Infant Baptism

[Kartereo]

It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants. This ceremony is based upon the idea that the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another. Thus, all men have the original sin because of the manner of their conception and Christ is free of said sin due to the fact that He was conceived of a virgin. This scheme was first worked out by st. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo) in the late 4th or early 5th century A.D. when the church was promoting celibacy and encouraging men to become holy by forsaking women for life (and not just for two years). Hence, the practice of baptizing infants to assure that they would not go to hell became common. (There was a high infant mortality rate in ancient times--this fact probably led the Nephites to deal with the question of infant baptism as early as the times of Mosiah) of Course, common sense convinces most people that children cannot sin because they are not capable of a reasoned decision. Yet, scriptures in the Bible also support the idea. For example John said this in one of his epistles: "I write unto you little children because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake." (1 John 1:12)

When Christ said: "...Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 19:14) he was referring not to the fact that Heaven would be full of children, but to the fact that the inhabitants of the Celestial world would be incapable of sin. In fine, there is not one example of infant baptism in the scriptures, nor is there any indication that children below the age of reason have need of baptism.

Modern revelation has set forth the age of accountability as eight years old.

Related References:

Deut. 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Ps. 127:3, Ezek. 18:19-20, Matt. 18:3-4, Matt. 19:14, Mark 10:14-16, Luke 18:16, 1 Cor. 7:14, 1 John 2:12

[RubyHunter]

Last I checked, we allready knew this.

[Kartereo]

Last I checked, we allready knew this.

My topic description "A new understanding with the Mormon church and its doctrines" was supposed to lure the non/members who seek understanding with our doctrines. Perhaps I shall change it to be more direct.

All of my posts are for the non-members or even those members who want to know the "why's" (why do we believe what we believe) about some of our doctrinal points.

[Catholic Girl]

It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants. This ceremony is based upon the idea that the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another. Thus, all men have the original sin because of the manner of their conception and Christ is free of said sin due to the fact that He was conceived of a virgin. This scheme was first worked out by st. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo) in the late 4th or early 5th century A.D. when the church was promoting celibacy and encouraging men to become holy by forsaking women for life (and not just for two years). Hence, the practice of baptizing infants to assure that they would not go to hell became common. (There was a high infant mortality rate in ancient times--this fact probably led the Nephites to deal with the question of infant baptism as early as the times of Mosiah) of Course, common sense convinces most people that children cannot sin because they are not capable of a reasoned decision. Yet, scriptures in the Bible also support the idea. For example John said this in one of his epistles: "I write unto you little children because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake." (1 John 1:12)

When Christ said: "...Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 19:14) he was referring not to the fact that Heaven would be full of children, but to the fact that the inhabitants of the Celestial world would be incapable of sin. In fine, there is not one example of infant baptism in the scriptures, nor is there any indication that children below the age of reason have need of baptism.

Modern revelation has set forth the age of accountability as eight years old.

Related References:

Deut. 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Ps. 127:3, Ezek. 18:19-20, Matt. 18:3-4, Matt. 19:14, Mark 10:14-16, Luke 18:16, 1 Cor. 7:14, 1 John 2:12

What?!?!

Perhaps you ought to dispense with the strawman.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."[276] The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"[277] symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.[278] All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

Perhaps this article will assist you in not misrepresenting us again on this topic:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

[3DOP]

What?!?!

Perhaps you ought to dispense with the strawman.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I would suggest that Kartereo also needs to provide references of St. Augustine to show that he believed that the original sin was "acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." Here is a passage which shows that whatever Augustine believed, and however Kartereo has gained knowledge of it, his writings do not unanimously confirm the alleged belief. Because of the length of the quote, I'll provide some highlights to show that he found it to be expected that Adam and Eve would know each other as man and wife in the Garden:

