Cleansing at Baptism

Safehands

Last week I was at the Christening of a young niece. The priest talked about "the cleansing of her soul". I felt like walking out. How can a young baby of 6 months require cleansing of any discription?

La Fenetre

Did you think to ask him and give him the chance to reply ?

I'm sure he would have happy to clarify what he said.

Safehands

La Fenetre wrote: »

Did you think to ask him and give him the chance to reply ?

I'm sure he would have happy to clarify what he said.

Great question. No I didn't, because at these occasions, when 5 or 6 babies are being baptised, it is very difficult to walk up to a priest, who is surrounded by proud parents and say, "what did you mean about cleansing the baby?" If I see him again I will. It did provoke a lot of discussion afterwards though, most of it not agreeing with him.

La Fenetre

Those occasions can be busy days all right.
I'd call in with him at a time that suits you both better and ask him, it's a fair question.

Safehands

La Fenetre wrote: »

I'd call in with him at a quieter time that suits you both and ask him.

I was told that he was a very senior monsignor and very conservative. But is that type of thing still official RC teaching? He also spoke about "churching" women. Mad stuff altogether.

La Fenetre

Sounds like it, some of them can be eccentric sometimes to put it mildly, and I mean that with no disrespect, you can get that in any walk of life. Maybe ask a younger Priest if you'd be more comfortable with that. I've never heard of it in this part of the world, nor did my elderly parents when I first read these terms on places like boards.ie, but I believe there may have been variation around the country, which there shouldn't have been. I doubt Pope Francis would be too approving of that approach, but then again not being there or knowing the context I don't know.

EoghanIRL

La Fenetre wrote: »

Sounds like it, some of them can be eccentric sometimes to put it mildly, and I mean that with no disrespect, you can get that in any walk of life. Maybe ask a younger Priest if you'd be more comfortable with that. I've never heard of it in this part of the world, nor did my elderly parents when I first read these terms on places like boards.ie, but I believe there may have been variation around the country, which there shouldn't have been. I doubt Pope Francis would be too approving of that approach, but then again not being there or knowing the context I don't know.

If by eccentric you mean unfounded then you've hit the jack pot.
A 6 month old child needing to be cleansed of sin?
Really?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Adam and Eve / Original Sin / Immaculate Conception / Jesus / ...

Peregrinus

EoghanIRL wrote: »

If by eccentric you mean unfounded then you've hit the jack pot.
A 6 month old child needing to be cleansed of sin?
Really?

Depends. If you're wedded to a concept of sin as a legalistic concept - infringement of rules, guilt, judgment and so forth - then of course it makes no sense at all. A baby can't possibly incur any kind of moral or legal guilt.

But if you understand sin in the sense of weakness, frailty, limitations that are inherited by babies or imposed on them by the world they are born into, then, yes, obviously babies can be afflicted by sin in this sense.

martinedwards

"born of sin and shapen in iniquity" is the phrase that sticks in my head from childhood Presbyterian baptisms.

Baptism is a symbolic washing away of the sin.

As posted above, it stems from original sin. we are sinners from birth.

if there was no sin, there would be no need for baptism, regardless of the age of the recipient.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

Last week I was at the Christening of a young niece. The priest talked about "the cleansing of her soul". I felt like walking out. How can a young baby of 6 months require cleansing of any discription?

Here speaks one, I think, who has never changed a nappy!

EoghanIRL

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends. If you're wedded to a concept of sin as a legalistic concept - infringement of rules, guilt, judgment and so forth - then of course it makes no sense at all. A baby can't possibly incur any kind of moral or legal guilt.

But if you understand sin in the sense of weakness, frailty, limitations that are inherited by babies or imposed on them by the world they are born into, then, yes, obviously babies can be afflicted by sin in this sense.

I think you will find that the vast majority of people have moved on.

If you actually believe that a 6 month old baby is guilty of sin then I think you need a serious reality check.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here speaks one, I think, who has never changed a nappy!

Never changed a metaphysical one, thats for sure!

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

Last week I was at the Christening of a young niece. The priest talked about "the cleansing of her soul". I felt like walking out. How can a young baby of 6 months require cleansing of any discription?

