Infant Baptism

[saemo]

I realize that we are dealing with the spiritual and trying to give it concrete form is probably inherently inappropriate, but it will be easier for me to understand if I attach a 'step by step' process.

So feel free to tell me this is a mystery or something else if my efforts are more confusing.

It appears to me that what baptism does in Catholic doctrine is create a potential state--the soul is prepared to receive God by a cleansing (purification of sins)

So far so good. BTW: The "potential state", we call our destiny, ie, eternal salvation.

as well as some fundamental alteration that allows the natural to interact with the supernatural (which is what becoming part of the Body of Christ allows for).

I think the Baltimore catechism says it well, baptism is a Sacrament, all Sacraments are an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. One grace of our baptism is becoming a part of the Body of Christ.

What follows is either acceptance and a continual process of seeking God in order to maintain the purified state (since the nature that commits the sins has not been removed but only joined with the supernature state, sins will continue) and eventually overcome the natural man, in effective removing it from ourselves through God's grace.

Very good. Also, we believe our baptism and confirmation provides graces that make this possible. Graces, that along with prayer, help us to overcome sin.

Someone who is baptized without intent or with evil intent still has that potential and the supernature within him, he is just not making use of them (or not communing/communicating with God).

Good.

For him to make use of them at sometime in the future, he must use the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is for all sinners. Like all Sacraments, we believe we are given graces through this Sacrament. I like the story of Lazarus to illustrate what we believe. When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, Lazarus was bound in burial cloth. Christ instructed to release these bonds and set him free. By Christ's sacrifice and resurrection we are set loose from the bonds of death. Through Christ, we find forgiveness. The Sacrament of Reconciliation removes the bonds of sin, which are a form of death, as sin separates us from our destiny.

Am I close?

I'd say you've got it.

[Calm]

Well, since the Catholic Church has said it is necessary, it makes it necessary.

In the sense that someone is required to go through it, not in the sense that it is necessary/essential for salvation, etc. (since baptisms can occur without going through the process when it is not possible to go through the process).

[Calm]

This makes people prone to leaving Catholicism.

Technically speaking (just to be sure I understand it), people can't actually leave the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ once they've been baptised (since man can't revoke what God has given).

Am I correct?

They can lose faith or understanding though.

[saemo]

In the sense that someone is required to go through it, not in the sense that it is necessary/essential for salvation, etc. (since baptisms can occur without going through the process when it is not possible to go through the process).

Correct.

[saemo]

Technically speaking (just to be sure I understand it), people can't actually leave the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ once they've been baptised (since man can't revoke what God has given).

Am I correct?

They can lose faith or understanding though.

This is true.

[Calm]

Thanks. I feel almost smart.

Now if I can just wrap my head around the Trinity and supernature stuff.

[saemo]

Thanks. I feel almost smart.

Now if I can just wrap my head around the Trinity and supernature stuff.

Three person, one being. We know this by what God has revealed. Where I see Mormons get stuck is the *how*. God has not revealed the *how*, He has revealed the *what*, we accept the *how* on faith.

[Calm]

Three person, one being. We know this by what God has revealed. Where I see Mormons get stuck is the *how*. God has not revealed the *how*, He has revealed the *what*, we accept the *how* on faith.

True. But my deep, deep fundamental understanding of "person" is "being" and so far the only way I can handle it is to think of the being as a collective such as a family. Yet I believe Catholics would disagree with this analogy.

[Doctor Steuss]

[Deleted... will end up derailing]

[saemo]

True. But my deep, deep fundamental understanding of "person" is "being" and so far the only way I can handle it is to think of the being as a collective such as a family. Yet I believe Catholics would disagree with this analogy.

You are on role.

From the CCC:

2205 The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. In the procreation and education of children it reflects the Father's work of creation. It is called to partake of the prayer and sacrifice of Christ. Daily prayer and the reading of the Word of God strengthen it in charity. The Christian family has an evangelizing and missionary task.

[Calm]

image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.

I greatly appreciate you taking the time....(though part of me is resenting it because I was going to get a heck of a lot done today cleaning the house and running errands, but the conversation is just too interesting and distracting, lol, oh well, housework always I have with me)

I am assuming "image" does not mean "identical" in the sense that a family is a being exactly like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are a being, but rather the family partakes of some of the qualities of this oneness.

[saemo]

I greatly appreciate you taking the time....(though part of me is resenting it because I was going to get a heck of a lot done today cleaning the house and running errands, but the conversation is just too interesting and distracting, lol, oh well, housework always I have with me)

No problem, my faith interests me, and I could talk about it all day. And I learn things as well.

