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?
I’m assuming this is about the unwed-mothers’ home in Ireland? No dog in that fight.
You got mail pal.
God seemed to have a problem with the Jews in the Old Testament. In fact he divorced them and enslaved and scattered them for their transgressions. Then he sent his son Jesus and they rejected him and killed him. Do you really want to say that they don't need Jesus?
“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.”
As far as I am able to discover, it has never been a tenet of the Catholic Church that children born outside of wedlock should not be baptized, or should be forbidden burial in consecrated ground.
I think it highly probable—virtually certain—that there were rogue priests who took it upon themselves to punish illegitimacy in that way, but they were erring in the same way priests today err in allowing altar girls, women lectors, communion in the paw, and self-administration of the Blood of Christ.
“A 76 year-old man...said the conditions there were appalling...Secondly, another person...”
I don’t doubt that conditions were bad in that over-crowded, under-funded facility. A small child remembers being hungry and denied more food; a woman thought the discipline given the children was too strict.
Quick, let’s reconvene the Nuremburg tribunal.
“Third, experts in Ireland have stated that there are lists, and certificates for close to 809 dead, but NO accompanying burial records”
Experts? Experts in what? Reading?
According to the Irish Times, Catherine Corless “concludes that many of the children were buried in an unofficial graveyard at the rear of the former home. This small grassy space has been attended for decades by local people, who have planted roses and other flowers there, and put up a grotto in one corner.”
“and they know that what has been found are deaths by famine, as those have already been account ed for.”
Umm...what?
The Irish Times says, “The children’s names, ages, places of birth and causes of death were recorded. The average number of deaths over the 36-year period was just over 22 a year. The information recorded on these State-issued certificates has been seen by The Irish Times; the children are marked as having died variously of tuberculosis, convulsions, measles, whooping cough, influenza, bronchitis and meningitis, among other illnesses.”
“Only the most wicked would say otherwise about a baby.”
William L. Brown wrote, “The attempt to make God just in the eyes of sinful men will always lead to error.”
I do not know for sure what happens to unbaptized babies after death. I am, however, completely confident that God treats them with limitless justice, love, and mercy.
“No need to read the didache when we have the bible...”
Why do some protestants insist on spiritually impoverishing themselves? God is trying to give with both hands, and they throw His gifts back in His Face.
God is not stingy. He doesn’t limit his giving to “just enough.” He gives abundantly, but some protestants just close their eyes and minds to these wonders.
It is very sad.
Did God tell you unequivocally that babies must be baptized?
You are absolutely correct that some Protestants impoverish themselves by ignoring the teachings of the early church in favor of a Bible read out of historical context and solely through the lens of American circumstances.
“Did God tell you unequivocally that babies must be baptized?”
That is a narrow-minded question that can only lead down counter-productive pathways.
Can you point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that says baptism is essential for Salvation? I actually DO read my Bible and have never seen that.
So Titus 3:5 isn’t what the Bible really says? Because it says Baptism is regeneration.
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...
Then what is it?
Baptism is water and God’s word/command.
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...
Huh?
Nope. And my reading of Holy Writ is just as valid as yours. You are simply misreading it. I am right - you are wrong.
There has been some significant amount of discussion at various "Irish" web pages which includes discussion of that aspect.
If I were to backtrack through my browsing history, then spend a hour or so sifting through all the rest of the discussions to provide source info as to the babies born to unwed mothers typically not being baptized by the local Roman Catholics, in the era that the Tuam "Mother and baby Home" was in operation -- then what?
Would that be significant to you?
It may matter less to our sensibilities now, but to the persons there in Ireland at the time, if one was not baptized then they were looked upon as being surely damned.
Un-baptized persons would not be typically buried in the same cemeteries as others. I did encounter the remark (amid all the reading I did on this issue from sources other than here on FR) that cemeteries in which those of the RC church were buried in, were considered "sacred cemeteries".
There was enough early childhood death -- that there were dedicated "children's" cemeteries too, with one of those some miles from Tuam alleged to be among those checked against the lists of the those who died in childhood at the Tuam facility.