Why did you attend the Christening, if you don't know what the sacrament of Baptism is.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends. If you're wedded to a concept of sin as a legalistic concept - infringement of rules, guilt, judgment and so forth - then of course it makes no sense at all. A baby can't possibly incur any kind of moral or legal guilt.

But if you understand sin in the sense of weakness, frailty, limitations that are inherited by babies or imposed on them by the world they are born into, then, yes, obviously babies can be afflicted by sin in this sense.

Does Baptism remove that weakness and frailty? Does it affect the limitations that are inherited by these babies? Would they be different if they were not Baptised?
Does it stop any human from sinning again?

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

Why did you attend the Christening, if you don't know what the sacrament of Baptism is.

It was a family event, a bit like a wedding really.

Peregrinus

EoghanIRL wrote: »

If you actually believe that a 6 month old baby is guilty of sin then I think you need a serious reality check.

Would it not have been wise to read my post before replying to it? I said, in plain words, which you quoted, that it is impossible to believe that a baby can be guilty. So how can you possibly imagine that I believe that a baby can be guilty?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

Does Baptism remove that weakness and frailty? Does it affect the limitations that are inherited by these babies? Would they be different if they were not Baptised?
Does it stop any human from sinning again?

No, no, no and no. But no claim is made that any of this outcomes will occur, so you may be setting up a straw man here.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Why did you attend the Christening, if you don't know what the sacrament of Baptism is.

The same question could be posed to 90% of those who insist on having the ritual performed on their children.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends. If you're wedded to a concept of sin as a legalistic concept - infringement of rules, guilt, judgment and so forth - then of course it makes no sense at all. A baby can't possibly incur any kind of moral or legal guilt.

But if you understand sin in the sense of weakness, frailty, limitations that are inherited by babies or imposed on them by the world they are born into, then, yes, obviously babies can be afflicted by sin in this sense.

If you do understand "sin" in the sense of weakness, frailty, and believe that babies can be afflicted by "sin" in this sense, then is baptism supposed to get rid of that "sin"? If not, what does it do?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

If you do understand "sin" in the sense of weakness, frailty, and believe that babies can be afflicted by "sin" in this sense, then is baptism supposed to get rid of that "sin"? If not, what does it do?

Christians believe that part of the human condition is to be deeply enmeshed in sin, and in the structure of sin. This isn't something we choose (and therefore we're not "guilty" of choosing it); it just comes with being human.

That's the doctrine of orginal sin. I can't remember who it was who said that the doctrine of original sin was the one doctrine for whose truth there is abundant empirical evidence, but I tend to agree with him. Just look at the abused child who becomes, in his turn, a child abuser to see a particularly distressing illustration of how we can be trapped by the structures of sin. Or look at how people are led into sin in response to poverty and injustice inflicted on them by the sins of others.

Right. Christians further affirm that, however good our intentions, we cannot, by our own efforts, escape from this condition; it is simply beyond us. We can only transcend this condition through grace.

Baptism is regarded by Christians as an "outward and visible sign" of that grace. It's not a magic wand ("with one bound, he was free!"); more the start of a necessary journey towards becoming, through the grace of God, the people we are called to be.

homer911

Safehands wrote: »

Last week I was at the Christening of a young niece. The priest talked about "the cleansing of her soul". I felt like walking out. How can a young baby of 6 months require cleansing of any discription?

Its not actually clear from your post what the priest said about "the cleansing of her soul" (Can a soul be cleansed?, does her soul still have to be "cleansed"?)

In the Presbyterian church its made very clear that baptism does not make you a Christian..

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Christians further affirm that, however good our intentions, we cannot, by our own efforts, escape from this condition; it is simply beyond us. We can only transcend this condition through grace.

That suggests that anyone who does not believe in the Christian way can never escape that condition you describe, but by being baptised you can. I think the evidence would never support this.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

That suggests that anyone who does not believe in the Christian way can never escape that condition you describe, but by being baptised you can. I think the evidence would never support this.

