Author Topic: Infants Baptised by Non-Catholics (Read 3727 times)

Dolores · « **on:** March 13, 2014, 02:33:59 PM »

The Sacrament of Baptism does several things, among them are the cleansing of original and personal sin and imparting of membership in the Catholic Church.

As we all know, some non-Catholics, both heretics and schismatics, baptize infants. Assuming such baptisms are valid, does that mean that the infants are Catholic, despite what their parents say, until they reach the age of reason and reject the Church by accepting the heretical of schismatic group?

To put it another way: a Catholic couple has their baby baptized in a Catholic church on the same day as a Lutheran couple in a Lutheran church (assume the Lutheran baptism was valid, which it can be according to Church teaching). Both children received the Sacrament of Baptism, so shouldn't both receive all of its effects, including cleansing of sin and membership in the Church, until such time that he or she actually rejects Church membership?

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:37:49 PM »

I believe the answer to your questions is yes. From what I understand the children baptized by heretics are Catholics until they reach the age of reason and accept heresy.

Frances · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2014, 04:33:12 PM »

:dancing-banana:
Since there IS only ONE Church, assuming the baptism is valid, yes, Baptised children who have not attained age of reason are Catholic. Before waxing too optimistically, keep in mind most Protestants do not possess the correct intention to do as the Church directs. Many use erroneous forms, ie. "In the name of Jesus..." Sadly, modern children lose their innocence frightfully young.

songbird · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2014, 07:08:21 PM »

What is the Intent of the Lutherans, when baptizing? Is their intent to remove Original Sin or initiation? That is just as important as the Word, Form, and Matter.

Tiffany · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2014, 08:10:28 PM »

I know the proper words must be used but the intent just has to be to baptize?
How does the age of reason change things? If the baptism is valid they are still baptized Christian?

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2014, 02:59:52 PM »

When it comes to heretics who do the baptizing, doing what the Church does is what's required for validity. IOW, they only need to pour the water and say the words to make all baptized infants into little Catholics.

The age of reason changes things because that's the time of transition when the education about the faith they should have been receiving from their parents starts to sink in, that's when they are supposed to start actually applying what they've learned under the guidance of their parents, as far as avoiding sin and growing in grace is concerned.

That's the time they need to start receiving Our Lord and going to confession in order to avoid sin and grow in grace.

Frances · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2014, 07:28:44 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

I know the proper words must be used but the intent just has to be to baptize?
How does the age of reason change things? If the baptism is valid they are still baptized Christian?

:dancing-banana:
My poor choice of words. I should have said age of being aware enough to reject Catholic teaching in favor of heresy. A validly baptised child capable of committing mortal sin, but with no recourse to the Sacraments is in greater danger than an unbaptized child? Better, then, if a child will not be raised Catholic, if he is not baptised. He will be lost, as will his parents, but will receive a lesser punishment in Hell as he lacks the indelible mark imposed by Christian baptism. IME, fewer and fewer Protestants baptise infants these days. Since the majority of evangelical protestants believe baptism a mere outward formality, that no actual grace is transmitted, many never get around to it. In place of Baptism is "praying to receive Christ as my personal Lord and Savior," or "the Sinner's Prayer, " or going forward at an "altar"(?) call to "accept Christ," or "get saved."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2014, 04:51:32 AM »

.

Just like in everything else, our PRACTICE is an outgrowth of our FAITH.

When the Faith is true, the practice will be an authentic representation of it. When the faith is corrupted, the erstwhile practices might endure for a time, but eventually, they will fall into corruption abuse, misuse, and abandonment.

This has been happening to Baptism for the past 500 years. Protestants continued to baptize their children for a few hundred years after Martin Luther, but eventually started changing the words, and losing the intention. Now, it seems to be very commonplace for protestants to think of baptism as merely an initiation ritual that has as its sole purpose the SYMBOLIC joining of a person to a 'faith community' -- such that it's like a Shriners or Lyons Club or Freemason initiation ceremony.

Even Jєωs today practice Bar-Mitzvah and Bat-Mitzvah because it's a way of being aware of Jєωιѕн roots, and it has no bearing on religion or faith in any way whatsoever. If they're our "elder brothers in the faith," then why would we not imitate their attitude toward religious ceremonies?

But even though baptism has been under such ideological assaults, it still holds true that anyone baptized by a non-believer (a pagan, an atheist, a protestant, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian), is still really baptized, provided that 3 things are present:

1) The proper words were said, that is, "I baptize thee (or you) John / Mary (the name of the baptized should be said, but it is not essential to say the name), in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

2) The proper intention was in mind, that is, to do what the Church does or teaches.

3) Natural water was poured over the forehead of the candidate, enough to run over the skin as the words were spoken, and the water was poured by the same person who spoke the words of baptism.

There are a lot of ways of getting this wrong, but it is really so simple, that one would have to have an ill intention to get it seriously wrong. God did not make baptism difficult to do. Any uninformed person can do it, if they follow simple instructions. The fact that so many abuses are being reported is sort of a proof at how much the devil hates it when baptism is effective.

For example, how much easier it is for the devil to fight against the silly and subjective 'institution' of 'baptism of desire' than it is for him to fight against the practice of water baptism!

.

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2014, 10:04:04 AM »

What I was told by my priest is that the one doing the Baptism must have the intention to do what the church does, I.e. remove original sin. Since my childhood baptism had been more a rite of initiation it was not considered to be valid because the heretical sect that my parents belonged to did not believe in original sin. I had to be baptized into the Catholic Church.

So far as I understand, if the intention is to cleanse the child of original sin and to claim them for Christ, it is valid. The same priest also said that it is always better not to baptize an infant that you know will not be raised catholic. Otherwise, they have a spiritual target on their backs without ever being given the armor or weaponry to defend themselves from diabolical attack.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2014, 05:35:03 PM »

Quote from: songbird

What is the Intent of the Lutherans, when baptizing? Is their intent to remove Original Sin or initiation? That is just as important as the Word, Form, and Matter.

With the proper matter and form, intent is presumed.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2014, 07:44:46 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I believe the answer to your questions is yes. From what I understand the children baptized by heretics are Catholics until they reach the age of reason and accept heresy.

I think after the age of 14, they are presumed to be heretics by the law. Prior to that the presumption is they are innocent, unless shown otherwise.

Nishant · « **Reply #11 on:** March 21, 2014, 06:56:46 AM »

Yes, Trent teaches that all baptized infants are to be numbered among the faithful.

Canons of Trent.

Dz 869 Can. 13. If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful ... let him be anathema.

Dz 860 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the baptism, which is also given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema.