What is the true meaning of Christening a child

Vyse

Hi,

We're due our first child in September and, like so many others, the discussion around christening has come up. I'm not overly religious. I do go to church (not every Sunday mind), believe in God but, like many others, have a few problems with the Church and its hierarchy.

My question is, what is the purpose of Christening a child? Is it a welcoming in to the Christian faith (which I have no problem with) or is it about ridding the child of original sin (which I have a massive problem with). I'm under the illusion that it is the later but I've been told the contrary. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Slav

Vyse wrote: »

My question is, what is the purpose of Christening a child? Is it a welcoming in to the Christian faith (which I have no problem with)

No, it's not just welcoming, it far more serious then that. Like it or not but baptism is death:

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)

or is it about ridding the child of original sin (which I have a massive problem with).

I think this is exclusively Roman Catholic understanding. Do you have a problem with the concept of the Original Sin itself or with the idea that it's washed away in baptism?

Vyse

Slav wrote: »

Do you have a problem with the concept of the Original Sin itself or with the idea that it's washed away in baptism?

It's the concept of original sin that bothers me.

Slav

Vyse wrote: »

It's the concept of original sin that bothers me.

This is a tricky question indeed and the one among others that divides Christianity. You are Roman Catholic, right? So what exactly your objections to the concept of Original Sin would be?

Council of Trent wrote:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, --which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptised, have put on Christ.

4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptised parents, are to be baptised; or says that they are baptised indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting, --whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptised for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptised there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

The above is the dogmatic definitions of the OS as per RCC. Do you think you disagree with any of these?

The Smurf

Vyse wrote: »

It's the concept of original sin that bothers me.

Original Sin refers to the fact that we live essentially blind to the presence of God. It is nothing to feel guilty over, and it is certainly 'not the child's fault'. But it is a reality of the human condition.

Very few Catholics actually understand what original sin is. I only found out why Jesus Christ died on the cross when I was about 22! How crazy is that! And I went to Catholic schools. There is so much confusion out there. And this is because the Catholic Faith has not been taught for the last 40 years or so.

This article helps to explain the Doctrine of Original Sin: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is also a good source of information: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/visible4.html

This is from the Compendium of the Catholic Church (The numbers refer to sections of the full Catechism of the Catholic Church):

75. What was the first human sin?

396-403
415-417

When tempted by the devil, the first man and woman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.

76. What is original sin?

404
419

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.

77. What other consequences derive from original sin?

405-409
418

In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence.

78. After the first sin, what did God do?

410-412
420

After the first sin the world was inundated with sin but God did not abandon man to the power of death. Rather, he foretold in a mysterious way in the “Protoevangelium” (Genesis 3:15) that evil would be conquered and that man would be lifted up from his fall. This was the first proclamation of the Messiah and Redeemer. Therefore, the fall would be called in the future a “happy fault” because it “gained for us so great a Redeemer” (Liturgy of the Easter Vigil).

Vyse

Slav wrote: »

This is a tricky question indeed and the one among others that divides Christianity. You are Roman Catholic, right? So what exactly your objections to the concept of Original Sin would be?



The above is the dogmatic definitions of the OS as per RCC. Do you think you disagree with any of these?

Yes I am Roman Catholic and I do have issue with the definitions above. The first and foremost would be that I believe Adam and Eve is a fairy tale.

homer911

Putting the faith issue to one side (as I am not a Roman Catholic - I'm a member of a Presbyterian Church), there are sometimes practical issues to consider - if there are no "educate together" or Protestant schools in your vicinity, you may have difficulty getting your child into a Catholic school without a baptismal/christening certificate - this aspect may be worth looking into, horrible as it may sound to you

yutta

Vyse wrote: »

Yes I am Roman Catholic and I do have issue with the definitions above. The first and foremost would be that I believe Adam and Eve is a fairy tale.

Do you believe human life spontaneously came into being?

PDN

yutta wrote: »

Do you believe human life spontaneously came into being?

Moderating Instruction:
If you want to discuss that then please take it to the Creationism megathread.

