When did non Catholics stop being Catholic?

[RyanBlack]

There is a very subtle difference between your example and what happened in the case of Edgardo Mortara. If the the nurse’s testimony is completely true, she baptized him because she thought he was about to die. There would have been no question about his being raised Catholic or Jewish because, she presumed, he would not live long.

His survival was not foreseen, nor part of some nefarious plan of the nurse to “bring him up Catholic.” This was not an attempt to “force” the faith on Edgardo.

The bigger theologial question to be asked is, “What exactly happens when someone is baptized?” If something very real and very crucial takes place at that moment, which Jesus and God apparently insist does, ( “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” {John 3:1}) then it would seem that the Church had been handed responsibility for the eternal destiny of the soul of Edgardo. Recall that Edgardo chose not to leave the Church as an adult. He was an intelligent and capable adult who could have acted on his own behalf. He was not coerced to remain in the Church.

So, if a Catholic nurse or physician, even at the request of, let’s say, a Lutheran mother, baptizes a child who is not expected to survive, and that child in fact does survive, is there a moral obligation to take that child away from his Lutheran parents forcibly to ensure that the child is raised Catholic? If the answer is yes, then all I can say is that we had better be prepared to deal with a whole host of very unpleasant consequences. If the answer is no, and I believe that this is the correct answer, it was the wrong decision in the case of Mortara. BTW, the decisions he made as an adult, which are not surprising, considering that he was raised by Catholics and not his rightful parents, in no way justify the very grave offense that was committed against his parents.

 

[jmcrae]

So, if a Catholic nurse or physician, even at the request of, let’s say, a Lutheran mother, baptizes a child who is not expected to survive, and that child in fact does survive, is there a moral obligation to take that child away from his Lutheran parents forcibly to ensure that the child is raised Catholic? If the answer is yes, then all I can say is that we had better be prepared to deal with a whole host of very unpleasant consequences. If the answer is no, and I believe that this is the correct answer, it was the wrong decision in the case of Mortara. BTW, the decisions he made as an adult, which are not surprising, considering that he was raised by Catholics and not his rightful parents, in no way justify the very grave offense that was committed against his parents.

No one can undo history. It happened, and no amount of handwringing or jumping up and down will un-happen the event.

it’s not likely that it would happen today because we operate under a completely different system of values today.

 

[RyanBlack]

What is your alternative? Say you are a parent, and your child (unbeknownst to you) has been baptized in the Catholic Church.

Whose job is it to inform you that your child is a Catholic?

What are your obligations toward your Catholic child? If you refuse to give your Catholic child a Catholic education, whose job is it to make sure he receives his right to a Catholic education?

In the case of a child baptized Catholic against the wishes of his or her parents, my alternative is to pray that the graces provided to the child in the sacrament of baptism will yield fruit later in life and that the child will freely choose to live a Catholic life. My choice certainly would not be to kidnap the child from his parents simply because they are not Catholic. I am convinced that this is gravely sinful, and I’m convinced that it was gravely sinful in the case of Mortara, regardless of the fact that the Pope possessed the temporal power to do so.

19th century Protestants were actually infamous for sending non-Protestant children to Protestant boarding schools without giving the parents a choice in the matter. Protestant educators were especially zealous about making sure Native children received a Christian education, and often kept Native children in school even over the holidays to prevent them from being “contaminated” by their Native culture.

The accusation of “kidnapping” could also be applied to these situations, as well.

Of course the accusation of kidnapping could be applied in these situations. Did you think I would have suggested otherwise?

 

[RyanBlack]

No one can undo history. It happened, and no amount of handwringing or jumping up and down will un-happen the event.

it’s not likely that it would happen today because we operate under a completely different system of values today.

Of course no one can undo this. That doesn’t make it necessary for people to defend it, since it never should have happened in the first place. I really can’t understand why some Catholics think that papal infallibility means that popes never engage in sinful actions and that, therefore, all papal actions, no matter how obviously wrong, must be exlained away as somehow acceptable. What was done in the Mortara case was gravely wrong, and for Catholics to defend it simply becomes an occasion for unnecessarily causing scandal. No Catholic parents in their right mind would agree that it would in any way whatsoever be acceptable for their child to be taken from them because someone of some other religion had performed that religion’s rite of initation on their child against their will. As a matter of simply following Christ’s commandment that we treat others as we would have others to treat us, we should not seek to justify the taking of a non-Catholic child from his parents on the basis of that child having been forcibly made Cathlic through a baptism that was sinfully performed in the first place.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course no one can undo this. That doesn’t make it necessary for people to defend it, since it never should have happened in the first place. I really can’t understand why some Catholics think that papal infallibility means that popes never engage in sinful actions and that, therefore, all papal actions, no matter how obviously wrong, must be exlained away as somehow acceptable. What was done in the Mortara case was gravely wrong, and for Catholics to defend it simply becomes an occasion for unnecessarily causing scandal. No Catholic parents in their right mind would agree that it would in any way whatsoever be acceptable for their child to be taken from them because someone of some other religion had performed that religion’s rite of initation on their child against their will. As a matter of simply following Christ’s commandment that we treat others as we would have others to treat us, we should not seek to justify the taking of a non-Catholic child from his parents on the basis of that child having been forcibly made Cathlic through a baptism that was sinfully performed in the first place.

