|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Teaching on Baptism - 2/9/2008 2:54:07 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanBryan
Dear DH,
Why is a baby baptized prior to the age when the child can make a 'free will' choice to be or not be baptized?
Why under the Old Covenant was a Jewish male circumsized at 8 days old? because it was a sign that they were part of the covenant community. Why is an infant baptized? to mark their inclusion into the covenant community.
quote:
Why does a catechumen have to wait for indoctrination prior to baptism but the baby does not? Why can’t the catechumen confess their sins, leaving only the original sin, and then be baptized?
The baby does not have to wait because it is asumed as the question to the parents that the child will be raised within the bounds of the faith catholic, so the baptism does not need to be safe guarded. As for the catechumen they have a lot of bagage that they are comming into the church with from the pagan world their for they need to have their minds renewed so that understand how this baptism is different from the baptism that happened in the pagan mystery cults.
quote:
Isn’t it presumptuous and dangerous to pose a theory in matters of heaven and hell?
I think it is more dangerous to wait believers baptism and deprive the child of the opportunity. What if the church is right. I would rather err on the side of cautions. I also heard a former independent now catholic minister put it this way "as independents we made our children wait saying they were not old enough to join the community no matter how badly they wanted to. By the time we thought they were old enough they no longer had a desire to as they had been welcomed in to other communities (read alcohol, drug, sex, whatever) long before.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Teaching on Baptism - 8/9/2008 2:45:06 PM
|
|
|
Bonlee
Posts: 37
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Baptism and Limbo - related in this topic
[quote]ORIGINAL: gatolover
CalRed,
quote:
Well the pope has done it again. Shown how ridiculous the RCC faith is. After over a thousand years of teaching one thing, he has reversed the church's position and now says infants are not born with sin and are not going to hell unless they are baptized.
The were in "limbo" even though Augustine says they were going to hell, but a milder version of hell.
gatolover's response:
I'm not sure where you got your information, but this is a blatant mischaracterization of the document I believe you are referring to. Some excerpts from an article by Catholic News, which quotes the document, follow:
quote:
"We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge," it added.
The 41-page document, titled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized," was published in Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service. Pope Benedict XVI authorized its publication earlier this year.
The 30-member International Theological Commission acts as an advisory panel to the Vatican, in particular to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Its documents are not considered expressions of authoritative church teaching, but they sometimes set the stage for official Vatican pronouncements.
The commission's document said salvation for unbaptized babies who die was becoming an urgent pastoral question, in part because their number is greatly increasing. Many infants today are born to parents who are not practicing Catholics, and many others are the unborn victims of abortion, it said.
Limbo has never been defined as church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states simply that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God's mercy.
You can read the entire article here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
Catholics Christians have always shared a living hope of salvation and entrusted unbaptized infants to the Mercy of God. ( not true - as the article goes on to state quite clearly - although this was not considered official dogma - it was "taught" for many, many, many years and there are many "Catholic Christians" who can attest to this - especially the ones who suffered in agony at the thoughts of their babies not being allowed in the presence of God )
Contrary to your rather insensitively-articulated conclusions, this document does not reflect a reversal of official Church teaching [b[color=#000000[b]]](read the article again about what was actually being "taught"- no "hope" was in St Augustine's "theory" - they were in hell)[/b]
on the hope of salvation of unbaptized infants.
I hope this helps.
Pax Chriti,gatolover[/color]
Which of course raises a few other questions that should be discussed in other forums, however a thought at least should be given to them here...these being:
Why were things being taught that weren't considered dogma of the church....especially on such a serious topic...and over such a prolonged period of time?
What other things, that aren't officially sanctioned by the church, are being taught now that people aren't aware..."Catholic Christians" and those perhaps considering joining their church?
Does this bring into question the validity of "other" practices that the church has been teaching as "truth" over the centuries?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Teaching on Baptism - 8/10/2008 6:54:25 PM
|
|
|
RepentanceIsRequired
Posts: 1111
Joined: 9/14/2005
From: Home is where the heart is.
