How Soon Should a Baby be Baptized?

Catholic Exchange ^ | October 1, 2009 | Cathy Caridi, J.C.L.

[notaliberal]

It’s not the parents’ decision. The “child” decides when he wants to be baptized following his salvation. Baptism is a profession the church, community, etc., of one’s acceptance of Christ as personal Savior. Since a baby cannot accept Christ, he shouldn’t be baptized. It doesn’t get someone closer to Heaven.

....And be a blank slate until the child becomes an adult? Parents have a responsibility to lead their children to God and teach them about His love and mercy.

[absolootezer0]

Baptism in fire is baptism of the holy spirit. The upper room, the 120, tongues of fire, the utterance of the spirit, drunk in the spirit... That whole deal. It’s more literal in assembly of God churches, I don’t know how Catholics view it at all is what I was getting at.
We were directed, after you have been baptisedin water, you shall be baptised in fire not many days hence.

Sorry, just got home from work. Kinda tired to pull exact reference

[absolootezer0]

Ok, yeah, Romans 6 talks alot about baptism, but 5 refers an awful lot about Christ taking our sins for us.especially bs 18 comparing one judgement, and one gift.
Then you get to 8:2 and the freedom from death.
Are these contingent on baptism, or are they free gifts from crucifixion?

[RebelTXRose]

That’s my point! I do bristle at what the Church “institution” has dreamed up for requirements.

I recently reminded my parish in Dallas that Holy Matrimony is the ONLY Sacrament they charge for the use of the Church.
I understand the charge for the reception facility - but the CHURCH? and for someone who was BAPTIZED there? (We still paid)

[VermiciousKnid]

Oh, I remember that “class.” Don't dare mention “original sin” in one of them unless you're prepared to be glowered at by the lady running it.

“We don't think ‘original sin’ is the primary purpose of baptism anymore,” she said. “Baptism is the sacrament of welcome now.”

The poor woman wasn't quite ready for ME to be in her class.

Thank heavens, at least my children were baptized in private ceremonies and not the circus sideshows that happen now. Eight years ago, I stood as godmother to my niece, who was being baptized along with 23 other babies!!! You couldn't hear a thing for all the hullabaloo going on. There was no exorcism, and after the baptism itself, Father stood on the altar and said, “OK, everybody...sing, ‘If you're Catholic and you know it, clap your hands!”

I just stood there in shocked disbelief. I'm not even certain the baptism is valid — can it be without an exorcism?

Regards,

[RebelTXRose]

that must’ve been SOME ordeal! 24 babies at once! I would’ve been mighty upset had that been part of a Sunday Mass!

The folks leading these classes, if not deacons, are just volunteers who took it on. They need to be supervised to see what it going on...

“exorcism” I always thought Baptism was “I baptize you in the Name of...” I remember the faith responses of the god-parents for the child - is that what you mean? I think those are required.

[Mad Dawg]

Are these contingent on baptism, or are they free gifts from crucifixion?

The language our catechism uses about baptism is "ordinarily necessary." "Ordinarily" is distinct from "absolutely" or "in every case."

So the answer would be these are "ordinarily" contingent on Baptism.

But this is not a game or some kind of spell. The temporal relationship between Baptism and the gifts probably isn't,so to speak, by the numbers: not "necessarily" WHEN you get Baptized, then you receive these gifts.

Again, the faith/works dichotomy isn't always our friend. From MY POV Baptism is a gift not a "work." It doesn't feel like work; I don't feel pride in having received it or having administered it.

Graces seem related to it, Paul is all over it, the Church expects it of her members. Why not do it?

But to approach Baptism with the idea that this is a kind of tit-for-tat seems pretty carnally-minded to me.

[Mad Dawg]

The Ethiopian eunuch? At least the Apostles made house chariot calls in those days. No sterile rooms with metal chairs ...

PART of the deal here is the frustration with people who come to the priest to have their baby "done" and then fade back into the night never to be seen again -- or at least not until they drive up to the church door to drop their kids off for catechism.

I think it's okay to put a little, easily broken hedge around Baptism as a gesture to the importance of the Sacrament and a caution that parents ought not to abuse it. But I'd still take the attitude that, when all the hootin' and hollerin' was done, if it was human and breathing, I'd baptize it.

[VermiciousKnid]

Well, they did ask for responses, but the entire rite of exorcism was omitted...in it, the priest places a few grains of salt on the infant’s tongue and says, (I paraphrase) “I exorcise you, unclean spirit...depart from this servant of God... Jesus Christ, Our Lord and God, has called him (her) to his holy grace and blessing, and to the font of baptism...”

There was more, of course, but I can’t remember all the words.

