[HarleyD]

The relevant difference is that Catholics do not claim to know the reprobate/election [to glory] status of anyone [including infants] while they are on this earth.

You claim to know the status of them after they have died. I don't see much of a difference.

The Calvinist's ground for assurance, by contrast, requires knowing the status of one's election [for glory].

If that is what you believe, you are very much mistaken. Calvinists, to my knowledge, do not claim to know the status of anyone except themselves, and rightfully so. Paul states that we are to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Well, if you examine yourself, then don't you know whether you are in the faith?

In regards to baptism and its relationship with salvation, the Westminster Confession states:

Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. - Westminster Confession

According to the Westminster Confession, you cannot suppose that just because someone (including infants) is baptized they are saved. We rely upon God's grace and mercy. I can't speak for the Presbyterians because I'm not that familiar with their belief on infant baptism. I assume with the limited reading I have done on this matter, and in accordance with the WC, they rely upon God’s grace for the election of their children.

Catholics have a similar belief, those who are baptized and die go to heaven. However, as we see above, while the WC is uncertain over the fate of someone who is baptized, the Church positively states that children are ushered into the Church. You stated that "Catholics do not claim to know the reprobate/election [to glory] status of anyone [including infants] while they are on this earth." Yet baptism is declared the door the Church. Here is what the Catholic encyclopedia states:

Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. [sic: sounds Presbyterian to me] It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).

The tradition of Christian antiquity as to the necessity of infant baptism is clear from the very beginning. We have given many striking quotations on this subject already, in dealing with the necessity of baptism. A few, therefore, will suffice here. ...

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, [sic: No, God does not wish all men to be saved] He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another." - Catholic Encyclopedia

I would call your attention to the last paragraph. Infants, by the Catholic Church, are looked at as receiving faith through receiving the sacrament of their parents. If the parents where to walk away from the alter 3 minutes later and asked if they felt their baby was going to heaven, what would be the Catholic response? In fact, the Catholic Church is stating these infants will go to heaven. Contrast this with the WC which states that it is uncertain as to the status of someone who is baptized.

You can hardly bash Dr. E over the head when your Church holds a more radical view. The Westminster Confession states the baptized infants future is uncertain (although we trust God). Conversely, the state of baptized infants for the Church is that they are saved as long as they have been baptized into the Church.

[adiaireton8]

Calvinists, to my knowledge, do not claim to know the [election] status of anyone except themselves

Then, as I pointed out to Dr. E., by their own doctrine Calvinists can have no assurance that their baptized infant is saved. Their "trust" is actually only "hope".

You can hardly bash Dr. E over the head when your Church holds a more radical view.

I have not "bashed Dr. E. over the head". I have pointed out a contradiction in her theology. I have not criticized her position for being "radical", whatever exactly that is supposed to mean. Of course the Catholic position is extraordinary and mind-boggling. The very gospel is foolishness to the 'wise'. But that is no refutation of it. A contradiction on the other hand, is a serious problem.

-A8