Actually having just seen it I would like clarification. I think the catechism and Catholic Apologists and theologians are quite clear on this subject. I think the subject was more than covered multiple times on this thread. If Fr Dye is advocating that baptism is not necessary until the age of reason then he would be contrary to the teachings of the churchFr Robert Dye wrote:
While it is true that we as Catholics practice infant baptism, I seriously doubt it it truly ne essary for anyone who has not attained the age of reason.
Agree. But what do all of the catholics on here say to this statement??? The silence is deafening.
We are bound by the sacraments but the Lord is not.
The Church baptizes babies because baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), just as the circumcision of eight-day old babies was the sign of the Old Covenant (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). In Acts 2:39, Peter says baptism is for children as well as adults. The word used for children ("teknon") means infants, which is proved by Acts 21:21 in reference to eight-day old infants. We see in Acts 10:47-48; 16:15,33 and 1 Cor. 1:16 that entire households were baptized. Household ("oikos") included infants and children. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." It would have been unthinkable from a Jewish perspective to exclude children from God's covenant kingdom. See also in Matt. 9:2, Mark 2:3-5, Matt. 8:5-13, Luke 6:10, Mark 9:22-25 where people are healed based on another person's faith (just as babies are washed away of sin based on their parents' faith).