Vyse

homer911 wrote: »

Putting the faith issue to one side (as I am not a Roman Catholic - I'm a member of a Presbyterian Church), there are sometimes practical issues to consider - if there are no "educate together" or Protestant schools in your vicinity, you may have difficulty getting your child into a Catholic school without a baptismal/christening certificate - this aspect may be worth looking into, horrible as it may sound to you

Yeah, this is definitely an issue but I wouldn't like it to dictate our choice. It's an unfortunate reality that it may be a factor though.

scientific1982

yutta wrote: »

Do you believe human life spontaneously came into being?

You sir are a moron and a coward. Dont leave comments on my profile unless you're man enough to take what you dish out.

Vyse

Vyse wrote: »

Hi,

We're due our first child in September and, like so many others, the discussion around christening has come up. I'm not overly religious. I do go to church (not every Sunday mind), believe in God but, like many others, have a few problems with the Church and its hierarchy.

My question is, what is the purpose of Christening a child? Is it a welcoming in to the Christian faith (which I have no problem with) or is it about ridding the child of original sin (which I have a massive problem with). I'm under the illusion that it is the later but I've been told the contrary. Any clarification would be appreciated.

The one I was at on saturday placed a lot of emphasis on welcoming the child into the christian faith and community, and "washing away the evil".

PDN

scientific1982 wrote: »

You sir are a moron and a coward. Dont leave comments on my profile unless you're man enough to take what you dish out.

While that might well be true, please don't litter this Forum with personal insults again.

Vyse

Well at least at a minimum they have scrapped the idea of Limbo which I found quite repulsive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/world/europe/21briefs-limbo.html

As far as I'm concerned this was just a method of control, through fear, to propogate the faith. What does baffle me slightly is that after ~900 years they can say it no longer exists What happened to all the unbaptized childeren in the interim?

antiskeptic

Vyse wrote: »

Well at least at a minimum they have scrapped the idea of Limbo which I found quite repulsive.

And you found Adam and Eve to be a fairytale and the notion of original sin bothering. I'm not a Roman Catholic and so am curious about the disconnect of a Roman Catholic (which, by definition, involves deference to Roman teaching) rejecting Roman teachings.

As for Christening? I'd see it as a meaningful, but non-supernaturally-loaded event. I'd use the service as a thanksgiving to God for the child, a place to pray that the child would come to believe too, a time to promise to bring the child up into a knowledge of God perhaps.

There is no absolution from sin involved (nor can there be). Nor is the child made a believer. Nor is the child in any way altered by the event.

Issues of education aside, it may be a time to consider what kind of believer you are. And to find an alternative church which accomodates what you actually believe.

old_aussie

Jesus was baptised, would that mean that he had original sin?

Even Jesus had doubts that his dad(God) had forsaken him, could baptising indicate washing away the doubting of God?

Vyse

antiskeptic wrote: »

And you found Adam and Eve to be a fairytale and the notion of original sin bothering. I'm not a Roman Catholic and so am curious about the disconnect of a Roman Catholic (which, by definition, involves deference to Roman teaching) rejecting Roman teachings.

I was actually under the impression (and I could be very wrong) that the Church also considers the the stories in the Old Testament to be merely that i.e. stories. I didn't think they actually condsidered them to be factual. Like I said I'm not overly religious. I do believe in a God but I do question the teachings of the Church (which any right minded person would do) whose rules are man made.

antiskeptic

Vyse wrote: »

I was actually under the impression (and I could be very wrong) that the Church also considers the the stories in the Old Testament to be merely that i.e. stories.

This from a Catholic answers site. It seems to consider him a walking, talking individual.

This sin of Adam’s was not your ordinary sin. This was a sin that affected all mankind forever. This sin changed the course of human history. It did not just affect Adam personally; it also affected his human nature—which means it affected our nature..

Like I said I'm not overly religious. I do believe in a God but I do question the teachings of the Church (which any right minded person would do) whose rules are man made.

Whilst agreeing that one should question (as a Christian I do) I'm not so sure that's the position a Roman Catholic is free to take. Others know the in's and out's better but it appears to me that Rome considers itself the ulimate & divinely inspiried authority. And if it says such and such is 'gospel' (no pun intended) then that's the way you are to take it - without question.

mathepac

Vyse wrote: »

... the discussion around christening has come up. I'm not overly religious. ...

My question is, what is the purpose of Christening a child? ...

