- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
CA has told us that sprinkling of infants is of protestantism and not catholicism.I understand that it has always been catholic practice to pour water over infants in the name of a trinity during the first few weeks of life as their baptism.
The theory is that the faith of the parents in the church is sufficient for the effectiveness of this religious ritual. Despite 1 Cor7 it is regarded as dangerous to delay till the age of consent because of the risk of premature death.
But the book of Acts never seems to supply us with a relevant example of similar baptism. Since the child is yet incapable of sin and unable to repent it is not surprising that guilt is seen by all as a catholic characteristic and one that makes them so vulnerable to manipulation.
God forgives in true baptism and that cleansing brings an awareness of freedom from the burden of sin and releases those held captive by it.
Quote CA has told us that sprinkling of infants is of protestantism and not catholicism CA, first, did you actually say this? Let's be clear. Whether sprinkled or you pour some water on someone's head, that is not in any way what the earliest, true Christians did. Nor does it match with what the word “baptism” means.
The word “baptize” comes from the Greek ba·pti′zein, meaning “to dip, to plunge.” (A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott)
Christian water baptism—is it by sprinkling or by complete immersion?
Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
Acts 8:38: “They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] him.”
Was infant baptism practiced by first-century Christians?
Matt. 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples . . . baptizing them.” (“disciple” means “taught one.”)
Acts 8:12: “When they believed Philip . . . they proceeded to be baptized, both men and women.”
However, later on, Origen (185-254 C.E.) wrote: “It is the custom of the church that baptism be administered even to infants.” (Selections From the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen, Madras, India; 1929, p. 211) The practice was confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage (253 C.E.).
Religious historian Augustus Neander wrote: “Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable . . . that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period [in the first century]. . . . That it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles (New York, 1864), p. 162.
How many things have we come across in the past week that was not practiced by the earliest (true) Christians, but rather, began in the third or fourht century?
Wow, I just found this on the web it's from a Catholic Church in Los Alamitos, CA
=====================================
baptism infants* Baptism Overview
* Baptism RequirementsInfant Baptism
* Baptism of infants is arranged through the parish office. Parents of the infant should be members of St. Hedwig Parish or live within its boundaries.
* Parents and Godparents are required to attend one baptism preparation class which is held once per month
from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in the parish lounge.
* You will be asked for a copy of your child's Birth Certificate and your parish Marriage Certificate.
* Infant baptism includes children from birth until their 6th birthday.
* Baptisms are held as a group on the last Saturday of each month at 10:00 am (except on Holy Days).
* Pre registration is necessary.
* Parents must register at the parish office Monday through Friday 9am to 5 pm The office is closed from 12pm to 1pm.
* Contact the rectory office at 562-296-9000.Godparents:
A person may have one or two godparents (sponsors); if two are chosen, they must be a male and female. These are their requirements: 1) at least 16 years of age; 2) Confirmed and practicing the Catholic Faith 3) living in harmony with the Faith and can be a good role model for the one being Baptized. Furthermore, parents cannot be their own child’s godparents; also, you may choose a non-Catholic (but Baptized Christian) as a sponsor, as long as you have a Catholic sponsor who fits the above requirements as well. Godparents must attend the baptism preparation class.
Marital Status:
You will be asked your marital status when you schedule the Baptism of your child, or when you are seeking Baptism for yourself. We will not deny Baptism of a child if the parents are unmarried or not married in the Catholic Church. However, there may be reason to postpone Baptism if parents are not practicing the Faith, or have no intention of living a Catholic life.
Danger of Death:
If your child is in danger of dying, or has been admitted to the hospital, please call the church office for emergency Baptism. No preparation is needed until after the child’s life has been saved. Although not encouraged, in danger of death and when a deacon or priest is not available quickly enough, a parent may baptize a child. Using water, pour it on the child's head and say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
http://www.sainthedwigparish.org/sacraments/baptism_infants.html
Hi,
So this 'baptism' relies on the power of a ritual and is akin to magic and not of faith.
Whatever is not of faith is of sin.Hi:
Based on the following scriptue children of born again Christians are saved and there is no need to baptize them.
Quote 1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Love in Christ,
MartyBaptism: Immersion Only?
Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring), they know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to baptize. Fundamentalists, however, regard only baptism by immersion as true baptism, concluding that most Catholics are not validly baptized at all.
Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means “to immerse.” They also maintain that only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being “buried” and “raised” with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).
It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative “baptism” is a sort of “immersion”; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, “I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be “immersed” in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” Did this mean they would be “immersed” in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”
Christian Baptism
The Fundamentalist contention that baptizo always means immersion is an oversimplification. This is especially true because in Christian usage the word had a highly particular meaning distinct from the term’s ordinary, everyday usage.
The same principle can be seen with other special Christian terms, such as “Trinity” and “agape” (divine love), that were originally ordinary Greek words with no special religious significance. The earliest evidence of anyone referring to God as a “Trinity” is a letter by Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autolycum [A.D. 181]). Before the Christian usage, a “trinity” (triad in Greek) was simply any group of three things.
However, as Christians made theological use of the term, it quickly gained a new, technical sense, referring specifically to the three persons of the Godhead. When Christians professed that God is a “Triad,” they did not mean a group of three gods, but one God in three persons. Here, an everyday word was being used in a special, theological sense.
The same is true of agape, originally a general term for any sort of “love” very much like the English word. But it quickly became used in Christian circles as the name of a common fellowship (love) meal among Christians (cf. Jude 12).
In the same way, baptizo acquired a specialized Christian usage distinct from its original meaning. In fact, it already had a complex history of specifically religious usages even before Christians adopted it. Long before Jesus’ day, Gentile converts to Judaism were “baptized” as well as circumcised. Then John the Baptist performed a “baptism of repentance” for Jews as a dramatic prophetic gesture indicating that they were as much in need of conversion as pagans. Through these usages baptizo acquired associations of initiation, conversion, and repentance.
Given this history, it was natural for Jesus and his followers to use the same word for Christian baptism, though it was not identical either to the Jewish baptism or to that of John. But it is completely misguided to try to determine the meaning of the word in its Christian sense merely on the basis of ordinary secular usage. It would be like thinking that the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheism or that the New Testament exhortation to “love one another” means only to be fond of each other. To understand what Christian baptism entailed, we must examine not what the word meant in other contexts, but what it meant and how it was practiced in a Christian context.
Inner and Outer Baptism
One important.aspect of Christian baptism in the New Testament is the clear relationship between being baptized with water and being “baptized with the Holy Spirit”, or “born again.” This tract is primarily concerned with the mode of baptism, not its effects [Footnote: For more on the relationship between baptism and rebirth, see John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 19:2–3, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21; and also the Catholic Answers tract Baptismal Grace.]; but even non-Catholic Christians must admit that the New Testament clearly associates water baptism with Spirit baptism and rebirth (even if they do not interpret this relationship as cause and effect).
Right from the beginning, as soon as the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost, water and Spirit went hand in hand: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
In Acts 10:44, the first Gentiles to whom Peter preached received the Holy Spirit even before their water baptism. This is always possible, for God is free to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them. In this case it was fitting for the Spirit to be given before baptism, in order to show God’s acceptance of believing Gentiles. Even under these circumstances, however, the connection to water baptism is still evident from Peter’s response: “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47).
Still later in Acts, when Paul found people who did not have the Spirit, he immediately questioned whether they had received Christian water baptism. Upon learning that they had not, he baptized them and laid hands on them, and they received the Spirit (Acts 19:1–6).
These passages illustrate the connection between water and Spirit first made by Jesus himself: “Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
Earlier we saw that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” was depicted as “pouring.” But these passages show that the “baptism” or “pouring” of the Spirit is itself closely related to water baptism.
This provides some balance to the Fundamentalist argument that only baptism by immersion adequately symbolizes death and resurrection with Jesus. It is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239). (Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the o
ther hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism. No one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the others.Physical Difficulties
After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.
Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).
Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.
Baptism in the Early Church
That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.
The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.
The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).
Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water “not much (or not at all) the cleaner.”
Ancient Christian Mosaics Show Pouring
Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.
Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.
Infant Baptism
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.
As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”Christ Calls All to Baptism
Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?In Place of Circumcision
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians,” people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that inf
ants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
Catholics From the First
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
No Cry of “Invention!”
None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?
But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.
Furthermore, the Bible never says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants”; it simply says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.” Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).
Quote Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). Yes, by the third century, they had fallen away from Christian teachings. Agreed.
