Pope Francis defends infant baptism

[KevinT]

Infant circumcision and baptism are not reactions to infant mortality; instead, they signify God's will to incorporate believers and their offspring into the covenant.

Can you explain more about the religious elements of infant circumcision in the Catholic church? I am assuming this teaching come from church fathers?

KT

 

[KevinT]

The conundrum faced with infant baptism is that many such infants grow into thoroughly unbelieving adults. Thus, the grace conferred through the rite of baptism is only temporary, at best. Thus, another means of acquiring the grace of salvation is needed. Actually, more than just one other means. Thus, there is first communion and confirmation, both road posts on the way to possible salvation. Then there is an innumerable host of religious good works which are deemed essential if one is to hope for salvation. Salvation, in this system, is never certain and is always tied to the individual's efforts.

I don't know @bbbbbbb , but I suspect this is a non-Catholic speaking for Catholics.

KT

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Can you explain more about the religious elements of infant circumcision in the Catholic church? I am assuming this teaching come from church fathers?

KT

Infant circumcision is a legal provision from the Old Testament, forming part of the Mosaic Law; it required male infants to be circumcised on the eighth day following their birth. It is not a practice specific to Catholicism, but rather a biblical ordinance.

 

[KevinT]

Infant circumcision is a legal provision from the Old Testament, forming part of the Mosaic Law; it required male infants to be circumcised on the eighth day following their birth. It is not a practice specific to Catholicism, but rather a biblical ordinance.

Oh. I erroneously thought you were saying that this was done in Catholicism, which seemed counter-intuitive to me. I understand about OT circumcision.

KT

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't know @bbbbbbb , but I suspect this is a non-Catholic speaking for Catholics.

KT

Close. This is a non-Catholic sharing his observations on the theological implications of Catholic doctrine. I invite Catholics to clarify my thinking.

 

[RileyG]

The clever thing about Catholicism is that they do not require any proof text from the Bible for their beliefs. The Bible, as you know, is just a portion of their Holy Tradition. In many cases Holy Tradition trumps the Bible.

Uh, no. The Bible literally is part of Holy tradition. Whole families were baptized in the book of acts, which most certainly included infants.

 

[RileyG]

In times past, infant mortality was very high. So what was the answer to parents about the salvation state of the dead infant? If one teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, then would an unbaptized baby that dies then be lost or committed to hell? It is my understanding that this was the drive for infant baptism in the past.

I would ask if that is still needed today? And if one is baptized as an infant, should then be baptized again once they reach the age of accountability?

KT

There was limbo which was never official Church teaching.

Essentially, we commend them to the mercy of God.

 

[RileyG]

What I wrote is written in the bible .

Be glad too see your proof text ?

dan p

I think it’s already been answered on here in other posts so there’s no need to repeat it.

Blessings

 

[bbbbbbb]

Uh, no. The Bible literally is part of Holy tradition. Whole families were baptized in the book of acts, which most certainly included infants.

And household slaves, who probably had little to no interest in the new religion.

 

[RileyG]

And household slaves, who probably had little to no interest in the new religion.

So?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So?

If, as you assert, unbelieving infants who were part of the household were baptized, then, assuredly unbelieving slaves who were also part and parcel of the household, were also baptized. Do you believe this?

 

[RileyG]

If, as you assert, unbelieving infants who were part of the household were baptized, then, assuredly unbelieving slaves who were also part and parcel of the household, were also baptized. Do you believe this?

Who the says the infants were unbelieving? Didn’t John the Baptist leap in his mothers womb when he recognized Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Who the says the infants were unbelieving? Didn’t John the Baptist leap in his mothers womb when he recognized Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary?

Who says anyone is unbelieving? Only God knows the heart. Thus, each and every person ought to be baptized so that they might receive the grace of God conferred through the rite of baptism. That would include slaves in a household, would it not?

 

[RileyG]

Who says anyone is unbelieving? Only God knows the heart. Thus, each and every person ought to be baptized so that they might receive the grace of God conferred through the rite of baptism. That would include slaves in a household, would it not?

Are you saying God can work miracles in a baby's heart? Why or why not?

Yes, it can most definitely include slaves.

 

[ralliann]

If, as you assert, unbelieving infants who were part of the household were baptized, then, assuredly unbelieving slaves who were also part and parcel of the household, were also baptized. Do you believe this?

NON Catholic here.....Keeping the baptism like unto circumcision, this was how Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob passed on the promise to their children, as well as faithful to keep Gods covenant of promise?

Ge 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Ge 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Ge 17:14 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.

An interesting concept for sure, looking at the promises To Abraham.....
Covenant keeping...
Prerequisite to partake of the Passover...
Ex 12:44 But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In times past, infant mortality was very high. So what was the answer to parents about the salvation state of the dead infant? If one teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, then would an unbaptized baby that dies then be lost or committed to hell? It is my understanding that this was the drive for infant baptism in the past.

An old wives tale. I know of no historical text who cites this belief except for the Credos. This is typical of Baptist/American Evangelical belief in an attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY infant baptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

And if one is baptized as an infant, should then be baptized again once they reach the age of accountability?