Anyway, I guess they don’t do it anymore in most parishes/diocese, because I haven’t seen it since my own kids were baptized.

I’ll take all that “unpopular” talk of salvation and original sin and exorcism over “If you’re Catholic and ya know it, clap your hands” any day.

Regards,

[Mad Dawg]

Oh GAG me!

A week or two after I was received into full communion I went to a Mass where about 4 babies were baptized. This was in a modern vaguely auditorium-style church with, you know, seats like bleachers descending to a "well" in which were altar, ambo, etc. The font, which was very nice in a modern way, was sort of in the back right corner.In the back row one would look to one's right to see it.

So, down in the well, a lay 'MC' with a microphone announces, "Gabriel Ignatius McGillicuddy (or whatever), son of Sean Patrick and Maria Concetta McGillicuddy," and the priest would dunk 'em or splash 'em or whatever.

The reverent tone of the 'MC' put me in mind of the TV announcer at golf games, and suddenly I was having a barely controllable fit of the giggles. I was imaging sportscasting the Baptism in that hushed voice they use: "He's approaching the font .... He's lifting the baby ... there it goes ... it's going .... and ...it's IN THERE! ANOTHER SOUL SAVED! ANOTHER Member of the Church!"

I think I still have bruises where my wife and daughter tried to elbow me into silence.

All that is required for a valid Baptism is water, a Trinitarian formula, and the intention "to do whatever it is the Church does when she baptizes." So they were valid.

[Publius Valerius]

Attempting to use my statement to twist the interpretation of John 3:5 negates baptism completely, whether in infancy, childhood or adulthood.

Yes, it does. That's rather my point. I'm asking you, and I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer, as to why you think "water" means "baptism."

[melissa_in_ga]

The debate must still be going on. :)

John the Baptist baptized in water. That should be enough right there.

Water is symbolic as regenerative throughout the Bible.

[Publius Valerius]

Oh I don't know, maybe the FACT that He told the Disciples to baptize people.

What does that have to do with the passage? I'm not debating that baptizing people is a good thing, or that there is a purpose to it. I'm asking you why you think the term "water," in that passage, means "baptism."

The reason I ask this is that the bulk--if not all--of the scholarly literature on this passage tends to argue that the use of the term "water" is a metaphor, not a reference to baptism, and there are pretty compelling reasons for this. I'm asking you, and I'm being perfectly serious, why you think it means baptism.

I've gotten nothing but snide comments in return.

[wagglebee]

Obviously at that time, Cornelius himself may have heard something of the Gospel, but we can hardly imagine that men of every nation had at that time heard the gospel of Jesus. So it would seem that, even those not given the gift of the gospel could still fear god and do right, and be found acceptable by Christ.

So, is it your belief that Matthew 25 was to cover those who, at the time of the Second Coming, have not heard the Gospel?

[magisterium]

"Infallible"? What are you talking about? Look, quit with the misdirecting tactic of overwrought hyperbole and use your brain. If the early Christians took infant baptism for granted from the earliest times, what makes you think that protestations against the practice, only beginning to take root in the 16th Century, somehow have legitimacy or cachet as "authentic doctrine"? It never seems to occur to you guys that practices such as infant baptism only seem strange or wrong to you because they happen to go against your theology, but your own theology, again and again, can be shown to be of a late-arriving, upstart nature that has no connection to original teaching or practices. Perhaps you would do better to consider St. Paul's ruminations about "every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14).

Your prosition is simply unsupported by the entire span of Christian practice. Either even the earliest Christians drove of the deep end on this issue, and sent the Church down the wrong path all this time, from their day to ours, or they didn't, and the practice is sound. If they were wrong on such a vital point, then Jesus lied when He promised to be with His Church "always, even to the end of the age," and He lied when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church He founded. Much good these promises would have been if things were getting messed-up doctrinally right from the beginning! But, if His promises meant something, then the Church, would, in fact, be preserved from doctrinal error, at least corporately. Individuals could, and did, stray from the Truth, in keeping with God's honoring their free-will to choose or reject Him. But the Church, "The pillar and bulwark of the Truth," as St. Paul would describe it, would not be capable of such. Christ's promises in this regard would be meaningless otherwise.

Your errors are born in a spirit of rebellion from that promise, and that rebellion has blossomed over the last several centuries into a tree of errors even its founders would scarcely recognize. The Catholic Faith seems exotic to you because all you can do is hold it up for comparison with what you have been taught. But your teachings are, in so many cases, completely unconnected to the Apostolic Faith. You cannot even appeal to a legitimate "development of doctrine"; yours is a wholesale throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. It's no wonder that you guys not only cannot grasp the logical ramifications of the historical witness of infant baptismal practices in the Second Freaking Century; you can't even agree with the Early Church regarding the true significance of Baptism in the first place! If you could see its significance, you would see why infants and children are baptized. That you can't shows how divorced your faith is from that which "was handed down to the Apostles."