I don't agree that this does suggest what you say it does. As far as Christians are concerned, we are called to baptism, and it's the only way we know of definitively accepting God's grace. But (most) Christians don't claim that it's the only way there is; God is not constrained by our knowledge.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't agree that this does suggest what you say it does. As far as Christians are concerned, we are called to baptism, and it's the only way we know of definitively accepting God's grace. But (most) Christians don't claim that it's the only way there is; God is not constrained by our knowledge.

You said "Christians further affirm that, however good our intentions, we cannot, by our own efforts, escape from this condition; it is simply beyond us. We can only transcend this condition through grace."

I can't think of any interpretation of this statement which suggests that, without help from some divine or spiritual being, we can escape the "condition" you described.

Mellifera

EoghanIRL wrote: »

I think you will find that the vast majority of people have moved on.

If you actually believe that a 6 month old baby is guilty of sin then I think you need a serious reality check.

Except the church maybe? Agree with other posters...it's part of the Christian faith that we are all born with sin and the baptism is the cleansing of that sin to progress through life, etc.
Also agree with other poster who said, that even though 'we've moved on' 90% of people still insist on putting their children through the sacraments even though they have no particular beliefs/faith. I've not baptised my two kids. This year is the communion one for one of them. There are two in a class of 15 that won't be getting communion. We are talked about in hushed tones. I've had it said to me 'would you not just let him get communion for the sake of it'. People in this country seem to trundle along and not really question what they are doing or what effect it has. You are probably one of the few people at that baptism who actually listened to the words and questioned what they were saying.

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

It was a family event, a bit like a wedding really.

Baptism is a sacrament.


You think that Baptism is a charade as evidenced by your posts to this thread.
But in your hypocrisy you still attended the Baptism

Safehands

Mellifera wrote: »

Except the church maybe? Agree with other posters...it's part of the Christian faith that we are all born with sin and the baptism is the cleansing of that sin to progress through life, etc.
Also agree with other poster who said, that even though 'we've moved on' 90% of people still insist on putting their children through the sacraments even though they have no particular beliefs/faith. I've not baptised my two kids. This year is the communion one for one of them. There are two in a class of 15 that won't be getting communion. We are talked about in hushed tones. I've had it said to me 'would you not just let him get communion for the sake of it'. People in this country seem to trundle along and not really question what they are doing or what effect it has. You are probably one of the few people at that baptism who actually listened to the words and questioned what they were saying.

It's an interesting debate, whether to baptise the baby or not, even if you don't believe. If you don't believe, it can affect several aspects of your child's life as they grow. Like the communion. I wouldn't like my kids to be left out, so I think, for their social development, it's better to conform. Who knows, they may like the whole thing and become regular church attendees. That would be great for them.
It is a whole new debate, and we did touch on it on the day of the Christening.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

You think that Baptism is a charade as evidenced by your posts to this thread.
But in your hypocrisy you still attended the Baptism

I suppose, if I'm being honest, I agree with you. I think it is a bit of a charade. But that doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for attending

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

You said "Christians further affirm that, however good our intentions, we cannot, by our own efforts, escape from this condition; it is simply beyond us. We can only transcend this condition through grace."

I can't think of any interpretation of this statement which suggests that, without help from some divine or spiritual being, we can escape the "condition" you described.

Yes, that's correct. What's not correct is your assumption that , in the Christian view, this "help" is only accessible to those who "believe in the Christian way" and/or "by being baptised". There are some Christians who believe this, or something very like it, but that's not the Catholic position (and, presumably, is not the position of the Monsignor whose comments gave rise to this thread).

Benny_Cake

hinault wrote: »

Baptism is a sacrament.


You think that Baptism is a charade as evidenced by your posts to this thread.
But in your hypocrisy you still attended the Baptism

I don't see the hypocrisy. People of all beliefs and none attend the baptisms of close friends or relatives, one doesn't need to hold the same beliefs as someone about the event to recognise it's importance in their life.

La Fenetre

hinault wrote: »

Why did you attend the Christening, if you don't know what the sacrament of Baptism is.

I'm sure because it's a family/friends event, and happy day for the parents and child, and he was invited to share their day, and why not ? Christians attend all sorts of non Christian family/friends days, that they may have no particular direct interest in themselves, but it's nice to be invited to share with them their day. He had a query, which instead of moaning about it and spoiling the family day, he's gone here, and/or is going to see the Priest or a Priest to ask why, I think that's reasonable enough.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

Baptism is a sacrament.


