Posted on 04/27/2012 6:36:28 PM PDT by Salvation
annalex explains it better here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2877390/posts?page=53#53
Taking a baby out of an oxygen tent doesn’t sound like a good idea. The fear that something might happen before the baby was baptized very well could have led to serious complications or death. This might even be regarded as child endangerment under some circumstances, and not without justification.
As I’ve mentioned before, I have family of varying denominational beliefs; some practice infant baptism, some don’t. I cannot imagine any of those who do, snatching a newborn out of what sounds like an ICU for baptism.
It comes across as being rather hysterical and dangerous, quite honestly, right up there with snake handling by holy rollers in some backwoods sect of a church.
I’ve come down on the side of believer’s baptism, personally, and understand that babies and children of believers, prior to their own understanding and ability to accept salvation, are regarded as being of the house of a believer, and therefore not in danger.
I’ve regarded infant baptism up to this point as harmless symbolism demonstrating intent to raise the child in a proper, Christian manner, and so haven’t gotten all that worked up about pro or con.
This gives me serious pause, however. It was a fortunate thing that the baby was not harmed.
My baby was turning blue and still breathing and coughing. I didn’t take the kind of chance you are speaking of. The nurses were right into the room to get him back into the oxygen tent and show me why he needed surgery since he had inhaled an object.
I’m sorry, but a baby taken out of an oxygen tent turning blue and coughing, with nurses then rushing into the room to put the baby back into the oxygen tent, sounds as if a very grave chance was taken.
Thank-you for your response!
Also a number of parishes do have, besides RCIA, RCIC, for children and young people between the ages of 8 and 16 who were not baptized or were baptized but who have not made first holy communion.
If Salvation says there was minimal risk then the discussion is pretty much over. You were not there, she was, she said the nurses were there.
This is the part where you take a step back and say: You are correct I over stepped my bounds since I was not there."
Go ahead try it, I am certain it won't hurt anything more than your pride.
The action sounded very ill advised as described and sounded worse upon elaboration. I’ve nothing for which to apologize.
Regulator:
Were you there? Than you don't know Jack, and it typical liberal prot fashion shooting your mouth off. Why didn't you just say that she was acting stupidly? That way you would remove all doubt as to your hero and motive.
Please try to maintain decorum, Verga. You’re on the religion forum.
It is a very dangerous thing to try to establish a general rule from an exception, particularly since you are not a thief dying on a cross next to Jesus.--lightman
It is particularly dangerous to say that baptism is not necessary for salvation based upon the example of the Good Thief who died before Christ gave the commandment to be baptized. It is traditionally held that baptism did not become instituted as a binding sacrament until after the Resurrection when Christ gave the Great Commission, commanding the apostles to go forth baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matt 28:18-20) Before that time, baptism does not appear to have been required for salvation. Thus the commandment to receive baptism would not apply to those (like the Good Thief) who died before the commandment was given to baptize.
It is true that baptism was performed as a rite by John the Baptist, but it wasn't necessarily a Sacrament at that time. This is one of the reasons that those who had received the Baptism of John had to be "re-baptized" in Acts 19 which reads:
3And he [Paul] said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The above passage indicates that the baptism of Repentance by John the Baptist wasn't enough to be a Sacramental baptism, and those who had received it had to be rebaptized under the rules that Jesus set out at the Great Commission (i.e. they had to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.)
Also, if baptism wasn't a Sacrament until the Great Commission, it would explain, why the spirits of the righteous who lived before baptism was commanded were able to be allowed into Heaven, when Christ came to preach to "the Spirits in prison" after he died on the Cross. (I Peter 3:19-21)
In short, baptism is a binding commandment upon those who have lived after the Great Commission was given. Those who are able to receive it must do so because Christ has commanded it. Those who intentionally neglect receiving it disobey a direct command from God and thus put their souls in grave danger.
I will try, but the last thread this came up I got called a monster. Original sin is not something many want to think about. Which may explain the luke warm prolife efforts of many.
Actually, this is a common misunderstanding that has circulated since the International Theological Commission (ITC) released its report on Limbo a few years ago. The Church's ITC did not say that Limbo exists neither did it say that Limbo does not exist. In fact, the Theological Commission didn't change any of the Church's teaching on Limbo. The Commission simply said that it hopes that unbaptized children will be saved, not that they are saved.
Also, an important thing to note is that Limbo is not a lower level of Heaven, it is actually the outermost edge of Hell. According to the Theologians, those who go to Limbo are deprived of the Beatific Vision of God (a supernatural happiness), but because they have no actual sin, they can still enjoy a perfect natural happiness.
The theory of Limbo is actually one of the best possible Catholic Theological outcomes for the fate of unbaptized infants, because the Ecumenical Council of Florence appears to dogmatically (i.e. infallibly) define that even those who die with the stain of original sin alone go immediately to hell. The decree is very stern and solemnly worded. It reads:
We also define...Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal penalties.
This decree makes the plight of the unbaptized sound very serious. The serious tone of the decree is further compounded by another part of the decree of this council which goes on to warn parents against putting off baptism too long, warning the parents of the danger that the child is in while yet unbaptized. This other part of the decree declares:
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.
All of the teachings of the Scriptures on this matter are very grave sounding so, it is best not to take chances and get children baptized as soon as possible. Nevertheless, if a child is not baptized it is God who decides that persons ultimate fate and we can hope in His wisdom and mercy.
Repent and be baptized. In that order.
When this was first brought up a couple thousand years ago Anabaptists were killed by the thousands for disagreeing.
Are you sure you are referring to the Anabaptists? They were a 16th century movement suppressed by both Protestants and Catholics for, among other things, rebaptizing converts.
Providing some fearmongering, eh??? To keep the gullible parents in bondage to the Catholic religion...
The young children will then go straight into the arms of Jesus...
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Where the is no faith and no Law, conscience is the factor in judgment..
.Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
This is where young children and babies fall into the mix...They don't have the capacity for the knowledge of saving faith nor do know and understand God's Law...They will be judged on their conscience...
Try that on a baby...
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That's not what the verse says...That may work when other Catholics are told what the scriptures say and you guys know they won't check you out...But it won't work with people who read the scriptures...
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And this says the opposite of what you claim...
No there is not...There is no imparting of the Holy Spirit without repentance...You guys just make this stuff up...
The child is then annointed with the Chrism of Salvation used in only three sacraments -- Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders That mark of Baptism and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit will be with the child forever.
That's why we as Catholics can say to anyone who was baptized in the Catholic Church that they are still a Catholic. The Holy Spirit is still there, perhaps the person has rejected the Catholic faith momentarily, but they will be back. One flock and one shepard.
You also talked about repentance. The godparents and parents announce for the child that they reject Satan and believe in the precepts stated in the Nicene Creed.
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.