Can I send my children (4 and 8 yrs.old) to be baptized in the Catholic Church while the possibility exists that I made not be allowed to receive Holy Communion?
I'm not sure what will happen to me, but my children should be given the chance to enter God's Church.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2003

Answers

Can I send my children (4 and 8 yrs.old) to be baptized in the Catholic Church while the possibility exists that I might not be allowed to receive Holy Communion? I'm not sure what will happen to me, but my children should be given the chance to enter God's Church.

I suppose that at the very least I can attend mass, but not receive the Sacraments. This is not what I want, but it may be my consequence.

rod..

..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2003.

rod

I don't see why not. They can have Catholic godparents who are in full communion with the Church.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.

Rod,

You should make an appointment with a Priest Monday morning early if you can. You could be putting your childrens souls in grave danger by not having them baptized yet. This is something that you can't waste time thinking about. Just Do this, Please.

My prayers are with your you and your children.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 25, 2003.

Listen to David. Fiz whatever needs to be fixed between you & the Church and have your children baptized as soon as possible.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 25, 2003.

Yeah, get it handled, rod, and get them baptised. Bring yourself up in the Faith as well as them; the clocks ticking on you too. Start now: come into or get back into the Catholic Faith along with your kinds and keep moving. How could this possibly be wrong advice?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 25, 2003.

"Your children belong to the kingdom of God according to Jesus."

A: Not unless they are baptized they don't ... "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"Baptism is something we should not enter into lightly--it reflects our faith in Jesus Christ."

A: It reflects the faith of the Church, which is why it is and always has been a sacrament of the Church. And which is why the Church doesn't enter into it lightly, but brings its newest members to spiritual birth through the sacrament with great solemnity and joy.

"Your children need to make this decision for themselves."

A: Really! You make all their educational, social, medical, and financial decisions for them, but leave their spiritual welfare on hold until they can decide for themselves?? Eventually they will make their own decisions - medical, educational, financial, spiritual. But in the meantime it is negligent of parents not to make such essential decisions for the child.

"Baptism, by-the-way., in and of itself, is not what saves"

A: The fact of baptism does not guarantee salvation, if that's what you mean. But since the Bible says that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom, and since being in the kingdom is necassary to salvation, it is reasonsble to say that Baptism saves us. If it were not reasonsble, Peter would not have said so ... "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

"He said to the penitent thief, "Today, you will be with me in paradise. Do you suppose there was any time to baptise this thief? No, and it wasn't needed--obviously"

A: Right! Which is why the Church has always taught that those who desire baptism into the Church, but die before they can be baptized, received the graces of baptism in full. This is called Baptism of Desire. A Church with the fullness of truth has all the angles covered, Faith. We don't have to quibble about such such questions. The answers are known. They are part of the deposit of Christian faith.

That's what the Bible reveals.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 25, 2003.

My father baptized me moments after my birth. He didn't think that I would survive the following hours. I was eventually baptized the "right" way. I feel I must baptize my children now. My children have learned the Gospels from me and their mother. But, we are not enough for them and I have lost confidence in the Protestant doctrine.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2003.

"Jesus is showing the contrast between physical birth (water) and spiritual birth (Spirit)".

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

A: You mean, Jesus is telling the people that if they wish to enter His kingdom they must first EXIST (be born)?? Kind of self-evident isn't it? Besides, the people He was talking to were already born! Reading the passage in context shows that being "born of water" has nothing to do with physical birth. John 3:3 - Jesus says we must be "BORN AGAIN" to enter the kingdom. John 3:4 - Nicodemus says "I don't understand what you mean by "born again". Can i experience my physical birth again?". John 3:5 - Jesus responds by telling Nicodemus that He is NOT speaking of physical birth. He says that being BORN AGAIN means being born of water and the spirit. The Christian Church has always recognized this as an obvious reference to baptism. There really is nothing else it could refer to.

"Your sense of urgency about baptizing infants comes from the fear that God would condemn your child to hell if you weren't on the ball"

A: Not so. The Church does not teach that unbaptized children go to hell. But it does teach what the Bible says - that baptism, being spiritually born through water - is the gateway to the kingdom of God, and you can't enter a kingdom without the gateway.

