Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 92 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My religion teacher said that a nurse can baptize a new-born without the parents consent if it looks like it's not gonna make it.

1. Is this true?

2. If so, why the ****!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
This is a provision under the "better safe than sorry rule". :)

Just kidding. I don't believe that to be the case in Ontario, I'd be surprised if it's true even in Quebec. When you enter a Catholic hospital here, they ask your religion, and if you say anything other than Catholic, you're not bothered with religious stuff.
 

·
Community Analyst
Joined
·
32,844 Posts
Isn't a blessing a mere whishful whisper with a hand gesture of the cross? Who the heck would care one way or the other?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,731 Posts
There was a case in Greece few years ago when a priest in a village refused to conduct a funeral to a dead infant on grounds that it was unbaptised. Naturally, he gave in eventually due to the outrage that followed and even the church slapped him over, but perhaps this law is for situations like this...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
Don't know about Orthodox law, but under Canon Law A) anyone can babtize, it doesn't have to be a priest (I seriously considered baptizing one of my kids when I ran into disagreements with the local fruit-boy padre) and B) the priest would be within his canonical rights in denying the funeral rite to an unbaptized soul.
 

·
I Need More Cowbell!
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
Infant baptism is the single most rdiculous ritual in the entire Catholic church.

With all due respect to those following the pope.
 

·
I Need More Cowbell!
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
Without getting too much into it- The true reason infants are baptised in the Catholic Church is simply because they want to get these people in the records as soon as possible. The belief about baptising them at an early age to save them from the 'gates of hell' is b.s.

Also - I'm not a reformist.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
Well as long as I don't have to delve into theology...infant baptism supplanted adult baptism between the 4th and 5th Cen. A.D. Just curious, what other creeds was the Catholic Church competing against back then, in order to get that much sought-after baptism money?
 

·
I Need More Cowbell!
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
Not baptism money but the money their members end up giving to the church throughout their lives.

And infant baptism isn't the only doctrine the Catholic church has changed through the years.

From baptism by sprinkling to clean shaven popes, Rome has shaken up its doctrine quite a bit. Ofcourse, you already knew that.

I digress. My point is not to atact your faith but merely state that to me, infant baptism beats out the purpose of such ritual which is the remission of sin.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
Infant baptism is not a doctrine. Proof is that adult baptism is still practiced, as in the case of adult converts.

Actually I'd like to know what doctrine the Church has changed over the centuries, as I'm not aware of any doctrinal changes at all...please illuminate me. I don't take anything you've said as an attack on my faith, nor would it trouble me if you did attack it anyway. It's my job to then defend it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Changing a doctrine? That seems contradictory to me. Doctrines are unchanging beliefs that the religion practically builds everything on. The belief that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven on the third day is a Christian doctrine, never changed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
It is contradictory, and in fact doctrines as such, while they may have taken centuries to define, have never changed. Your definition is pretty accurate...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,157 Posts
Changes in doctrine?

A, you western heretics :D

For example, the filioque clause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause

The early period of the Christian church was troubled by a number of dissensions about the nature and relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity. In the West the Holy Spirit was seen as coming from the Father and the Son, though subordinate to neither. In the Eastern part of the (as yet) undivided Catholic church the spirit was seen as originating from the Father alone, although the Son sent the Holy Spirit under the title paraclete. The phrase and the son, (in Latin, filioque), was first added to the Nicene Creed at the Synod of Toledo in Spain in 447. The formula was used in a letter from Pope Leo I to the members of that synod, responding to heresies they were confronting. At the third synod of Toledo in 589, the ruling Visigoths, who had been Arian Christians submitted to the Catholic Church and were obliged to accept the Nicene Creed with the filioque. The Eastern Orthodox churches refused to accept a formula which they saw as an innovation in doctrine.

...
You can read the whole article. As far as I see, changes in doctrine. Amending the Nicene Creed, for example, I see as a clear change in doctrine. Unless you're going to cop out again by saying that this was the "defining" period.
 

·
Nasty Woman
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
Tinto said:
I'd vote for that. :)
As Xtratime's heretic representative, I second that too!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
You can call it a cop out, I call it history...the Patristic period was all about defining doctrine for a church still in its infancy, and culling heresies. In fact a number of actors from those days who are considered saints were also heretics, eg Origen...funny ideas, but a great man...
 

·
Nasty Woman
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
Hey, that was my 4000th post! :D
 
1 - 20 of 92 Posts
Top