D
dje101
Guest
Coming from a protestant background, I am just wondering why the CC does infant baptism? Also, why don’t they do full submersion? Thanks everyone 
- Status
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
Infant Baptism supported by ScriptureComing from a protestant background, I am just wondering why the CC does infant baptism? Also, why don’t they do full submersion? Thanks everyone
Infant Baptism supported by the Church Fathers
Pouring vs immersion
Also-no brainer here, but surely the fact that we practice infant baptism would tell you that baptism by immersion would be more than a little dangerous?
L
Loml
Guest
In the Old Testament God welcomed infant males by circumcision. I think the real question is why should infants be denied baptism?
B
Barbkw
Guest
The Rite of Baptism in the Catholic Church involves all the people of the Church, the godparents, the parents and the infant.
The Rite requires that parents, godparents and the Church recite and renew their vows with God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) by renouncing Satan.
Catholic children, as they age, then continue on to receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit through three Sacraments:
The Sacrament of First Eucharist (continual),
the Sacrament of Reconciliation (continual)
and the Sacrament of Confirmation (once).
At our Catholic Church, infants are baptised by the pouring of water over the head.
RCIA converts and their older children are fully immersed at the Easter Vigil Mass.
The Rite requires that parents, godparents and the Church recite and renew their vows with God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) by renouncing Satan.
Catholic children, as they age, then continue on to receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit through three Sacraments:
The Sacrament of First Eucharist (continual),
the Sacrament of Reconciliation (continual)
and the Sacrament of Confirmation (once).
At our Catholic Church, infants are baptised by the pouring of water over the head.
RCIA converts and their older children are fully immersed at the Easter Vigil Mass.
P
Phemie
Guest
We do baptism by immersion. In fact, when you read the Rite of Baptism for Infants it presumes immersion. We just don’t put the baby’s face in the water.
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
You’re right, my mistake.
I was mixing up immersion, with the full submersion that the OP referred to.
E
Erich
Guest
Why not? Mark 10:14 “Jesus said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
P
puzzleannie
Guest
we follow the practice of the early Church as described in Acts and the letters, what the apostles did following their instruction from Christ himself. You can find out more on the apologetics forum on your topic.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Full immersion comes from the traditions of a particular Church. Some Eastern Churches would do full immersion of infants, or a variation of it. Like some would put the infant half way into the water up to their chest, then pour on the head. Or immerse the body while cradling the infant, but not enough that the face is covered with water.Coming from a protestant background, I am just wondering why the CC does infant baptism? Also, why don’t they do full submersion? Thanks everyone
Why are infants baptized? Why not? They can receive God’s graces regardless. You have your infants immunized, when they’re sick you give them medicine. Their souls need baptism, why deny them of it?
Also note in the East that Confirmation/Chrismation and the Eucharist is given at the same time regardless of age. So an infant will be give Communion from the time he/she is baptized.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Thanks. This is helpful. However, I don’t see any example there of children being baptized. I see assumptions. I would really love to see proof of the apostles themselves or Paul instructing families to baptize babies.
I know the theology was developed by the church fathers that came after, but what is this based on?
T
thistle
Guest
From the link you read:
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and** his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children. **
D
dje101
Guest
oh yeah, i can see that being a problem. i just come from a protestant background where the didn’t baptize infants and they only do baptism by immersion.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Thanks. Let me first say, I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I need to understand the basis of Catholic doctrine. I believe most converting protestants go through this, because we are taught that Catholic teachings are wrong, so we need to find proof that they are not.
So having said that I took a look at the verses you quoted. I’m only going to address a few:
*****Luke 19:9: 9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.***”
**
Yes, Jesus came to save, but I don’t see baptism in here.
John 4:53: Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and all his household believed.
**
His household could have included older children who were at an age where they could make a decision. I don’t see any babies specifically listed here.
**
Acts 11:14; He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.
This doesn’t specifically talk about baptism. I take this to mean if you raise your children as Christian, they hopefully will make the right decisions, get baptized etc.
Am I just not seeing clearly?
B
bkayw
Guest
The Sacrament of Baptism fulfills the everlasting Covenant requirements that God established with the Israelites - the circumcision requirement - on the eighth day of a male child’s birth.
From Wikipedia:
T
thistle
Guest
I don’t see women specifically mentioned either. Does that mean women were not baptised. I think we have to use some common sense here as well. An entire household includes everyone from male and female babies to great grandparents. It does not mean everyone except babies and women!
I was a born and brought up Methodist before converting. I have to say I was never taught Catholic teachings were wrong. I was simply never taught anything about the Catholic Church.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I really enjoyed those passages on circumcision. Any passages that link circumcision to baptism? I was always taught about a spiritual circumcision, not that baptism is the new circumcision.
I agree an entire household can include small children, but do we have any idea if the jailer had “babies?”. I don’t mean 8 year olds, who can say “Yes I believe”. I would love any historical evidence there. My entire household, for example, does not include anyone younger than 13. All I’m saying is that if we’re going to use that passage as evidence, we would need to know what his household consisted of.
