Doesn't matter.  These 2 topics are part of Catholic common sense and history.


There were non-catholic sects in the first 3 centuries, who still had valid baptisms, and St Augustine fought tirelessly against the Pelagians to argue the necessity of infant baptism.

And??? This still does not answer the OP's question.

I wasn't taking sides or pretending to make dogmatic assertions. I was relaying a bit of historical information about the Council of Florence. That's all.

OP asked a question. The conversation continued. We're trying to trace the outlines of the topic for the sake of clarity.

What's Catholic common sense may be utterly obvious to those who've long imbibed it. What's Catholic history might be recalled comprehensively for those blessed to have studied it.

Maybe you might try to understand that it takes a bit longer for others of us who are still relatively new to all of this.

PS: Was Reply #9 admissible as Catholic common sense, albeit at a remedial level? Or is that at fault too?

This is why I have a problem with the Novus Ordo Church refusing infant baptism if there is no solid commitment by the parents to raise them Catholic. Wouldn't those children see Heaven if they died before the age of reason? What is the benefit of not baptizing them? 

Firstly, most children don't die before the age of 7 (or even 27).  And let's not forget, nobody dies unless God says so.  And nobody is born into a non-catholic family, unless God allowed it.  Everything that God allows, happens for a reason.


The "benefit" of not baptizing a child who won't be raised Catholic is to reduce their culpability of guilt, and to avoid the spiritual vacuum that would result, if they were not practicing their Faith.  After all, virtues require good habits, prayer and the PRACTICE of religion.  If a child is brought up with no religion, no prayer and no practice of religion (i.e. just worldly bad habits), by the time they are a young adult, they may be in WORSE shape than an unbaptized young adult....because satan will tempt them more, due to their baptism...and (my guess is), the Church's history with "converting" such people is not good.

The critical point is that although baptism is “the sacrament of faith,” the sacraments aren’t magic. The “faith required for baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop,” and this faith “needs the community of believers” to develop as it’s meant to (CCC 1253). To baptize a child and then leave him to languish spiritually in an unbelieving family isn’t really doing him any favors.

The critical point is that although baptism is “the sacrament of faith,” the sacraments aren’t magic. The “faith required for baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop,” and this faith “needs the community of believers” to develop as it’s meant to (CCC 1253). To baptize a child and then leave him to languish spiritually in an unbelieving family isn’t really doing him any favors.

Above CCC 1253 reference is to the 1992 version.

For a safer comparison, see the Catechism of Trent as to the Sacrament of Baptism. Does 1992 somehow improve upon Trent? 

99% of that answer had nothing to do with the catechism.  Your point is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to the subject line perhaps, but not irrelevant if we recognize that a 1% offhand inclusion of New Church undermines the 99% of that answer.

If a reply ellipsis can casually and selectively omit pertinent quote context (as in "Individual free will and children's capacity for reason (what folks here in this thread seem to be more interested in) were not on the table per se AFAIK."), then a commenter can certainly question a tainted 1%.

That said, before this ends up as yet another of those unhelpful threads for anyone seeking clarity and consistency, could we please get back to the subject line, including the subset of still-unanswered questions along the way? Thank you.

It was difficult for me to understand at first to, but looking at the baptismal ceremony for infants might help.

To get the commitment that the child will be raised Catholic, first the priest asks the name, then he asks: "What do you ask of the Church of God?" The God parents, answering for the child: "Faith."

Could these questions be honestly answered without any commitment of raising the child Catholic? 

There is of course much more to it, but the bottom line is that the Church wants infants to grow into her children, or no baptism. Yes, it is very severe, but on purpose.

Yes- but aren't protestant baptisms said correctly valid? That was the point I was making . At least for the age of reason, these kids, if they die will go to Heaven. Without baptism those children will go to Limbo/ Hell. After the age of reason we know without the church they are lost.

I don't mean to sound like a protestant, but Christ said with water Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Period.  He didn't say anything about age, Godparents, sponsors, holy oil, exorcisms, parents religion or political affiliation, nothing, nil, nodda.
If anyone is baptized they are eligible for heaven until they commit a sin whether that be within the Catholic church or outside it.

Yes- but aren't protestant baptisms said correctly valid? That was the point I was making . At least for the age of reason, these kids, if they die will go to Heaven. Without baptism those children will go to Limbo/ Hell. After the age of reason we know without the church they are lost.

Yes, the baptism will be valid if said and done correctly no matter if a heretic or whomever does it. And if the baptized child dies before the age of reason he goes straight to heaven.

But the rule is that only priests are supposed to baptize, and it is supposed to be done inside of a Church with two sponsors. No one else is supposed to baptize any infant or adult - except when there is danger of death, that is the  exception to the rule.  When there is a danger of death in infants, then Holy Mother urges anyone at all to baptize that baby without delay, regardless of the parents' religion. 

Yes, the baptism will be valid if said and done correctly no matter if a heretic or whomever does it. And if the baptized child dies before the age of reason he goes straight to heaven.

But the rule is that only priests are supposed to baptize, and it is supposed to be done inside of a Church with two sponsors. No one else is supposed to baptize any infant or adult - except when there is danger of death, that is the  exception to the rule.  When there is a danger of death in infants, then Holy Mother urges anyone at all to baptize that baby without delay, regardless of the parents' religion.

Another exception is if a priest will not be available to baptize the baby for 3-4 weeks, then the parents should do it.