 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18th, 2006 07:13 pm |
|
Greetings in Christ Everyone,
OK, now as you know I've been studying and desiring to learn and understand more about the sacrament/teaching of Baptism in the Catholic Church.
I think the dust is starting to clear somewhat. Although I have been struggling with the idea of baby baptism, I have come to some conclusions from reading various writings, etc. I no longer have a problem with baby baptism in so far as it seems to make sense that it can take away the stain of original sin. That is the Catholic understanding, correct? And those who embrace the Catholic faith and have their babies baptized are abiding by Church Doctrine and Authority, which is something every faithful Catholic should do. However, I do not think that this baby baptism is meant for taking away actual sin because babies do not sin, in the sense of mortal or venial sin. Is this thinking in alignment with Catholic teaching as well? I read some of the early church fathers' quotes, and there was one (forget his name) who specifically said that babies do not sin, yet he defended and supported baby baptism.
With the above said, I still must say that I cannot comprehend that our Heavenly Father would send a baby to hell were he/she not baptized. What if the parents had the intention of baptizing, but for some unforseen reason or purpose, did not have the opportunity to do so, and the child died before being baptized. Or perhaps the parents were plagued with that faulty chracteristic of procrastination. Whatever the case, God is merciful and He would not be so cavalier as to send this child to hell for the procrastination (or myriad of other excuses) of his/her parents, which resulted int their child not being baptized . Is this also in alignment with Catholic teaching?
Now, let's go even further to include babies who are the offspring of unbelievers, whether they be pagans, atheists, agnostics, Satanists, or just plain skeptics. Oh yes, let me add Protestants who do not believe in baby baptism as well. In this scenario, these babies do not have a chance from the get go, sort of like me having been raised by an atheist and agnostic. Now should one of these precious little ones die, God who is the merciful Judge would be acting to the antithesis of His nature by sending them to hell. It was no fault of their own that they were not baptized. And let's face it, these little ones do not have the faculties or motor skills to walk to the nearest baptismal fount to receive the sacrament of Baptism. Is this also in agreement with Catholic teaching?
Can someone direct me to a good Catholic source from a reputable author on this subject? I have been reading bits and pieces, such as the chapter in "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" on Baptism. However, I want to read something that delves into this topic at length and is written in a precise and convincing manner. Is Steven Ray's book "Crossing the Tiber" a good book to read regarding Baptism? I have gone to his website and read what he has had to say on the matter and while it is OK, it still has not satisfied my yearning to understand the Catholic teaching on this sacrament.
Please understand that for years I preached the gospel to folks on the streets, at fairs and carnivals, at rock concerts, in parks and even outside Catholic High Schools and Churches. I embraced with full vigor, enthusiasm and belief the Protestant teaching on the necessity of being born again. This belief required a person of accountability (who is able to reason and understand what sin is and how it is an offense to God) to repent of their sins and publicly confess to God and before other Christians that they had sinned and to ask God for His forgiveness. After they confessed their sins, and only after, did we tell them they had to be baptized. Oddly enough, we encouraged all who had been baptized as babies to be re-baptized since we considered their baptizm of no effect, since they were not cognizant of what they were doing. Also, we believed that immersion was the only legitimate way of baptizing and that this was symbolic of one dying to their old sinful life, and coming up our of the water was symbolic of becoming a "new creature in Christ." How could, we reasoned, a baby understand such a thing? And how could a baby die to their old sins since they only had original sin on their souls. This is something that is ingrained within the Protestant Evangelical mindset, as I'm sure many of the former Baptists, Fundamentalists, Calvinists and Pentecostals in this forum understand. How does one evangelize as a Catholic? I have a hard time imagining this in my Protestant mindset. Now with all this said, I still find myself being incredibly drawn to the Catholic faith. I just don't know if I can grasp and accept the Catholic teaching on Baptism, hook line and sinker. Can anyone out there relate to what I am saying?
Anyway, I would appreciate all responses. I just need to get through this and I must be hard-headed because it is the BIGGEST deal to me, more than any other Catholic doctrine. Again, I think it is as I have said before, the crux of what we believe to be our salvation and which will eventually allow us, by the grace of God, to enter His Heavenly Kingdom for eternity. So in truth, it IS a big deal. I look forward your responses. As always, be patient with me.