Marriage, therefore, is a good in all the things which are proper to the married state. And these are three: it is the ordained means of procreation, it is the guarantee of chastity, it is the bond of union. In respect of its ordination for generation the Scripture says, I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house; as regards its guaranteeing chastity, it is said of it, The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife; and considered as the bond of union: What God has joined together, let not man put asunder. Touching these points, we do not forget that we have treated at sufficient length, with whatever ability the Lord has given us, in other works of ours, which are not unknown to you. In relation to them all the Scripture has this general praise: Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For, inasmuch as the wedded state is good, insomuch does it produce a very large amount of good in respect of the evil of concupiscence; for it is not lust, but reason, which makes a good use of concupiscence. Now lust lies in that law of the disobedient members which the apostle notes as warring against the law of the mind; whereas reason lies in that law of the wedded state which makes good use of concupiscence. If, however, it were impossible for any good to arise out of evil, God could not create man out of the embraces of adultery. As, therefore, the damnable evil of adultery, whenever man is born in it, is not chargeable on God, who certainly amidst man's evil work actually produces a good work; so, likewise, all which causes shame in that rebellion of the members which brought the accusing blush on those who after their sin covered these members with the fig-tree leaves, is not laid to the charge of marriage, by virtue of which the conjugal embrace is not only allowable, but is even useful and honourable; but it is imputable to the sin of that disobedience which was followed by the penalty of man's finding his own members emulating against himself that very disobedience which he had practised against God. Then, abashed at their action, since they moved no more at the bidding of his rational will, but at their own arbitrary choice as it were, instigated by lust, he devised the covering which should conceal such of them as he judged to be worthy of shame. For man, as the handiwork of God, deserved not confusion of face; nor were the members which it seemed fit to the Creator to form and appoint by any means designed to bring the blush to the creature. Accordingly, that simple nudity was displeasing neither to God nor to man: there was nothing to be ashamed of, because nothing at first accrued which deserved punishment. There was, however, undoubtedly marriage, even when sin had no prior existence; and for no other reason was it that woman, and not a second man, was created as a help for the man. Moreover, those words of God, Be fruitful and multiply, are not prophetic of sins to be condemned, but a benediction upon the fertility of marriage. For by these ineffable words of His, I mean by the divine methods which are inherent in the truth of His wisdom by which all things were made, God endowed the primeval pair with their seminal power. Suppose, however, that nature had not been dishonoured by sin, God forbid that we should think that marriages in Paradise must have been such...

---St. Augustine, On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin, Book II, ch. 39 and 40.

[Catholic Girl]

It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants. This ceremony is based upon the idea that the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another. Thus, all men have the original sin because of the manner of their conception and Christ is free of said sin due to the fact that He was conceived of a virgin. This scheme was first worked out by st. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo) in the late 4th or early 5th century A.D. when the church was promoting celibacy and encouraging men to become holy by forsaking women for life (and not just for two years). Hence, the practice of baptizing infants to assure that they would not go to hell became common. (There was a high infant mortality rate in ancient times--this fact probably led the Nephites to deal with the question of infant baptism as early as the times of Mosiah) of Course, common sense convinces most people that children cannot sin because they are not capable of a reasoned decision. Yet, scriptures in the Bible also support the idea. For example John said this in one of his epistles: "I write unto you little children because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake." (1 John 1:12)

When Christ said: "...Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 19:14) he was referring not to the fact that Heaven would be full of children, but to the fact that the inhabitants of the Celestial world would be incapable of sin. In fine, there is not one example of infant baptism in the scriptures, nor is there any indication that children below the age of reason have need of baptism.

By the reverse logic, I'm confident you can show me evidence in the scriptures that children reaching "the age of accountability" while raised in believing households were THEN baptized.

[Kartereo]

What?!?!

Perhaps you ought to dispense with the strawman.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Perhaps this article will assist you in not misrepresenting us again on this topic:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

How can I misrepresent your church when this article says nothing about the Catholics specifically? Please read again, It says, "It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants.

[Catholic Girl]

How can I misrepresent your church when this article says nothing about the Catholics specifically? Please read again, It says, "It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants.

Perhaps because the Catholic Church is one of the many churches that baptize newborn infants?

Like you didn't know that.

But I do hope you take this opportunity to educate yourself with the Catholic apologetics on this practice in the link I provided. You're not doing the LDS here any favors by blatantly misrepresenting us with your strawmen. And by "us" I mean Catholics and those other denominations that baptize newborn infants.

[3DOP]

How can I misrepresent your church when this article says nothing about the Catholics specifically? Please read again, It says, "It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants.

