I’m going through RCIA right now as a sponsor, and I just wanted to share a difficulty someone in the group had regarding the Catholic Church’s normative position on baby baptisms, as opposed to baptisms at a later time when children are at an age when they can cognitively choose or assent to being baptized.
We were discussing the Sunday mass readings for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord and using them as a segueway into the Sacrament of Baptism that some in the group would be receiving at Easter Vigil. After discussing the importance and richness of the Sacrament of Baptism, a sponsor of one of the catechumens remarked that she couldn’t help but be a little bit envious of those who received the Sacrament as an older child or adult, because then they could enjoy and remember the experience. This of course is what many other Christian traditions have when they reject infant baptism in favor of baptizing after a child “gets saved”.
There are several problems with this way of thinking about baptism. That pining after the baptismal practice of another Christian tradition is an implicit assumption that the other rite’s understanding of baptism is correct. As is usually the case with Bible *only* believers, there is a minimalist approach to the Sacraments, both in belief and in practice.
In this case, the minimalist understanding is that baptism is merely a visible sign that indicates one has chosen to be a disciple of Jesus. The RCIA sponsor was thinking about baptism along this idea of “knowing what you’re doing” or “making a personal decision”. Baptism is then understood as cognitively assenting to be a disciple of Jesus, or rather, as the outward sign that one has already done so.
But this is not a Sacramental view of Baptism. Baptism is not about making a personal decision for Jesus. Baptism is about the removal of original sin, the bestowal of real grace, becoming a son or daughter of the Father, and being initiated into Christ’s Church, and much more theological depth than this. When Baptism is understood in it fullness, it is clear that of course you’d want your children baptized in their infancy, and of course you should be glad that you were baptized as a child as opposed to later in life. Baptism is for the Church was circumcision was for the Jews; it is a covenantal sign that you’re in God’s covenant family.
That’s not to say that there is no place for personal choice and no ‘remembering’ of sorts; when a child gets older, they can continually make a choice for themselves to renew their baptismal promises, especially at Easter. This baptismal remembrance is one of the reasons behind why we cross ourselves with Holy Water as we enter a Catholic Church too. It is a calling to mind and renewal of our baptism, a conscious rejection of sin, and making a choice to live in the light and grace of this Sacrament.
No one says, “I wish I wasn’t brought into God’s covenant family so early” or “I wish I had remained in a state of original sin until I was old enough to enjoy the experience of no longer having it.” Just as these statements sound silly in light of what the Sacrament of Baptism is, so no Catholic should feel “cheated” with the Church’s position on infant baptism. Infant baptism is rather an advantage.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Good post, Nicholas!
My experience is that many do not understand the necessity of baptism, that "the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" (to quote the Catechism
*
That understanding – until recently, at least where I am from – meant that people would baptize their infants with all due haste, sometimes even in the hospital itself!
Good thing you were there to remind the class!
*From #1257 onwards
My wife and I are going through RCIA right now and we had similar questions about Baptism. Some in our family make the same "we held off so you would remember and choose the faith" argument when we told them we would like to have a four children Baptized together at our local parish. Honestly, I believe the Church's sacramental view of worship baffles many within our family. For us, the depth of the Holy Church and the sacraments and sacramentals are sources of deep comfort.
Welcome to the Church, Joseph! Be assured of our prayers as you journey through RCIA!
Thank you. It has felt like home since we started.
Hey there, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your blog in Ie, it looks fine but when opening in Internet
Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted
to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, wonderful blog!
Thanks alcohol Rehab. I think I just fixed it. I appreciate the call-out. I thought I had handled that previously but I apparently hadn't.
Catholics believe baptism is necessary for salvation.
VATICAN II declared this in #7 of it’s decree Ad Gentes:
“Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." (Dogmatic constitution by Vatican II: Lumen Gentium 14) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.”
This is the real controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine's positon, that all unbaptized infants go to hell without question. Pelagius' position that this is not the case and only believer's ought to be baptized, howbeit to avoid being condemned as a heretic he was willing to allow the church's current practice of infant baptism. It didn't do him much good, however, since he was condemned as a heretic after his death anyhow because "Grace" and infant baptism were synonymous in the minds of Catholics at the time, and by having questioned infant baptism even in the slightest he had earned the trumped up and clearly caricatured reputation of being a "denier of grace." His own position, however, was more gracious. It included a sort of, what we would call today, "grace period" whereby instead of infants who die unbaptized being sent to hell, any child dying before being old enough to understand the gospel would go to heaven.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/03/…