Guess what, your housework and errands will still be there tomorrow.

I am assuming "image" does not mean "identical" in the sense that a family is a being exactly like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are a being, but rather the family partakes of some of the qualities of this oneness.

Image, as in the image of the divine. Not identical.

[3DOP]

TOm,

I hope you are well my brother (and many thanks to Rory and Soren for participating in this thread... always a pleasure reading your views). Now we just need David to pop in for it to be a real party.

You are correct regarding â??re-baptismâ? and membership records. According to Elder Ballard (September 1990 Ensign, pg 12) -- Emphasis mine:

I think this makes it quite clear that the ordinance of rebaptism serves a different purpose than the initial baptism (why else would only the initial be reflected on what is essentially a temporal version of the â??Book of Lifeâ??).

-Stuart

Hey thanks Doc!

We need Kartereo too. He/she got hammered pretty fast. Even if the posts aren't all that great and you feel like you have the answers, it can be daunting trying to keep up. And then he/she got a little warning from Nemesis for preaching. Too bad. He/she was new on Saturday. So...hey K, If you're out there, I'm sorry. Give it another try. I have a way of taking something unfortunate that is said and then ramming it down the sayer's throat again and again. I don't back off of the content, but I maybe should have softened it a little with a newbie.

[TOmNossor]

I wanted to quickly say goodbye in this thread and offer to respond to anything I may need to respond to.

I prepared a response to 3DOP about the question I was asking, but it seems less important.

I prepared (though only in my mind) a post on the requirements of baptism and the covenantal aspects of it, but as I reflected upon my own backyard, I remembered â??Baseball Baptismsâ? and decided that my yard is less clean than I would like. Even with a dirty backyard, I believe the distinction between Catholic and LDS baptism is greater than I did before I came to this thread.

Soren, I should be a good as you and read On Marriage and Conâ?¦, but at this point I think I will not. I alluded to this in my post, but Book 2 may contain some corrections to Book 1, but I would generally believe that the NewAdvent.org summary of the meaning of Book 1 would include the corrected ideas from Book 2. Augustine seems to have generally claimed to be elaborating and correcting misunderstandings RATHER than changing his points.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the tone of the thread. I see examples of how I should do better!

Charity, TOm

[Calm]

I will be posting less today as well, but hope that the thread does not close down completely...at least until I know whether my response to soren about the Church of Christ members satisfies him.

I can see where the confusion comes from now that Catholic girl (I believe) has used the same verses over in the age of accountability thread to support infant baptism into the Catholic Church. I believe I am on the right track pointing to the differing assumptions of what is meant by "Kingdom of Heaven" and the relationship with the mortal Church. The two sets of instructions from Christ are not applying to the same situation (Matt and Moro-Kingdom of Heaven, infants are part of; D&C-Church of Christ--infants are not to be baptized members into) as far as LDS are concerned and therefore not contradictory.

[soren]

Let me see if I've got this right: The issue is not the perception who is and who isn't a member to you, but what you perceive as a contradiction--Matthew saying children are in the Kingdom of Heaven (and Moroni for that matter) and D&C saying they are not to be "received into the Church of Christ".

I believe this is resolved by the nonequivalence of "Church of Christ" in this context with the "Kingdom of Heaven".

One is speaking of the mortal organization that is the authorized representative of God on earth, the other (as is Moroni) is speaking of the eternal reality of Heaven.

See here (hopefully this will work) for a listing of "Church of Christ" in modern scripture: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=w...hecked&bw=1

And here is the listing for "Kingdom of Heaven": http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=w...hecked&bw=1

Note that even when the Church of Christ is already in existence, the Kingdom of Heaven is spoken of as a future event (at least for those on earth at that time), obviously (in LDS scripture) two different things though with overlap (the ultimate hope being all those in the Church of Christ on earth will be admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven along with many others including those who accept it in the spirit world).

From what I've read, there appears to be a closer direct connection between the mortal Church (often called the Body of Christ) and the eternal Church (which is probably just seen as those who exist in Heaven in oneness with God?) than exists among LDS. I think our 'borders' for the Kingdom of Heaven are more fluid when applied to mortality because there is a significant part of the next life (post death, prejudgment) that we include in what we describe as a time of probation.

