I was wondering if our forum scholars, and those who fancy themselves scholars, ;) could give insight on the basics of baptismal teaching in the Catholic church. I would like to hear the basics on both baptism of infants and baptism of believing children/teens/adults.

I learned quite a bit of this while in the CEC, but some things seem to be a little different in the RC. I'm wondering if it's just semantics.

Specifically, what questions do you have? I'll try to help.

Blessings,

What does infant baptism accomplish? Why do Protestants teach only "believer" baptism? Why does the Church teach infant baptism?

Teacher at church last night: "We are not baptized into the Catholic church. We are baptized into the Church worldwide." Does this mean all baptized people are part of the Church? (I think I saw an answer to this on the forum previously. Could you refresh my memory?)

Also, in the CEC, we were taught that once a child was baptized, they could receive Eucharist. Why does the Catholic church not allow them to receive?

That comment by your "teacher" at church was WAY OFF when he said, "We are not baptized into the Catholic Church, but into the Church worldwide." What does he think "Catholic" means? It means (among other things) "universal, extending over the whole world". It sounds like he is equating the Catholic Church with the denominations...which She is not. When one is baptized in the Catholic or Orthodox Church one is baptized into the "Church Worldwide".
Now, what he MAY have meant was that the Church recognizes as valid and grace-giving baptism administered in ANY church by ANYone IF it is done with water in the Name of the +Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Even one baptized by some fly by night, little mountain, ultra kooky sect is validly baptized if it was with water in the Name of the Trinity for the remission of sins. And one so validly baptized has received (albeit imperfectly perhaps) THE Baptism of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

A couple of quick points:

1) MOST Protestants teach infant baptism! Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. In the United States, there is a strong Baptist tradition which borrowed the concept of "believer's baptism" from the Anabapists of the Radical Reformation -- a movement which went much further than any of the Reformers -- even Zwingli.

2) The practice of "paedo-communion" (the communion of young infants) is practiced in the Orthodox churches -- where baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist are offered on a single occasion. The CEC never did this, with regard to confirmation, but DID do so with regard to communion, claiming, of course, that they were following "ancient Eastern tradition." The problem is, is that they were only following PART of the Eastern tradition -- and they neglected the common occurrance in Eastern churches, where the infant communion was frequently not repeated, sometimes for many years.

Paedo-communion is not practiced in the Western Church. Indeed, it was not until the pontificate of St. Pius X, that the age of communion was lowered from 12 to 7 (which is traditionally considered the age of reason).

I was vehemently against the CEC policy of paedo-communion, and did not allow my children to receive until they had reached the age of reason -- and had made their first confession. As I see it, the ideals behind the CEC's decision to adopt this practice were high -- but as a denomination, they were never able to provide a theological justification for the decision. Indeed, the CEC never developed a Eucharistic theology.

One of my long-standing arguments when I WAS still a Theologian in the CEC, was that it was a major mistake for the CEC to make ANY significant liturgical or theological decision without first providing a solid theological justification for the action.

Blessings,

Thanks, David and NiceneHobbit!

Those were two great and interesting posts. I will add that the Anabaptist have always differed from modern Baptists (European and American types) in that they, like the Church of Christ denomination and the Church Catholic, believed in baptismal regeneration (salvation through baptism).

What is also telling is that the European founder of the Baptist Church, John Smyth, was an Anabaptist who later left his denomination because he embraced apostolic succession and episcopal government.

The American Baptists are actually a split off the Church of England. Founder Roger Williams wanted separation of Church and State and only later embraced Anabaptism (another-baptism for those at the age of reason). He rejected apostolic succession and later his followers rejected affusion and baptismal regeneration. This is when they embraced, as you stated, "Believer's Baptism". The Campbellites broke off them to embrace baptismal regeneration but still rejecting affusion and apostolic succession. They are the Church of Christ and Christian Disciples of Christ today.

See, I thought all Protestants were just like our former denom. Only baptizing those old enough to have "faith". Thank you all for explaining how other denominations stand on this. I am also aware that the Amish (being from a similar background to the Anabaptists) also only baptize adults who are "joining church".

One thing I do appreciate about our teaching in the CEC was that I learned that God wants all of us in his family: from the oldest to the youngest, and even including those who may not have the mental capabilities to "decide" they have faith in Christ.

So here is where our family stands:
Me: baptized at age 10 in Protestant denomination in which I was raised
Eldest child: baptized in same denomination at age 5 in same denom.
Youngest child: baptized in CEC at age 2
We all have baptismal certificates.

Husband: baptized at age 12 in Protestant denom....however...there was never a baptismal certificate given for his baptism. Someone in our RCIA class told us he will have to be given a "provisional" baptism since there is no certificate. This seems wrong to me, in light of the "one baptism" we are to have. And in light of the fact that he was old enough to remember his baptism. Your thoughts?

Kids are both in RCIC. Then what happens? This hasn't been spelled out too clearly for us yet. When will they be allowed to receive Eucharist? This has been difficult for them both to understand, since they were allowed to receive in the CEC.

Another question. Why is there such a long time from a child's first communion to confirmation? I realize this is a different topic, but it's something we are facing.

I actually found out the answers to my own questions.

Dear Truth Seeker,

I for one would be interested in the answers you 'got from your own questions.'

For my own interest and that of those reading these posts.

