Infant Baptism

[morostheos]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 2 2005, 08:05 PM']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.
[right][snapback]744021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


One thing you seem to be missing.....baptism is also a tremendous grace for the soul. By baptising infants we greatly increase their ability to be in union with God through sanctifying grace.

I think your idea (if taken to an extreme) is very similar to people in the Church at certain points in history who delayed baptism until they were on their deathbed, so they didn't have to worry about what they did their whole life. I'm pretty sure this was condemned as a heresy. Any Church Scholars or knowledgable peeps know the name of this heresy or its details?

[son_of_angels]

No, my idea is that, in the case of a good number of children, which have a doubtful hope of obeying the faith, it should be deferred until right before they receive First Communion (say seven to ten years old). Then the circumstances can be more certain.

[morostheos]

I think the value of sanctifying grace and the supernatural gifts and virtues conferred upon one in baptism, as well as the right to special graces would far outweigh any subjection to responsibilities. Those who are baptised have responsibilities only because they have been given the ability to fulfill them in the graces recieved at baptism.

[son_of_angels]

No those who are baptized have responsibilities because they are subject to the New Law, the Law which reigns in the Body of Christ, the Law to which every Christian, Protestant, Catholic, infant or aged has the obligation to obey.

I do not say this to avoid the graces received at Baptism. Yet these are grave responsibilities, graces which may also have the force of condemnation for those who cannot discern them. Consider the Eucharist. It is a great grace, a wonderful gift, but certain damnation for those who partake unworthily.

[Cow of Shame]

[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]

Well said! There's nothing worse than a demon-infested infant. It certainly reduces their resale value.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 3 2005, 12:08 AM']I do not say this to avoid the graces received at Baptism.  Yet these are grave responsibilities, graces which may also have the force of condemnation for those who cannot discern them.  Consider the Eucharist.  It is a great grace, a wonderful gift, but certain damnation for those who partake unworthily.
[right][snapback]744213[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So, you'd prefer certain condemnation & no baptism over baptism & potential condemnation?

[jmjtina]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 2 2005, 11:08 PM']No those who are baptized have responsibilities because they are subject to the New Law, the Law which reigns in the Body of Christ, the Law to which every Christian, Protestant, Catholic, infant or aged has the obligation to obey.

I do not say this to avoid the graces received at Baptism.  Yet these are grave responsibilities, graces which may also have the force of condemnation for those who cannot discern them.  Consider the Eucharist.  It is a great grace, a wonderful gift, but certain damnation for those who partake unworthily.
[right][snapback]744213[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


we are all unworthy to recieve it. And do not know the full extent of this grace even as adults.

Even the saints marveled at how generous God was with his grace. To even the smallest children. Their parents will bring them up in the faith and how can they do that without the grace and sacrament of baptism?

We don't wait until our children tell us they are hungry to feed them. We know they will be. we don't wait until our children are of age to ask them if they want to be catholic and "discern" what faith they wish to be a part of. We would fail as parents and as teachers of the faith if we did that.

Children have a "doubtful" hope of obeying the faith? What kind of statement is that? Children are more likely to obey even more so than adults. And love unconditionally and believe fully and trust unwaveringly. They are more ready to believe that Jesus is in the Tabernacle, and that Jesus watches them and helps them than alot of "older" people.

They are more innocent and the authority of the Church has rightly allowed infant baptism. How awful for a child to die without baptism!

[popestpiusx]

It is morally illicit to postpone the baptism of your child for a long period of time.

[son_of_angels]

Again, I have no problem with infant baptism, and think that the theology and authority for it is undoubtable. I simply am referring to the copious examples of infant baptism being simply a cultural thing among some families, but there not being sufficient proof that a child will be reared in the Faith.

Sure it represents a certain irresponsibility to allow a child to die without baptism, but it also represents a grave misuse of the sacrament to grant it without some assurance that the child will be brought to the faith. That is why I suggest, when a situation is doubtful, the church should establish norms so that one alternate plan is baptism immediately before first communion. This would, moreover, emphasize the communal reception of new members into the faith.

I also believe, however, that, despite my feelings on the issue, it is a matter of church authority. As long as the Magisterium allows and encourages it, and makes it our responsibility to do so, we have a moral obligation to fulfill our duties to the Church.