Posted on 10/01/2009 6:29:50 AM PDT by NYer
Q: Our new next-door neighbors have a 14-month-old daughter. They’re Catholics, but I just found out that they still haven’t had their daughter baptized yet! When our own children were born over 30 years ago, we had them baptized when they were just a couple of weeks old. Aren’t you required to have your children baptized quickly like that any more? –Frances
A: The Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation has not changed. Christ Himself, after His Resurrection, couldn’t have spoken more clearly about the need for baptism, when He commanded the Apostles to go forth and baptize all nations (Matt. 28: 19-20). As the Catechism teaches, “through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God” (CCC 1213 ). It is only logical that Catholic parents should want to have their newborn children baptized as soon as possible, to free them from original sin and make them members of the Church.
As we have seen in this space so many times before, canon law follows theology. So it isn’t at all surprising to find that canon 867.1 states that parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks after birth. And the very next paragraph, canon 867.2 , adds that if the child is in danger of death, he is to be baptized immediately.
Thus it should be clear that waiting for months, or even years, to have one’s child baptized is not only not in keeping with the Church’s theological teaching, it is also contrary to canon law. It is difficult to imagine a legitimate reason why Catholic parents, who truly believe in basic tenets of our faith like original sin and God’s grace, would fail to arrange for their children to be baptized as soon as possible.
Ironically, it may be that the wonderful medical advances of the last several decades have inadvertently led many Catholic parents to lose the traditional sense of urgency about having their newborn children baptized. For centuries, the Church’s teaching about the importance of baptism for salvation dovetailed neatly with the fear of many parents that their newborn might not live very long, and so both supernatural and natural reasons tended to push parents to have their children baptized as quickly as they could. If you have ever read the biography of a medieval saint, or if done genealogical research on your own family members in centuries past, you might very well have come across an instance where someone was baptized the day after his birth, or even sooner. In fact, it isn’t necessary to dig so far back in the historical past to find examples of this: in 1927, Pope Benedict XVI himself was baptized the same day that he was born.
This practice was, of course, logically consistent with Catholic doctrine. Given the extraordinarily high rates of infant mortality in generations past, and the fear that an infant might die before original sin had been wiped from his soul, what Catholic parent wouldn’t rush a newborn child to the parish church for baptism as soon as possible?
While there still is always some risk that a child may not survive, nowadays the fear that a newborn infant might not make it is hardly so great as before, especially here in the US. At the same time, baptisms have become big family/social events, when relatives fly into town and there is often a big family get-together after the ceremony. Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this; in fact, we do well to maintain our awareness of the importance of such an event by celebrating the occasion. But unfortunately, the desire to have all the family present at a child’s baptism can naturally lead to postponing the sacrament until everyone is able to make it. While parents are waiting for this or that relative to have a free weekend to travel, their new baby remains in original sin.
There are other factors which now sometimes lead parents to put off having their new child baptized. As we saw back in the June 21, 2007 column , it is standard practice these days in the US for parishes to require parents to attend an evening class (or series of classes) before their child is baptized. This is designed to ensure that the parents truly intend to raise their child in the Catholic faith—an intention that must be present if the priest is to agree to perform the baptism (c. 868.1 n. 2 ). Occasionally I have heard parents complain that they can’t have their new baby baptized until they attend this class, and that in their parish, the class is held only once a month. But in every single case, I have found that these complaining parents had made no effort whatsoever to inquire about the requirements for their infant’s baptism ahead of time. Since parents obviously are aware for months in advance that they will be having a baby, it is difficult to understand their failure to do this. Why not arrange to attend the class a month or two before the child’s expected birth-date, so that it will be possible to have the baptism soon afterwards?
Many parishes do an excellent job of publicizing the need for all parents to attend the baptism class, and class dates are announced well in advance. Others could probably do a better job of instructing their parishioners about the obligation of all parents to have their children baptized soon after birth. I have personally seen a disturbing pattern in many Catholic Hispanic communities, where children are routinely baptized when they are apparently two or three years old, if not older! If their parents had fallen away from the faith, and just recently returned to the Church, this of course would be an entirely understandable explanation for the delay. But if these families are regularly practicing Catholics, it appears that the pastor and parish catechists would do well to remind parents more forcefully and more often that by delaying their child’s baptism, they are leaving that child in original sin. If, God forbid, tragedy strikes and such a child suddenly dies, he leaves this world without the sacramental graces gained from baptism—and by his parents’ choice.