There is a cemetery across the road from the facility. Have you seen it on maps? They were not buried there, with the locals seeming to "know" that persons not baptized (not just "Home Babies") would be turned away or prohibited from being buried within the same cemeteries as those who had been baptized.
In Ireland, those now digging through records have found mention of designated burial grounds at other old work houses (but no "vaults" that I have heard of) and then (still?) those same burial grounds used when some of those same properties were also used as "mother & baby homes", much in the same manner the one in Tuam was.
But so far as I know -- there has been no indication there was any sort of recognition or formal designation at Tuam for "burial" as at some other sites (old work houses and mother & baby homes) like a map indicating where people would be buried, or other mention of burial ground there -- much less any purpose built "burial vault".
There was some small mention of a few coffins once ordered for or by the Tuam nuns -- but there were nuns which passe away over the years also -- with some of those at least having been buried at the 'Grove Hospital' facility just up the road from the mother & baby home, which when the Bon Secours sold that 'Grove' property, they disinterred about a dozen or so nuns who had been buried there over the years. I guess that makes sense as the property was to be developed for something other than a hospital, and grave sites don't mix well with homes and commercial properties, so the nuns moved them to another location, on land they owned I presume. None of this is against the nuns per se, but there was mention of it in the article about the ground penetrating radar having been used at the Tuam site.
I could check again on one particularly prime source which had been posting old newspaper clippings -- in which there was some info of possibly exculpatory nature -- strongly hinting there was some underground area which may not have once been a septic tank. Or else an old sewage tank had been cleared out for another use -- some time (perhaps many years?) after it had fell into disuse -- such as yet another septic tank having been installed rather than relying upon one possibly built back in 1840. It does make some sense that those type of considerations are at least logical or reasonable possibility.
Yet still, there had to have been at least one tank on the property at some time or another. First=-- it was a work house (read -- poorhouse) then it was empty for some years before the Army used it (I forget which years exactly) before the Bon Secour nuns relocated a mother and baby home from another location.
As to the rest of your anecdotal type of comments -- those may be all well and fine, but those are from your own experience here in the States -- not Ireland between the years 1925 or so to 1961.
Even here in the States attitudes towards unwed mothers was during that same time frame as the "Home" was in operation, were frequently rather "icy" for the mother, but perhaps less so here in the U.S. as to the children -- but not always so nice for them either.
People can be cruel.
And you know this -- how?
The problem was that there are no burial records that this Corless woman could find --- for 796 individuals.
She herself grew up in the area, and was a youngster when that facility was still in operation. Have you read much of her own personal testimony concerning the place? Such can be found in several different articles (which are not simply repeats of one or another articles).
Oh, KNOCK IT OFF!
That sort of commentary has no place here.
There could yet be light at the end of a tunnel -- which could explain much if not most everything, and change the views of many in regards to this particular story to something less inflammatory than the admittedly inflammatory headlines. Those had come about by newspaper writers and/or editors taking what info they had been given by the local historian/investigator, then editorializing it into headline form for effect.
Until there is more thorough investigation, including excavation (which excavation some locals are dead set against, I have read) which without a doubt would rule out there was ever a septic tank used to put significant numbers of the bodies of deceased babies into, and few somewhat older children too possibly -- then even discovery of "babies" buried elsewhere on the property would not necessarily rule out the "septic tank" possibility entirely, for that possibility does fit what evidence there is presently available. Yet all of that is not beyond modification, for it has not been necessarily proved beyond possibility for doubt, that what the man opened up in '75 WAS indeed a septic tank, either at all, or just at one time -- who knows how long in the past. If so, then it is not now known at all how long possibly such was not used, before eventually being utilized as a burial chamber of sorts -- if indeed something along those lines did occur.
Necessity is the mother of invention? Since times were tough -- and it seem like with lots of little ones running around, then one may not wish to be digging holes they may fall into -- which one would otherwise need to do if there wasn't some other access to space beneath ground -- such as an old "root cellar" or the like, as I did mention possibility for, although no article broached that subject with that sort of identification for a possible feature of the property. They were recording a couple of deaths a month (approx.).
The "root cellar' sort of idea is feasible enough I think, but it too would need verification before being able to say "-aha! that's the solution, that's what happened..." for I'm just guessing -- though there was one set of possible clues (based on anecdotal evidence) that set me to thinking in that direction.