There is no ceremony / sacrament in the Catholic rite called "christening", (nor btw is there a church or religion called the Roman Catholic Church; this is a convention / perversion created by members of the post-reformation Protestant churches to distinguish the Catholic Church from Henry's London Catholic Church or Anglican Church currently headed by their pope / supremo, Elizabeth II).

The ceremony / sacrament you refer to is "baptism" and is one of three sacraments of initiation or welcome into the Catholic Church. It is the gateway sacrament, the route to all others.

Vyse wrote: »

... Is it a welcoming in to the Christian faith (which I have no problem with) or is it about ridding the child of original sin (which I have a massive problem with). I'm under the illusion that it is the later but I've been told the contrary. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Yes it is the sacrament of welcome into Catholicism / Christianity, the opening of the door to the Church, and since Vatican II (at least) the concept of "original sin" has changed radically, to being one of "not knowing God", so baptism is as much a symbolic introduction as much as anything else.

Baptism is one of only two sacraments that does not require an ordained priest (the other being matrimony) to "perform it". The Church also recognises that there are routes to salvation, apart from baptism into Catholicism, hence unbaptised people have equal opportunities at salvation with those who are baptised. However, unbaptised people will not usually have access to other sacraments (Confirmation, Holy Orders, etc.).

I assume that a baptismal certificate is still required to gain access to Catholic schools, but the old pejorative differerentiations between baptised people and those who used to be referred to as pagans / heathens (unbaptised) are long gone.

Vyse

I'd like to thank everyone for their replies. It's good to hear what other peoples views our and, like I said, there is no harm in questioning your faith (frankly I believe religion would be better if people did).

JimiTime

old_aussie wrote: »

Even Jesus had doubts that his dad(God) had forsaken him, could baptising indicate washing away the doubting of God?

He didn't. He was pointing to a prophetic Psalm which was about him, and that very moment in his life/death, and also what was to come.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel. [a]

4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.

5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.

20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.

21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save [d] me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.

23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!

24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you [e] will I fulfill my vows.

26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,

28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.

30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.

31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.

The Smurf

Vyse wrote: »

Well at least at a minimum they have scrapped the idea of Limbo which I found quite repulsive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/world/europe/21briefs-limbo.html

As far as I'm concerned this was just a method of control, through fear, to propogate the faith. What does baffle me slightly is that after ~900 years they can say it no longer exists What happened to all the unbaptized childeren in the interim?

New York Times is not the best source of information. Wikipedia is more reliable.

Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[25] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.[24] These theories are not official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

-

Vyse

The Smurf wrote: »

New York Times is not the best source of information. Wikipedia is more reliable.

I didn't think Wiki was reliable for anything;) I saw the report on more than the New York Times though. Don't think it stated explicity that Limbo was closed but that an unbaptized child didn't necessarily go there.

PDN

mathepac wrote: »

(nor btw is there a church or religion called the Roman Catholic Church; this is a convention / perversion created by members of the post-reformation Protestant churches to distinguish the Catholic Church from Henry's London Catholic Church or Anglican Church currently headed by their pope / supremo, Elizabeth II)..

Dear me, perhaps you should inform the Vatican about this since they themselves release official statements where they refer to themselves by this 'perversion' (your choice of word) http://www.vatican.edu/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19770429_paul-vi-coggan_en.html

Most Christians that I know use the word 'Catholic' to refer to the Church Universal, including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, Coptic Christians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals and others. Nothing to do with the Queen of England, London, or King Henry except in the minds of a few zealots on either side who want to stage a rematch of the Reformation versus the Counter-Reformation.

The Smurf

mathepac wrote: »

Yes it is the sacrament of welcome into Catholicism / Christianity, the opening of the door to the Church, and since Vatican II (at least) the concept of "original sin" has changed radically, to being one of "not knowing God", so baptism is as much a symbolic introduction as much as anything else.

Baptism is one of only two sacraments that does not require an ordained priest (the other being matrimony) to "perform it". The Church also recognises that there are routes to salvation, apart from baptism into Catholicism, hence unbaptised people have equal opportunities at salvation with those who are baptised. However, unbaptised people will not usually have access to other sacraments (Confirmation, Holy Orders, etc.).

I'm posting these sections from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to clarify. Vatican II did not radically change the concept of Original Sin. The full Compendium can be accessed here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

It does say © Copyright 2005 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

I'll just post a few bits, I am sure the Vatican won't mind. Does boards.ie mind?