Another, more abstract factor that may cause some new parents to wrongly conclude that there is no need to rush to baptize their child, is the fallout from the fairly recent theological statement from the Vatican concerning Limbo . In 2007, many media outlets wrongly declared that Pope Benedict XVI had “done away with Limbo.” Even the most sincere journalist could perhaps be forgiven for being confused about what the statement actually meant! In its 2000-year existence, the Catholic Church has never made a definitive, authoritative statement explaining exactly what happens to infants who died before being baptized. Since they themselves are completely innocent, it seems absurd to conclude that God damns them to hell; although no less a theologian than St. Augustine really did reach this conclusion 1600 years ago, it was, understandably, not a position subsequently embraced officially by the entire Church. At the same time, the Church teaches that baptism is necessary to enter Heaven, since we must first be wiped clean of original sin and made children of God before we can be with Him there. It is thus a quandary with which theologians long have had to grapple, and the conclusion that there must be some third place (dubbed “Limbo”) was reached as a result. In Limbo, they said, the souls of unbaptized children enjoy some degree of happiness, but they are deprived of the Beatific Vision of God because they are still in original sin. This is not a teaching that can be found anywhere in revelation; rather, it is a logical conclusion of the Church’s teaching on baptism.
In the mid-2000’s, the International Theological Commission (ITC)—a team of theologians chosen from all over the world by the Pope to serve together as a joint committee of experts—was tasked with studying the issue of what happens to infants who die without the grace of baptism. The issue was not merely a theoretical, academic one: questions have been raised repeatedly about the fate of those millions upon millions of children who are killed by abortion. And what about those embryos which are created through in-vitro fertilization, and later discarded in the lab as superfluous? The Church needed to examine the issue more closely.
In their report—which was approved by the Pope—the ITC provided no magic answer to this difficult theological question. It reiterated traditional Catholic teaching when it asserted that “the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism is proclaimed and professed as integral to the Christian faith understanding” (66 ), and it did a beautiful job of tracing the historical development of the belief in Limbo, the existence of which “is not a dogmatic definition” (38 ). The ITC emphasized that there is no need for such a place necessarily to exist at all, since “God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred” (82 ) if He so wishes. In other words, God is not bound by the sacraments; He can, if He so wishes, freely allow the soul of an unbaptized infant into His presence in Heaven. Thus the ITC stressed the need for hope and trust in the mercy of God, since “the point of departure for considering the destiny of these children should be the salvific will of God” (41 ).
This report could too easily be misinterpreted as saying that there is no need to baptize our children, since God will allow them into Heaven anyway. But the report definitely does not exonerate parents whose children die without baptism, when the parents have not made an effort to have the baby baptized promptly. Thus it cannot be used as an excuse for failing to have a newborn infant baptized as quickly as the parents reasonably can.
True, there are tragic situations where a newborn dies unexpectedly in the first few hours or days of his birth; if the parents had been planning to have him baptized soon, it is certainly difficult to fault them for not being fast enough! But it is a very different matter when a child of several months, or even years, dies without having been baptized, solely through the negligence of his parents. New parents need to keep in mind—and to be reminded—of the incredible spiritual responsibility they bear toward their newborn children, who must depend on their parents to ensure that they are relieved of the burden of original sin so that they may someday see God face to face.
I'll ask you, too: what makes you think water means baptism?
It was not a “private argument”, but it was an extended argument that began with a ways back. I did not want to restate all of the posts that had occurred on both sides up to the point you jumped in. However, you are more than welcome to get in.
If you followed each post, why is it that you did not know what it was I was arguing? This is meant as a real question, not rhetorical. And, yes, thank you for clarifying that I meant “its” in quoting my own post.
But, it is Rome’s claim (and perhaps yours) that the man of Rome sits in Peter’s chair, as if such a chair existed. The great disagreement between the believers in Christ and Rome is that Rome has so added (chairs, sacerdotalism, relics, sacraments, transubstantiation, Mariology or mariolatry, etc.) to the Gospel, it is no longer the Gospel that Paul and his friend Peter delivered. The “extensions” made by Rome has rendered, in our opinions, the message a “religion” rather than understanding with Paul that, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of law, but through faith in Christ Jesus...”.
This is the message of the Apostles following the cross, since prior to that we Gentiles were, “...without God in the world.” Eph. 2. But, good hermeneutics is not a hallmark of Rome. Traditions that eclipse the Gospel have become the new measure of all things for Catholics.
We commend you for trusting in Christ, alone. It is interesting that when the rubber meets the road in discussions, this trust is usually not quite enough for Catholics. Out come the sacraments, the absolution of sin, final unction, BAPTISM...That is how this started.