Your post makes a protestation against "private interpretation." I am not guilty of such, as I have formed my beliefs around the teachings of the Church Christ founded, the aforementioned "pillar and bulwark of the Truth." To the extent that you cling to false doctrines yourself, all of them are rooted in the "private interpretations" of men who lived no less that 1400 years after revelation ended. In light of this, you should really rethink your post, especially the application of its last paragraph to your self-righteous suppositions that your PIOS is the reference standard. You're on far too shaky ground to make this assertion.

When you guys finally realize that you've been duped regarding another of your novel doctrines - The Rapture prior to the General Judgment - and that you're stuck here with the rest of us (possibly during the Tribulation you indirectly foment, even while looking for a free pass out of it), then maybe we'll talk with more productive results. God bless you. You folks border on hopeless; all this bickering based on the irrelevant ruminations of "Reformers" and their descendants has managed to divide the Church to the point where it (collectively, all of us) has virtually no long-lasting influence in the world. When judgment comes for us, the self-righteous defense of our collective "stewardship" of the Lord's vineyard will collapse into a mass of watery ashes ex post haste! Thanks a lot.

[Publius Valerius]

John the Baptist baptized in water. That should be enough right there.

Let me lay out the most common arguments against "water" in that passage meaning "baptism." I find these arguments compelling but I am, quite seriously, open to hearing your explanation as to why you think it means baptism.

First, and this issue has come up on this thread before, if "water" meant baptism, that would contradict the Bible's clear message (despite what others have argued) that salvation is accomplished only through the grace of God by faith in Jesus Christ; were baptism required, this is a necessary "work" that would be required for salvation. That's not the case.

Second, and you yourself have touched on this before in response to the question about the thief on the cross. You said that the thief was under the old Covenant, and thus did not need baptism to be saved. But if that were true, wouldn't Nicodemus also be under the old Covenant, and if so, why then would Christ tell him that baptism was necessary for salvation, even if it were required as part of the new Covenant?

Moreover, in John 3:10, Jesus challenges Nicodemus, stating that "you are Israel's teacher, and you do not understand these things?" If Jesus is describing the new Covenant, that supposedly requires baptism, why would he expect Nicodemus to already know this? In light of this, wouldn't it make more sense that "water" was being used in a metaphorical sense to mean spiritual cleansing, as it is used, in several instances, in the Old Testament?

[magisterium]

No rather, it sounds as though the household devoted itself to the work of the Lord, in whatever capacity was appropriate to the standing of each member. The job of the children was to “grow in wisdom and knowledge,” just like Christ did, under the tutelage of their parents, with a view toward greater things in their future.

But what of the 2nd Century documentation of infant baptism? Was it wrong, or not? If it was wrong, and then continued without abatement right down to our own day, what does that say about Christ’s promises regarding His Church? In the end, you only reject it because people 1400+ years removed from the Apostles managed to reject it. Their standing to alter or obliterate the Apostolic Faith is non-existent. I’ll hang out with those 2nd Century guys on this point, thanks.

[melissa_in_ga]

Not ignoring you...need a little time to think, and maybe some more coffee. Check back - I’ll have a response.

Hope you’re having a good day!

[Publius Valerius]

So far, so good—right back at you!

[VermiciousKnid]

Mad Dawg...that was the best laugh I’ve had all week. Thank you.

Yes, I suppose the baptisms were valid (if I really hadn’t thought so, I’d have done it myself), but...boy, they’ve really gone off the deep end with some of these ceremonies. “Maria Concetta McGillicutty!” LOLOLOLLLL!

BTW...here’s a story for you: When I was getting married, both my husband and I had to obtain our original baptismal records. My husband is currently a Lutheran (but is converting), and when his came in the mail, it arrived in the form of a letter, with all the specifics neatly typed on his church’s letterhead. Mine, on the other hand, arrived in a very large manila envelope, with “Do Not Bend” written all over it. When we opened it, it was the most beautiful certificate I’ve ever seen, entirely in Latin (even my name!), handwritten in lovely calligraphy, and had been printed on very heavy stock with illumination on it (like those papal decrees you see hangin up in many churches).

My husband looked at me and said, “Man...you Catholics don’t fool around, do you?”

I tell you...I didn’t want to give it up to the parish in which I was being married. Alas...they said they had to have the original, so I took a copy of it, and it currently sits somewhere amongst all our important documents.

Regards,