Right - he should never have been baptized, and this incident is the reason that it is not permitted - ever - for anyone whomsoever - to baptize any child against the parents’ wishes or behind their back.

I was never defending the Pope’s actions; I was always explaining that you can’t baptize a child without the consent of his or her parents.

What the Pope did was after the fact, and considering he lived in a society where everyone was kidnapping everyone else’s kids to educate them “properly,” his decision was not the best one to make, but it was understandable given that the norm of the time was to do that, as we see with Protestants taking thousands of Native children out of their homes and educating them according to their own values - with the secular government backing them up with funding to do this. So if the Catholics are wrong because of this incident, then so are the Protestants and the secularists, because they didn’t only do it one time.

 

[PJM]

=LINVS;10195840]I saw a documentary a few years ago about a Jew in Rome in the 19th century who was baptised by his Christian maid when he was very ill. His parents didn’t approve of the baptism, but the maid did it to save his soul. The Church then took the boy from his parents in order to raise him as a Christian. The boy later grew up to become a monk and rejected any contact with his parents.

This lead me to believe that ANYONE validly baptised is a member of the one holy Catholic church. Afterall the church authorities took great responsibility in raising the Jewish boy in the faith.

So my question is when did holy mother church stop seeing ALL the baptised as her children?

SHE HASN’ T !; BUT many of Her children have run away from Home

Savation MUST, and most cetainly will be conditional on what our Perfect God; Jesus Christ, Ordained, Commands and insist upon.

GOD WILL; BECAUSE BEING A PERFECT AND “JUST” GOD; HE MUST JUDGE EACH OF US BASED NOT ON OUR BELIEFS AND PERSONAL CHOICES AND PREFERENCES; BUT ON THE SINGULAR TRUTH OF HIS TEACHING. On what Christ makes possible for us to KNOW;NOT what we choose to agree or disagree with.

Because there is only "One God"

There can possibly be ONLY One set of Faith beliefs. God who is perfect cannot possibly hold contradictory views on the same teachings.

 

[Kaninchen]

So if the Catholics are wrong because of this incident, then so are the Protestants and the secularists, because they didn’t only do it one time.

Just to note that the Catholic Church didn’t ‘only do it one time’, either. The Mortaras were just the most famous victims and Pio Nono the most famous perpetrator.

The Houses of the Catechumans were greatly feared by Italian Jews.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, if a Catholic nurse or physician, even at the request of, let’s say, a Lutheran mother, baptizes a child who is not expected to survive, and that child in fact does survive, is there a moral obligation to take that child away from his Lutheran parents forcibly to ensure that the child is raised Catholic? If the answer is yes, then all I can say is that we had better be prepared to deal with a whole host of very unpleasant consequences. If the answer is no, and I believe that this is the correct answer, it was the wrong decision in the case of Mortara. BTW, the decisions he made as an adult, which are not surprising, considering that he was raised by Catholics and not his rightful parents, in no way justify the very grave offense that was committed against his parents.

If a Lutheran mother did have her child baptized as Catholic that would obligate her to raise the child as Catholic. It would not justify forcible abduction.

I never claimed the case of Edgardo should be taken as a precedent, but as a very unusual case with its own merits. Given its impact on history perhaps there was something to the circumstances of the case that makes it of special concern.

There is no need to claim the Pope acted infallibly in this particular case, but it is plausible to admit the possibility of divine intervention given the specific outcome, unless you presume a completely hands off view of divine providence.

Unfortunately, your analysis leaves God completely out of the picture as if human action is all that was involved here. There may have been God’s influence on Edgardo himself that you completely ignore or discount in drawing your conclusion.

How do you know that Edgardo chose to remain Catholic merely because he was raised as one? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Presumably, he knew what had happened to him, after the fact, so it would have been a reasonable course of action for him to be scandalized by the genesis of his Catholicism, yet he didn’t depart from it. Are you saying you would have renounced Catholicism if you had been in his situation? Are you Catholic merely because you were raised as one?

Do you see no place for God’s action in history, in human affairs, or in the lives of individuals, at all?

 

[RyanBlack]

If a Lutheran mother did have her child baptized as Catholic that would obligate her to raise the child as Catholic. It would not justify forcible abduction.