"It is not the ceremony that saves us, but faith in Christ's death and resurrection"

A: Well obviously. The ceremony is simply the structure within which and through which the actual sacrament occurs. The ceremony is performed by men, but the actual sacramental grace which is poured out on the recipient is an act of God. I assume you agree that we must personally accept Christ's death and resurrection in order to be saved by it. I assume you also believe that it is by grace that we are able to accept Christ. Baptism is the initial reception of grace, which makes it possible for us to grow in the faith and eventually make a personal acceptance of Christ.

"Is there a doctrine for children whose parents didn't baptize their children in time?"

A: No, there is not. Which is why we trust in God's command and baptize our children early, and also trust in His mercy for those who are not yet baptized.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 25, 2003.

Faith,

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone...For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from th spirit is dead.(Js 2:22-24,26).

-- - (David@excite.com), October 25, 2003.

Rod,

My father baptized me moments after my birth. He didn't think that I would survive the following hours

Your father sounds like a good man. Remember to pray for him too!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 25, 2003.

I just see baptism as a symbol of a spiritual truth.

No, it is not merely a "symbol." If by "symbol," you mean a "sign," that is correct. Baptism is an "outward sign," but not just a sign, since it brings about several actual effects on the person receiving it -- e.g., the effect of conferring Sanctifying Grace.

The spiritual truth comes first, and baptism itself has no saving power.

That's B.S.. As a Catholic already showed you in scripture, "baptism now SAVES you." Scroll up to review, and stop forgetting what you are told.

With or with out the ceremony--we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

That's B.S. too. The Bible teaches that we are NOT saved by faith alone. The only time that the words "faith alone" are found together in the Bible is in the verse that says taht we are NOT saved by faith alone. Personally, we are saved by Jesus. Spiritually, we are saved by grace. Practially, we are saved by "faith working itself out in love."

I am a born-again Christian. That is NOT B.S.. You became a born-again Christian when you received Baptism in the Catholic Church as an infant.

I was renewed by the washing of the Word. That was my real baptism, though I was later also baptized physically.

That is truly B.S.. The Word (i.e., the Bible) does not baptize. What you went through as an adult was an ineffectual ceremony that did nothing for you. You had already been baptized as an infant.

... God revealed His truth to me through His Word. That was the moment when I believed, and the Holy Spirit came upon me, and my life has been forever changed

Undoubtedly you "believed" first as a young Catholic. What happened to you later was an emotional strengthening (or reawakening) of the faith you always had (since Baptism as an infant). But since you perverted the later experience by using it as an exit from the true (Catholic) Church, your "life has been ... changed" for the worst. You are headed for hell unless you revert to Catholicism. You'll realize this, sooner or later. (Let it be sooner, Lord.)

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 26, 2003.

Such passages clearly do not say anything about "faith alone". They do emphasize the necessity of faith - and so does the Church. But Catholics don't play pick-and-choose with the Sacred Scriptures. Many other passages emphasize the need for works. The message of scripture has to be taken as a whole. It is fundamentally (no pun intended) dishonest to pick out passages that seem to support your personal beliefs, and simply ignore all those which don't. Catholics don't believe something unless it conforms to EVERY passage of the Word of God. Since many passages emphasize the need for faith and many others emphasize the need for works, the only honest interpretation is the one the Church of God teaches - that faith and works are essential and inseparable, and that a person will not be saved if he lacks either one. That is the FULL message of scripture taken as a whole. But then, partial truth is the hallmark of denominational religion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

About baptism, I unable to go very technically, I will just go simply:

Going through the OT, we see how God initially calls an adult called Abram to trust ih Him (Gen.12). On seeing Abram's great trust, we see how God promises to bless him, changes his name, and asks him to make a covenant with Him by circumcision. We see God commanding Abraham to circumcise to all male members that belonged to him irrespective whether they had faith or not, even a child as young as eight days old. It seems illogical why would God also want those without faith to be circumcised, whereas that of Abraham (father of faith) is understandable. Isn't it clear that God valued the faith of Abraham greatly and desired the same for his descendants, in fact all the peoples (although, OT covenant was a shadow of better things that is to come with Jesus)? Abraham's faith stood as a proxy until these (unbelievers) too came to the fullness of faith in their due time.

