| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 807 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 12:48 pm |
|
An article our RCIA class was given to read on baptism had a troubling statement to me that maybe I misunderstood. Is it correct? It is from something called Catholic Update and was written by Sandra DeGidio and published by St. Anthony Messenger Press.
"In the Church of the first three centuries adult baptism was the norm" (it then goes on to desrcbe the process of the catechumenate) and later reads
"By the beginning of the 5th century, the catechumenate process itself had virtually disappeared. The sacraments of initiation became three separate sacraments celebrated at separate times. Soon adult baptisms declined, infant baptism became the norm and the process and theology of Chrisitan initiation of adults as practiced in the early church became a lost art."
Is she denying that infant baptism existed at all, or just saying it was not the norm? Is it not a correct belief to assume that infants were baptised well before the catechumenate process began as I think I was told is true from an earlier post. The only thing I know of in histroy is people waiting till their deatrh to get baptized out of fear or a more hgarsh understanding of penances and losing their state of grace.
I know the church believes in the deposit of faith and that our teachings started with the apostles and can not change, but what of the developments we see in certain things or changes in how amd when people received the sacraments. Specifically baptism confirmation and the eucharist and confession which took many years to develop into what we had today.
|
|
|
sewnsew
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 01:01 pm |
|
| I wonder if the high numbers of adult baptisms in the earlier years were due to more people converting and in the later years the catechumen process diasppeared - and infant baptism rose becuase more and more of the poputaion was Christian by that time and so these infants were born into already christian familes.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 01:15 pm |
|
Once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it was no longer necessary to baptize clandestinely. People converted in droves, sometimes just because paganism became illegal. And people wanted the benefit of favored status for their children as well, so they began bringing their children to be baptized.
Infant baptism was always practiced in the Church, but it was not the norm. When an entire household converted, the majority of people would have been adults, teens, and older children. If a group of 20 came into the church together, two or three of them might have been infants. By the fifth and sixth centures, nearly all adults had converted to Christianity, so infants were essentially the only ones left who were not baptized. Therefore, infant baptisms became a much higher percentage of baptisms, and infant baptism became the norm.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 807 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 01:18 pm |
|
| I guess then my question to calrify is that if I were a Chrsitian in the year say between 90 and 170 AD and I had a baby born, would I have been able to get it baptized and would the church have encouraged and taught the same things about it then?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 01:23 pm |
|
brian wrote: I guess then my question to calrify is that if I were a Chrsitian in the year say between 90 and 170 AD and I had a baby born, would I have been able to get it baptized and would the church have encouraged and taught the same things about it then?
Yes and yes.
The ratio of adult to infant baptisms was heavily slanted toward adults in the early years, and heavily slanted toward infants from about the fifth century onward, but the Church teaching has not changed, only the demographics.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 04:30 am | |
|
|