76. What is original sin?

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.

77. What other consequences derive from original sin?

In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence.

258. Why does the Church baptize infants?

The Church baptizes infants because they are born with original sin. They need to be freed from the power of the Evil One and brought into that realm of freedom which belongs to the children of God.

260. Who can baptize?

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and the priest. In the Latin Church the deacon also can baptize. In case of necessity any person can baptize provided he has the intention of doing what the Church does. This is done by pouring water on the head of the candidate while saying the Trinitarian formula for Baptism: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

261. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

Baptism is necessary for salvation for all those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

263. What are the effects of Baptism?

Baptism takes away original sin, all personal sins and all punishment due to sin. It makes the baptized person a participant in the divine life of the Trinity through sanctifying grace, the grace of justification which incorporates one into Christ and into his Church. It gives one a share in the priesthood of Christ and provides the basis for communion with all Christians. It bestows the theological virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. A baptized person belongs forever to Christ. He is marked with the indelible seal of Christ (character).

mathepac

The Smurf wrote: »

...
261. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

Baptism is necessary for salvation for all those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament....

Thanks, that's the reference I needed. It's interesting that Benedict has appended his signature to this edition of a document entitled "Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" with no adjective or other qualifying word preceding the word "Catholic". I trust someone will draw his attention to this apparent oversight.

Section 261 contains a two-part qualification and more than one criterion must be met for baptism to be necessary for salvation; if either condition is missing, then clearly baptism is not necessary for salvation.

All very simple and straightforward, until you read the next section which in typical Pauline Jesuitical fashion muddies the clear waters with definitions of so-called non-sacramental baptism and contradicts Section 261 in the last sentence by implying that unbaptised innocents may not be saved.

The Smurf wrote: »

...
262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

...

I believe I am not alone in finding these two contradictory statements less than helpful to people who are already puzzled and savagely unsympathetic to parents who have lost unbaptised young children.

Splendour

Hi Vyse, not much help to you as am not RC but I know there is no mention of baptising babies in the bible and I imagine if it were so important God would've given it a verse or two! In fact, it is never mentioned in the bible as baptism being a requisite for anyone to get into heaven. Any informed Catholics I've talked to about infant baptism will say the baby is being 'given a chance' at becoming a Christian-take from that what you will... Also, the idea of Limbo was never a church teaching, it was an idea introduced to give comfort to parents if a child died without being baptised. 800 odd years ago the teaching was that without baptism one is hellbound; an horrific thought for already grieving parents. According to The Smurf's quote this has obviously changed.

The Smurf wrote: »

262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

Of course you do realise that if you have your baby baptised you promise to bring the child up in the Catholic faith and all that it entails; mass every sunday/confession/sacraments etc. which is a fairly big commitment. Might be no harm to have a chat with your local priest.

Vyse

Splendour wrote: »

Hi Vyse, not much help to you as am not RC but I know there is no mention of baptising babies in the bible and I imagine if it were so important God would've given it a verse or two! In fact, it is never mentioned in the bible as baptism being a requisite for anyone to get into heaven. Any informed Catholics I've talked to about infant baptism will say the baby is being 'given a chance' at becoming a Christian-take from that what you will... Also, the idea of Limbo was never a church teaching, it was an idea introduced to give comfort to parents if a child died without being baptised. 800 odd years ago the teaching was that without baptism one is hellbound; an horrific thought for already grieving parents. According to The Smurf's quote this has obviously changed.

Of course you do realise that if you have your baby baptised you promise to bring the child up in the Catholic faith and all that it entails; mass every sunday/confession/sacraments etc. which is a fairly big commitment. Might be no harm to have a chat with your local priest.

Thanks, this has been very helpful and pretty much reflects my own feeling on the whole subject. I think a chat with the local priest is in order.

r3nu4l

Vyse, I empathise with your situation, I'm in the same position myself. Our daughter is due a Christening but I'm not so sure I want her baptised into the RC faith given how much of my church's teachings I disagree with.

homer911 wrote: »

Putting the faith issue to one side (as I am not a Roman Catholic - I'm a member of a Presbyterian Church), there are sometimes practical issues to consider - if there are no "educate together" or Protestant schools in your vicinity, you may have difficulty getting your child into a Catholic school without a baptismal/christening certificate - this aspect may be worth looking into, horrible as it may sound to you

This is the sole reason we are going ahead with the baptism. Hypocritical? Yes. Necessary? It might be to get her into a school that we want her in, hence the hedging of bets. Separation of the Churches from traditional education can't come fast enough for me

PDN wrote: »

Most Christians that I know use the word 'Catholic' to refer to the Church Universal, including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, Coptic Christians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals and others. Nothing to do with the Queen of England, London, or King Henry except in the minds of a few zealots on either side who want to stage a rematch of the Reformation versus the Counter-Reformation.