You think that Baptism is a charade as evidenced by your posts to this thread.
But in your hypocrisy you still attended the Baptism

Lots of people attend social events like baptisms.

More often then not they attend such social events because they were invited by the parents and as such they are there as guests for the parents.

They don't have to believe in some god or things like a baby being born with sin to attend these social events. It's perfectly acceptable to think such things are silly too as long as they don't act silly and start shouting about it during the event. .

I was going to suggest that you no doubt you would do the same if invited to a Muslim social event (go for the parents but still think it's silly) , but based in the semi aggressive nature of your posts I'm not actually so sure to be honest.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

Lots of people attend social events like baptisms.

More often then not they attend such social events because they were invited by the parents and as such they are there as guests for the parents.

They don't have to believe in some god or things like a baby being born with sin to attend these social events. It's perfectly acceptable to think such things are silly too as long as they don't act silly and start shouting about it during the event. .

I was going to suggest that you no doubt you would do the same if invited to a Muslim social event (go for the parents but still think it's silly) , but based in the semi aggressive nature of your posts I'm not actually so sure to be honest.

The sacrament of Baptism isn't "a social event".
It is the spiritual initiation of a person in to the Church.

I do take the point that some people attending may not share the religious affiliation of those other attending.
In my experience those people usually keep their own counsel.

Instead here the OP has admitted that he/she/it considers the sacrament of Baptism to be a charade.
Therefore his/her attendance is an act of hypocrisy in my view.
Outwardly they appear to bear witness at the Christening while in their interior they view the Christening as a charade. Rank hypocrisy.

And yes, you're correct I would not attend a religious ceremony outside of those instituted by the Catholic Church, because it would be hypocritical of me to bear witness to a rite in which I did not believe in.

La Fenetre

hinault wrote: »

The sacrament of Baptism isn't "a social event".
It is the spiritual initiation of a person in to the Church.

Actually, as well as being spiritual, an important part of the ceremony is to welcome the person being baptised into the Church and it's congregation.

hinault wrote: »

And yes, you're correct I would not attend a religious ceremony outside of those instituted by the Catholic Church, because it would be hypocritical of me to bear witness to a rite in which I did not believe in.

If it's good enough for Popes Francis, Benedict and John Paul II to, it's good enough for others. A bit of ecumenism goes a long way. I'm almost beginning to suspect yourself and a few other posters here might be plants, deliberately trying to give as poor an impression of your denomination as possible, and sorry if it seems I may be picking on you like some are, you're certainly not the only one, perhaps you don't realise you're doing it, and with the best of intentions, I think you need to know.

hinault

La Fenetre wrote: »

Actually, as well as being spiritual, an important part of the ceremony is to welcome the person being baptised into the Church and it's congregation.

The OP has admitted that he/she consider the sacrament of Baptism to be a charade.

Therefore he/she is not a member of any congregation.

La Fenetre wrote: »

If it's good enough for Popes to, it should be good enough for you. A bit of ecumenism goes a long way. I'm beginning to suspect yourself and a few other posters here are plants, deliberately trying to give as poor an impression of your denomination as possible and sorry if it seems I may be picking on you like some are, you're certainly not the only one, perhaps you don't realise you're doing it, and with the best of intentions, I think you need to know.

You don't appear to understand the concept that is Ecumenism.
Ecumenism is the modernist attack upon the Catholic Church. It is an attempt by modernists to ultimately destroy the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself.

And as for your conspiracy theory, I'm not plant and the only denominations that exist are those that are not the Catholic Church.

As for what the assorted collection here of protestants/atheists post, the tenets of what they choose to believe is their business.
The fact that I don't give any credence whatsoever to what they choose to believe is by the by.

La Fenetre

hinault wrote: »

You don't appear to understand the concept that is Ecumenism.
Ecumenism is the modernist attack upon the Catholic Church. It is an attempt by modernists to ultimately destroy the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself.

And as for your conspiracy theory, I'm not plant and the only denominations that exist are those that are not the Catholic Church.