You named St. Augustine who was bishop of Hippo. There weren't any Lutherans, Presbyterians or Anglicans around at the time of St. Augustine. If you say are not identifying the Catholics Church as holding to this belief are you then accusing Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians of teaching that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another? I am Catholic and would resent having this ludicrous doctrine attributed to my faith or to a great father of the Church who wrote warmly about the goodness of marriage both now and in Paradise. But It would seem equally out of place to attribute this idea to Protestant pedo-baptist churches who have severed links with Roman Catholicism and the heresies you allege.

[johnny]

Kartereo

This scheme was first worked out by st. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo) in the late 4th or early 5th century A.D. when the church was promoting celibacy and encouraging men to become holy by forsaking women for life (and not just for two years).

Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, see below

• Irenaeus "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]).
  

In fine, there is not one example of infant baptism in the scriptures, nor is there any indication that children below the age of reason have need of baptism.

Children below the age of reason have need of baptism because all have sinned, Jesus who was without personal sin was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Jesus taught "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".

[cinepro]

How can I misrepresent your church when this article says nothing about the Catholics specifically? Please read again, It says, "It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants.

Oh, of course. You were referring to the many other churches that baptize infants.

Of course, I know which churches you were referring to, but for the sake of our more ignorant readers, maybe you should make a list of the other churches that baptize infants based on the idea that the original sin of Adam and Eve was "acquiring carnal knowledge of one another".

Just so no one mistakenly assumes its was the Catholic Church you were referring to.

[3DOP]

Kartereo...

Welcome by the way. I see you joined today.

There are a good number of Catholics here who meaning only to disabuse our LDS friends of false notions about our faith, can occasionally act in concert, unwittingly creating a "pile-on effect" that is unintended. For my part, I wouldn't expect to persuade you that infant baptism should be adopted by your church, only that the reason you have perhaps been given for why the practice has come down to us, as we believe, from apostolic times, has been exaggerated and misstated. I think it is assumed sometimes that because the Catholic Church has endorsed consecrated celibacy, that we in turn must believe there is something wrong with marriage. Both states of life are wonderful and both are honored in the Church. If you can find a single quote from a Catholic source suggesting that the original sin of Adam and Eve was conjugal relations, I would be surprised. Nevertheless, it would not represent the faith as a whole, and we can in turn bury you in quotes showing that the Church has never wavered in teaching the necessity and goodness of the vocation of marriage. The Albigensian heresy of the 11th Century may have taught this. But never the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has raised the dignity of holy matrimony to the level of a sacrament!

[Catholic Girl]

How can I misrepresent your church when this article says nothing about the Catholics specifically? Please read again, It says, "It is the doctrine and practice of many churches to baptize new-born infants.

Besides, I think it is obvious that you fundamentally misunderstand Catholic baptism. It is not the same thing as a Mormon baptism. A Catholic baptism is more equivalent to an LDS baby blessing (with the exception of the Trinity and the Original Sin thing ). It's not called the Sacrament of Initiation for nothing. The Sacrament of Confirmation is more on par with an LDS baptism. Confirmation is not until the age of discretion. It varies from diocese to diocese whether it is performed sooner rather than later. I received it when I was junior in high school.

I understand Mormons view baptisms as an ordinance and a public proclamation of oneâ??s belief. Therefore, since an infant is below the age of reason, they cannot express belief. I get it.

We have Confirmation to confirm our faith:

1319 A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

1303.....Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

- it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";117

- it unites us more firmly to Christ;

- it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;

- it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118

- it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:119

Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God's presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.120

[soren]

You named St. Augustine who was bishop of Hippo. There weren't any Lutherans, Presbyterians or Anglicans around at the time of St. Augustine. If you say are not identifying the Catholics Church as holding to this belief are you then accusing Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians of teaching that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another? I am Catholic and would resent having this ludicrous doctrine attributed to my faith or to a great father of the Church who wrote warmly about the goodness of marriage both now and in Paradise. But It would seem equally out of place to attribute this idea to Protestant pedo-baptist churches who have severed links with Roman Catholicism and the heresies you allege.

It is to be noted that Presbyterians, at least the ones I have read, baptize infants not on the presumption of their damnation but on the assumption that children are members of the believing community, precisely on account of Jesus' instructions to let the children come to to me. We Catholics baptize infants on the basis of the same verse.