Status: offline
|
There are some excellent posts from many Catholics and like minds about infant baptism. They have only confirmed my belief in baptizing my children.
_____________________________
--Nicole--
If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Teaching on Baptism - 8/10/2008 9:48:45 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 544
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Well hello, Bonlee,
It appears you are making the rounds at the Catholic threads, some of which haven't been active in a while. That's good!
quote:
not true - as the article goes on to state quite clearly - although this was not considered official dogma - it was "taught" for many, many, many years and there are many "Catholic Christians" who can attest to this - especially the ones who suffered in agony at the thoughts of their babies not being allowed in the presence of God )
If you are going to assert such nonsense about "official" Catholic "dogma," you best cite some "official" Catholic sources, friend. The Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever, presumed to judge the state of the souls of those not baptised into Her Communion. They are, and have always been, left to the Mercy of God, which isn't a bad place to be, by a long shot.
FYI, St. Augustine has been declared a saint and Doctor of the Church, but his writings are only as valuable as they adhere to Church teaching...the One established and nourished by Christ Himself. Just FYI.
quote:
Which of course raises a few other questions that should be discussed in other forums, however a thought at least should be given to them here...these being:
Why were things being taught that weren't considered dogma of the church....especially on such a serious topic...and over such a prolonged period of time?
That was my point....they weren't.
quote:
What other things, that aren't officially sanctioned by the church, are being taught now that people aren't aware..."Catholic Christians" and those perhaps considering joining their church?
Does this bring into question the validity of "other" practices that the church has been teaching as "truth" over the centuries?
I think you would do well to read the "official" Catholic Catechism if you are truly interested in learning what devout Catholic Christians believe. I'd be more than happy to expound on any entries you don't understand.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Teaching on Baptism - 8/10/2008 11:19:10 PM
|
|
|
Bonlee
Posts: 37
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gatolover
Well hello, Bonlee,
It appears you are making the rounds at the Catholic threads, some of which haven't been active in a while. That's good!
quote:
not true - as the article goes on to state quite clearly - although this was not considered official dogma - it was "taught" for many, many, many years and there are many "Catholic Christians" who can attest to this - especially the ones who suffered in agony at the thoughts of their babies not being allowed in the presence of God )
If you are going to assert such nonsense about "official" Catholic "dogma," you best cite some "official" Catholic sources, friend.
- I'm quoting from the exact same article that you, yourself posted from and I found it on the exact website that you suggested - I read the whole thing - and just a bit further along in the article it states quite clearly that although not a "dogma" of the church - it was taught for many years -
" Limbo has never been defined as church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states simply that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God's mercy.
But limbo has long been regarded as the common teaching of the church. In the modern age, "people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness," the new document said.
Parents in particular can experience grief and feelings of guilt when they doubt their unbaptized children are with God, it said.
The church's hope for these infants' salvation reflects a growing awareness of God's mercy, the commission said. But the issue is not simple, because appreciation for divine mercy must be reconciled with fundamental church teachings about original sin and about the necessity of baptism for salvation, it said. "
The Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever, presumed to judge the state of the souls of those not baptised into Her Communion. They are, and have always been, left to the Mercy of God, which isn't a bad place to be, by a long shot.
FYI, St. Augustine has been declared a saint and Doctor of the Church, but his writings are only as valuable as they adhere to Church teaching...the One established and nourished by Christ Himself. Just FYI.
But someone must have thought St. Agustine's theory was valuable, because they picked it up and ran with it for quite awhile....
The article then goes on to state the following:
" In the fifth century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell. By the 13th century, theologians referred to the "limbo of infants" as a place where unbaptized babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of.
quote:
Which of course raises a few other questions that should be discussed in other forums, however a thought at least should be given to them here...these being:
Why were things being taught that weren't considered dogma of the church....especially on such a serious topic...and over such a prolonged period of time?
That was my point....they weren't.
[color=#660066](Again - from the website and article you suggested as acceptable reading)
" But limbo has long been regarded as the common teaching of the church. In the modern age, "people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness," the new document said.
quote:
What other things, that aren't officially sanctioned by the church, are being taught now that people aren't aware..."Catholic Christians" and those perhaps considering joining their church?
