Skip to comments.
Why infant baptism?
OSV.com ^
| 08-01-18
| Msgr. Charles Pope
Posted on 08/11/2018 10:24:01 AM PDT by Salvation
Why infant baptism? Practices have shifted for some Christians, but Catholics are with those who hold to infant baptism
Msgr. Charles Pope 8/1/2018
Question: Since infant baptism is becoming controversial, why doesn’t the Church abandon the practice or emphasize individualized confirmation for older teens? —Robert Bonsignore, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Answer: I am unaware of any recent controversy about infant baptism in the Church. There have been Protestant groups opposed to infant baptism, but their views stretch back more than 200 years. Ironically today, it is the Baptists and their evangelical offshoots that are most opposed to the practice. But for the record, most “mainline” Protestant denominations do baptize infants, including Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, such as the Moravian Church. The Orthodox Churches also observe this ancient practice. In the Catholic Church we baptize infants because that is what we have always done. While Scripture doesn’t directly mention the practice, the reference to the baptism of “whole households” includes infants.
Further, St. Peter in Acts includes children when he requires baptism: “‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call’” (Acts 2:38-39).
St. Paul says: “In [Christ] you were circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism …” (Col 2:11-12). Calling baptism the “circumcision of Christ” links it to a practice performed on the eighth day after birth. The analogy seems far less meaningful or sensible if only adults were baptized.
And, of course, Jesus said, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mk 10:14). But later he adds, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn 3:5). So the little children belong to the kingdom but must enter in the water of baptism and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, as to the practice of the early Church, infant baptism is clearly attested in numerous places. Hippolytus wrote in 215 A.D. about baptizing households or large groups: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (“The Apostolic Tradition” 21:16).
As for confirmation, there is a widespread practice today in the Latin rite of delaying it until the teenage years. But this practice is only in the last hundred years. When Pope St. Pius X moved the reception of first Communion to age 7, confirmation was not similarly adjusted. This created an unnatural alteration in the order of the sacraments. Yet, our ancient custom is that confirmation is to be received before First Communion. This order is preserved today in the baptism of adults. In some dioceses there has been a restoration of the ancient order of the sacraments. Thus confirmation is given just prior to first Communion. While there are debates about when to give confirmation and how to teach of it, it is inarguably true that we are currently out of sync with our own tradition in the Latin rite.
In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, confirmation and communion are given to infants on the day of baptism. Thus, an infant is fully initiated at baptism.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: baptism; catholic; sacraments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-295 next last
To: aMorePerfectUnion
To: kosciusko51
To: 9YearLurker
To: kosciusko51
Since it is not commanded, nor claimed to be, your distinction is irrelevant.
Believers aspire to honor God as Christ did, as Mary did, as David did, as all those did in the Hall of Faith.
That is different than claiming babies are included in believers baptism.
To: aMorePerfectUnion
And, other than semantics, how is this different?
Does the church treat the unbelieving child different than the believing one? Are not they taught both the same, and instructed in the practices? Is it not hoped for that someday the unbelieving child will be a full member of the church?
To: Salvation
To make people feel good, like they are doing something to get to heaven or help someone get to heaven.
Because Catholics are threatened with eternal damnation if they aren’t *properly* baptized, something NOT required in Scripture.
God saves through faith, not by the person getting wet.
106
posted on
08/11/2018 1:48:42 PM PDT
by
metmom
( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith......)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
Ah, that is the assumption. You believe baptism is only for believers and not believers and their families.
In the passage I presented earlier on the jailer, “... And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.” (Acts 16:34) There is no information that the rest of the household believed, only that they were baptized.
Otherwise, your are making an assumption that cannot be proven.
To: kosciusko51; aMorePerfectUnion
.
Baptism = Mikvah, which is a personal commitment that does not automatically extend to your family.
“He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved.” (Mat 24)
108
posted on
08/11/2018 1:54:51 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Salvation
Please read the original article. St. Paul also talked about baptizing entire households that includes infants!
1 Corinthians 1:11-17I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
There's only one recorded instance of Paul baptizing anyone and it's pure conjecture that it included infants.
And it's kind of interesting that if Paul really believed that baptism saved, or if GOD taught that baptism saves, that Paul would be sent not to baptize, but to preach, and that Paul would thank God that he didn't baptize any more than he did.
If baptism saves then Paul would be thanking God for not doing something that would save people. And I don't know how you'd try to rationalize that one, but it makes no sense, IF baptism actually contributed to salvation.
And he did it, or rather didn't do it, so that the message of the cross is not corrupted with false teaching, such as *baptism is necessary for salvation*.
109
posted on
08/11/2018 1:56:48 PM PDT
by
metmom
( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith......)
To: Salvation
Christ's words, "Go therefore to all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Or is that missing from your Bible, too? You conveniently left out an important part of the verse. Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . "
The words you omit rule out child baptism. "Make disciples - baptizing THEM." THEM means the disciples.
110
posted on
08/11/2018 2:00:19 PM PDT
by
aimhigh
(1 John 3:23)
To: kosciusko51
That is the same number of post-Pentecost infant dedications in the NT as well. Except nobody is claiming infant dedications save the baby.
It's more of a public declaration by the parents of their intention of raising the child in a Christian home, and their recognition that the child is a gift from God and really belongs to Him, that they are just the appointed caregivers while the child is rowing up.
111
posted on
08/11/2018 2:00:55 PM PDT
by
metmom
( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith......)
To: metmom
To: bramps; Salvation
For one thing, the sacrament of baptism may not be “sprinkled.”
113
posted on
08/11/2018 2:09:02 PM PDT
by
Marchmain
(Things are not what they seem.)
To: Salvation
114
posted on
08/11/2018 2:18:08 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Off The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: ozaukeemom
The church is full of sinners and saints
115
posted on
08/11/2018 2:30:38 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Off The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
116
posted on
08/11/2018 2:33:00 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Off The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: ozaukeemom
117
posted on
08/11/2018 2:38:40 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Off The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: ozaukeemom
118
posted on
08/11/2018 2:47:18 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Off The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: editor-surveyor
119
posted on
08/11/2018 2:54:33 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Off The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: mylife
God knows my heart and He is the One who counts, right? lol
Hope you are well!!!
120
posted on
08/11/2018 2:57:36 PM PDT
by
ozaukeemom
(9/11/01 Never Forget. Never.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-295 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson