Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Are you receiving an "error" mesage when posting?

    Chances are it went through, so check before douible posting.

    We hope to have the situtaion resolved soon, and Happy Thanksgiving to those in the US!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Ever read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

WHY INFANT BAPTISM.

Tradidi

part 2 of 3

I'm linking the following which has a lot of information....you may know it already.
It shows the current thought that the church would like to baptize only adults, as I've stated, but feels it cannot at this time.

It also speaks of other interesting doctrine.....

vuoto.gif
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
INSTRUCTION ON INFANT BAPTISM
Pastoralis actio


Introduction
1. Pastoral work with regard to infant Baptism was greatly assisted by the promulgation of the new Ritual, prepared in accordance with the directives of the Second Vatican Council.[1] The pace of change in society, however, is making it difficult for the young to be brought up in the Faith and to persevere in it, and the resulting problems encountered by Christian parents and pastors have not been completely eliminated.
2. Many parents are distressed to see their children abandoning the Faith and no longer receiving the sacraments, in spite of their own efforts to give them a Christian upbringing, and some pastors are asking themselves whether they should not be stricter before admitting infants to Baptism. Some think it better to delay the Baptism of children until the completion of a catechumenate of greater or less duration, while others are asking for a re-examination of the teaching on the necessity of Baptism, at least for infants, and wish the celebration of the sacrament to be put off until such an age when an individual can make a personal commitment, perhaps even until the beginning of adult life.
However, this questioning of traditional sacramental pastoral practice cannot fail to raise in the Church justified fears of jeopardizing so essential a doctrine as that of the necessity of Baptism. In particular, many parents are scandalized at finding Baptism refused or delayed when, with full awareness of their duty, they request it for their children.
3. In view of this situation and in response to the many petitions received, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in consultation with various Episcopal Conferences, has prepared the present Instruction. The purpose of the document is to recall the principal points of doctrine in this field which justify the Church's constant practice down the centuries and demonstrate its permanent value in spite of the difficulties raised today. The document will then indicate some general guidelines for pastoral action.​
Part One
Traditional Doctrine On Infant Baptism
Immemorial Practice
4. Both in the East and in the West the practice of baptizing infants is considered a rule of immemorial tradition. Origen, and later St. Augustine, considered it a "tradition received from the Apostles."[2] When the first direct evidence of infant Baptism appears in the second century, it is never presented as an innovation. St. Irenaeus, in particular, considers it a matter of course that the baptized should include "infants and small children" as well as adolescents, young adults and older people.[3] The oldest known ritual, describing at the start of the third century the Apostolic Tradition, contains the following rule: "First baptize the children. Those of them who can speak for themselves should do so. The parents or someone of their family should speak for the others."[4] At a Synod of African Bishops, St. Cyprian stated that "God's mercy and grace should not be refused to anyone born," and the Synod, recalling that "all human beings" are "equal," whatever be "their size or age," declared it lawful to baptize children "by the second or third day after their birth."[5]
5. Admittedly there was a certain decline in the practice of infant Baptism during the fourth century. At that time even adults postponed their Christian initiation out of apprehension about future sins and fear of public penance, and many parents put off the Baptism of their children for the same reasons. But it must also be noted that Fathers and Doctors such as Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine, who were themselves baptized as adults on account of this state of affairs, vigorously reacted against such negligence and begged adults not to postpone Baptism since it is necessary for salvation.[6] Several of them insisted that Baptism should be administered to infants.[7]
The Teaching of the Magisterium
6. Popes and Councils also often intervened to remind Christians of their duty to have their children baptized.
At the close of the fourth century the ancient custom of baptizing children as well as adults "for the forgiveness of sins" was used against the teachings of Peladius. As Origen and St. Cyprian had noted, before St. Augustine,[8] this custom confirmed the Church's belief in original sin, and this in turn showed still more clearly the necessity of infant Baptism. There were interventions on these lines by Pope Siricius[9] and Pope Innocent I.[10] Later, the Council of Carthage in 418 condemned "whoever says that newborn infants should not be baptized," and it taught that, on account of the Church's "rule of faith" concerning original sin, "even babies, who are yet unable to commit any sin personally, are truly baptized for the forgiveness of sins, for the purpose of cleansing by rebirth what they have received by birth."[11]
7. This teaching was constantly reaffirmed and defended during the Middle Ages. In particular, the Council of Vienna in 1312 stressed that the sacrament of Baptism has for its effect, in the case of infants, not just the forgiveness of sins but also the granting of grace and the virtues.[12] The Council of Florence in 1442 rebuked those who wanted Baptism postponed and declared that infants should receive "as soon as is convenient" (quam primum commode) the sacrament "through which they are rescued from the devil's power and adopted as God's children."[13]
The Council of Trent repeated the Council of Carthage's condemnation,[14] and, referring to the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, it declared that "since the promulgation of the Gospel" nobody can be justified "without being washed for rebirth or wishing to be."[15] One of the errors anathematized by the Council is the Anabaptist view that "it is better that the Baptism (of children) be omitted than to baptize in the faith of the Church alone those who do not believe by their own act."[16]
8. The various regional councils and synods held after the Council of Trent taught with equal firmness the necessity of baptizing children. Pope Paul VI also solemnly recalled the centuries-old teaching on this matter, declaring that "Baptism should be conferred even on infants who are yet unable to commit any sin personally, in order that, having been born without supernatural grace, they may be born again of water and the Holy Spirit to divine life in Christ Jesus."[17]
9. The texts of the Magisterium quoted above were chiefly concerned with refuting errors. They are far from exhausting the riches of the doctrine on Baptism expressed in the New Testament, the catechesis of the Fathers, and the teaching of the Doctors of the Church: Baptism is a manifestation of the Father's prevenient love, a sharing in the Son's Paschal Mystery, and a communication of new life in the Spirit; it brings people into the inheritance of God and joins them to the Body of Christ, the Church.
10. In view of this, Christ's warning in St. John's Gospel, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,"[18] must be taken as an invitation of universal and limitless love, the words of a Father calling all His children and wishing them to have the greatest of blessings. This pressing and irrevocable call cannot leave us indifferent or neutral, since its acceptance is a condition for achieving our destiny.

 
Tradidi

part 3 of 3


The Church's Mission
11. The Church must respond to the mission that Christ gave to the Apostles after His resurrection. St. Matthew's Gospel reports it in a particularly solemn form: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[19] Transmitting the faith and administering Baptism are closely linked in this command of the Lord, and they are an integral part of the Church's mission, which is universal and cannot cease to be universal.
12. This is how the Church has understood her mission from the beginning, and not only with regard to adults. She has always understood the words of Jesus to Nicodemus to mean that "children should not be deprived of Baptism."[20] Jesus' words are so universal and absolute in form that the Fathers employed them to establish the necessity of Baptism, and the Magisterium applied them expressly to infants[21]; the sacrament is for them, too, entry into the People of God[22] and the gateway to personal salvation.
13. The Church has thus shown by her teaching and practice that she knows no other way apart from Baptism for ensuring children's entry into eternal happiness. Accordingly, she takes care not to neglect the mission that the Lord has given her of providing rebirth "of water and the Spirit" for all those who can be baptized. As for children who die without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to God's mercy, as she does in the funeral rite provided for them.[23]
14. The fact that infants cannot yet profess personal faith does not prevent the Church from conferring this sacrament on them, since in reality it is in her own faith that she baptizes them. This point of doctrine was clearly defined by Saint Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace," he wrote, "it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians.... It is done by the whole of Mother Church which is in the saints, since it is as a whole that she gives birth to each and every one of them."[24] This teaching is repeated by St. Thomas Aquinas and all the theologians after him: the child who is baptized believes not on its own account, by a personal act, but through others, "through the Church's faith communicated to it."[25] This same teaching is also expressed in the new Rite of Baptism, when the celebrant asks the parents and godparents to profess the Faith of the Church, the Faith in which the children are baptized.[26]
15. Although the Church is truly aware of the efficacy of her faith operating in the Baptism of children, and aware of the validity of the sacrament that she confers on them, she recognizes limits to her practice, since, apart from cases of danger of death, she does not admit a child to Baptism without its parents' consent and a serious assurance that after Baptism it will be given a Catholic upbringing.[27] This is because she is concerned both for the natural rights of the parents and for the requirements of the development of faith in the child.

Part Two
Answers To Difficulties Being Raised Today
16. It is in the light of the teaching recalled above that we must judge certain views which are expressed today about infant Baptism and which question its legitimacy as a general rule.
Link Between Baptism and Act of Faith
17. Noting that in the New Testament writings Baptism follows the preaching of the Gospel, presupposes conversion and goes with a profession of faith, and furthermore that the effects of grace (forgiveness of sins, justification, rebirth and sharing in divine life) are generally linked with faith rather than with the sacrament,[28] some people propose that the order "preaching, faith, sacrament" should become the rule. Apart from cases of danger of death, they would apply this rule to children, and would institute an obligatory catechumenate for them.
18. It is beyond doubt that the preaching of the Apostles was normally directed to adults, and the first to be baptized were people converted to the Christian Faith. As these facts are related in the books of the New Testament, they could give rise to the opinion that it is only the faith of adults that is considered in these texts. However, as was mentioned above, the practice of baptizing children rests on an immemorial tradition originating from the Apostles, the importance of which cannot be ignored; besides, Baptism is never administered without faith: in the case of infants, it is the faith of the Church.

source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/..._cfaith_doc_19801020_pastoralis_actio_en.html


I'd like to know where, in the N.T. it is stated that infants should be baptized because it is THE CHURCH that believes FOR THEM? There is no such idea.
 