Of the two major rationales for infant baptism, presumed membership in the Church (Presbyterian) or transparency to grace due to lack of actual sin (Catholic), I would contrast both favorably against D&C 20:71's denial to infants of admission to the Church:

No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

Because the "Kingdom of Heaven" is the Church, D&C 20:71 exclusion of children from the Church contradicts Matt 18:2-4 which incorporates children into the Kingdom.

[saemo]

Another Roman Catholic here.

I recommend reading this article.

To the comparison of infant baptism to an LDS blessing, there are similarities. They both give the newborn a name that they will be known by in their respective communities and in the world. With a Catholic baptism, the name of the child's patron saint is given at baptism. It can be made the child's legal name, but it is not a requirement.

Also, a catholic (universal church) baptism conveys a grace, it is a Sacrament, the first for the child's life. We baptize our children because we love them, and want the very best or them. There isn't a greater gift for us to give our newborns.

[Servant]

you can watch my video about baptism... here:

it is scripture and it has been done in the early church...

I know a person who asked a good question for the ones who dont believe in infant baptism and he said this:

The Bible clearly says that we are steeped in sin from the moment of our conception.

The only remedy for sin is the Lord Jesus Christ.

How are the sins of new-born infants forgiven before they have the ability to "confess Jesus with their mouth"?

the only only answer is "Baptism"....no cheating no by passing nothing...the only solution would be baptism..

[Hoops22]

Not to derail here - as this is an lds board - but I come at this from the perspective that the referenced baptism is "baptism into the body of believers."

[3DOP]

It is to be noted that Presbyterians, at least the ones I have read, baptize infants not on the presumption of their damnation but on the assumption that children are members of the believing community, precisely on account of Jesus' instructions to let the children come to to me. We Catholics baptize infants on the basis of the same verse.

Of the two major rationales for infant baptism, presumed membership in the Church (Presbyterian) or transparency to grace due to lack of actual sin (Catholic), I would contrast both favorably against D&C 20:71's denial to infants of admission to the Church:

No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

Because the "Kingdom of Heaven" is the Church, D&C 20:71 exclusion of children from the Church contradicts Matt 18:2-4 which incorporates children into the Kingdom.

Soren,

I went to a Bible college before I converted that was decidedly against infant baptism. We had a derisive term: "baby sprinklers", which corresponded with complete ignorance about why any Christian would baptize a baby. It wasn't until I read a volume by a Presbyterian named Duane Spencer that I considered the precedent set in the Old Testament for children under the age of accountability undergoing a ceremonial ritual that placed them among God's covenant people, which was of course, the rite of circumcision. Nor had we taken adequate note of the parallels between circumcision and baptism that were drawn by St. Paul in his letter to the Colossians where he seems to assign the expression "circumcision of Christ" to baptism. While he doesn't explicitly recommend infant baptism, it is difficult to not be reminded of how infants were received into the Old Covenant.

I can understand the apparent reason behind objections to infant baptism. At my Baptist Bible College, we would have agreed with the reasoning found in the Latter Day literature you cited, but since the same objections would undermine belief in the Abrahamic practise of circumcision, it seems to me that those arguments based on the need for the child's understanding and accountability cannot be admitted by Christians who accept the Old Testament. One can still logically hold that in this age it is God's will that only believers may be baptized, but it cannot be argued that children are unable to be received into the covenant community by virtue of rites and ceremonies which are performed on their behalf as infants.

[soren]

Soren,

I went to a Bible college before I converted that was decidedly against infant baptism. We had a derisive term: "baby sprinklers", which corresponded with complete ignorance about why any Christian would baptize a baby. It wasn't until I read a volume by a Presbyterian named Duane Spencer that I considered the precedent set in the Old Testament for children under the age of accountability undergoing a ceremonial ritual that placed them among God's covenant people, which was of course, the rite of circumcision. Nor had we taken adequate note of the parallels between circumcision and baptism that were drawn by St. Paul in his letter to the Colossians where he seems to assign the expression "circumcision of Christ" to baptism. While he doesn't explicitly recommend infant baptism, it is difficult to not be reminded of how infants were received into the Old Covenant.