The Gospel has been lost in Rome. And, we call on Rome to repent and return to a pure Gospel of faith in Christ, alone. Even James teaches this. He notes, that in the true believers, works will follow. But, read the posts here. Catholics say works are co-equal to faith, not a result of faith.
And, faith is itself a gift, lest any man boast. Yet, Rome argues that “free will” must be exercised by the man or God would not be just. Really? Is it more just to let 20 billion perish because they were stubbornly wrongheaded? Is that “kinder”? If your child were about to step off the curb into the path of a bus, would you say, “Well, it is your choice.” so that you wouldn’t be seen as too controlling? And such arguments by the Catholic Church have rendered God as having no idea who will ultimately be save or not. Thus, salvation is in man’s hands. We repudiate such claims and call on Rome to repent.
Water and it’s regenerative qualities are mentioned many times in Scripture, beginning with Genesis.
God regenerated the world from sin by causing a flood, saving only Noah and his family, whom he deemed righteous.
During Exodus God parted the Red Sea, allowing the Israelites to flee the Egyptians.
During the wandering God caused Moses to strike a rock, bringing life giving water to the Israelites.
Jesus Himself, who was without sin, was baptized by John the Baptist. As he was baptized, the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove and the clouds parted, God stating “This is My Beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (BTW, this baptism was not needed except as an example of what Jesus wanted us to do, much in the same way as the Eucharist).
When Jesus was pierced on the cross, blood and water gushed from his side.
In Revelation, St. John speaks of Jesus having a voice like “living waters”.
As much as I am enjoying this debate, I have to get ready for Bible Study, ironically, and I’m Catholic.
In Revelation, St. John speaks of Jesus having a voice like “living waters”.
Indeed. And this, incidentally, tends to make the interpretation of John 3:5 cut another way, no?
Read Luke 18:15-16. The people BROUGHT infants to the Lord, that is what we do in Baptism.
There is nothing in the passage about the infants being baptized, or becoming followers of Christ. Apart from showing that Jesus liked little kids, it teaches "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it".
Needing trust and confidence in the Father? Yep. Baptizing infants? Not found here.
No, it doesn’t. St. John speaks of Jesus having a voice “like” living waters. In John 3:5, Jesus does not say unless one is born again using something “like” water.
Attempting to use my statement to twist the interpretation of John 3:5 negates baptism completely, whether in infancy, childhood or adulthood.
God's grace IS awesome and should be something we teach our children from the day they are born. There still has to come a time in each of our lives where there is a recognition of the personal relationship we have with the Lord. Church membership from the cradle does not imbue saving grace. That comes when we accept the gift of eternal life that Jesus provided by his blood atonement on the cross. It is only by bloodshed that atonement is made for the soul. The wages of sin are death and Jesus made that payment in our place. Putting our faith in his sacrifice for our sins is the method God imputes righteousness. Our works can never save us and as are filthy rags (menstrual cloths) in his sight compared to the work of Christ for us. I wholeheartedly agree, that we must come to him as little children, with childlike faith in receiving his wondrous gift.
LOL! Wow, do I know how you feel!
I guess the question is why do "I" think or even "why do I think my Church thinks" it's Baptism rather than dedication. Wagglebee strikes me as on the money about Scriptural justification. I'd add the stuff that Paul says about Baptism. Romans 6:3-15 but especially 3 and 4:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?Actually just read Romans a lot. It's magnificent.
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
The initial post and early conversation was about Catholics putting off the baptism of their little ones. But one would have to be pretty dull to think it wouldn’t turn into an infant baptism donnybrook.
Did you mean to misquote this verse? It actually says:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
I’m not exasperated at all! :) I love a good debate, and try hard to hold up my end of it, so please sit back a sec while I re-read John 3.....
Okay. First, I disagree that Jesus speaks of being born of the flesh as baptism. Jesus says “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew’” He further goes on to say that “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”
Please read Romans 6:3-4. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
While I agree to your reference to baptism by fire, I can’t cite it. Jesus himself was baptized in water by John the Baptist. This is a clear message as to what we are to do. The baptized have “put on Christ”. Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies and sanctifies. Or, as St. Augustine says, “The word is brought to the material element and it becomes a sacrament.”
The Church fathers write of baptism of infants extensively. Entire families were baptised on the basis of one member of the family hearing the Word and believing. It stands to reason that they weren’t all adults, just as the Hebrew infant 8 days old had no say in his circumcision as as sign of the Covenant with God.
Before I go to Bible Study, I’d like to thank God that we have been blessed with intellect, humility and compassion, so that we may all debate politely on all subjects, no matter what they may be.