God Bless You All,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18th, 2006 07:43 pm |
|
Everything you say is compatible with Catholic teaching.
Remember that Jesus gave baptism to the Church as a means of salvation, but God is not limited by the sacraments. We know that babies cannot sin, but we also know that Jesus told his disciples to let the little children come to him. We baptize them with faith in Jesus, just as Jesus himself and all Jewish children were presented at the Temple, and all male Jewish children are circumcized. We baptize babies not because they need it, but out of obedience to Jesus.
If a baby dies before baptism, we trust Jesus that this innocent soul will not be judged unworthy of heaven. Baptism is a limit placed on the Church as the only means of salvation, but that limit does not limit God, who may offer salvation as God sees fit. And since Jesus gave us little children as the example for all of us to follow to achieve heaven, he certainly would not condemn those same little children away from their heavenly reward.
This is all explained in the Catechism, beginning at paragraph 1213. The following paragraphs are particularly relevant:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
So baptism is a gift to the Church given as the means of salvation. Through baptism, the Church offers salvation to all humanity. God may choose to offer salvation to the unbaptized, which is why the Church entrusts them to God.
NOTE: For clarification, our Church does teach us that babies need to be baptized. My meaning was that they do not need baptism because of personal sin, which was the original question.
Last edited on Thu Dec 21st, 2006 01:11 am by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 600 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18th, 2006 08:43 pm |
|
I used to hear this rebuttal to infant baptism: "But a baby can't believe in God!"
Then I found this passage in Psalms 22:9-10:
"Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God."
See also Ps 71:6: "Upon you I have leaned from before my birth..."
And of course John the Baptist as a fetus recognized Jesus in Mary's womb.
Who knows what God's Spirit can speak to the mind of even a fetus? Will we limit God to adult speech? Isn't it possible that the Word of God can even penetrate the ears of an unborn baby and bring about faith? It's only as we get older and "smarter" that we find reasons to reject our Creator.
Jill
____________________
"The alternative to obedience is to turn the conversation into a cacophony of Christians making it up as they go along." - Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18th, 2006 11:38 pm |
|
I no longer have a problem with baby baptism in so far as it seems to make sense that it can take away the stain of original sin. That is the Catholic understanding, correct?
Very close. It not only can but does take away the stain of original sin in every case. This does not mean that the consequences of original sin are removed (suffering, death, the inclination to sin, etc., will remain as sin’s legacy), but that the guilt is removed.
However, I do not think that this baby baptism is meant for taking away actual sin because babies do not sin, in the sense of mortal or venial sin. Is this thinking in alignment with Catholic teaching as well?
Almost. One of baptism’s purposes is indeed the forgiveness of actual sin. It retains the power, but the condition does not apply in the case of infants.
I still must say that I cannot comprehend that our Heavenly Father would send a baby to hell were he/she not baptized.
This is the doctrine of some Calvinists, but it is not accepted in the Catholic Church. Rick quotes the applicable paragraph (1261) from the Catechism. So yes, your understanding that God “would not be so cavalier as to send this child to hell for… not being baptized” is in alignment with Catholic teaching. I would note, too, that in recent months the idea of Limbo, a separate place of natural happiness for the unbaptized who had committed no personal sin, which was a theological speculation from the middle ages, has been officially repudiated by the Church.
Now, let's go even further to include babies who are the offspring of unbelievers, whether they be pagans, atheists, agnostics, Satanists, or just plain skeptics.… God who is the merciful Judge would be acting to the antithesis of His nature by sending them to hell. It was no fault of their own that they were not baptized.… Is this also in agreement with Catholic teaching?
The Church makes no official statement as to where these or any other unbaptized infants will end up. Recall the wording in the Catechism. The assumption is that no one will end up in hell who does not desire to go there.
CCC 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Some private revelations, such as those received by St. Catherine of Genoa and St. Faustina Kowalska, indicate that the “way known to God” spoken of in the above passage of the Catechism refers to an opportunity given to all at the moment of death to choose heaven or hell. This could be considered part of the particular judgment.
