Infant Baptism

[infinitelord1]

What gives us the authority to make a decision to baptize infants?
Dont you think that baptizing infants is against the infants' free-will? Shouldnt baptizing by a matter of a free-will choice?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Oct 1 2005, 06:00 PM']What gives us the authority to make a decision to baptize infants?
Dont you think that baptizing infants is against the infants' free-will? Shouldnt baptizing by a matter of a free-will choice?
[right][snapback]743221[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Early Church Fathers on infant baptism:

[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


[b]Hippolytus[/b]
"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 [A.D. 215]).

[b]Origen[/b]
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


[b]Cyprian of Carthage[/b]
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

[Winchester]

Infants are property, like chairs and wives. They are, moreover, property that may be possessed by demons. Infant baptism is like property insurance.

[infinitelord1]

fidei,

where are you getting this stuff? I searched the catechism and it didnt really say the source.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Oct 1 2005, 06:19 PM']Infants are property, like chairs and wives. They are, moreover, property that may be possessed by demons. Infant baptism is like property insurance.
[right][snapback]743239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It also gets rid of that stupid new baby smell.

Infinitelord1, [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/44"]This Might Be Useful.[/url]

[son_of_angels]

I have lately contemplated, though, that there needs to be stricter guidelines for when an infant can be baptized. If, for example, the baby had a parent who was Protestant, was not born into a predominately Christian society, or the parents were not capable of giving their children a proper religious education, or if there were no parents, I should think infant baptism should be deferred until the child is at least old enough for First Communion. Infant baptism should, I think, be administered on a more case-by-case basis, not being something automatic in the Catholic Church. Of course, danger of death defers all the above things.

Nonetheless, if a child is baptized, and then raised other than Catholic, nonetheless the child begins life in a state which is subject to the possibility of mortal sin, whereas all mortal sin, with original sin, is forgiven after Baptism. It only makes sense that one should hesitate to make one guilty of mortal sin if they would not choose to do so.

[Sinner]

I say DUNK EM !!!!!!! It makes no extra points, but it sure looks cool as they fly through the air and slam the hoop!

[thessalonian]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Oct 1 2005, 06:00 PM']What gives us the authority to make a decision to baptize infants?
Dont you think that baptizing infants is against the infants' free-will? Shouldnt baptizing by a matter of a free-will choice?
[right][snapback]743221[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Children do not have free choice. Sorry. Not in my house. Before they are of age parents make all the decisions for them. They are baptized on the faith of the parents who promise to raise them in the faith. God is not in favor of children's free will either as they are commanded to obey their parents and be disciplined by them. In the Old Testament children were circumcized on the 8th day, the precursor and type of baptism. This made them a part of the Kingdom of Israel. Baptism makes them members of the Davidic Kingdom.

blessings

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Oct 1 2005, 06:50 PM']It also gets rid of that stupid new baby smell.[right][snapback]743257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's a great smell...

[corban711]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 1 2005, 07:24 PM']
Nonetheless, if a child is baptized, and then raised other than Catholic, nonetheless the child begins life in a state which is subject to the possibility of mortal sin, whereas all mortal sin, with original sin, is forgiven after Baptism.  It only makes sense that one should hesitate to make one guilty of mortal sin if they would not choose to do so.
[right][snapback]743273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

if the child is not baptized though...they could make the same decisions, commit the same sins and may not have the grace of final conversion in which case that child goes to hell just the same as if it had been baptized as a baby. they may not have the chance to get baptized later to get rid of their actual sins committed during their life. i woudln't want to chance that with a child if i was a parent. precisely because we don't know the conditions the child will have in life or what they will choose to do...that is a good reason to get them baptized. who knows? maybe getting them baptized as babies is what keeps people from committing greater sins later in life because you have at a young age, the work of grace in their soul. i think they should baptize them all, allow grace to start forming their souls and entrust them to the Lord.

by baptizing such a child...you would not be making them guilty of mortal sin. only they can commit a mortal sin of their own free will...and only when the 3 conditions are met. it might be possible that the child not raised in the Faith may not have those 3 conditions met because they haven't been raised to know the truth about what is right/wrong. we don't know the heart. in that case, i think it is much better to allow them to be a part of the Church, which is the Family of God even if they may not get proper instruction later.

[MissScripture]

There's also confession for forgivness...
And when you think about it, we all want to belong. Therefore, by being baptized as infants, right away we are part of the family that is the Church. Having a family right away, means that they will (or should) be included and belong. Later in life, even if they make mistakes and bad choices, they are more likely to go back to somewhere that they once felt love and belonging. So they'd be more likely to go back to the Chuch should they sin, than if they had no other connections with it.

[son_of_angels]

Yes there's confession for forgiveness, but say they left the Church and joined a protestant denomination. They will not go to confession, they will not obtain forgiveness without the church.

Sure, some sins may be inculpable, but should we subject one to the responsibilities of the new covenant on the mere improbable possibility that they might not be culpable of the sins they commit. After all, we cannot know whether or not a person incurs the guilt of sin, but we can be SURE that sin leads men to damnation. We cannot know if someone who never hears the faith will do other than follow God in his conscience, but we can be SURE that truth will lead them to everlasting life, and falsity to everlasting fire.

We, again, should be cautious in infant baptism, just like the early church was. If you read many, many sermons to the catechumens from the third through sixth centuries, you'll see that baptism of adults, or at least those of the age of reason, was the general rule. I think revisiting that concept is important, because, unlike the Middle Ages and even the Renaissance, there is no guarantee that a child will be raised in a Christian society.

I, again, am not against infant baptism, I'm just for it being administered on a more case-by-case basis, with a very firm interrogation of parents, in ensuring that they are themselves practicing Catholics, know the circumstances in which the child will be reared in the faith, have a good relationship to one another, and, most importantly, are capable and willing to instruct their child in the faith.

[avemaria40]

i think infant baptism should be the norm, what if a baby suddenly gets SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)? Didn't St. Paul say that baptism replaced circumcision? babies were the ones who went through circumcision so i don't see why baptism should be only for adults.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Oct 1 2005, 11:04 PM']Children do not have free choice.  Sorry.  Not in my house.  Before they are of age parents make all the decisions for them.  They are baptized on the faith of the parents who promise to raise them in the faith.  God is not in favor of children's free will either as they are commanded to obey their parents and be disciplined by them.  In the Old Testament children were circumcized on the 8th day, the precursor and type of baptism.  This made them a part of the Kingdom of Israel.  Baptism makes them members of the Davidic Kingdom.

blessings
[right][snapback]743341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm right there with you on this one!

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Oct 1 2005, 07:00 PM']What gives us the authority to make a decision to baptize infants?
[right][snapback]743221[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The authority given to the Church by Christ.


[quote]Dont you think that baptizing infants is against the infants' free-will? [/quote]

Hell no.