The Church guided by Holy Spirit has seen as humans we need expression of faith in tangible forms (Sacraments). In the NT, baptism with water and Spirit replaces the old covenant of circumcision in the flesh. All true Catholics are thankful to God for the faith and graces that come through it. If we truly love our child, we cannot wait too long until when the child grows up and makes his personal decision for Christ (if at all he grows up, and if he grows up, will he decide?). True, the child is unable to exercise his spiritual self to decide, but the parents and near kin can. So, faith and love from the parents during baptism, reaches out in proxy for the child, giving the child all graces and blessings of a adult believer, until he or she grows up and consciously decides to give his or her life to Christ, thus making what was proxy their very own.

I hope this is clear, or someone can correct it or clarify it still better.

Leslie

-- leslie john (lesliemon@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003.

Baptism is a spiritual thing that occurs the moment you *believe* and receive Jesus Christ. You are washed anew at that precise moment--- and the ritual ceremony is merely symbolic of the actual baptism that takes place spiritually

That is absolute B.S.! Your humongous heresy contradicts the Bible itself which makes clear that Baptism is a holy action of God, normally administered by the Church, and ordinarily requiring water and the invocation of the Persons of the Trinity.

Jesus himself, in the last moments of his life on Earth, said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." As has already been pointed out, Jesus spoke of the necessity of Baptism, saying: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." As St. Peter wrote, "Baptism now saves you," thereby pointing out that one cannot be saved without it. At great risk to your salvation, young lady, do you put a stubborn mind, blind eyes, and deaf ears up against these infallible truths.

You, a simple, untrained, young, 20th-century nobody are making yourself into your own "popess," relying only on your tiny little brain, and considering yourself incapable of error and capable of teaching us. What arrogance on your part! We accept none of your horrendous heresy, for we know that we can rely on 20 centuries of unchanged, infallible teachings, given to us from the lips of Jesus to his Apostles and through their successors. If you go back to non-biblical documents of the first and second centuries, you will see that that era's Christians/Catholics believed exactly as we do today -- while your invented heresy is nowhere to be found!

And now for a second heresy of yours -- one invented in the 16th century -- "sola fide":

Paul makes it clear that we are saved by faith ... See all of Romans for enlightment.

It is you, not we, who need to "see all of Romans for enlightenment." The problem is that you don't know what St. Paul meant by the word "faith," so it follows that you don't know what he meant by salvation by faith. He did NOT mean that, in the very moment when you have some kind of belief or trust in your mind or heart, you become "saved" and remain saved forever. By no means did he mean that, for that is 16th-century B.S.. Right from the beginning of Romans, St. Paul makes clear that "faith" is more than just "belief," being also something that MUST bring about actions (works) by which God's commands are obeyed: "we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5)". He affirmed that mere "faith" is not enough when he said: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12)."

Understanding what St. Paul meant by the word "faith" will help a misguided self-popess like you to come around to the truth when she reads this key passage from the second chapter of St. James:

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow [woman], that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 26, 2003.

What's funny is that FAITH is also a command such as baptism. God commands all men to believe in his son Jesus Christ. So faith is not a optinal thing but a command we must obey and if not, we sin. Strange huh. Yes we must choose God, but is it election, or free will. What ever the case, both are from the gift of God. Praise him for his salvation.

-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), October 26, 2003.

If works were an inevitable effect of faith, then it would be impossible to have faith without works. However, the Bible clearly says that it is possible to have faith without works, and it specifically says that such faith will save no-one. Faith without works is just as incomplete as works without faith. The two are inseparable as the means by which a Christian accepts the free gift of salvation. One without the other cannot lead to salvation, as attested to by multiple passages of scripture. The heresy of sola fide is just another manmade doctrine dating back a few hundred years. It is not Christian. Any Christian prior to the Protestant Revolution would have laughed in your face if you said works don't contribute to salvation, or if you said that all Christian truth can be found in the Bible. Such dangerous manmade traditions lead many away from the fullness of truth - just as Jesus predicted they would.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

Faith,

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has no works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of ou says tothem, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. James- (2:14-17)

-- - (David@excite.com), October 26, 2003.

It is not a question of if. It is essential that your childern be baptized. The Bible and the Church are very clear that it is essential to salvation. Of course we all know that it is stated in the Gospels but it is also in the Epistles. In I Peter (i believe that it is the 3rd chapter) it says that there was an instance that 8 people were "saved by water". So IMO you should have them baptized ASAP reguardless of whether or not you can recieve Holy Communion.