Can someone direct me to a good Catholic source from a reputable author on this subject?
You have seen that I tend to look to the bible and the Catechism for questions like this. I’m sure there other books that might be of help to you; perhaps others can recommend them.
Please understand that for years I preached the gospel to folks.… I embraced… the Protestant teaching on the necessity of being born again. This belief required a person of accountability.… I just don't know if I can grasp and accept the Catholic teaching on Baptism, hook line and sinker. Can anyone out there relate to what I am saying?
I am aware of this, and I am cognizant of the difficulty such an understanding poses to the acceptance of a doctrine such as the validity of infant baptism. I’ve gone through it from a number of angles with a number of people.
My response to this question is begins the same way: Does baptism DO anything or not? You say it is a symbol; we too say that it has symbolic value, but also that it is a reality that imparts grace. For you, is baptism a reality or an empty gesture? If it is an empty gesture, why do you practice it? Because it is commanded? Yes, but why did Jesus command it? Surely he had a reason? And what was that reason? Where is the divine significance of baptism in Baptist/Evangelical thought?
Recall what I said just a few days ago to the Baptist from Australia: Catholics accept that personal conversion is necessary, and that this can only be done after attaining a certain level of maturity and understanding.
We also accept that baptism does have power and effects certain changes in the human soul through the infusion of divine grace, and that among the effects of this sacrament are the forgiveness of sins, both original and actual; the justification of the person before God, making him a “new creation”; membership in the Church, which because it is the mystical body of Christ, is in fact an incorporation into Christ; the infusion of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the divine Trinity, making us temples of the living God; and finally, baptism leaves a permanent mark on the soul identifying it as the “property” of God.
All this is effected by baptism because it is the channel of divine grace. It can be attenuated or nullified by a refusal to repent and change one’s ways, but baptismal grace is permanent and can be rejuvenated if one should fall away, then return. Because of its permanence, baptism cannot be repeated.
We do not stop at baptism. We also require catechesis, moral and spiritual formation and certain concrete manifestations of Christian faith and behavior. In other words, we accept both sides of the question, not just one. Baptism AND conversion. Both/and, not either/or.
David
|
|
|
nonsumdignus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Phoenix, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Jay | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 21st, 2006 12:33 am |
|
For Darlene:
Have you considered the many Protestant denominations who baptize younguns? Why do they do it? All Protestants read the same 66-book Bible cut by Luther. Why do Protestants disagree about such an important matter? Baptising babies was originally the rule rather than the exception in Protestant Christianity. "Believers Baptism" and "immersion only" originated a century later than Luther (Lutherans) and Calvin (Presbyterian and Reformed).
From Martin Luther's Small Catechism:
244. What is the meaning of the word 'baptise.'
"Baptize" means to apply water by washing, pouring, sprinkling, or immersing.
249. Who is to be baptized?
All nations, that is, all human beings, young and old, are to be baptized.
(italics and bold in the original)
Peace, Jay
____________________
"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." Philip Melanchthon, Luther's cohort, Epistles, Book IV, Ep. 100
|
|
|
nonsumdignus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Phoenix, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Jay | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29th, 2006 04:42 pm |
|
I miswrote. Believer's Baptism didn't begin "a century" later than Luther and Calvin. I was thinking of the first Baptists in 1607. I forgot about their predecessors, the Anabaptists, in 1525. http://www.anabaptistchurch.org
Here's an excerpt from their website:
QUOTE
Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all peoples, immerse them into the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey all that I have commanded you. And remember that I am with you always." (The Great Commission at the end of the Gospel of Matthew)
END QUOTE
[bold added]
This is an interesting translation of the ending of Matthew. I checked nine other translations, and all say "baptize" or "baptizing" -- "in the name of" -- none say "immerse."
Anyway, the beginning of Believer's Baptism (rejection of infant baptism) began with the Anabaptists, as their website explains.
Jay
____________________
"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." Philip Melanchthon, Luther's cohort, Epistles, Book IV, Ep. 100
|
|
|
Current time is 01:03 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