Matt. 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples . . . baptizing them.” (“disciple” means “taught one.”)
Quote (Jodi Lee @ Sep. 01 2009,07:27) Wow, I just found this on the web it's from a Catholic Church in Los Alamitos, CA =====================================
baptism infants* Baptism Overview
* Baptism RequirementsInfant Baptism
* Baptism of infants is arranged through the parish office. Parents of the infant should be members of St. Hedwig Parish or live within its boundaries.
* Parents and Godparents are required to attend one baptism preparation class which is held once per month
from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in the parish lounge.
* You will be asked for a copy of your child's Birth Certificate and your parish Marriage Certificate.
* Infant baptism includes children from birth until their 6th birthday.
* Baptisms are held as a group on the last Saturday of each month at 10:00 am (except on Holy Days).
* Pre registration is necessary.
* Parents must register at the parish office Monday through Friday 9am to 5 pm The office is closed from 12pm to 1pm.
* Contact the rectory office at 562-296-9000.Godparents:
A person may have one or two godparents (sponsors); if two are chosen, they must be a male and female. These are their requirements: 1) at least 16 years of age; 2) Confirmed and practicing the Catholic Faith 3) living in harmony with the Faith and can be a good role model for the one being Baptized. Furthermore, parents cannot be their own child’s godparents; also, you may choose a non-Catholic (but Baptized Christian) as a sponsor, as long as you have a Catholic sponsor who fits the above requirements as well. Godparents must attend the baptism preparation class.
Marital Status:
You will be asked your marital status when you schedule the Baptism of your child, or when you are seeking Baptism for yourself. We will not deny Baptism of a child if the parents are unmarried or not married in the Catholic Church. However, there may be reason to postpone Baptism if parents are not practicing the Faith, or have no intention of living a Catholic life.
Danger of Death:
If your child is in danger of dying, or has been admitted to the hospital, please call the church office for emergency Baptism. No preparation is needed until after the child’s life has been saved. Although not encouraged, in danger of death and when a deacon or priest is not available quickly enough, a parent may baptize a child. Using water, pour it on the child's head and say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
http://www.sainthedwigparish.org/sacraments/baptism_infants.html
Jodi! You know we belonged to the Catholic Church most of our lives and all of our 4 Children were Baptized there. All we had to do is provide a Godmother and Godfather for the Baby. We had been a member to the Church all our Lives when we had our 4 Children, and if that made a difference I don;t know. I am forever thankful to God to call us out of that Church. Two of our Sons have been Baptized according to Scripture in another Church. Also 3 of our Grandsons were. The rest of our Family don't go to any Church.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,02:21) Quote Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). Yes, by the third century, they had fallen away from Christian teachings. Agreed.
Matt. 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples . . . baptizing them.” (“disciple” means “taught one.”)
Sure…ignore the Scriptures too. Unless you think those were written in the third century.Hi CA,
You say
“The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). “So in what way is carrying a helpless and unknowing newborn baby wrapped in swaddling clothes to a baptismal font
LETTING THEM COME?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 02 2009,09:06) Hi CA,
You say
“The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). “So in what way is carrying a helpless and unknowing newborn baby wrapped in swaddling clothes to a baptismal font
LETTING THEM COME?
Nick! When we were Catholics and did what the Church said, we too said that it is the only true Church of God. Only by the grace of GOD WE WERE CALLED OUT OF THAT CHURCH. We cannot call anybody, God is the one who will do so. But it is good to tell those that are blind, to show them the light, and if God is willing they will heed.IMO
Peace and Love IreneHi Irene,
Children who are old enough to hear the gospel and wish to respond should not be stopped.
But infants?Quote (Cindy @ Sep. 02 2009,09:14) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 02 2009,09:06) Hi CA,
You say
“The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). “So in what way is carrying a helpless and unknowing newborn baby wrapped in swaddling clothes to a baptismal font
LETTING THEM COME?
Nick! When we were Catholics and did what the Church said, we too said that it is the only true Church of God. Only by the grace of GOD WE WERE CALLED OUT OF THAT CHURCH. We cannot call anybody, God is the one who will do so. But it is good to tell those that are blind, to show them the light, and if God is willing they will heed.IMO
Peace and Love Irene
You say you were called out of the church. Did you consider that it was not the voice of God you heard?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