So a Lutheran mother, under the stress of believing her newborn child will not survive, who requests baptism in a hospital from a physician or nurse who happens to be Catholic, is obligated to raise the child as Catholic?

I never claimed the case of Edgardo should be taken as a precedent, but as a very unusual case with its own merits. Given its impact on history perhaps there was something to the circumstances of the case that makes it of special concern.

There is no need to claim the Pope acted infallibly in this particular case, but it is plausible to admit the possibility of divine intervention given the specific outcome, unless you presume a completely hands off view of divine providence.

Unfortunately, your analysis leaves God completely out of the picture as if human action is all that was involved here. There may have been God’s influence on Edgardo himself that you completely ignore or discount in drawing your conclusion.

Of course there is the possibility of divine intervention; indeed, divine intervention is the only thing that allows for anything good at all to come from this tragic episode in history. So, no, I do not leave God completely out of the picture, and I certainly allow for the possibility that God did influence Edgardo himself–in fact, I’m entirely inclined to see God’s influence in his life.

How do you know that Edgardo chose to remain Catholic merely because he was raised as one? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Presumably, he knew what had happened to him, after the fact, so it would have been a reasonable course of action for him to be scandalized by the genesis of his Catholicism, yet he didn’t depart from it. Are you saying you would have renounced Catholicism if you had been in his situation? Are you Catholic merely because you were raised as one?

Do you see no place for God’s action in history, in human affairs, or in the lives of individuals, at all?

You assume far, far too much. Of course I’m not Catholic merely because I was raised as one, since I was raised Protestant (very low-Church evangelical Protestant at that). And yes, I do see a place for God’s action in history, in human affairs, and in the lives on individuals. If I did not, I’d hardly be a Christian, since our faith is in the Incarnate, Crucified, and Resurrected God. One cannot believe these things and at the same time deny God’s acts in human history.

I do not know that Mortara chose to remain Catholic merely because he was raised Catholic. Furthermore, I never said that he chose to remain Catholic solely because he was raised as Catholic, I said that it was “not surprising” and that it should not be used to justify the wrongs that were committed. I’m glad that he chose to remain Catholic. I’m also glad that countless Africans who were enslaved by Europeans became Christian. I’m also glad that I was born, even though I was conceived about 3 months prior to my parents’ wedding. In none of these cases does the good that God brought about change the fact that the good was caused by God in spite of gravely sinful acts, which are not justified by the good that God caused.

 

[Bella92]

You can’t judge a bygone era by the standards of today.

We’re not able to say the genocide, slavery or abortion of the past was wrong, or judge it too harshly, because we know more now than we did back then? Our morality is relative to the time we live in? That’s a new one on me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So a Lutheran mother, under the stress of believing her newborn child will not survive, who requests baptism in a hospital from a physician or nurse who happens to be Catholic, is obligated to raise the child as Catholic?

Yes, she would be under some obligation to do so depending on the circumstances of the request, which should have been made clear to her beforehand. If Baptism has any real effect, as Catholics believe it does, then this request could not be treated lightly.

Of course there is the possibility of divine intervention; indeed, divine intervention is the only thing that allows for anything good at all to come from this tragic episode in history. So, no, I do not leave God completely out of the picture, and I certainly allow for the possibility that God did influence Edgardo himself–in fact, I’m entirely inclined to see God’s influence in his life.

You assume far, far too much. Of course I’m not Catholic merely because I was raised as one, since I was raised Protestant (very low-Church evangelical Protestant at that). And yes, I do see a place for God’s action in history, in human affairs, and in the lives on individuals. If I did not, I’d hardly be a Christian, since our faith is in the Incarnate, Crucified, and Resurrected God. One cannot believe these things and at the same time deny God’s acts in human history.

I do not know that Mortara chose to remain Catholic merely because he was raised Catholic. Furthermore, I never said that he chose to remain Catholic solely because he was raised as Catholic, I said that it was “not surprising” and that it should not be used to justify the wrongs that were committed. I’m glad that he chose to remain Catholic. I’m also glad that countless Africans who were enslaved by Europeans became Christian. I’m also glad that I was born, even though I was conceived about 3 months prior to my parents’ wedding. In none of these cases does the good that God brought about change the fact that the good was caused by God in spite of gravely sinful acts, which are not justified by the good that God caused.

Well expressed.

Now, just as I had no idea about your motives and influences, it could also be true that you have no idea, being some centuries removed from the actual event, about the influences operating in the motives of the Pope in this case. Certainly, if he undertook the course of action of his own and for reasons of coercion, then the act was wrong. If, however, God’s involvement was not simply “after the fact,” to bring about some good effects from a regrettable event, but actually motivational in the Pope’s conduct, any condemnation on our part would be premature. That determination is not for us to make in any way approaching absolute terms, which some in this thread appear all too ready to make.