Yet most (Roman) Catholics in Ireland use the word Catholic to refer to 'the one true church' i.e. Roman Catholicism. Most Irish (Roman) Catholics do not know that other Christian denominations have a different view of the word. To most Irish Catholics, you are either Catholic (meaning Roman Catholic) or you are not. They don't do this in a hateful way, they just don't know any better.

JimiTime

r3nu4l wrote: »

This is the sole reason we are going ahead with the baptism. Hypocritical? Yes. Necessary? It might be to get her into a school that we want her in, hence the hedging of bets. Separation of the Churches from traditional education can't come fast enough for me

Is this simply a spectre though? I'm not a catholic, and had no issues in my education growing up. I know a multitude of people who were in the same boat. I think this idea may have been spun by a those objecting to the churches involvement in education. A bit of propaganda. There may be a couple of rare scenarios where an area was growing rapidly, and the government were not providing adequate school facilities. people then may have suggested that the Catholic schools may use the religion card when accepting pupils in this area. All in all though, I think its just anti-Catholic fear mongering.

r3nu4l

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this simply a spectre though? I'm not a catholic, and had no issues in my education growing up. I know a multitude of people who were in the same boat. I think this idea may have been spun by a those objecting to the churches involvement in education. A bit of propaganda. There may be a couple of rare scenarios where an area was growing rapidly, and the government were not providing adequate school facilities. people then may have suggested that the Catholic schools may use the religion card when accepting pupils in this area. All in all though, I think its just anti-Catholic fear mongering.

I currently live in the UK and being a baptised Catholic is a brilliant card to use. Unlike Ireland, a Catholic school in (my part of) the UK is considered prestigious and there's lots of competition to get into the schools in our area! So, looks like we'll be getting her baptised.

JimiTime

r3nu4l wrote: »

I currently live in the UK and being a baptised Catholic is a brilliant card to use. Unlike Ireland, a Catholic school in (my part of) the UK is considered prestigious and there's lots of competition to get into the schools in our area! So, looks like we'll be getting her baptised.

Ah yes, the UK is a whole different kettle of fish. Its a choice of national school or Catholic/religious school there. The Catholic schools are indeed of better reputation. There may be a lesson in that for those wanting to rid our schools of vocational leaders.

The Smurf

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this simply a spectre though? I'm not a catholic, and had no issues in my education growing up. I know a multitude of people who were in the same boat. I think this idea may have been spun by a those objecting to the churches involvement in education. A bit of propaganda. There may be a couple of rare scenarios where an area was growing rapidly, and the government were not providing adequate school facilities. people then may have suggested that the Catholic schools may use the religion card when accepting pupils in this area. All in all though, I think its just anti-Catholic fear mongering.

There was an interesting discussion on Newstalk last night about this subject. Somebody made the point that it wasn't the Church's fault that the government had not made provision for those parents who don't want their kids in Catholic schools.

It was also quite alarming but not surprising to hear that in many Catholic schools, the teachers of RE are not believing Catholics themselves. So how can they teach the faith properly, especially if they make little effort to conceal their contempt for the Catholic Faith, as some no doubt to.

kelly1

Splendour wrote: »

....In fact, it is never mentioned in the bible as baptism being a requisite for anyone to get into heaven.

According to St. Peter, baptism effects the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Going back to the OP, my understanding of original sin is that we are all born into this world flawed and what we see happening in the world bears this out.

Original Sin is not a state of actual sin involving personal guilt but is a deprivation of "sanctifying" grace. And it is grace (a share in God's life) which makes us fit for heaven. Nobody can exists in God's presence without this grace and it can be gained by baptism by water, blood or desire.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

According to St. Peter, baptism effects the forgiveness of sins.