In the meantime, spare me any more spewing about so-called "die-hard Catholic-haters" for there always seems to be a surfeit of FRomans here ready and willing to cast the darkest of dispersions towards any who would dare criticize the [Roman] Catholic church ecclesiastical community when there is no "inflammatory headline" to incite reaction, but just aspects of history and Scripture too that at particular junctures soundly refutes claims "Rome" has long maintained was the truth concerning -->itself.
I saw recently you mentioned elsewhere that you were baptized in a large or "huge" did you say(?) baptism font.
I have you beat there, for I was baptized in the largest body of water in the world. haha.
I come out of that cold salt water very warm inside also, being baptized with or by the Holy Ghost at the same time that I was being forcefully and purposefully dunked. Interestingly enough... I knew who the Spirit was, having encountered Him quite powerfully previous to being baptized...but never mind more on that for now...
You really don't know who you are talking to -- when you clack a keyboard at me.
Take a chill pill. Take a few.
Baptism is simply a physical identification with another thing.
When we have faith in Christ,...what He performed on the Cross,...we also hear when we are commanded to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
When we are baptized by wetting or immersion of the head, we are manifesting by a work, our identification with God in our thinking, volition, and action.
It is a simple work, whereby we are identified as His.
The action doesn’t give us a new human spirit. That happens by a work of God, when we exercise faith in Him. That saves us from eternal damnation and it seals us by His work in us.
In regards to the initial question, all believers still have volition wherein we can turn away from God and miss the mark of His Plan for us. Missing the mark is sin.
Our missing the mark doesn’t remove salvation, but we might no longer qualify at the bema seat for some rewards He had predestined for us, had we simply remained in fellowship with Him.
The quality or quantity of sin doesn’t remove our human spirit from our anthropology,..it doesn’t remove our salvation, but it does remove us from fellowship with God, meaning we cannot perform works which He considers to be good works, nor can we grow in Him, until we first return to Him and confess our sins for forgiveness.
You wasted quite few words to basically say that you have absolutely no proof that the babies were not baptized. Just speculation that attempts to paint the Catholic Church in a negative light.
You're making it up as you go along.
The thief on the cross is not the only example of a person who was saved and was not baptized.
Luke 19
1 He entered Jericho and was passing through.
2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich.
3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature.
4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way.
5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.”
6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.
7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.”
8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.”
9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
Now, what is it that happened here? Clearly Zaccheus understood who Jesus was ... he demonstrates true repentance in that he was willing to make restitution. But he was not baptized ... and what did Jesus say to him. "Today salvation has come to this house ..."
It is not baptism that causes salvation ... it is repentance, faith, and calling on Him as Lord.
Want another example? The seventy ...
After they came back they said ... Luke 10
17 “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”
18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.
19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.
20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”
I can keep going ...
The point is this ... in mathematics, when you postulate a theorem ... all someone needs to do is provide one counterexample to the theorem and that theorem is disproven. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation ... there are many examples in the Bible.
Theology flows from the text ... not the other way around. Theology doesn't flow into the text.
What Jesus did for the thief he did not do for us. He took the thief’s sins away before He died.
The Bible teaches otherwise ...
Colossians 2:13-14
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Notice ... having forgiven (past tense) all our transgressions ...
Now correct me if I'm wrong but the Colossians were ALIVE at the time Paul wrote to them ... and your second assertion has been disproven as well.
Perhaps you should consider a NT read through ... apart from the readings in mass, where you get a morsel not a meal. Go feed yourself ... read the gospels and the epistles in context ... and perhaps God may grant your eyes to be opened to the truth.
Everyone coming after the cross must come into contact with the blood of Christ Jesus through baptism.
As I have repeatedly demonstrated, the text of the NT teaches otherwise ... it doesn't happen through baptism ... it happens by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and calling on Him as Lord. Read the entire NT and perhaps you will see that. Repent from dead works ... and yes, repent from false doctrine.
Classic Biblical exegesis from the resident Catholic theologian ...
I just showed you from the scriptures that water doesn't mean baptism...And baptism doesn't mean water...
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.