Posted on 06/15/2014 12:52:19 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
1.) An infant is baptized, is raised by believing parents and later when older turns from the faith.
2.) An infant is baptized, has no believing parents to be raised by, and when older doesn't turn from the faith.
Given that the antithesis exists for 1 & 2, wouldn't it be prudent for the priest to baptize the fortunate infant as well as the unfortunate, as either could remain faithful when older, show perseverance against high odds, and no priest knows the future - only God Almighty?
Given that only God knows the future, perhaps withholding baptism isn't an option at all for the priest. If the priest is unsure about 1, 2 or the antithesis for both, should they let God do their baptizing for them if they lack faith?
Got nothing to do with intellect...Has to do with the bible...
You post a King James 1611 Translation and then slam me over a New American Standard translation?
Well they say the exact opposite things...One may be right while the other is definitely a deception...
And since the Catholic Douay agrees with the KJV I find it interesting that you would chose a non (anti) Catholic bible to post scripture from...
The verse says nothing about baptism...
Unless “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” somehow isn’t Baptism.
It is certainly not water baptism...
It was unconsecrated ground, otherwise the site would not have been abandoned as it was. The accusation is that children of unwed mothers were denied baptism and were therefore not properly buried. There was a large cemetery directly across the road from the former home, so it’s not from a lack of burial sites that this occurred. The denial is very deep-seated. I’ve been called all sorts of names merely for posting information coming from Irish Catholic sources on this topic. The Irish want to get to the bottom of it, find the truth and set things right as best they can be at this point. Others only see potential scandal and embarrassment, and try to deflect. Bad impulse, imho. The Irish have it right. Get at the truth.
Act_1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
The easiest way to know that baptism is not water is because they are spelled way differently...
So if baptize means water, the verse could read, 'John baptized with baptism'...Or John watered with water...Or John watered with baptism...
If baptism means water in the above verse then baptism means Holy Ghost as well...
And since baptism also means Holy Ghost, it would be accurate to say 'you will be Holy Ghosted with the Holy Ghost'...
Just because you see 'water' you can't think baptism...And when you see baptism, it doesn't mean water...
You are assuming people need baptism to have sins remitted...The verses just as easily read that we get baptized because of the remission of sins...And in fact, that is how it is to be read...We get baptized AFTER we become Christians, after our sins have been remitted; NOT to become Christians...
Any Catholic that gets angry over being called out for their church not giving one baby, much less 20, 100 or close to 800 being given consecrated ground and a proper burial out to be ashamed to no end.
And that's the thing. Roman Catholics are often so busy making others feel ashamed, they forget that the one they are looking at in the mirror is a detestable creature if they can care less if a baby/infant gets a proper, official consecrated burial.
The Irish saved them once before during the Dark Ages. Maybe they will again.
There's a greater chance the Cubs will win 20 championships in a row than there is that the RCC isn't involved.
Are you that delusional? Do you pine for your priests and nuns?
What, the babies and infants crawled there by themselves?
You need to get with the program. Most RC’s and their websites and apologists are taking the line that these poor nuns really didn't know how to properly care for the infants, were overworked, etc. Your stance has already been retreated from.
That argument was lost. The truth will come out, the Irish want it, and the RCC will have no choice.
“He did however get baptized.”
And?
Here’s another chance to discover something of the truth. Take it or leave it.
A 76 year-old man,, once a child at this home for unwed mothers children, said the conditions there were appalling.
Secondly, another person, a woman not quite as old who grew up in that town, remembers seeing how the children were treated on a daily basis. The place was akin to a stone-walled fortress. Nice...
Third, experts in Ireland have stated that there are lists, and certificates for close to 809 dead, but NO accompanying burial records, and they know that what has been found are deaths by famine, as those have already been account ed for.
Point is, this was a time when they were wrongly called bastards, were treated as second-class citizens, were believed unworthy of baptism, and thus to the block-heads of the time, unfit for consecrated burial.
Here will be on-going exhumations, as those have already been scheduled. Better get ready for consecrated burials. Amen.
We all know those babies went to heaven. Jesus’ disciples asked him if a man born blind sinned [in the womb] or his parents sinned that he was born blind. Jesus declared that neither he nor his parents sinned.
No sinning in the womb, and no baby born sins, even days, weeks, months, etc after being born. Those babies are in heaven. Only the most wicked would say otherwise about a baby.
A story 100% discredited but you keep repeating the liberal lie.
Ahh but the poster used ‘Peter said’ and not ‘God’s word says’
What proof are you offering that they were not baptized? You seem all worked up about this, where is YOUR proof?
Ah, liberals are behind it.
I guess the Roman Catholic who has told of the warm, tender memories she recalls of the place, and how the children were treated, as he lived in the area - she must be a liberal, spreading those liberal lies!!!
You Sherlock, you!
The burden of proof is not upon me.
There are lists of deceased children, and death certificates, but no corresponding burial records. Surrounding cemeteries have no records that correspond with the death certificates.
Ignorant folk then wouldn’t bury unbaptized children/babies on consecrated ground.
“I will be your God and you will be My people”. So, does God change his mind; does the Old Testament not “count”? So, if the redneck analogy is correct: “If they walk like a Christian, talk like a Christian; behave like a Christian they must be a Christian. That applies whether “they” know / accept Christ as a born-again.
Then I encourage you to read the account for yourself and see if the thief on the cross was or was not baptized and was or was not promised by Christ to be with Him in paradise.
Again unsubstantiated claims. Feel free to have the last rant.
That.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.