 

[Bella92]

If, however, God’s involvement was not simply “after the fact,” to bring about some good effects from a regrettable event, but actually motivational in the Pope’s conduct, any condemnation on our part would be premature. .

The fruits of this affair is a broken family, descendants who continue to be resentful and bitter towards the church, the curtailing and rejection of papal authority, continued strained relations with jewish groups over the affair, and a failed misson by Edgardo to the Jews, in fact I read several bishops refused him funding when he asked and he was more or less pushed from pillar to post until he died. What it shows me is the truth of the message the ends don’t justify the means, or to put it another way, two wrongs don’t make a right. If that’s true, then the crime the pope committed can’t have a good outcome for him. Looking at the fruits this event cultivated, I’d say that’s about right.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The fruits of this affair is a broken family, descendants who continue to be resentful and bitter towards the church, the curtailing and rejection of papal authority, continued strained relations with jewish groups over the affair, and a failed misson by Edgardo to the Jews, in fact I read several bishops refused him funding when he asked and he was more or less pushed from pillar to post until he died. What it shows me is the truth of the message the ends don’t justify the means, or to put it another way, two wrongs don’t make a right. If that’s true, then the crime the pope committed can’t have a good outcome for him. Looking at the fruits this event cultivated, I’d say that’s about right.

This is very interesting given that we see that many of the same unfortunate outcomes were the result of Jesus’ ministry on earth. The fruits of his ministry were leaving a broken family, bitter clansmen, a rejection of the authority of the Sanhedrin by his followers, continued strained relationships between Christians and Jews, an apparently failed mission to the Jews, the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus was pushed from pillar to post carrying a cross until he died on it.

Very interesting parallel given that both men were Jewish by birth. Jesus was under no delusions about the success of his primary mission on earth (…when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8) and whether his true followers would be accepted by others, in particular his Jewish brothers and sisters.

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master." If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ (John 15:18-25)

 

[Rich_C]

So my question is when did holy mother church stop seeing ALL the baptised as her children?

I’ve read here and there that the traditional understanding is that every infant baptized outside the Church is regarded as a Catholic until they reach the age of reason (say, age 7 or so). Is that what you’re asking?

 

[Elizium23]

I’ve read here and there that the traditional understanding is that every infant baptized outside the Church is regarded as a Catholic until they reach the age of reason (say, age 7 or so). Is that what you’re asking?

I have never heard that myself. In fact I have heard the opposite. Children baptized outside the Church must be received into the Church liturgically before they can participate in the sacraments as a Catholic. Do you have a link or reference for your idea?

 

[SilverCamellia]

jmcrae:

What is your alternative? Say you are a parent, and your child (unbeknownst to you) has been baptized in the Catholic Church.

Whose job is it to inform you that your child is a Catholic?

What are your obligations toward your Catholic child? If you refuse to give your Catholic child a Catholic education, whose job is it to make sure he receives his right to a Catholic education?

In the case of a child baptized Catholic against the wishes of his or her parents, my alternative is to pray that the graces provided to the child in the sacrament of baptism will yield fruit later in life and that the child will freely choose to live a Catholic life.

This is not really on topic but I would like to say that this applies to me in my life. My mother, a Catholic convert, had me baptised Catholic. My dad dislikes Catholics in general. My mother died when I was less than a year old. I wasn’t brought up Catholic in any way. I had a Church of England (Anglican) education until high school; and I attended a non-religious high school. None of my family is religious is any way.

Yet here I am to be Confirmed on Holy Saturday! And I thank God for it

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I saw a documentary a few years ago about a Jew in Rome in the 19th century who was baptised by his Christian maid when he was very ill. His parents didn’t approve of the baptism, but the maid did it to save his soul. The Church then took the boy from his parents in order to raise him as a Christian. The boy later grew up to become a monk and rejected any contact with his parents.
This lead me to believe that ANYONE validly baptised is a member of the one holy Catholic church. Afterall the church authorities took great responsibility in raising the Jewish boy in the faith.
So my question is when did holy mother church stop seeing ALL the baptised as her children?

The Catholic Church has been fighting off heresies since the beginning but , the year 1054 is pretty much considered the year of the great schism.

All hell broke loose since then to the present. The heresies nowadays are pretty much the same as in yesteryear. They just have a modern facade and a nouveau lingo which makes them sound “new age”.

All true Christians: believers in the divinity of Christ- were originally Catholic. Catholics are the original Christians.

All the baptised under the formula: In nomine Patri et Filius et Spiritui Sanctus…are considered Christians. Add to that the belief in the Divinity of Christ.