I have already answered this question in the other thread (Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?):





I also answered that question in the same thread:



I don't know why you ask this again, but there you are, the answers are still the same.
I can't get to your reply in the other thread.
It's a yes or no question.
Do unbaptized babies go to hell according to the CC?

My answer is NO.

Although it used to teach that they did.

This is a post I found on a Catholic Forum.
It includes every thought of the CC.
He's right on in his beliefs that a doctrine has been changed.




Dear all,
I already posted this to the ask an apologist section but so far there has been no response and I found some more confusing information just now. First I read that the Ecumenical Council of Florence said that anyone who dies in mortal sin or only original sin descends immediately to Hell. That would mean that infants who didn’t get baptism or died due to miscarriage would all suddenly realise that they’re burning in eternal fire suffering everlasting punishment for nothing they have personally done. St.Augustine is said to have taught this too. I personally can’t fathom how this could be the truth if God loves those souls infinitely - why create souls foreseeing they go to hell? If you were Satan and you could create, ok, but a loving God - no…
But now it seems that almost nobody believes this - even orthodox Catholics like the Hahn family talk about their children in heaven (they had some miscarriages)! My spiritual director is a faithful Opus Dei (known as a rather conservative/orthodox organisation) priest and his little brother died after 3 days of life without getting baptism. He strongly believes his bro is in heaven and even has asked him favors sometimes, he said his parents had the desire to baptize him so he was saved through baptism of desire.
But then today I found the Catechism of the Council of Trent online and I read this:
the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction… infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism… (about adults not being baptized immediately: ) The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
There is a clear distinction between the possibility of baptism of desire for adults and absolute necessity of baptism for infants.
But then the current Catechism states:
CCC 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.
Now this is the faith I’ve come to know, and that I can accept and reconcile with the God of Christianity, but the problem remains: is this a new teaching, a new modernist invention? Previous Church Fathers, Councils and Catechisms seem to have taught the contrary, that unbaptized infants have no way of being saved if they die in original sin. And since this issue is an issue of faith taught by Ecumenical Councils, it cannot change, for truth doesn’t change. If indeed the Church has changed her teaching on this issue, she seems to have lost credibility to the claim to be infallible and one (in faith/doctrine at all times) and thus the Church led and headed by God, unchangeable Truth.
Until I find some evidence that the Church has always hoped for a chance of salvation for the unbaptized, there seem to be only three uncomfortable options left for the Catholic:

  1. become a Traditionalist and oppose the new CCC and Vatican 2 etc. and believe God creates souls just so that they might realise that suddenly they’re in Hell burning forever.
  2. Be a modernist and oppose earlier Church teaching as outdated and, well, basically stop believing in the infallibility of the Church…
  3. Abandon the Catholic Faith…
I don’t want to do any of those, so please HEEEELP!!!
Thanks so much! E

source: https://forums.catholic.com/t/help-unbaptized-infants-change-in-churchs-teaching/57232
 
As I've stated before, the Didache (approx 90 to 120 AD,,,most probably 90)
did NOT instruct infants to be baptized.

I'm surprised you cling to this. You should know the difference between the essential rite and the ceremonial rite. The words speak for themselves, but in case you forgot, the essential rite contains anything and everything that MUST be present in order to make a sacrament valid. The ceremonial rite contains everything else. The essential rite was divinely ordained and cannot be altered. The ceremonial rite was ordained by the Church, since She received from Christ the authority to do so, and can be changed by the Church at any time. The ceremonial rite can even legitimately be omitted by the faithful in case of necessity. And even if they omit the ceremonial rite for no good reason, even then the sacrament is still valid, although the people sin by disobeying the Church.

In the quote you gave from the Didache, number 1-3 describes the essential rite. Number 4 describes the ceremonial rite.

The point I'm making and which you deny,,,is that it was not until Augustine's teachings that infants were baptized for fear of hell if they should die. This was never taught BEFORE him and is not taught even today.