Then, also if any of our Teaching sources here would please comment on the answers Truth Seeker has be given.

thanks, to you all.

This is an important thread for everyone here, including all you 'long time' Catholics.

blessings,

nell

Hi, Nell,
Regarding my husband's baptism, this is what our priest said: Since my husband was 13 when he was baptized, he obviously remembers that! ;) So...since the church had no records kept, and there was no certificate, our priest suggested that my husband's parents both sign a written statement that they were witnesses to his baptism. (Also, since then, the church has agreed to draw up a certificate and send it. Which seems a little odd to me, since the pastor who baptized him is deceased... but whatever!)

Our children will be received into the Church at the Easter vigil, just as my husband and I will be. They will receive Eucharist for the first time at the same time we do. I really like that it's being done this way, since we can come into the Church as a family.

And, actually, I still don't have an answer as to why there's such a long time period between first Communion and Confirmation. I'm waiting for an answer on that one! (hint, hint!) :D

That is what I found out. Hope it helps!

TS

Thanks TS, I am glad that is settled and happier still that you will be able to be received as a family. That is such a joyous occasion and an event none of you will ever forget.

As to the time element between First Communion and Confirmation, I can offer several reasons. Most of them have to do with decisions made by local Bishops.

First of all, most children receive first communion around the age of seven (second grade). At that point, they are coming to a sense of understanding about things Catholic, but most are not really ready to make an 'adult' decision about a Firm Profession of Faith. There are of course exceptions. But, I will say frankly from my own experience and observations, many of the First Communicants are only marginal in their knowledge of Eucharist, much less the other major tenents of the Catholic Faith.

Time frames are almost always set by Bishops locally. They also vary widely.
There is also a difference in many diocese where Confirmation is administered at the same time as Baptism, especially at the Easter Vigil to those who have partaken of the RCIA and RCIC courses and have been recommended to be received.

Most decisions about Confirmation should have much to do with the ability of an Adult decison by the recipient. That is why I often questioned some of the changes concerning reception at Baptism.

TS, these are just some thoughts, but I think maybe they can help. I have been away from the Catechist role for a couple of years so perhaps someone closer to it now will have a better answer.

I know most Sacraments have the traditions coming from Judaism. Like at age 12 when Bar Mitzpha is celebrated, as a 'boy becomes a man.' So the same bearing with timing for Confirmation. The biggest question is always an individual one and generally if a Bishop is doing Confirmations yearly, then a petition to confirm an individual can be made, even if that individual is not at the 'given normal age.'


Hopefully the more learned among us will jump in here to help and even correct me if I have misspoken.

blessings and prayers for your familys journey,

nell

Nell,
Thanks for your thoughts and insights. That does help a lot. Coming from a Protestant/Pentecostal background, through the CEC, and now to the Catholic Church, there certainly is a lot to learn!

One step at a time... :)

As good a place as any to post this from Tony a.k.a. The Baloney Man:

Many of you probably received this in an email from Tony. I will take the liberty of posting it here.

Hello family and friends,

A friend of mine alerted me this article. I find it interesting that the church has changed their view point on Limbo - Regarding Unbaptized infants. Happy Reading!

Lots of love Tony :o)

USA Today article on Limbo

Hi Mike,

I did see this. I don't believe the Church has changed anything however. Limbo has never been part of the official teaching of the Church. I don't believe there's anything on it in the Catechism. I could be wrong, of course. So if you know, then let me know.

I don't see Pope Benedict saying he's changing anything. He's only saying he has reason to hope that unbaptized infants can indeed inherit eternal life. But I think he's still saying what the Church has always been saying- we really don't know how God deals with this.

One thing I want to add. There's a quote in this article from someone at Notre Dame asserting that baptism must have nothing to do with the removal of original sin and that we must all be born into a state of Grace. This, I believe, contradicts the clear teaching of the Church and does not naturally follow from what the Pope said.

"Can anything good come out of Notre Dame?" <_<

Football and a number of great teachers and students. Please be careful of speaking against "the Dame". You do know who it was named for--right?

Yes! Even more reason to insist that people who teach or speak in her name hold to the orthodox opinions becoming of her!!!

I completely agree!!!

Yes, I root for Notre Dame football. No apologies.

BUT, while some of their faculty is orthodox, some is NOT!!! (Fr. McBrien!!!)

I did not mean to be offensive. I actually said that a bit tongue-in-cheek.

And yes, I know for whom the college was named. I only wish they would uphold that standard. Most of the quotes I hear (coming from professors at Notre Dame) are very liberal.

David Z. said:

Exactly what I meant, too. The liberals are the ones who seem to get the most press.

Isn't that always the case!!! :angry:

I'm resurrecting an older topic here, after reading this blog post by One Pilgrim.

I would appreciate thoughts/insights.

Since no one responded to my query, I will add to it here.

I am trying to understand rightly how Protestants are part of the church, or rather, body of Christ, without being part of the Church.

Hi Truth Seeker,

It is my understanding that all Christians become part of the Church through baptism, and by Church I mean the Catholic Church. However, many remain outside of the Church by affiliation. That is, they remain independent, or are part of a community aligning itself in the Protestant ranks. Think of it as someone who was born into a family, was adopted by another family at birth, came to find his birth family, but remained with the adoptive family to the exclusion of his birth family. This is the state of Christians outside of the Church. Mystically, they are part of the Church. But practically, they are separated from her.

Hope this helps.