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), October 27, 2003.

faith, perhaps your reasoning could be made more clear to us if we knew something about you... you know, general age group, area of study, occupation, religious experience. perhaps that way we can come to more... effective... terms.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 27, 2003.

Hi, Faith. How come you left the Catholic Faith? Was it a particular occurence or a gradual thing? I don't know many fallen- away Catholics.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

I was baptized by my parents Catholic. But when I got around 12 I wanted nothing to do with church.

I went through beliefs of spiritual afterlife of man, athiest, then I would say I believe in God but that's it.

One of my friend began to talk to me about God. He was and still is a Protestant. "Christian Missionary Alliance Church" He told me about the gospel. I began reading on my own and eventually went to church.

For a while I loved that church and the way they taught about God! I believed the same way Faith does about salvation. I hated the Catholic church. I though it was so corrupt. That every doctrine I heard was manmade. I was prideful and stupid. Also very ignorant.

Eventually I started to believe in election a great deal. But as time past, I began to study Catholicism. I was shocked. And I mean I really studied it. Not just went to church and sleep, or just hear people badmouth catholic's, but I really looked at it. WOW! I thought. I was blown away. Everything they teach IS in the bible. Catholicism is Christianity right in your face with absoluetly no if's and's or but's!

I now attend and have never felt more peacefull. But that's just me.

A good site for anyone interested is BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR CATHOLICISM

-- Jason Baccaro (LegendsRborn@aol.com), October 27, 2003.

"I gravitate to many protestant theologians whom I find to be brilliant because they have a deep understanding of God's Word that rings true"

A: So there it is, right on the table. Your whole belief system has no objective authority behind it whatsoever. It is entirely subjective. Whatever "rings true" must be the truth! You find particular theologians "brilliant" because what "rings true" with them also "rings true" with you. What kind of a basis for truth is that? Do these "true-ringing" Protestant theologians have any more authority or training or experience than the hundreds of other Protestant theologians whose ideas directly conflict with those of your personal favorites? Is there ANYTHING about these select few theologians which sets them apart as "brilliant", other than the fact that their ideas "ring true" with you? Where in the Bible can I find this approach to truth? Let all the conflicting theologians present their ideas, then grab ahold of whatever happens to "ring true" with you? Is that what Jesus taught?

Is there some reason why your pet theologian "ringing true" with you is any more valid than a Calvinist theologian "ringing true" with his fans? How could you possibly justify telling a Calvinist he is wrong, when you have formed your own beliefs exactly the same way he has formed his, and your source has exactly the same authority as his - namely, none! REAL truth is not subjective. Which is why hundreds of conflicting teachings presented by hundreds of Protestant theologians, and adopted by hundreds of conflicting Protestant denominations, cannot be considered as "truth" in any real or logical sense. It is obvious to any honest observer that "deep understanding" is the last thing being demonstrated in this cauldron of doctrinal chaos. With so many theologians expressing so many different guesses concerning Biblical truth, some of their guesses are bound to coincide with your own. But that doesn't make their guesses any more valid than any one else's - or your beliefs any more valid than those of any other Protestant sect. Each Protestant sits there smugly assured that he/she is right and the rest of the Christian world is wrong. How utterly unrealistic! Look at the broader picture! You are entrapped in a manmade tradition whose false premises guarantee ongoing dissent, division, conflict and confusion. And the beliefs that you cherish so dearly and attempt to defend so vehemently, with so little objective basis for doing so, are just one tiny constituent of the overall chaos. What violence this does to Jesus Christ's description of His True Church - that they all may be ONE, even as He and His Father are ONE.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 27, 2003.

"So what to you propose I do? Not listen to my own mind and reason.,"

A: Could you offer a scripture that indicates we are supposed to individually decide what is doctrinal truth by the use of our individual reason?? Can't you see the disaster this approach has caused, the fragmentation of Protestantism that has resulted from such an untenable and unscriptural tradition??

"and mindlessly believe a church hierarchy because they say so? How is that any better?"

A: Given that God Himself has told that very hierarchy "he who hears you hears Me", and "the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth", and "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven", failing to listen to them, and placing my own private interpretations above the teaching of God's Church is the most mindless thing I can imagine.