I'll spell it out once more, please pay attention: I don't go by what you or anyone else thinks or says, I go by what the Church teaches. And the Church has NEVER NEVER NEVER taught that unborn children go to hell. If you disagree, fine, show me the PROOF from CHURCH TEACHING, not the words of any private theologian, the customs of this or that people/time, the ramblings of historians, .. show me the Church changing Her teaching.

Show me the Church changing Her teaching.

And no, I did not read your long "copy and paste". I simply do not have the time nor the interest to read anything and everything you copy and paste in order to try and find the gems you claim to have found.

And lastly, as I have already told you, there are currently many false shepherds INSIDE the Catholic Church, as there have always been. They may teach many errors, as the Arians did, they may corrupt books or even the Catechism, as the Modernists today are doing, but they can NEVER teach or change doctrine in the name of the Church. There is a very simple mechanism that Catholics can use to sift the true shepherds from the false shepherds. It is called Tradition, and it is very easy to use for even the simplest minds. And if you're a theologian, you can use what is called "the Theological Notes".
 
I'm surprised you cling to this. You should know the difference between the essential rite and the ceremonial rite. The words speak for themselves, but in case you forgot, the essential rite contains anything and everything that MUST be present in order to make a sacrament valid. The ceremonial rite contains everything else. The essential rite was divinely ordained and cannot be altered. The ceremonial rite was ordained by the Church, since She received from Christ the authority to do so, and can be changed by the Church at any time. The ceremonial rite can even legitimately be omitted by the faithful in case of necessity. And even if they omit the ceremonial rite for no good reason, even then the sacrament is still valid, although the people sin by disobeying the Church.

In the quote you gave from the Didache, number 1-3 describes the essential rite. Number 4 describes the ceremonial rite.



I'll spell it out once more, please pay attention: I don't go by what you or anyone else thinks or says, I go by what the Church teaches. And the Church has NEVER NEVER NEVER taught that unborn children go to hell. If you disagree, fine, show me the PROOF from CHURCH TEACHING, not the words of any private theologian, the customs of this or that people/time, the ramblings of historians, .. show me the Church changing Her teaching.

Show me the Church changing Her teaching.

And no, I did not read your long "copy and paste". I simply do not have the time nor the interest to read anything and everything you copy and paste in order to try and find the gems you claim to have found.

And lastly, as I have already told you, there are currently many false shepherds INSIDE the Catholic Church, as there have always been. They may teach many errors, as the Arians did, they may corrupt books or even the Catechism, as the Modernists today are doing, but they can NEVER teach or change doctrine in the name of the Church. There is a very simple mechanism that Catholics can use to sift the true shepherds from the false shepherds. It is called Tradition, and it is very easy to use for even the simplest minds. And if you're a theologian, you can use what is called "the Theological Notes".
Links are not copy and paste...they're to show you the changes through time.

You may not be interested in the following....
But others might...

 
You may not be interested in the following....
But others might...
I have no doubt that others will be interested in this. When defending the Catholic Church we are only allowed to use Scripture, but when attacking the Catholic Church we can and must use anything else but Scripture. That just shows you the motives and the integrity of many "Bible-believing Christians".
 
I have no doubt that others will be interested in this. When defending the Catholic Church we are only allowed to use Scripture, but when attacking the Catholic Church we can and must use anything else but Scripture. That just shows you the motives and the integrity of many "Bible-believing Christians".
Why do Catholics believe they must defend the CC?
Catholics tend to discuss "the church" more than Jesus or biblical ideas.
This is also true here. My Catholic friends, most of whom are born again (at least I believe so)
are always discussing what the Pope has done lately, or what the church is thinking of doing, etc.

I believe that when you come to any forum, the discussion should be based on verses in the N.T. and how they may, or may not, reflect a person's beliefs. Instead Catholics are always defending what the church teaches.

One link I posted, which you probably did not read (no problem) was to show how the church IS, at times, considering baptizing adults -- we had spoken about this some time ago and you replied that priests do not make doctrine (which I know).

Everything I post demonstrates something or other that I say.

As to infant baptism, why can't we stick to scripture?
I fear the reason is because you would be proven (or the CC) to be incorrect.

I believe the CC is the first church.
I believe it started out well and in good faith to the Apostles.
BUT, as you've stated,,,wolves come into the church, and by the 4th century things began to change and the CC has never been the same again.

Infant Baptism is one such teaching,,,and there are many more ....
which should be on the other thread.

Knowing the Early Fathers, I have difficulty understanding how you cannot know this.
Pre Nicene Fathers.
 
Back
Top