From the same article:
" Through the centuries, popes and church councils were careful not to define limbo as a doctrine of the faith and to leave the question open. That was important in allowing an evolution of the teaching, the theological commission said."
Bonlee - which I'm sure is greatly appreciated by those who were taught incorrectly and were in anguish about where their babies were.
Does this bring into question the validity of "other" practices that the church has been teaching as "truth" over the centuries?
I think you would do well to read the "official" Catholic Catechism if you are truly interested in learning what devout Catholic Christians believe. I'd be more than happy to expound on any entries you don't understand.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
Thank you gatolover for the advice... and I'm sure any insights that you may have would be very interesting, however I'm not as certain that they would be all that accurate in view of the postings above...I did afterall go and visit and view the website and the article referred too by you and it seems that either you didn't read it very thoroughly or you don't want - or - can't accept that it raises a few serious questions.
Yes - I am new to these forums and have been reading various postings on quite a few topics...overwhelming really!! I'm learning a great deal about how much I don't know ....however, my faith is being strengthened by the suffiency of Who I do know! (or is that "Whom"??)
God bless you gatolover.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Teaching on Baptism - 8/11/2008 2:34:35 AM
|
|
|
Bonlee
Posts: 37
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Greetings gatolover!
I took your advice and looked for more information into this topic on the teaching of Baptism and came across this official document as posted on the
www.vatican.va/roman_curia website entitled -
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
"THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*"
It is lengthy, but well worth the read in full with regards to what has been actually "taught" - not as officially accepted "dogma" - as I indicated in my original posts....but nevertheless....it has been taught.
People's lives have been affected by this over the years, some have gone to their own graves still in torment over the destination of their infants that have passed away.....
And that is the point I'm trying to make....for the life of me I can't understand how and why it has taken so long for all of these supposedly enlightened and learned men, to "almost" come to the realization, that God's wisdom is not like ours....His grace and love is not like anything we can even begin to "theorize about" or "allow to happen" when we think we've got it all sorted out.
Paragraph 79. from The Hope of Salvation for Babies Who Die Without Being Baptised
79. It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. She knows and celebrates the glory of the Holy Innocents, but the destiny of the generality of infants who die without Baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed. What we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation, as must now be explained.
I highlighted the word "teaches" as it is used here and now stating that it only teaches and judges with regard to what has been revealed...however, in the opening paragraphs near the beginning of this official document and throughout the body of it, it explains how the "theory" of "Limbo" developed over the years and was "taught" over the years.
So apparently the RCChurch has "allowed" - a "theory" (Limbo) to be taught for many, many years - that apparently wasn't "revealed", because now they are finally coming to a realization of the fullness of God's mercy, love and grace.... and realizing that it can't be measured or contained...or dispensed or controlled by any of us.....or whenever we think is the right time...and not in any one devised formula that we think is the only way......afterall.....
He is God and can and will do whatever He deems fit, whenever He wants to do and to whomever He wants to do it too....with or without our help.
For those things that we don't think are covered in the bible, or perhaps haven't yet been "revealed" by our discernment or understanding or knowledge....and for those things where there are no "traditions" to look back on....we must surely have to trust and place our hope in God.
Isn't that a fundamental acknowledgement that comes as soon as every believer experiences God's grace and mercy in one's own life? To have "hope" in God? And yet it has taken this long for an "official document" to come into being presenting this as a "new" way of defining this "teaching".
(The following excerpt is from that original letter from the website that you originally recommended to read)
" Through the centuries, popes and church councils were careful not to define limbo as a doctrine of the faith and to leave the question open. That was important in allowing an evolution of the teaching, the theological commission said."
He is still in control....He never changes to suit the times....and His grace and love and mercy does not need to allow for any "evolution of any teaching"....His grace has always been there...always will be....and is always sufficient....if we get out the way and allow it to happen.
The Holy Spirit will reveal this to one's heart and mind and spirit...if He's not thwarted by our human endeavours to contain it and make it fit into our agenda. No matter "who" we are or what "faith" we follow...ALL of us.