I don’t think it’s a matter of common sense. If it comes to that I can point to a lot of things that don’t seem to follow common sense. It’s a matter of faith.
I agree an entire household can include small children, but do we have any idea if the jailer had “babies?”. I don’t mean 8 year olds, who can say “Yes I believe”. I would love any historical evidence there. My entire household, for example, does not include anyone younger than 13. All I’m saying is that if we’re going to use that passage as evidence, we would need to know what his household consisted of.
C
Cat
Guest
TrueLight, my husband and I converted to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism.
In the evangelical Protestant churches, baptism is “an outer sign of an inner faith.” In other words, baptism is a “work” that a Christian “does” to give witness to his/her faith in Jesus Christ, and to demonstrate visually their “death to sin, burial with Christ, and resurrection to salvation.”
In the Catholic Church, and in other ancient churches (Lutheran, Reformed), a Christian’s personal faith has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism is the initiation into the covenant. It takes the place of circumcision. A person who is baptized is now marked by the Holy Spirit and is a Christian.
That’s why infants are baptized–so that they are “in the covenant” of Christianity.
That’s another difference between evangelical Protestantism and Catholicism/ancient Protestant churches. In evangelical Protestant churches, becoming a Christian means doing a “work:”–believing in Jesus, repenting of sins, praying a sinner’s prayer, accepting Jesus into your heart, confessing Christ with your mouth. Those people who do these things become Christians. In other words, Christianity is something that we have to make a choice to receive. We have to “do something.”
But in the Catholic Church and other ancient (Protestant) churches, a person becomes a Christian entirely through grace. They do nothing; rather, their parents bring them to the waters of baptism, where they receive initiation into the Church and become Christians.
But what you have to understand is that in the Catholic Church and the ancient (Protestant) churches, being a Christian is not a guarantee of heaven. In these ancient churches, a Christian must continue to follow Christ and not reject Him. Rejection of Christ is evidenced by a life in which sin is continually practiced with no repentance or attempt at reconciliation with Christ.
Most evangelical Protestant churches teach that once a person has made a choice to become a Christian, they cannot lose heaven because Christ Himself will preserve them. Evangelicals are taught that anyone who lives a life of sin is probably not really a Christian, even if they once believed and asked Jesus into their heart. Evangelicals teach that such a person was never really a Christian because if they were Christians, they would not have fallen away.
(I should state here that there are some evangelical churches; e.g., the Assemblies of God, that teach that a Christian can indeed reject Christ and lose heaven.)
But the Catholic Church and other ancient (Protestant) churches teach that a person CAN choose to deliberately reject Christ, even if they have been baptized into Christianity.
I hope I am adequately explaining this. In the ancient churches, baptism is an initiation. It is not a public testimony of a faith in Christ.
And in case you’re wondering why I keep referring to the ancient churches (Catholicism, Lutheranism, Reformed, etc.), these are the churches that have been around since the very beginning of Christianity. The Catholic Church is the oldest church, and their earliest leaders were actual students of the disciples. So it makes sense to me that these ancient churches are most likely to be correct in their theology.
OTOH, the newer churches, especially the evangelical churches, are far removed historically from the New Testament Church, and over the decades, many man-made theologies have crept in. The teaching about baptism being an outer sign of an inner faith is one of those man-made theologies. This teaching is not in the Bible and it is not in any of the early works by early Christian leaders. I frankly am surprised that evangelical churches teach this, because what they are teaching is “works-based” salvation. Indeed, some evangelical churches HAVE stopped teaching about baptism and state that it is entirely optional.
Here is something to think about. I believe, although I’ve never seen any historical evidence for this, but it makes sense–I believe that believers started getting their infants baptized during the times of persecution in the first three centuries. They did this to protect their babies from paganism. Once these babies were baptized, it was understood by all (including the pagans) that the babies were now CHRISTIANS, not pagans. By getting their tiny infants baptized, the parents could die in the arena trusting that the Holy Spirit had His Mark on their precious babies, who were now Christians by virtue of their Christian baptism. The parents could hand their dear babies over to other believers (how difficult that must have been), who would raise them as Christians, never as pagans. They could die secure that they would someday see their babies again in heaven. And even if the infant grew up and tried to reject Christianity, they would be tormented by their baptism, knowing that they were Christians whether they wanted to be or not.
TrueLIght, as an ex-evangelical Protestant, I would challenge you to read over the Old Testament again to gain an understanding of the “covenant,” and then read the entire New Testament and seek out the purpose of baptism. Try to set aside your ingrained idea that baptism is something that believers must “choose.”
In the evangelical Protestant churches, baptism is “an outer sign of an inner faith.” In other words, baptism is a “work” that a Christian “does” to give witness to his/her faith in Jesus Christ, and to demonstrate visually their “death to sin, burial with Christ, and resurrection to salvation.”