I can understand the apparent reason behind objections to infant baptism. At my Baptist Bible College, we would have agreed with the reasoning found in the Latter Day literature you cited, but since the same objections would undermine belief in the Abrahamic practise of circumcision, it seems to me that those arguments based on the need for the child's understanding and accountability cannot be admitted by Christians who accept the Old Testament. One can still logically hold that in this age it is God's will that only believers may be baptized, but it cannot be argued that children are unable to be received into the covenant community by virtue of rites and ceremonies which are performed on their behalf as infants.

It is a misunderstanding that I can sympathize with as well. I have often thought that it is a very big mistake to think that the Trinity is the most misunderstood Catholic doctrine among Mormons. By far, that honor goes to original sin (and the corresponding implications of infant baptism). The second most misunderstood thing is celibacy. As significant as the Trinity is, it is at best a distant third after these two, and might not even be third.

I absolutely agree that the Old Testament precedent of infant circumcision is a warrant for infant baptism, especially because circumcision was the Old Covenant antecedent to baptism. Yet Joseph Smith seems to have attempted an explanation of infant circumcision. In his revision of Gen 17, he interprets the eight days before circumcision as signifying the eight years preceding accountability:

And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old. (JST Gen 17:11)

Even this, however, does not answer the argument from circumcision, because JST preserves Gen 17:14 (as 17:20):

And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Even with Smith's revisions, it is evident from the whole of Gen 17 that infant circumcision effectively incorporated children into the Abrahamic covenant. That the accountability for following the statutes of that covenant would not take effect until the child attained adequate maturity does not affect this point and actually agrees with both Catholic and Rabbinical teaching.

[Servant]

"And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

yep...and baptism is the replacement of circumcision...

[jadams_4242]

What?!?!

Perhaps you ought to dispense with the strawman.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Perhaps this article will assist you in not misrepresenting us again on this topic:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

The punishment for original sin was death, not condemnation for babies.

[mfbukowski]

Besides, I think it is obvious that you fundamentally misunderstand Catholic baptism. It is not the same thing as a Mormon baptism. A Catholic baptism is more equivalent to an LDS baby blessing (with the exception of the Trinity and the Original Sin thing ). It's not called the Sacrament of Initiation for nothing. The Sacrament of Confirmation is more on par with an LDS baptism. Confirmation is not until the age of discretion. It varies from diocese to diocese whether it is performed sooner rather than later. I received it when I was junior in high school.

I understand Mormons view baptisms as an ordinance and a public proclamation of oneâ??s belief. Therefore, since an infant is below the age of reason, they cannot express belief. I get it.

We have Confirmation to confirm our faith:

The only problem with this is that we have confirmation too, and it is a misrepresentation of Catholic baptism to compare it to blessing a baby.

What happens if parents fail to baptize a baby in the Catholic church, and that baby dies?

40 years ago when I was a Catholic school student, I was taught that the baby could not enter heaven, but instead went to "Limbo" which catholics now regard as non- doctrinal.

Nevertheless, there are potentially grave consequences for a baby who is not baptized and who dies in catholic doctrine.

There is no comparison to Mormon baby blessing here.

In fact the consequences are considered so grave that priesthood is not required by catholics to baptize a baby in an emergency situation. Anyone can baptize that infant in the name of the savior, even a non- Catholic christian.

Well that is not exactly true. A Mormon may not, because we are considered officially not Christian by the Catholic church. They recently passed some sort of decree stating that though they accepted many other Christian denominations baptisms, they would not accept ours because our understanding of the trinity is different than theirs.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

My understanding is that the doctrine of Limbo has been changed and replaced by something called "Invincible Ignorance" which I believe generally states that Catholics don't really know what happens to babies who die without baptism, but God will make it all up somehow, but no one knows how.

[3DOP]

bukowski

The only problem with this is that we have confirmation too, and it is a misrepresentation of Catholic baptism to compare it to blessing a baby.

3DOP

Seems fair enough (not knowing anything about "blessing a baby" or LDS confirmation).

bukowski

What happens if parents fail to baptize a baby in the Catholic church, and that baby dies?