As for what the assorted collection here of protestants/atheists post, the tenets of what they choose to believe is their business.
The fact that I don't give any credence whatsoever to what they choose to believe is by the by.

Ecumenism is a very important movement within the Catholic church, and all recent Popes have pushed it's importance, and spend a considerable part of their time in dialogue with other Christians. Of course anything as positive as this is seldom reported in the media. Christ said those that are not against us are with us.

I firmly believe The Holy Spirit and a renewal is coming to heal this nation.

There have been warped forms of Christianity (Catholic and Otherwise) pushed by some, in this country for years, by people who's real interests were anything but Catholic or Christian. Do not let them be your model.

From Pope John Paul II (sorry for the long quote, I can't do links) :

Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity … There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble. gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. … The words of St. John hold good about sins against unity: "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us". So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.

Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today.

hinault

La Fenetre wrote: »

Ecumenism is a very important movement within the Catholic church, and all recent Popes have pushed it's importance, and spend a considerable part of their time in dialogue with other Christians. Of course anything as positive as this is seldom reported in the media. Christ said those that are not against us are with us.

I firmly believe The Holy Spirit and a renewal is coming to heal this nation.

There have been warped forms of Christianity (Catholic and Otherwise) pushed by some, in this country for years, by people who's real interests were anything but Catholic or Christian. Do not let them be your model.

From Pope John Paul II (sorry for the long quote, I can't do links) :

Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity … There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble. gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. … The words of St. John hold good about sins against unity: "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us". So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.

Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today.

For practically 2,000 years, the Catholic Church functioned - sometimes badly, sometimes brilliantly - without any recourse to Ecumenism.

Since Vatican II as you say various popes have decided that Ecumenism is a requirement for the Church. The fact that 1,940+ years passed without any need for Ecumenism has been forgotten or simply ignored by the modernists.

In principle I haven't a problem with the Church engaging in dialogue with whoever it wishes to.
However I do have a problem with the Church giving credence to those concepts and ideologies which are non-catholic and are at their core anti-catholic.

Ecumenism at it's core seeks to dilute Catholicism before assimilating Catholicism.

La Fenetre

hinault wrote: »

For practically 2,000 years, the Catholic Church functioned - sometimes badly, sometimes brilliantly - without any recourse to Ecumenism.

Since Vatican II as you say various popes have decided that Ecumenism is a requirement for the Church. The fact that 1,940+ years passed without any need for Ecumenism has been forgotten or simply ignored by the modernists.

In principle I haven't a problem with the Church engaging in dialogue with whoever it wishes to.
However I do have a problem with the Church giving credence to those concepts and ideologies which are non-catholic and are at their core anti-catholic.

Ecumenism at it's core seeks to dilute Catholicism before assimilating Catholicism.

True ecumenism is none of the negative things you fear.
Ecumenism, and its negative, counterpart, (mostly political power struggles dressed up as and using religion), has existed as long as the Church has. I'd have a read up on it on one the Vatican's official websites in your own time (the only reliable source of Catholic information on the tinternet), it's well worth it.

katydid

EoghanIRL wrote: »

I think you will find that the vast majority of people have moved on.

If you actually believe that a 6 month old baby is guilty of sin then I think you need a serious reality check.

If you are having your child baptised into the Christian church, you presumably subscribe to its beliefs. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is that we are born with Original Sin. If you don't believe this, then why would you be having your child baptised?

Of course, you don't have to understand the concept of sin in the way society generally defines it, as the willing breach of religious rules. Original sin is just a way of referring to our natural human fraility.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

Does Baptism remove that weakness and frailty? Does it affect the limitations that are inherited by these babies? Would they be different if they were not Baptised?
Does it stop any human from sinning again?

It symbolises the grace and the strength that the Christian belief and the Christian community gives to a person.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Ecumenism is the modernist attack upon the Catholic Church. It is an attempt by modernists to ultimately destroy the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself.

And as for your conspiracy theory, I'm not plant and the only denominations that exist are those that are not the Catholic Church.

As for what the assorted collection here of protestants/atheists post, the tenets of what they choose to believe is their business.
The fact that I don't give any credence whatsoever to what they choose to believe is by the by.