I think Splendour was taking about (infant) water baptism. There is no biblical warrant for it being involved in getting a person to heaven - only baptism by the Holy Spirit.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think Splendour was taking about (infant) water baptism. There is no biblical warrant for it being involved in getting a person to heaven - only baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Why the distinction of water baptism? I was responding to "...but I know there is no mention of baptising babies in the bible..."

The water is only a symbol. It is the action of the Holy Spirit in the soul that matters.

The fact is water baptism of infants has been practiced since the early Church according the the Church Fathers - Iraneus etc. See also:

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is to you, and to your children

I think that's pretty plain!

homer911

There are some things on which people should just agree to differ. I have seen both sides of this debate argued back and forth many times and I've never seen anyone change their minds (and I still respect them and their views!)

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Why the distinction of water baptism? I was responding to "...but I know there is no mention of baptising babies in the bible..."

The water is only a symbol. It is the action of the Holy Spirit in the soul that matters.

Indeed. And if the actual baptism of the Holy Spirit is the thing that matters then it follows that it can't be something done by the person themselves. In which case there is no point in telling someone to be baptised (in the sense of them doing it). Rather, you'd read repentance as being the thing the person does - the subsequent result of which is action by the Holy Spirit.

For example: steal a car and be arrested. Stealing being the something you do and being arrested is something the police do as a consequence of your having stolen.

The fact is water baptism of infants has been practiced since the early Church according the the Church Fathers - Iraneus etc. See also:

The Bible demonstrates all too readily that even believers get into error (eg: Peter) and that false teaching will try to worm it's way into the true teaching. As a result of that, I feel we can only measure extra-biblical teaching by the Bible. And since the doctrine of infant water baptism = baptism by the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found in the Bible...

I think that's pretty plain!

Is it?

39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

I think he's talking about the universal reach of the gospel. And that it depends upon God - not man.

kelly1

We'll agree to differ

eblistic

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this simply a spectre though? I'm not a catholic, and had no issues in my education growing up. I know a multitude of people who were in the same boat. I think this idea may have been spun by a those objecting to the churches involvement in education. A bit of propaganda. There may be a couple of rare scenarios where an area was growing rapidly, and the government were not providing adequate school facilities. people then may have suggested that the Catholic schools may use the religion card when accepting pupils in this area. All in all though, I think its just anti-Catholic fear mongering.

It's hard to tell the extent to which this happens in reality but the RCC in Ireland closely guards its current legal right to do so. All we seem to get from both sides of the discussion are anecdotes. Another thing that's not clear is how many parents have baptised a child because of that perception who might not have otherwise? Fear-mongering or not, the fact that that happens, seems very wrong in itself.

JimiTime

eblistic wrote: »

It's hard to tell the extent to which this happens in reality but the RCC in Ireland closely guards its current legal right to do so. All we seem to get from both sides of the discussion are anecdotes. Another thing that's not clear is how many parents have baptised a child because of that perception who might not have otherwise? Fear-mongering or not, the fact that that happens, seems very wrong in itself.

Well if those fears are real, then we have an issue. If they're not, then those spreading the fear should simply STFU. As soon as we see discrimination in the admittance of pupils, then something should be done. Otherwise its baselesss sh!te that any reasonable person should call shenanigans on.

eblistic

JimiTime wrote: »

Well if those fears are real, then we have an issue. If they're not, then those spreading the fear should simply STFU. As soon as we see discrimination in the admittance of pupils, then something should be done. Otherwise its baselesss sh!te that any reasonable person should call shenanigans on.

That's a bit over the top considering they felt the need to stick the following get-out into our equality legislation:

(3) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that—
...
(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/print.html

Mind you. From what you are saying you would support the removal of this clause?

(I hope I'm not misinterpreting that but it looks clear enough to me.)

Splendour

kelly1 wrote: »

According to St. Peter, baptism effects the forgiveness of sins.

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Baptism is mere an outward sign of a realisation of something which has happened inwardly ie. repentance. It is the repentance and turning to Jesus and the cross which is the way into heaven. (How often do we hear Jesus say he is the gateway to heaven...) Adult baptism is a symbolic gesture to the world that one is putting their trust in God.

As with infant baptism we may as well throw the baby out with the bath water (couldn't resist that ) as how can a baby repent of it's sin? AFAIK, baptism in the RC is welcoming the child into the community of the church.