Must someone first believe before being Baptized?

No. How can a newborn be said to "believe"?

In the case that someone does not truly believe before Baptism, is the Baptism still valid?

The answer to your first question will give you a clue to the answer to your second.

If a baby does not truly believe, his Baptism is valid, even if he later rejects his Lord and Saviour. Baptism is a sacrament which is done once and for all time. It cannot been repeated, nor can it be undone. It marks the soul with an indelible mark.

Your question has a protestant ring to it. Are you protestant?

The Angelic Doctor expounding the traditional teaching of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article8

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Must someone first believe before being Baptized?

No. How can a newborn be said to "believe"?

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

In the case that someone does not truly believe before Baptism, is the Baptism still valid?

The answer to your first question will give you a clue to the answer to your second.

If a baby does not truly believe, his Baptism is valid, even if he later rejects his Lord and Saviour. Baptism is a sacrament which is done once and for all time. It cannot been repeated, nor can it be undone. It marks the soul with an indelible mark.

Your question has a protestant ring to it. Are you protestant?

There's no need to be insinuating and judgmental here.  It's an honest question,
and one that deserves a patient answer.  

If the person receiving baptism is of the age of reason (which could be a lot
less than 7, by the way!) and does not believe, and deliberately harbors a
mental reservation, it is quite possible that the baptism would be a sacrilege,
but nonetheless valid.  It is possible to be baptized and then fall again into
mortal sin very quickly, having only endured the ritual for the sake of some
temporal gain, or some other reason.  It's hard to imagine a child thinking so,
but is it impossible?  This is also why it's so important for the godparents to
be good, upstanding Catholics, because they acquire a powerful spiritual effect
over the faith of the baptized, and if, perchance, a godparent were to start
practicing witchcraft, he or she would be able to introduce demonic influence
on their godchild even to the point of making demonic possession possible.  

Note: the natural parents already have a most serious spiritual influence over
their own children, but the godparents acquire it upon the child's baptism.

It seems to me that for a baptism to be invalid (and it is possible for a baptism
to be invalid for many reasons) because of the lack of faith of the recipient, it
would have to be a most grievous and willful state of unfaith, for the sacrament
itself comes with powerful graces.  However, the priest should never presume
that the grace of the sacrament is able to overcome the willful denial of a
recipient.  The human will is a most powerful obstacle to faith.  

The Angelic Doctor expounding the traditional teaching of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article8

Objection 1. It seems that children should not be baptized. For the intention to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being baptized, as stated above (Article 7). But children cannot have such an intention, since they have not the use of free-will. Therefore it seems that they cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.

Reply to Objection 1. The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.


Is this saying that all children are saved?

Quote from: Nadir

Your question has a protestant ring to it. Are you protestant?

There's no need to be insinuating and judgmental here.  It's an honest question, and one that deserves a patient answer.  

Neil, I am not insinuating but observing. You are in fact judging me, not I Infinite Faith. His/her questions do have a protestent ring to them e.g in his latest post he seems to equate baptism with salvation, and so I am asking him/her if s/he is protestant. Anyone brought up in the NO might have a protestant bent. It is a matter of clarifying where s/he is coming from. It is a valid question. I doubt that IF feels the need to be protected from me.

Thank you, Songbird.

IF’s posts are very scanty and give us no background to the reason for his asking. As for such comments as

nobody can prove whether or not an infant is capable of believing. it may be possible that an infant is capable.

Well they make me wonder to say the least. I actually used the word newborn. How many newborns has he ever reasoned with?

And I only referred to newborns because they are perfect examples of baptism without a personal belief. Which truly Catholic nurse would not baptise, if possible in an emergency, a dying newborn without knowing the intention of the parents.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Nadir

Your question has a protestant ring to it. Are you protestant?

There's no need to be insinuating and judgmental here.  It's an honest question, and one that deserves a patient answer.  

Neil, I am not insinuating but observing. You are in fact judging me, not I Infinite Faith. His/her questions do have a protestent ring to them e.g in his latest post he seems to equate baptism with salvation, and so I am asking him/her if s/he is protestant. Anyone brought up in the NO might have a protestant bent. It is a matter of clarifying where s/he is coming from. It is a valid question. I doubt that IF feels the need to be protected from me.

Well, now who is judging now - are you not judging me?  

A lot of Novus Ordo Catholics have severe Protestant leanings these days, because
they've been taught that by their lay religion teachers, many of whom are actually
Protestants who are teaching in so-called Catholic settings.  20 years ago I had to
explain to an elementary parochial school principal that the 4th grade classroom
had Protestant 10 Commandments posters stuck on the wall.  Nobody in the
school knew.  It said the Second Commandment was Thou Shalt Not Have Graven
Images.  How do you explain to children seeing that what a book means when it
mentions sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments?  Because killing and lying
won't have anything to do with the subject!  

Nadir: Your question is important and so I agree.  In 1996 a deacon of the New Order said to me a traditionalist, that if he could do it his way, he would not baptize until the person was in understanding and accepting of the beliefs.  Now, when I heard that I was shocked!  If those going to New Order, take on and pay for this kind of education, well, it is lies and one of the ways to destroy what has already been understood and accepted, Infant baptisms.  It is so sad to have a true church found by Christ lead their people to believe that they can "change".  So, the confusion/destruction continues.

No truly Catholic priest will baptize any convert until he's certain that the convert
knows what he's promising and believing.  Infant baptism has nothing to do with it.