3DOP

The baby is neither guilty of actual sin, nor in a state of grace. I call the state "Limbo", as it has been called for centuries. I do not deny the possibility that a baby who dies even while its parents were preparing for baptism may enjoy the graces thereof. But I don't think I can see how the Catholic Church, after nearly 2,000 years of concern regarding the baptism of our infants, can say that we have advanced to an understanding that every baby who dies is an immediate recipient of the Beatific Vision. But what religion teaches that dead babies get every best blessing? None that I know of, and if any do, that doesn't necessarily argue for its truth.

bukowski

40 years ago when I was a Catholic school student, I was taught that the baby could not enter heaven, but instead went to "Limbo" which catholics now regard as non- doctrinal.

3DOP

Some single statement from a Catholic congregation can overturn centuries of tradition? I think not. What has been offered in place of limbo? Yes, the Church celebrates the Holy Innocents, the babies who died in Herod's persecution. It is possible that by God's grace every dead baby goes to heaven. But no revelation can be cited to make us sure of it. We can be certain that in God's justice, no one that is innocent of actual sin will ever suffer the sense pains of hell. I continue to believe in Limbo. Read Dante, it isn't intolerable. Its as good as it gets on earth. Not knowing much about LDS eschatology, what is your telestial kingdom like? I wonder how much better it is qualitatively than the Limbo of the Children. Does every dead baby ascend to the highest reaches of the celestial kingdom in LDS thought?

bukowski

Nevertheless, there are potentially grave consequences for a baby who is not baptized and who dies in catholic doctrine.

3DOP

There is no danger of the sense pain of hell, nor revealed anticipation of the supernatural life of heaven.

bukowski

There is no comparison to Mormon baby blessing here.

3DOP

I would not be able to judge that.

bukowski

In fact the consequences are considered so grave that priesthood is not required by catholics to baptize a baby in an emergency situation. Anyone can baptize that infant in the name of the savior, even a non- Catholic christian.

3DOP

The facts are correct. The reason is speculation. I mostly agree with it, but it isn't necessarily so.

bukowski

Well that is not exactly true. A Mormon may not, because we are considered officially not Christian by the Catholic church. They recently passed some sort of decree stating that though they accepted many other Christian denominations baptisms, they would not accept ours because our understanding of the trinity is different than theirs.

3DOP

A Mormon whose intent was to baptize someone Catholic could certainly do so, just as non-Christians and even atheists can. (By the way, I consider Mormons to be Christian, unbaptized yes, but certainly in a significant sense of the word, Christian)

bukowski

My understanding is that the doctrine of Limbo has been changed and replaced by something called "Invincible Ignorance" which I believe generally states that Catholics don't really know what happens to babies who die without baptism, but God will make it all up somehow, but no one knows how.

3DOP

There is neither Conciliar nor ex cathedra definition which definitively requires faithful Catholics to reject Limbo and believe that "God will make it all up somehow, but no one knows how". I tend to hold to Limbo, the Holy Innocents notwithstanding. I think it possible that the Innocents enjoyed the benefits of "baptism by blood" rather than some ill-defined and obscure hope that "God will make it all up somehow, but no one knows how."

[TOmNossor]

What?!?!

Perhaps you ought to dispense with the strawman.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Perhaps this article will assist you in not misrepresenting us again on this topic:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

I would suggest that Kartereo also needs to provide references of St. Augustine to show that he believed that the original sin was "acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." Here is a passage which shows that whatever Augustine believed, and however Kartereo has gained knowledge of it, his writings do not unanimously confirm the alleged belief. Because of the length of the quote, I'll provide some highlights to show that he found it to be expected that Adam and Eve would know each other as man and wife in the Garden:---St. Augustine, On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin, Book II, ch. 39 and 40.

Catholic Girl, 3DOP, and Soren;

First, I would generally agree that Kartereoâ??s claim that she perhaps did not mean Catholics in her post was rather surprising. Of course perhaps my view that all non-LDS organized religions other than Catholicism fall like a house of cards so only Catholics are worthy of consideration and attack has made me see Catholicism in her comment.

I think all of you should be able to define your view and I see nothing non-Catholic in it. But, if one wishes to embrace Augustine as a pillar of orthodoxy with nary a blemish (which I suspect many Catholics LDS run into do), then I think invoking Augustine can give Kartereo more ground to stand upon. Kartereo did specifically mention Augustine. So while I would generally stay away from saying that original sin was â??acquiring carnal knowledge of one another,â? I would suggest that Augustine at one point in time believe that Adam lusted after Eve, and that the fall being this lust was suggested by the covering of their nakedness. Augustine then placed some amount of sinful lust in all FALLEN procreation, even within marriage. And perhaps links this as part of the sin that is born with the baby. Certainly there is much that has been written in support of this idea and I would be surprised if all of this is just a misread of Augustine.

