FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptizing children without without their parent's permission?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(11-16-2011, 05:49 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:42 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:37 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 04:25 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 04:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 04:03 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]I've already read that. St. Alphonsus was in error and was not infallible.

Oh, and you are?  :LOL:

In error or infallible?

The implication is that your opinion is somehow superior to a Sainted Doctor of the Church.  On what grounds?  And by what right do you judge the Baltimore Catechism of being heretical?

Because I can back my opinion up with infallible dogma from the Chair of St. Peter. Catechisms have never been infallible, you do know that, right?

By all means, back your opinion up, if you can.

That BoB and BoD are heresies? That'll derail the thread even further.

But OK. I have somewhere to go, so I'll come back later.

Cat got yer tongue?  :eyeroll:
(11-17-2011, 02:21 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:49 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:42 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:37 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 04:25 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 04:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 04:03 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]I've already read that. St. Alphonsus was in error and was not infallible.

Oh, and you are?  :LOL:

In error or infallible?

The implication is that your opinion is somehow superior to a Sainted Doctor of the Church.  On what grounds?  And by what right do you judge the Baltimore Catechism of being heretical?

Because I can back my opinion up with infallible dogma from the Chair of St. Peter. Catechisms have never been infallible, you do know that, right?

By all means, back your opinion up, if you can.

That BoB and BoD are heresies? That'll derail the thread even further.

But OK. I have somewhere to go, so I'll come back later.

Cat got yer tongue?  :eyeroll:

There's already dozens of threads on that issue. You're free to look them up. I don't want to derail my thread even further. It'll end up in the Cornfield.

How about throwing some dogma (infallible teachings of the church) at me regarding the issue? Start your own thread. I'll participate.
What about confirming children without their parents permission?
(11-17-2011, 02:27 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]What about confirming children without their parents permission?

One would think that would be alright, since the child is above the age of reason.

Don't take the Escriva route of obeying Jewish parents over God.
(11-17-2011, 02:27 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]What about confirming children without their parents permission?

As they would be above the age of reason, it it the child's will that is relevant, not the parents.
(11-17-2011, 02:27 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]What about confirming children without their parents permission?

The decision in this case would be up to the child/teenager, who has the use of reason.  "We ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
(11-17-2011, 02:34 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 02:27 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]What about confirming children without their parents permission?

As they would be above the age of reason, it it the child's will that is relevant, not the parents.
Many Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox children are confirmed below the age of reason.
(11-17-2011, 02:24 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]There's already dozens of threads on that issue. You're free to look them up. I don't want to derail my thread even further. It'll end up in the Cornfield.

How about throwing some dogma (infallible teachings of the church) at me regarding the issue? Start your own thread. I'll participate.

I have already posted St. Thomas' opinion on both the main topic, and on baptism of desire.  Since you disagree with the Angelic Doctor, the burden of proof would be on you.  I'll repost here for your edification:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Third Part, Question 68, Article 10 Wrote:Objection 1. It seems that children of Jews or other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of their parents. For it is a matter of greater urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal death than from the danger of temporal death. But one ought to rescue a child that is threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if its parents through malice try to prevent its being rescued. Therefore much more reason is there for rescuing the children of unbelievers from the danger of eternal death, even against their parents' will.

Objection 2. The children of slaves are themselves slaves, and in the power of their masters. But Jews and all other unbelievers are the slaves of kings and rulers. Therefore without any injustice rulers can have the children of Jews baptized, as well as those of other slaves who are unbelievers.

Objection 3. Further, every man belongs more to God, from Whom he has his soul, than to his carnal father, from whom he has his body. Therefore it is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from their carnal parents, and consecrated to God by Baptism.

On the contrary, It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xlv), quoting the council of Toledo: "In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that their righteousness may be without flaw."

I answer that, The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized.

If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents' will.

Reply to Objection 1. It is not right to rescue a man from death of the body against the order of civil law: for instance, if a man be condemned to death by the judge who has tried him, none should use force in order to rescue him from death. Consequently, neither should anyone infringe the order of the natural law, in virtue of which a child is under the care of its father, in order to rescue it from the danger of eternal death.

Reply to Objection 2. Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does not exclude the order of the natural and Divine law.

Reply to Objection 3. Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which he can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason, is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Third Part, Question 68, Article 2 Wrote:Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
(11-17-2011, 02:49 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 02:34 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 02:27 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]What about confirming children without their parents permission?

As they would be above the age of reason, it it the child's will that is relevant, not the parents.
Many Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox children are confirmed below the age of reason.

Very true; but on the other hand, Confirmation is not necessary the way Baptism is.
(11-17-2011, 02:42 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 02:27 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]What about confirming children without their parents permission?

The decision in this case would be up to the child/teenager, who has the use of reason.  "We ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Someone should have shown this to Jose-Maria Escriva.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14