"If what they claim doesn't sound true according to what God reveals in His Word--why would I? "

A: It DOES sound true according to what God has revealed in His Word, because it IS what God has revealed in His Word. If it doesn't sound true TO YOU, that is because you don't understand what God's Word actually means. And how could you, relying on nothing but your own personal guesswork?

"Just because you and your religion make the claim all the way back to the original apostles--doesn't make it so. I do not find your claim to be true--not historically, and not biblically."

A: Nonsense. You have not bothered to study the history of the Church. If you had, you could not possibly make such a statement. To know history is to reject Protestantism. No honest person could study the history of Christianity and still cling to manmade denominationalism.

"Your religiuon has no more truth in their claims than any other religion."

A: Sorry, but much as you would like to believe that, Jesus guaranteed that the Church He founded, and no other, would possess the fullness of truth. Unpleasant as that might sound to people trapped in traditions of partial truth, it is nevertheless the Word of God, and it is true.

"Division has always been a problem, since the time of Paul, and it continues till today."

A: Disagreements may have occurred in the Church, and various heresies removed themselves from the Church, but nothing comparable to the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism even existed until the 16th century. Protestantism began self-destructing the moment it was formed. There were multiple denominations before Martin Luther died, and he himself was aghast at the beast he had loosed upon the world.

"That is why I know that Christ's church is spiritual--that is why it cannot be divided., it is cemented together by His Word"

A: How can it be cemented together by His word when no two denominations can agree on what His Word means? Scripture is not what binds Protestantism together. It is what has torn Protestantism apart, and continues to do so today.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 28, 2003.

When Jesus said, "He who hears you hears me."., he was not talking to the Roman Catholic religion. He was talking to his apostles who represent all believers..the true church."

A: He was talking to His apostles, who were the first bishops of His Church, and who represent all who have remained faithful to that Church and to the fullness of truth. How could the apostles represent people who have abandoned the Church of the Apostles?? If the Pope doesn't represent you, neither do the apostles, since one of the Apostles was the first Pope.

"That doesn't sound at all unpleasant to me., I simply disagree as to *who* that church is"

A: Read some history.

"I think that your religion is just as much--maybe more so--trapped in its tradition of partial truth"

A: If so then Jesus lied when He said that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church He founded into ALL truth.

"Your separation began at the time of Constatine--when he, for political reasons merged pagan Rome and Chriastianity...never really letting go of the pagan practices already instilled in that civilization. They simply continued as they always were."

A: That is an absurd fabrication, directly from the likes of Chick Publications. PLEASE read some real history, and such historical fiction will fade away.

"The people went to the same temple, worshiped the same trinity of mother-child-God (The divine mother and child appeared in Egypt as Isis and Horus, and in Greece as Venus and Adonis), and they followed the same rituals"

A: Wow! No kidding! The Egyptians had a divine mother and child! So did the Greeks and Romans. In fact they had gods and goddesses fornicating and producing little gods all over the place. Think for two seconds! What could that POSSIBLY have to do with the Church of Jesus Christ, which does NOT have a divine mother and child, but only one God?? This absurdity also comes directly from Chick Publications - so apparently you are reading this ungodly filth. No wonder you are confused about Christianity! Mr. Chick wouldn't know Christianity if it hit him between the eyes. I sincerely encourage you to rid your home, your mind, and your spirit of any and all influences from that satanic source. For a Christian, Chick Publications is more dangerous than pornography.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 28, 2003.

"These were the Temple virgins, weeping for Tammuz, Semiramis's son who had been slain by a wild boar. "

Next, you will tell us that the women wore a small cross hanging from their necks on a string that honored Tammuz. "Hislop", anyone?

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.

"It's" NOT "all in the Bible."

Even the Bible says it ain't all in the Bible. Don't show your ignorance.

-- (NON@Sola.Scriptura), November 01, 2003.

"It's all in the Bible" actually means "all that I believe is in the Bible". However such persons believe only a fraction of the truth God revealed to His Church. And regrettably the small fraction they do accept is also flawed by subjecting it to unauthoritative personal interpretation. Sad.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 01, 2003.

Hello, Rod

Have you talked to a Catholic priest about having your 4 and 8 year old children baptized yet?

-- - (David@excite.com), November 22, 2003.

Rod,

You did take care of this didn't you?

-- - (David@excite.com), March 07, 2005.

"Topping" for Rod.

-- ... (.@......), March 08, 2005.