Some have suggested that when Augustine ceased to be a Manchaean heretic, he ceased to hold this as the genesis of sin in the infant.

There is much tied up in the origins of souls for this question. The Catholic Church has generally leaned toward a Truducianism. This view will explain why the Virgin Birth AND the Immaculate Conception are/were necessary to leave Christ untainted with original sin. However the Virgin Birth has pointed many thinkers toward the view that original sin had something to do with procreative sex.

I guess all I am saying is that I do not think it quite fair to claim that Kartereo is without basis to believe that Augustine found something less then godly in all sexual intercourse (the only exception being a possible / hypothetical pre-fall act of reason without lust) and that this was not unlinked to original sin. There has been enough written about Augustine from this frame that I doubt it is all willful misconception of his thoughts.

So, if Kartereo is addressing â??some non-LDS Christians,â? including Augustine and if there is a little modification of some of the words chosen, I do not think this is a straw man. I would also acknowledge that Adam-God is not a straw man as applied to Brigham Youngâ??s thought, but is often a straw man against 21st century LDS (hopefully all the Catholic posters here can agree with that).

I am far from a scholar on Augustine. I often offer a refund for the price I receive in payment for my message board comments. This $0 price tag is perhaps more indicative of what you get here than normal. In addition to this, I do not think it quite possible to know what Augustineâ??s views were on everything he ever wrote about at the time of his death. He changed/developed/grew in his thinking over time and some of his earlier writings do not represent his final thoughts while other writings may be among the thoughts that he also altered, but never completed telling us about. His departure from Manchaeanism can serve to indicate he changed some of his thinking, but at times he indicates that some of his Manchaean thought followed him.

Ultimately, I quite appreciate the LDS view of the fallen nature of man and rejection â??original sin/guilt.â? I think the original sin and the fall was a departure from communion with God. I believe that all children are now born with minds incapable of recognizing the communion of man and man and God, thus they all behave in a separated way. Whenever the â??age of accountabilityâ? is, we discover that we have already acted in a non-loving, sinful, non-communal way. We naturally seek to self-justify this behavior by pointing to others as the cause of our non-loving actions. Sin thus enters inevitably at the age of accountability. Only Christ knowing us perfectly and loving us anyway allows us to be freed from the need to self-justify and to confront the unloving actions (the sin) that we have committed.

Charity, TOm

[Servant]

The only problem with this is that we have confirmation too, and it is a misrepresentation of Catholic baptism to compare it to blessing a baby.

What happens if parents fail to baptize a baby in the Catholic church, and that baby dies?

40 years ago when I was a Catholic school student, I was taught that the baby could not enter heaven, but instead went to "Limbo" which catholics now regard as non- doctrinal.

Nevertheless, there are potentially grave consequences for a baby who is not baptized and who dies in catholic doctrine.

There is no comparison to Mormon baby blessing here.

In fact the consequences are considered so grave that priesthood is not required by catholics to baptize a baby in an emergency situation. Anyone can baptize that infant in the name of the savior, even a non- Catholic christian.

Well that is not exactly true. A Mormon may not, because we are considered officially not Christian by the Catholic church. They recently passed some sort of decree stating that though they accepted many other Christian denominations baptisms, they would not accept ours because our understanding of the trinity is different than theirs.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

My understanding is that the doctrine of Limbo has been changed and replaced by something called "Invincible Ignorance" which I believe generally states that Catholics don't really know what happens to babies who die without baptism, but God will make it all up somehow, but no one knows how.

well i do know this a mormon baptism and a Catholic (and all the other baptisms of orthodox Christians) are completely different...they are not the same...

one major difference is mormons can be baptize more than once...

Catholics and other orthodox Christians baptism is a one time thing...

confirmation is a one time thing for the Catholics...

a blessing anybody can having at any time with the Catholics...

so this is why it was being compared....it is completly different with the Mormons and with the Catholic (and other orthodox Christian)