This really explains more about you than you probably realise.
With those views I can't understand why you bother with this forum.

FWIW , I don't believe in ecumenisism either.
There is only One Body, One Spirit, One Faith,One Lord as the Apostle Paul wrote but then our understanding of these words probably differs.

La Fenetre

In fairness to the OP as well, "cleansing" is a probably not the best word to explain a difficult concept.

Human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin, but through no fault of our own, we've inherited the disease of sin, and a weaker nature for sin as soon as it was unleashed by our first parents. Once it's out of the box, man does not have the capability to put it back in. Christ however does. Of course the evil one is as good as ever at dressing up good as evil and evil as good.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

It symbolises the grace and the strength that the Christian belief and the Christian community gives to a person.

I can accept that it is a purely symbolic event. Nothing changes, the baby is no different in any way. So talk of cleansing or purification is just in a symbolic way. Looking at it that way, it is a nice day out, with the child centre stage. It is a lovely way of honouring these totally pure, little angels. Those attending enjoy the day. Very, very few, that I have spoken to, actually believe that anything changes with the baby, except that he is now a member of the Christian family and can attend Christian schools, get married in a church etc. It's an initiation, a bit like joining any other club.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

For practically 2,000 years, the Catholic Church functioned - sometimes badly, sometimes brilliantly - without any recourse to Ecumenism.
Since Vatican II as you say various popes have decided that Ecumenism is a requirement for the Church. The fact that 1,940+ years passed without any need for Ecumenism has been forgotten or simply ignored by the modernists.

That's what education does for you! It takes you out of the dark ages.

EoghanIRL

katydid wrote: »

If you are having your child baptised into the Christian church, you presumably subscribe to its beliefs. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is that we are born with Original Sin. If you don't believe this, then why would you be having your child baptised?

Of course, you don't have to understand the concept of sin in the way society generally defines it, as the willing breach of religious rules. Original sin is just a way of referring to our natural human fraility.

Do you really want me to answer this?
In my experience the majority of people getting their children baptised aren't regular church goers and see it as a social outing.
Things have changed. Many people get their children baptised to get their chosen primary school.

How many people do you think actually believe in original sin who get their children baptised?

katydid

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Do you really want me to answer this?
In my experience the majority of people getting their children baptised aren't regular church goers and see it as a social outing.
Things have changed. Many people get their children baptised to get their chosen primary school.

How many people do you think actually believe in original sin who get their children baptised?

So they are all hypocrites. Interesting.

hinault

La Fenetre wrote: »

True ecumenism is none of the negative things you fear.
Ecumenism, and its negative, counterpart, (mostly political power struggles dressed up as and using religion), has existed as long as the Church has. I'd have a read up on it on one the Vatican's official websites in your own time (the only reliable source of Catholic information on the tinternet), it's well worth it.

Really?

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim.

For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.

We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html published by the Second Vatican Council 21st November 1964.

EoghanIRL

katydid wrote: »

So they are all hypocrites. Interesting.

I don't think it's fair to say that.
I think religion is integrated into systems which it doesn't belong.
School patronage more or less forces people in many situations to baptise their child and go ahead with different sacraments through out their child's school years.

If the catholic church's influence on schools was removed do you not think this would affect baptism statistics?

katydid

EoghanIRL wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to say that.
I think religion is integrated into systems which it doesn't belong.
School patronage more or less forces people in many situations to baptise their child and go ahead with different sacraments through out their child's school years.

If the catholic church's influence on schools was removed do you not think this would affect baptism statistics?

Fair enough. If the reason is purely to get children into school, I can understand that. I'm thinking more of those who do it for a social day out and have no commitment to the church.

La Fenetre

katydid wrote: »

Fair enough. If the reason is purely to get children into school, I can understand that. I'm thinking more of those who do it for a social day out and have no commitment to the church.

Thing is it's largely a yarn that it's required. A local principle in Dublin explained to me all Christian schools will take non Christians, more kids means more funding. It's when a government cuts the school funding and effectively caps the pupil and teacher numbers in an area, that a school has to resort to giving preference to those with the baptism cert appropriate to the denomination that owns the school, and that's rare.