Poll: Baptizing children without without their parent's permission is
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
15
0%
0 0%
14
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Baptizing children without without their parent's permission?
#61
(11-16-2011, 06:50 PM)aquinasg Wrote: There is some Pope (Benedict the something, I think. Can't find it right now) who had a decree which said there are two opinions about baptizing babies against parent's wishes: the Thomistic, and the, well, not-so-Thomistic. He didn't condemn either one, but said baptizing them is contrary to the custom of the Church (but not all "traditions" low-cased are unchangeable). I don't know about children in danger of death however.

Baptizing babies against their parents express will is problematic for the same reason that you can't kidnap a Hindu and forcibly baptize him (at least not validly).  In the case of children before the age of reason, the will of their parents stands in for the child's will.
Reply
#62
However, in danger of death, that is different.
Reply
#63
That's just a theologion opinion. The Church hasn't declared one way or the other
Reply
#64
(11-16-2011, 07:07 PM)aquinasg Wrote: That's just a theologion opinion. The Church hasn't declared one way or the other

Fair enough.  But it is a probable interpretation, considering that we are speaking of Sacraments, and not magical spells.
Reply
#65
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.
Reply
#66
(11-16-2011, 03:25 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: Oh? But when I disagree, I'm "thick as a brick".

You said heresy which is more than disagreeing.  Unsure
Reply
#67
(11-16-2011, 12:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: You cannot baptise a child under the age of reason against the parents' will, the same way you can't baptise anyone against his or her will.

Actually, one can baptize a child under the age reason against his parents' will, but one may not (ordinarily) do so.

One neither can nor may baptize an adult against his will.
Reply
#68
(11-16-2011, 06:46 PM)aquinasg Wrote: Caution: Scriptorium is a heretic:

"A dying child does need to be baptized the ordinary way. A permitted theological opinion is that they can be baptized through desire if it is impossible to baptize them with water, which would be extremely rare, right?"

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

Wow.  Shocked Throwing around such nasty words. Not the stuff of mature discussion amongst comrades.

My words: "A dying child does need to be baptized the ordinary way. A permitted theological opinion is that they can be baptized through desire if it is impossible to baptize them with water, which would be extremely rare, right?"

Summary:

Pope Eugene IV : Do not defer baptism. It is the only remedy to a dying child.

Pope Paul III : Do not reject infant baptism, nor defer it. Do not deny that they have original sin, nor that baptism is need to remit original sin.

St. Innocent : Do not deny that baptism is needed to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life.

You seem to not understand what was being said. Baptism is affirmed in all cases. Baptism is required to enter into heaven. Baptism is needed to remit original and actual sin. Be a little more nuanced with your thinking about this. Those who posit baptism of desire do not posit it as a contradiction of water baptism, but as an extraordinary means available to those whom it is impossible to receive the ordinary means. This is based on the doctrine concerning the impossibility of some to receive the sacraments, as was taught in Trent (a la voto), and also by Bl. Pius IX (a la invincible ignorance), as I am sure you know of such teachings. All I propose is that said teaching is being developed, and belief in it is not heresy as long as no dogmas contradict it. Just as limbo for children is not heresy, but a theological opinion being developed. Obviously this is debated because some people believe that it cannot be reconciled with other teachings, but just as the Immaculate Conception was debated, baptism of desire and blood are debated. In fact they are quite widely held in one way or another and are the normative teaching (in general) of the Church, appearing in numerous catechisms.

I will leave it off here to no longer disturb the main point of the thread.
Reply
#69
Scriptorium, I would love to consider you a comrade, but you think I am a heretic, and so I was just showing that you were in grave error, yet I consider you a Catholic (not a neo-Catholic)

Scriptorium: A permitted theological opinion is that they (a dying child) can be baptized through desire if it is impossible to baptize them with water

Pope Eugene IV : Do not defer baptism. It is the only remedy to a dying child.

Pope Paul III Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, :  “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

St. Innocent : Do not deny that baptism is needed to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life.

Baptism by water is a necessity of precept for adults, but a necessity of means for infants. Our desires alone cannot help them to Heaven

Reply
#70
See new thread for response:
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...w.html#new
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)