If I may add, Baptism from the very beginning was much more than a Christian form of circumcism. It was that (the consacration of a baby to God) and much more as explained by Joseph.
I must disagree with Nancy tho. It is Scriptural to baptize babies. I have spent many years studying Judaism and Jewish culture. The Biblical term "the whole household" means every person of all ages including babies as well as including servants and even slaves. If the Bible had meant except babies it would have said so, since the term very specifically meant everyone, the Biblical 'all'. It is also clear from the writings from the Church Fathers starting from the late 1st Century and very early 2nd Century that the Church from the beginning baptized babies, as they presented baptism as the Christian version of circumcism.
I write to make note that the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist which were taken together in the early years of the church proving these sacraments were dispensed to adults only. Infants had no part in these sacramental rites because they could NOT be witnesses to the faith. To accept confirmation, one must be of such an age as to be able to defend the Holy Church which is why the common age for being confirmed at age 12, similar to the Jewish faith when a boy of that age makes his Bar Mitzvah. I find it anti-scriptural to call an infant’s sprinkling anything but a christening. It is not a baptism which must be made individually by a person once they are of age to understand the responsibility. We do a disservice to not fully and completely baptize an adult any other way than by complete submerging in a body of water. The very word Baptizo means to immerse. The word rantizo means to sprinkle and Cheo means to pour. Yet, remember the word used to explain the sacrament is SPECIFICALLY BAPTIZO. No other words.
Frankly I realize accommodations were made across the centuries but shouldn’t we chose the way our lord began his ministry in the River Jordan with John? When we alter traditions and invent words to take the place of the only words, we invite confusion and lose the sense of capitulation and duty that goes with the very humbling act itself.
Make of this what you will. It is merely my opinion.
1. You state that the Sacraments of initiation were NOT administered to children. I am not sure of your source for this. We know from Sacred Scripture that whole households were Baptized (Acts 16:15, Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 1:16). It would have been odd, and a great assumption, that there were no children Baptized. It is the same with Confirmation. We read that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands was so important that that both Sts Peter and John left Jerusalem and personally went to those in Samaria to anoint all those who had been Baptized. (Acts 8:14–17) Why do you assume that no children were present? It has been for centuries, and still is, the practice of the Eastern Catholic Rites that the infant receives Baptism, First Communion (a very small amount - still the whole Christ), and Confirmation all at once. This would be consistent with the early Church's understanding of the importance of these Sacraments to our earthly life and Salvation. The Sacraments are about what God does in us, not what we do.
2. Confirmation is not about declaring one an adult. It never has been. That is a recent idea. It is about being sealed (completed) in the Holy Spirit. The reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace (see Acts 8:14–17 and Acts 19:1–6). In Conformation (CCC 1285) we are more perfectly bound to the Church and enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Note, it is about what God is doing not what we do,
3. Sacred Scripture is very clear that there are two distinct actions as part of entering into the Church, one is Baptism. the second is the outpouring (falling) of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14–17)
Finally, who are we to declare that the Church for two thousand plus years has been wrong and that suddenly we must change how the Sacraments are practiced? The New Testament of Sacred Scripture was inspired by God and written for the Church, by the Church. The Church celebrated the Sacraments long before they were ever written down. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church from the beginning in matters of faith and morals. It is only a relatively recent post-Reformation and very false idea that we should believe by Scripture alone. New Testament Scripture did not exist in full for nearly the first 90 years after the birth of our Lord. Yet, the Church was there spreading the Gospel and celebrating the faith.
Great article! I particularly liked the discussion of St Cyril and the excerpt from his mystagogical lectures.
If I may add, Baptism from the very beginning was much more than a Christian form of circumcism. It was that (the consacration of a baby to God) and much more as explained by Joseph.
Thank you very enlightening and informative.
I must disagree with Nancy tho. It is Scriptural to baptize babies. I have spent many years studying Judaism and Jewish culture. The Biblical term "the whole household" means every person of all ages including babies as well as including servants and even slaves. If the Bible had meant except babies it would have said so, since the term very specifically meant everyone, the Biblical 'all'. It is also clear from the writings from the Church Fathers starting from the late 1st Century and very early 2nd Century that the Church from the beginning baptized babies, as they presented baptism as the Christian version of circumcism.
I write to make note that the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist which were taken together in the early years of the church proving these sacraments were dispensed to adults only. Infants had no part in these sacramental rites because they could NOT be witnesses to the faith. To accept confirmation, one must be of such an age as to be able to defend the Holy Church which is why the common age for being confirmed at age 12, similar to the Jewish faith when a boy of that age makes his Bar Mitzvah. I find it anti-scriptural to call an infant’s sprinkling anything but a christening. It is not a baptism which must be made individually by a person once they are of age to understand the responsibility. We do a disservice to not fully and completely baptize an adult any other way than by complete submerging in a body of water. The very word Baptizo means to immerse. The word rantizo means to sprinkle and Cheo means to pour. Yet, remember the word used to explain the sacrament is SPECIFICALLY BAPTIZO. No other words.
Frankly I realize accommodations were made across the centuries but shouldn’t we chose the way our lord began his ministry in the River Jordan with John? When we alter traditions and invent words to take the place of the only words, we invite confusion and lose the sense of capitulation and duty that goes with the very humbling act itself.
Make of this what you will. It is merely my opinion.
Nancy Sullivan
Sully4648@ Comcast.net
Here are a few thoughts.
1. You state that the Sacraments of initiation were NOT administered to children. I am not sure of your source for this. We know from Sacred Scripture that whole households were Baptized (Acts 16:15, Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 1:16). It would have been odd, and a great assumption, that there were no children Baptized. It is the same with Confirmation. We read that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands was so important that that both Sts Peter and John left Jerusalem and personally went to those in Samaria to anoint all those who had been Baptized. (Acts 8:14–17) Why do you assume that no children were present? It has been for centuries, and still is, the practice of the Eastern Catholic Rites that the infant receives Baptism, First Communion (a very small amount - still the whole Christ), and Confirmation all at once. This would be consistent with the early Church's understanding of the importance of these Sacraments to our earthly life and Salvation. The Sacraments are about what God does in us, not what we do.
2. Confirmation is not about declaring one an adult. It never has been. That is a recent idea. It is about being sealed (completed) in the Holy Spirit. The reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace (see Acts 8:14–17 and Acts 19:1–6). In Conformation (CCC 1285) we are more perfectly bound to the Church and enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Note, it is about what God is doing not what we do,
3. Sacred Scripture is very clear that there are two distinct actions as part of entering into the Church, one is Baptism. the second is the outpouring (falling) of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14–17)
Finally, who are we to declare that the Church for two thousand plus years has been wrong and that suddenly we must change how the Sacraments are practiced? The New Testament of Sacred Scripture was inspired by God and written for the Church, by the Church. The Church celebrated the Sacraments long before they were ever written down. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church from the beginning in matters of faith and morals. It is only a relatively recent post-Reformation and very false idea that we should believe by Scripture alone. New Testament Scripture did not exist in full for nearly the first 90 years after the birth of our Lord. Yet, the Church was there spreading the Gospel and celebrating the faith.