---

It occurs to me that Catholics may have the same perceived issues--if unbaptized infants are not automatically admitted into the Body of Christ/Church/Kingdom of Heaven in Catholic doctrine (this is unknown and left up to God), how do you resolve this issue? "Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ" and "1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation."--http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

I suspected at the outset that if I pushed my case hard enough someone would eventually claim a separation between the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven. I would not be surprised to discover that the conflict I find between D&C 20:71 and Matt 19:14 exists precisely because Smith thought in that way. If so, I committed one of the most radical errors a New Testament exegete can make.

As to the meaning of the "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew, it is important to note that it means the same thing as "Kingdom of God." You can find this out by cross-referencing Matthew with Mark and Luke. In contexts where Matthew speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mark and Luke refer to the Kingdom of God.

Jesus preaches the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew as a simultaneously present and future reality, because the coming of the Kingdom is very immanent. That this Kingdom will be the Church as we know it is evident from several of his parables, notably that of the wheat and the tares, which would make no sense as a parable of anything but the Church. The work of Jesus' ministry is to bring the Kingdom into the world. He accomplishes this by stages, beginning with his proclamation that the Kingdom is â??at handâ? until he bequeaths his Kingdom to his disciple by sacramental covenant (Luke 22:29-30), comes into his Kingdom at his crucifixion, is enthroned over it in the resurrection, and then installs the apostles as regents of the Kingdom at Pentecost. The reason the Kingdom is â??of heavenâ? is not that it is located in heaven, but that its nature is a heavenly reality, not of this world, but coming into the world here and now.

That the Church has been established as the Kingdom of Heaven is evident from Paul's writings, as he says â??We are citizens of heaven and are eagerly awaiting for out Savior to comeâ? (Phil 3:20) and â??But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come upon thousands and thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God....â? (Heb 12:22-23)

Christ is the head of the Church in heaven just as he is the head of the Church on earth. He does not have two bodies, but one. Thus if the church in heaven and the church on earth are members of any body at all, they are members of the same body and participate together in the oneness of that body. If you will say then that blessed infants are not one with the true church on earth in the sense spoken of in John 17, then they are not members of the Kingdom of Heaven either. Inclusion in the Kingdom of Heaven, would incorporate them into the body of Christ uniting them perfectly with the earthly church through him. Christ is not divided and the parts of his body cannot be separated.

[Calm]

I suspected at the outset that if I pushed my case hard enough someone would eventually claim a separation between the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven. I would not be surprised to discover that the conflict I find between D&C 20:71 and Matt 19:14 exists precisely because Smith thought in that way. If so, I committed one of the most radical errors a New Testament exegete can make.......

Christ is the head of the Church in heaven just as he is the head of the Church on earth. He does not have two bodies, but one. Thus if the church in heaven and the church on earth are members of any body at all, they are members of the same body and participate together in the oneness of that body. If you will say then that blessed infants are not one with the true church on earth in the sense spoken of in John 17, then they are not members of the Kingdom of Heaven either. Inclusion in the Kingdom of Heaven, would incorporate them into the body of Christ uniting them perfectly with the earthly church through him. Christ is not divided and the parts of his body cannot be separated.

Thank you for the explanation. Makes sense to me, but would not work from an LDS view due to a variety of reasons. We do use the term "Church" in more than one way, sometimes equating it with the Gospel, sometimes not, sometimes equating it with the Kingdom of God, sometimes not. Perhaps someday we will be more consistent in our usage, but until then....context is everything.

I do not think the Lord will fault us too much if our semantics/labels are wrong as long as we get the actual principles and practices right.

[soren]

Thank you for the explanation. Makes sense to me, but would not work from an LDS view due to a variety of reasons. We do use the term "Church" in more than one way, sometimes equating it with the Gospel, sometimes not, sometimes equating it with the Kingdom of God, sometimes not. Perhaps someday we will be more consistent in our usage, but until then....context is everything.

I do not think the Lord will fault us too much if our semantics/labels are wrong as long as we get the actual principles and practices right.

When you say "context is everything," just what context is it that you you think I have overlooked? Is there something in D&C 20 that supports the position you are taking here, or is this just your opinion? I have been careful to support my position from the text, so if you think there is some context that would change my conclusion, point it out to me.

Yet in the long view, this has everything to do with principles and nothing to do with labels or semantics. To recognize children as the members of the kingdom demands, on theological principle, that they be welcomed into the oneness that Christ desires for his loved ones in John 17. If you deny they are one with you in that way, regardless of your definition of "church," you make a theological claim that has far importance than mere terminology.

[Calm]

soren, I have solicited some help to give you an understandable reply as I have not the time at the moment that it deserves plus I am at a loss to try and explain something I thought I already explained.