Finally gatolover....I'd like to leave you with a thought that unites us all....simply this -
The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that deep down inside we ALL believe we are good drivers. 
God bless!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Teaching on Baptism - 8/14/2008 7:34:48 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 551
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanBryan
Dear DH,
Why is a baby baptized prior to the age when the child can make a 'free will' choice to be or not be baptized?
Why under the Old Covenant was a Jewish male circumsized at 8 days old? because it was a sign that they were part of the covenant community. Why is an infant baptized? to mark their inclusion into the covenant community.
quote:
Why does a catechumen have to wait for indoctrination prior to baptism but the baby does not? Why can’t the catechumen confess their sins, leaving only the original sin, and then be baptized?
The baby does not have to wait because it is asumed as the question to the parents that the child will be raised within the bounds of the faith catholic, so the baptism does not need to be safe guarded. As for the catechumen they have a lot of bagage that they are comming into the church with from the pagan world their for they need to have their minds renewed so that understand how this baptism is different from the baptism that happened in the pagan mystery cults.
quote:
Isn’t it presumptuous and dangerous to pose a theory in matters of heaven and hell?
I think it is more dangerous to wait believers baptism and deprive the child of the opportunity. What if the church is right. I would rather err on the side of cautions. I also heard a former independent now catholic minister put it this way "as independents we made our children wait saying they were not old enough to join the community no matter how badly they wanted to. By the time we thought they were old enough they no longer had a desire to as they had been welcomed in to other communities (read alcohol, drug, sex, whatever) long before.
Hello Dan Bryan,
I may not be Roman Catholic, but I do believe in infant baptism. As lgpreacherman said, one of the benefits of baptism is that you become a child of God. The other benefits is that God washes away your sins and gives you the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39).
When people come to me and say,"well, infants can't make a decision, so therefore, they can't be baptized." Where does it say in scripture we can make a decision, in the salvation process, in the first place? We are dead in our sins, so how can we, in our fallen, corrupted state, make a decision to follow Christ? That 'decision theology' is incompatible with the Bible. The Bible says all our thoughts are wicked continually, (Genesis 6:5) so God has to do all the saving, we have no part in the process with our works.
I also use the circumcision argument as well. In the Old Covenant, infants were commanded on the 8th day to be circumcised, if not, they were cut off from God's people. Where is the decision in all of this?" These infants didn't have a choice, it was just done to them, and if not, they were cut off. That may seem unfair since they didn't have a decision in the process, but we don't have a decision to be born sinners, it just is. In Colossians 2:11-12 The Apostle Paul says that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament. So why can't infants be baptized if infants were circumcised? The argument for 'decision' theology just doesn't make sense.
I will also have to comment on lgpreacherman's point where if you wait a long time for your child to be baptized. By the time you think they are ready they probably will not want to be baptized anymore. Because by that time they are caught up in so much sinful activity you will not be able to stop it. If they are baptized in infancy, by the time they are teenagers, they will not go off as far, because they have the name of God on them.
I have a friend who is in a Pentecostal home. All of the children are at ages where their church would allow them to be baptized, but none of them are. My friend is the oldest child, she is 22, and she is still not baptized. My husband and I are so upset that she is still not baptized, therefore, there is one other road, she is still dead in her sins.
My husband is starting to question her faith because she is not wanting to get baptized. He is questioning whether she has faith, I'm starting to question that as well because we have many discussions regarding her and her parents, and even her congregation. If this was taken care of a long time ago we wouldn't be having this problem, she would have faith as the result of the giving of the Holy Spirit in baptism. But the damage is done. And the damage will still be there until she is baptized, because as of right now, she is dead in her sins, yet we pray for her because we are being a friend to her.
I am not saying that there aren't those who don't stray from the faith. Sadly many do. But there are just as many who were baptized in infancy who lead victorious Christian lives. You just can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As Martin Luther said in the Large Catechism,
Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam
Abuse does not destroy the substance, but confirms its existence.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Jessica
< Message edited by JesKlu -- 8/14/2008 11:45:25 PM >
_____________________________
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
