means He offers sacrifice eternally. He is not called the only priest, or THE priest, but the high priest. That presumes there are others, but not as important, maybe as in an entire nation of priests God promises He will raise up for Himself. If there is such a royal nation of priestly people who are they? The eraly fathers of the Church said they were all the baptized. It is through baptism that people come to be part of this priestly people.
The Catechism of the Catohlic Church says that through baptism we come to share in Christ’s threefold office of priest, prophet and king. Jesus is the ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST, and He is KING OF KINGS. Interseting titles! And all the prophets point to Him.
He says of us people that unless we take up our cross and follow Him we are not worthy of Him, and in another translation, not worthy to be called His disciples. Jesus gave Himself as sacrifice and He tells us to follow Him. Take up an instrument of torture, suffering and death, or else you are not worthy of being among His followers. Pretty gruesome, but what is the point?
The priestly people, royal priesthood, nation of priests, if they are priests at all, have to offer some sacrifice, He offered Himself, and we do also. But what is the point? Why do we have to do this? What does it accomplish? His sacrifice was for the redemption of the world. It made our peace with God. It atoned for our sin.
The Church, all the baptised, is the body of Christ. His body is broken for the redemption of the world. He allows His priestly people to share with Him in His work.
At Pentecost tongues of fire came down from heaven and rested on the heads of those present in the room. What did that mean? When fire came down from heaven in the Old Testament it was to signify that the sacrifice of the prophet was acceptable to God. That fire was kept burning in the temple to consume the animals that were sacrificed. That is how the Jews knew their sacrifice was acceptable. At Mass listen to the words about acceptable sacrifice. The miracle of the lamps in the temple being kept burning with no oil was important, because it was the fire that came down from heaven. The tongues of fire at Pentecost signified those in the room themsleves were acceptable sacrifice.
What did those people tell others to do? Get baptized and join them.
Babies get sick and suffer and die on occassion. Is that suffering meaningless evil? If they are baptized their innocent suffering is joined to that of Jesus, as part of the priestly people, for the redemption of the world. They are incorporated into His Body and prieslty office through baptism.
Finally, think about when this idea that only adults should be baptized first came up. It was very recent in terms of Church history. Those who espouse it use their personal understanding and decide that they have the right to declare the Church from its very inception was wrong in her doctrine. These moderns are enlightened and know better than all the ages of Christians who were wrong. But Jesus promised that He would send His Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth and be with us until the end of time. Was the Church of the first, second, tenth century wrong as Protestants say? What arrogance! I can read scripture and delcare the Church of ages past was wrong about this and that. My understanding rules.
Carlan