Perhaps you could help by explaining something to me that I still do not understand about the Catholic POV (I may have missed it in the responses already and I may have even already responded but my brain is tired tonight and my memory incomplete, please point it out if so):

If baptism is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then are unbaptized infants and children not part of the Kingdom of Heaven? And if so, how is this reconciled with the Matthew verse.

From what I wrote above:

It occurs to me that Catholics may have the same perceived issues--if unbaptized infants are not automatically admitted into the Body of Christ/Church/Kingdom of Heaven in Catholic doctrine (this is unknown and left up to God), how do you resolve this issue? "Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ" and "1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation."--http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

With this teaching, it would be possible that some children were considered part of the Kingdom and others aren't after they are dead, but what does it also say about all the unbaptized living children, are they or are they not part of the Body of Christ? And if they are part of the Body of Christ, when do they cease to be so that as adults, Heaven can be forbidden them based on their lack of baptism? If they are not part of the Body of Christ, is that not saying they are forbidden from the Kingdom of Heaven?

How does this all fit together with Matthew?

[SteubieU]

soren, I have solicited some help to give you an understandable reply as I have not the time at the moment that it deserves plus I am at a loss to try and explain something I thought I already explained.

Perhaps you could help by explaining something to me that I still do not understand about the Catholic POV (I may have missed it in the responses already and I may have even already responded but my brain is tired tonight and my memory incomplete, please point it out if so):

If baptism is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then are unbaptized infants and children not part of the Kingdom of Heaven? And if so, how is this reconciled with the Matthew verse.

From what I wrote above: With this teaching, it would be possible that some children were considered part of the Kingdom and others aren't after they are dead, but what does it also say about all the unbaptized living children, are they or are they not part of the Body of Christ? And if they are part of the Body of Christ, when do they cease to be so that as adults, Heaven can be forbidden them based on their lack of baptism? If they are not part of the Body of Christ, is that not saying they are forbidden from the Kingdom of Heaven?

How does this all fit together with Matthew?

I won't presume to answer for Soren, but I will give my understanding as a member of the Catholic Church. No, unbaptized children are not members of the Church, and therefore have no inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. A person enters the Church through Baptism, and that is the only way that we know of that a person enters into the covenant that Jesus Christ established.

For those infants who die without Baptism, we do not know what happens to them. It is entirely possible that God grants some or all of them the gift of grace by which they can go to Heaven. It is also entirely possible that none of them go to Heaven. Heaven is a free gift that we do not deserve; it is not our right as human beings.

[Calm]

I won't presume to answer for Soren, but I will give my understanding as a member of the Catholic Church. No, unbaptized children are not members of the Church, and therefore have no inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. A person enters the Church through Baptism, and that is the only way that we know of that a person enters into the covenant that Jesus Christ established.

For those infants who die without Baptism, we do not know what happens to them. It is entirely possible that God grants some or all of them the gift of grace by which they can go to Heaven. It is also entirely possible that none of them go to Heaven. Heaven is a free gift that we do not deserve; it is not our right as human beings.

This is how I interpreted Catholic doctrine from what I read in the Catechism. I am glad I am not way off as this may mean I am on the right track for explaining the LDS POV after all. I would appreciate help with resolving what appears to be a contradiction in Catholic doctrine (at this point, I am assuming the contradiction does not really exist, I am just unaware of how it is reconciled), at least according to soren's discussion in this thread:

Does this not contradict Matthew similarly to how Soren is claiming that our D&C scripture does? Could you explain the difference if you see one, please?

[soren]

soren, I have solicited some help to give you an understandable reply as I have not the time at the moment that it deserves plus I am at a loss to try and explain something I thought I already explained.

Perhaps you could help by explaining something to me that I still do not understand about the Catholic POV (I may have missed it in the responses already and I may have even already responded but my brain is tired tonight and my memory incomplete, please point it out if so):

If baptism is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then are unbaptized infants and children not part of the Kingdom of Heaven? And if so, how is this reconciled with the Matthew verse.

From what I wrote above: With this teaching, it would be possible that some children were considered part of the Kingdom and others aren't after they are dead, but what does it also say about all the unbaptized living children, are they or are they not part of the Body of Christ? And if they are part of the Body of Christ, when do they cease to be so that as adults, Heaven can be forbidden them based on their lack of baptism? If they are not part of the Body of Christ, is that not saying they are forbidden from the Kingdom of Heaven?

How does this all fit together with Matthew?