Where does Scripture teach the Age of Accountability? The belief in the Age of Accountability is an innovation and is another attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY infant baptism.

 

[RileyG]

In times past, infant mortality was very high. So what was the answer to parents about the salvation state of the dead infant? If one teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, then would an unbaptized baby that dies then be lost or committed to hell? It is my understanding that this was the drive for infant baptism in the past.

I would ask if that is still needed today? And if one is baptized as an infant, should then be baptized again once they reach the age of accountability?

KT

No. You can only be validly baptized ONCE. Holy Communion and Confirmation reaffirms the Baptismal promises.

 

[Valletta]

I don't know @bbbbbbb , but I suspect this is a non-Catholic speaking for Catholics.

KT

Bingo! There is no conundrum. As to unbaptized children, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Part Two Section Two The Seven Sacrements Of The Church Chapter One The Sacraments Of Christian Initiation Article 1 The Sacrament Of Baptism VI. The Necessity Of Baptism

www.vatican.va

 

[KevinT]

An old wives tale. I know of no historical text who cites this belief except for the Credos. This is typical of Baptist/American Evangelical belief in an attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY infant baptism.

Not wanting to propagate old wives' tales, I decided to look into the history of this. Wikipedia has a good write up on Believer's Baptism

Apostolic Fathers
The Didache has been a matter of discussion among Protestants on what it teaches about baptism. The Didache has been argued to have assumed believer's baptism, as it assumes discipleship before baptism and does not mention infant baptism. Against this, Philip Schaff argued that the silence of the Didache about infant baptism "cannot be fairly used as an argument against it".[15][16][17]

Similar to Tertullian later, the Shepherd of Hermas implies for the practice of delaying baptism for the practical reason of the fear of post-baptismal sins, as Hermas says those who fall have only one chance of penance.[18]

Polycarp stated, "I have served him eighty-six years and in no way has he dealt unjustly with me". Proponents of infant baptism argue that this quote shows Polycarp being baptized as an infant, the argument being that if Polycarp was a servant of Christ for 86 years, he would have been a servant of Christ from infancy, suggesting infant baptism. However, against the argument, Schoedel William argued that the quote is ambiguous as regards to baptism, and that Polycarp meant by paraphrasing: "I have always served Jesus and I am not going to cease even at the age of 86."[19]

Tertullian advised the postponement of baptism in the case of little children.[20][21][22][23]
Infant baptism in this time was affirmed by Hippolytus of Rome and Cyprian, who announced the decision of the African synod to require the baptism of infants.[24] The practice is also clearly practiced in the churches of Egypt very early, as seen from the writings of Origen, who claimed it as apostolic tradition.[25] However, according to Schreiner, Origen's need to make an apology for infant baptism implies it was not a universal belief.[26] Tertullian (c. 198–203), in his treatise on baptism, advises the postponement of baptism in the case of little children, arguing that it is better to wait until one is ready to live what he professes in baptism rather than to repudiate the profession by wickedness. He however also advises to postpone the baptism of the unmarried, and mentions that the baptism of infants existed during his time, having sponsors speaking on their behalf.[20][21][22][23]

Philip Schaff among many others have argued that Justin Martyr affirmed infant baptism, Justin stating that some in his day have been disciples of Jesus since childhood, while Dan Taylor instead claimed that Justin Martyr is "clear and full evidence" that infant baptism was not practiced during his time. He highlighted Justin's statements that one was "persuaded that the things spoken and taught by us are true", before baptism. Dan Taylor argued against the interpretation of the quote used to justify infant baptism, stating that by "discipleship", Justin was not referring to baptism but to teaching.[27][25]

Thomas Schreiner argued that the Apology of Aristedes indirectly excludes infant baptism, stating that the children of believers were considered part of the Christian community only after conversion.[28]

Clement of Alexandria made no clear statements on infant baptism.[29] Proponents of believer's baptism have argued that because Clement of Alexandria connects repentance and baptism, he supported the practice.[30] On the other hand Philip Schaff wrote that some statements that he makes can unclearly imply infant baptism.[25]

Eusebius mentioned that an earlier presbyter who took a child and "committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him".[31]

In inscriptions from the end from the second century and later in which the date of baptism and death are mentioned, there is a close correlation between the time of baptism and their time of death. For example, Antonia Cyriaceti died and received baptism on the same day, Felite received baptism March 26 and died April 29. Multiple other inscriptions mention people of varying ages, who died as "neophytes" which implies someone whose baptism was a recent event, such as a Greek inscription that mentioned Achillia, who died in their 5th year as a neophyte.[32]

The policy of the Montanists discouraged baptism of infants.[33] Additionally, some have argued that the schismatic Novatians did not generally baptize infants, though the stance of the Novatians is disputed and by this point infant baptism had become clear among many orthodox writers.[34]

I take the above to indicate that there was a diversity of views in the early church. Would you agree with that?

Best wishes,

KT