Infant Baptism

[Ambrose]

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.

A large part of the baptism is the parents and godparents promising to raise the child in the Catholic faith. If that is lacking, then the baptism should not be done.

[Calm]

A large part of the baptism is the parents and godparents promising to raise the child in the Catholic faith. If that is lacking, then the baptism should not be done.

Thank you.

I have to be honest (I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just explaining my thoughts) and say that I don't see much difference between this (as well as the delay of baptizing of older people when it is possible for them to the catechism lessons--I'm not sure this is the right term, but it's what my Catholic friend of my youth called them--until after a demonstration of the proper form of faith is present as was described in an above post) and the LDS practice of delaying baptism until the "age of accountability". Both rest the permission by the one in authority in the Church for the ritual to occur on the presence of the correct desire and a recognition that there are certain requirements of faith and understanding for it to be the correct desire or exercises of faith, though in the case of the Catholics that desire can be on behalf of the infant while with LDS it rests solely on the individual receiving baptism. Catholics will say "yes" to more individuals it appears, including most infants, but still not all; LDS say no to all up until a certain age and then yes to any who express the correct desire--the difference appears to be one of degree, there is still a time when both say "no"---that time is just different. I think the LDS practice of offering the possibility of baptism beyond mortality compensates for any restriction. I see the Catholic teaching on the baptism of desire to do some of the same for children, the rest is laid at the Lord's feet allowing him to decide, certainly all that is necessary for one who fully trusts the Lord.

[soren]

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.

If LDS doctrine denied that the Kingdom of Heaven is the church, it would miss the entire point of the gospel proclamation of Christ's kingship and would also divide Christ as if he had two bodies. I need not resort to Catholic authority to justify this, and indeed have not. I have limiting myself to biblical evidence, which I judge to be common ground, and you have not yet identified any errors in my interpretation of that evidence, particularly as pertains to the Kingdom parables, Phil 3:20, and Heb 12:22.

But that is perhaps beside the point, since Mormonism does in effect teach that the Church is the Kingdom, for D&C constantly refers to the Church as â??Zion.â? The whole reason why the Church is Zion is that Christ heads the church as the inheritor of the Davidic kingdom, which was established by covenant on Zion in 2 Sam 7. In the entire Bible, only two kingdoms are ever established by covenant, the kingdom of David and the Church, whence Christ tells his apostles â??And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and judge the twelve tribes of Israelâ? (Luke 22:29-30) (Here the KJV goes badly astray: the word translated as â??appointâ? is â??diatithemaiâ? and is the verbal form of â??diatheke,â? which means â??covenant.â?) The apostolic preaching that ensues in Acts is all to the effect that Christ has inherited the Davidic kingdom, and that this constitutes a mandate for preaching his name. The apostles are appointed regents in the Kingdom in Luke 22, and ratified in that position at Pentecost. If this were not the case, the Church would not be Zion.

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.

I donâ??t know. Iâ??ve never heard of that happening. The church does require couples who baptize their children to attend a short course explaining the responsibilities the parents take on themselves to raise the child in the church following baptism.

[Calm]

f LDS doctrine denied that the Kingdom of Heaven is the church, it would miss the entire point of the gospel proclamation of Christ's kingship and would also divide Christ as if he had two bodies.

Well, since LDS do not believe that the Body of Christ that is the Church is Christ's literal body, as far as we are concerned he already has two "bodies"...they are talking about completely different things in LDS doctrine, one an ecclesiastical organization of which Christ is the Head/leader/source of authority and power and two, his flesh and bone tabernacle. So the second part of your argument is useless for LDS thought.

As to the first, in LDS doctrine it is true that the Church is believed to be the mortal manifestation on God's kingdom.

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah

but to suggest that we are barring anyone from the Kingdom by refusing to baptize them in the here and now makes no sense as LDS doctrine allows for even those not on earth during the existence of the Church to be partakers of the kingdom at some future time and specifically so in the case of children allows them entrance into God's presence, which is the Kingdom of Heaven in the eternal context.

IOW, you cannot claim we are forbidding anyone the kingdom if we believe that at some time they have the opportunity to be in full fellowship in the Kingdom if they demonstrate the correct desire...just as in Catholic doctrine a demonstration is required as well at least by someone prior to death and at death, it's left up to God to decide for infants apparently incapable of correct desire.

From what I've seen, if you insist on reading the scriptures this way, you have created an conundrum for your fellow Catholics (unless you can demonstrate that there are no circumstances that would cause a Catholic to say "no" when asked to baptize an infant which if my understanding of your fellow Catholics' post is not the case), but not for LDS who are not locked into your personal interpretations. I see both as being resolved in the option of future fellowship which makes perfect sense to me as being consistent in both doctrines, but if you refuse this option to LDS then it seems to me you must refuse it to your fellow Catholics as well.

=======

I've greatly appreciated everyone's comments in this thread. My understanding of Catholic infant baptism has grown due to this and I will be sure to point out to others in my faith who criticize it the correct teachings, specifically that on "Limbo" being considered incorrect and leaving it up to God and not condemning them to damnation---something quite different than what is taught in some other Christian denominations and is what is often the incorrect understanding that some of us LDS hold. In fact, I have already done so as this morning when discussing this thread with my husband, I updated him on the status of the Limbo belief---something I apparently neglected to do in the past when I first learned about it--and the actual doctrine according to the Catechism. He knows my interest in Catholic doctrine and fed it well by connecting me up with a good Catholic friend at his work who provided me not only with a Catechism, but significant discussions about her belief (she was very active in her parish and a very wise and compassionate woman as well, it is my experience with her that probably first open the door for a serious appreciation of the beauty and deep truths of Catholic belief).