In the Catholic Church, and in other ancient churches (Lutheran, Reformed), a Christian’s personal faith has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism is the initiation into the covenant. It takes the place of circumcision. A person who is baptized is now marked by the Holy Spirit and is a Christian.
That’s why infants are baptized–so that they are “in the covenant” of Christianity.
That’s another difference between evangelical Protestantism and Catholicism/ancient Protestant churches. In evangelical Protestant churches, becoming a Christian means doing a “work:”–believing in Jesus, repenting of sins, praying a sinner’s prayer, accepting Jesus into your heart, confessing Christ with your mouth. Those people who do these things become Christians. In other words, Christianity is something that we have to make a choice to receive. We have to “do something.”
But in the Catholic Church and other ancient (Protestant) churches, a person becomes a Christian entirely through grace. They do nothing; rather, their parents bring them to the waters of baptism, where they receive initiation into the Church and become Christians.
But what you have to understand is that in the Catholic Church and the ancient (Protestant) churches, being a Christian is not a guarantee of heaven. In these ancient churches, a Christian must continue to follow Christ and not reject Him. Rejection of Christ is evidenced by a life in which sin is continually practiced with no repentance or attempt at reconciliation with Christ.
Most evangelical Protestant churches teach that once a person has made a choice to become a Christian, they cannot lose heaven because Christ Himself will preserve them. Evangelicals are taught that anyone who lives a life of sin is probably not really a Christian, even if they once believed and asked Jesus into their heart. Evangelicals teach that such a person was never really a Christian because if they were Christians, they would not have fallen away.
(I should state here that there are some evangelical churches; e.g., the Assemblies of God, that teach that a Christian can indeed reject Christ and lose heaven.)
But the Catholic Church and other ancient (Protestant) churches teach that a person CAN choose to deliberately reject Christ, even if they have been baptized into Christianity.
I hope I am adequately explaining this. In the ancient churches, baptism is an initiation. It is not a public testimony of a faith in Christ.
And in case you’re wondering why I keep referring to the ancient churches (Catholicism, Lutheranism, Reformed, etc.), these are the churches that have been around since the very beginning of Christianity. The Catholic Church is the oldest church, and their earliest leaders were actual students of the disciples. So it makes sense to me that these ancient churches are most likely to be correct in their theology.
OTOH, the newer churches, especially the evangelical churches, are far removed historically from the New Testament Church, and over the decades, many man-made theologies have crept in. The teaching about baptism being an outer sign of an inner faith is one of those man-made theologies. This teaching is not in the Bible and it is not in any of the early works by early Christian leaders. I frankly am surprised that evangelical churches teach this, because what they are teaching is “works-based” salvation. Indeed, some evangelical churches HAVE stopped teaching about baptism and state that it is entirely optional.
Here is something to think about. I believe, although I’ve never seen any historical evidence for this, but it makes sense–I believe that believers started getting their infants baptized during the times of persecution in the first three centuries. They did this to protect their babies from paganism. Once these babies were baptized, it was understood by all (including the pagans) that the babies were now CHRISTIANS, not pagans. By getting their tiny infants baptized, the parents could die in the arena trusting that the Holy Spirit had His Mark on their precious babies, who were now Christians by virtue of their Christian baptism. The parents could hand their dear babies over to other believers (how difficult that must have been), who would raise them as Christians, never as pagans. They could die secure that they would someday see their babies again in heaven. And even if the infant grew up and tried to reject Christianity, they would be tormented by their baptism, knowing that they were Christians whether they wanted to be or not.
TrueLIght, as an ex-evangelical Protestant, I would challenge you to read over the Old Testament again to gain an understanding of the “covenant,” and then read the entire New Testament and seek out the purpose of baptism. Try to set aside your ingrained idea that baptism is something that believers must “choose.”
B
Ben_F
Guest
Baptism is a free gift. It requires NO prerequisite. I was a Baptist, so I know about if it´s not in the Bible, I don´t have proof. Therefore…Where in the Bible does it say not to Baptize infants. God bless:thumbsup:
T
TheDoctor
Guest
I think my dear friend that one of the issues hanging you up is the belief that everything we do today must be explicitly spelled out in Scripture.
What may help is to keep in mind that the Church holds both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in equal standing and our faith practices are built on both, neither contradicting the other.
The early Church Fathers were the first “recorders” if you will of that Sacred Tradition which we carry on today. If the early Church did not baptize infants then I am certain that Tradition would have been carried down from the Apostles to the early Fathers to today through the Papacy and Magisterium. If the Magisterium suddenly decided that now we can baptize infants, it would have been recorded.
My takeaway point is that when you look at the rituals and teachings of the Church you need to keep in mind you are looking at 2,000 years of continuous guidance under the Holy Spirit starting from the hands-on and oral teaching of Jesus, passing on to the Apostles (with some of it being recorded in Scripture) through the Magisterium and Papacy up to today.
Sorry if I rambled, hope it helps.
- Status