I’ll check in on this thread later and see how it’s progressing. :)
I DID say that! Currently going through The Great Adventure with Jeff Cavins. Last school year was the Gospel of St. John. We love it!
No ... did not mean to misquote; there are so many different translations of that phrase. The version you quoted is nearly identical. The meaning is the same.
Failure of intellectual capacity? I just went over it again and I still don't get where the "if your hand" stuff came from.
I am a convert and when I was in Seminary it was, albeit Episcopal, going through a strong Calvinist neo-Orthodox phase.
(Almost immediately after I was graduated it went off the rails. Coincidence? I think not.)
So I am more or less aware of what Protestants think of us.
I still believe that I have, do, am nothing good unless God does it in me -- without exception. If I were ever to will a good act and to will it in a good way, the whole thing would be from God. (I'll let you know if it ever actually happens.)
To the extent that things like any good deeds are done "by" me (I'd prefer some more dissociative preposition like "through" or even "in my vicinity") the way I prefer to think about them is what I read in Ephesians 2:8-10 -- good works which God prepared before hand that [I] should [by His grace and by that alone] walk in them.
Yes, I do think about a "virtue-based" ethics, modo Dominicano, but I personally, as long as I'm THINKING, never lose the conviction that even if it were right to say that somehow I was virtuous, that would be God's doing, not mine, and they would be His virtues, not mine. I simply don't know how to express it more emphatically or comprehensively.
And thinking that, I have found a home in the Catholic Church.
Aquinas seems to agree with you and me that faith is a gift, FWIW.
Part of the problem (and I don't think it's a problem of Calvinists, in fact I got this idea from reading him) is that the popular idea of freedom is what some call "freedom of indifference."
It is, in this idea, as if we stood before the good choice and the bad choice and were not influenced or controlled in any way. (Thus the name: we are "indifferent" to the alternatives.)
But what I've argued for decades is that when the right choice presents itself clearly(and that, I think, is always a gift) the will, which before it saw what to do was enslaved by ignorance if nothing else, is sort of sucked into the freedom of choosing the good by the excellence of what God reveals. "Where else would we go?" It says, not complimenting itself on its discernment but just kind of going, "What other choice IS there, really?" And it's only in a very contrived and artificial way that one thinks of that as a loss of freedom.
When we fall in love, our eagerness and ardor are not a limitation on freedom but are rather its celebration.
(Similarly, I think, it is not a limitation on God's Freedom that he "cannot" do wrong. It is because He is totally free, is Freedom itself, that He does not do wrong and, so to speak, wouldn't even THINK of doing wrong.
I wander, but only to set my thinking about "works" in a broader context.
I would also note that among the complaints Protestants raise against us is that we presume that God would keep us in the Truth and that one of the ways He would do that is through the papal charism of infallibility. But no sooner do they assert that no man is infallible and even councils have erred, our Protestant friends adopt the language and rhetorical posture of people speaking for God and call on us to repent.
It is not any Catholic teaching, not the consequence of any Catholic teaching that God doesn't know who "will be saved," if for no other reason than that God is not bound by time but comprehends all time. He IS, and He IS at the judgment just as much as he IS now in what, to us, is the time before the judgment.
I found, after Seminary, that the version of Catholicism which slipped into the teaching there (as a bad example, as in THEY think that, but WE think this) did not really relate to what I found Catholicism really to be or to teach.
And part of the misunderstanding is precisely that people have generally followed the Nominalist line and think of freedom as freedom of indifference rather than freedom for excellence.
I think this difference contributes to the phenomenon of sincere devout Protestants being just SURE that we think works are some kind of personal achievement which is required for salvation while I, at any rate, think of them as gifts into and through which God bears me.
My love for Him comes from Him, indeed IS Him, the Spirit of God, working in me. I have nothing, and it is only my foolish faithlessness which even wants anything. Having Him, (or rather, being had by Him) I desire nothing else. (cf. Ps 73:25)
Ya sure ya want to stand by that statement, pardner?
The Bible - the Word of God - most definitely says we are saved by grace, which means it is UNDESERVED. Here are but a few verses that shoot the floor out from under you:
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Jhn 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.
These are just a few from the mouth of Jesus himself. There are many, many more I can quote, but something tells me I might be wasting my time. Hope not!
” 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.”
Acts 16:32, the verse immediately preceding the baptism of his household.
” 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.”
Acts 16:32, the verse immediately preceding the baptism of his household.
Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Calvinists all baptize infants -- why don't you take it up with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.