Jesus' command to "forbid them not" means, "Do not hold them back from Christ." In principle this means we must not prevent their entry into the Church, not that they are already members. Hence, all children are not members of the the Kingdom, but no impediment exists for any of them to become so - indeed, their lack of sin makes them better fit for the Kingdom than repentant adults. Even if they are not baptized by water into the Church, we do not conclude that they are necessarily cut off forever, since we acknowledge a non-sacramental spiritual baptism as within God's power, consistent with his mercy, and warranted by the prayer of the Church for the salvation of all.

On a side note, it is worth remembering that the text of Matthew does not give us any information as to whether the children in Matt 19 were baptized or not. Without first ruling out the possibility that they were, there would be no means of demonstrating a contradiction with Catholicism from it. Not that I am attached to reading it that way; I only note it as a possibility. I am willing to work within the assumption that they weren't baptized, especially since the Fathers traditionally used Matt 19:14 as a warrant for infant baptism.

[SteubieU]

This is how I interpreted Catholic doctrine from what I read in the Catechism. I am glad I am not way off as this may mean I am on the right track for explaining the LDS POV after all. I would appreciate help with resolving what appears to be a contradiction in Catholic doctrine (at this point, I am assuming the contradiction does not really exist, I am just unaware of how it is reconciled), at least according to soren's discussion in this thread:

Does this not contradict Matthew similarly to how Soren is claiming that our D&C scripture does? Could you explain the difference if you see one, please?

I think it goes back to the previous chapter, 18:4. Jesus is not teaching that children HAVE the Kingdom of Heaven, but that in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you have to have the attitude of a child towards his father. In other words, in order to be a member of Christ, you must be humble before God like a child before his father. It's like in the Sermon of the Mount when he talks about birds being taken care of and lillies in the field being taken care of and that we need to have trust like that: he isn't saying that birds and lillies go to Heaven!

And that is why it is especially appropriate that children not be hindered from entering the Kingdom (by refusing them Baptism) because they are the example of what being a child of God is supposed to be like.

[Calm]

Jesus' command to "forbid them not" means, "Do not hold them back from Christ." In principle this means we must not prevent their entry into the Church, not that they are already members. Hence, all children are not members of the the Kingdom, but no impediment exists for any of them to become so - indeed, their lack of sin makes them better fit for the Kingdom than repentant adults. Even if they are not baptized by water into the Church, we do not conclude that they are necessarily cut off forever, since we acknowledge a non-sacramental spiritual baptism as within God's power, consistent with his mercy, and warranted by the prayer of the Church for the salvation of all.

On a side note, it is worth remembering that the text of Matthew does not give us any information as to whether the children in Matt 19 were baptized or not. Without first ruling out the possibility that they were, there would be no means of demonstrating a contradiction with Catholicism from it. Not that I am attached to reading it that way; I only note it as a possibility. I am willing to work within the assumption that they weren't baptized, especially since the Fathers traditionally used Matt 19:14 as a warrant for infant baptism.

It would appear then to me that your only argument against LDS is based solely on the assumption that the Kingdom of Heaven and the Church of Christ are identical since you do not believe that Matthew means children are automatically in the Kingdom of Heaven without some form of baptism during mortality. As far as the afterlife goes, our doctrine places all children, baptized or unbaptized, within the bounds of Heaven and it is only in mortality that we refuse to baptize them. There is also the doctrine of proxy baptism that allows all to have the opportunity if they desire to enter into the presence of God.

So it seems to me that what you are asking me to prove is that the Church of Christ is not identical to the Kingdom of Heaven in LDS doctrine. Isn't this backward though? You are the one making the claim based on the Catholic doctrine, not actual LDS doctrine so I would appreciate it if you would point to where you believe we teach this (with documentation so I have something to work with please ) which would then possibly cause the contradiction between the two scriptures of Matthew and the D&C.

---

I am curious as to how the Catholic doctrine would be handled in the case of a Mormon couple coming to a priest and asking for infant baptism for their child (perhaps because they think the ritual is beautiful). It is unlikely to happen, of course, I am viewing this as a thought experiment in order to better understand how Catholics would view baptism on a variety of levels in order to be sure my assumptions are not in error. Since I correctly anticipated your explanation of Matt 19, I have hopes that I am relatively secure in my understanding of at least the less complicated aspects.

[Calm]

And that is why it is especially appropriate that children not be hindered from entering the Kingdom (by refusing them Baptism) because they are the example of what being a child of God is supposed to be like.

Thank you. You have a very clear way of explaining things.

I think it's interesting that in this case LDS are more literal than Catholics, the children Christ was talking about are not only the example of what being a child of God is supposed to be like, they are literally considered the children of God and as such have access to heaven without the need of baptism.