Tired of the phrase "Cradle Catholics"

[IanGE]

First, St. Polycarp was a “cradle Catholic” since he had been baptized 86 years prior to his death by martyrdom. That was in the 100s AD, well before the time of Constantine - in fact, small-t tradition holds that St. Polycarp was baptized as an infant by St. John the Apostle. It’s true that in the time of Constantine, adult baptism was quite common, but this was due to the preponderance of mixed marriages during that era - Constantine’s father was a pagan, and his mother was a Catholic; same with St. Augustine, and many other leading figures of that era. Both of St. Ambrose’s parents were pagans - he himself was an adult convert.

Second, baptism is not a repeatable sacrament - you could not have gotten “baptized again” as an adult, although you may have had a memorial of baptism ceremony that included some water. (Unless you had it done by a heretic, in which case, all you did was participate in a heretical attempt at rebaptism.)

I notice you are a convert (enjoyed your testimony!) and you struggled for 17 years before jumping in. I didn’t, I was pushed in - and thats my point. You and all other converts have struggled, then decided. I didn’t and for 21 years I searched for “The Real” God, finally finding Him in my own back yard at age 46! Quite simply, by asking Jesus to be my Boss and HE ordered me back to the Roman Catholic church (much grumbling from me and my wife, I might add!)
And yes, I was led BY THE LORD into a full-immersion baptism performed by a Born-Again evangelist - if that was heretical, tell Jesus. Also that He was OTT when He said, “AMEN AMEN I say to you, except anyone is Born Anew he will not see the Kingdom of God.” (Jn 3:3, from Zonderman Greek text).
I give you St. Polycarp; please give me the zillions (well, thousands!) of adult pagans, Jews, God-fearers (those not of Jewish blood who followed Judaism but couldn’t be full Jews), atheists and others to whom God gave ears to hear the Good News spread by the Few. Christian roots ARE in adult conversions back in those days when, though Jesus’ sacrifice, the veil of the Temple was split and God became a ‘Catholic’ (ie Universal) God rather than a Temple-dwelling God - an amazing concept.
Of course, a thousand years after Constantine anyone - of ANY age - in Europe who was NOT a Christian was in Big Trouble when the Inquisitors came round!!!

 

[DonSEAS]

Second, baptism is not a repeatable sacrament - you could not have gotten “baptized again” as an adult, although you may have had a memorial of baptism ceremony that included some water. (Unless you had it done by a heretic, in which case, all you did was participate in a heretical attempt at rebaptism.)

From the Nicene Creed:
“We acknowledge* one baptism *for the forgiveness of sins.”

 

[ElizabethPH]

From the Nicene Creed:
“We acknowledge* one baptism *for the forgiveness of sins.”

 

[jmcrae]

From the Nicene Creed:
“We acknowledge* one baptism *for the forgiveness of sins.”

 

[IanGE]

As a cradle catholic aged 73 I must have recited the (amended) Nicene Creed thousands of times (the original creed, in 325, made no mention of the Holy Spirit; Basil of Nicodemia made waves in the mid-330s and the Holy Spirit was added to the creed). I am well aware of that line (which I now blench at): “…one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”.
If you read Eusebius, he tells of great controversy after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, thus ending the persecution. Eusebius tells us that all sorts of people came up when it was safe declaring they were baptised Christians who simply kept a low profile. Those, like Eusebius, who professed their Christianity through thick and thin accused them of denying Christ - a terrible sin! In those days they believed that at baptism one’s sins were forgiven (‘Confession’ came some centuries later). So what about sins (particularly horrible ones like denying Jesus) committed AFTER baptism. Could they let sinners back into the church? There was a move afoot to baptise recanters a second time so that their new sins got forgiven.
Constantine himself delayed his baptism because he knew he would have to order some exremely dodgy acts as Emperor, sins after baptism. He was lucky and was baptised on his deathbed after he handed over the Empire.
But he (a non-Christian) presided over the Council at Nicea, the main purpose of which was to sort out Arius’ heresy: was Jesus always the Son of God or was He promoted or what?. They came up with a new, made-up Greek word 'homousious’ to describe ‘of the same being/essence as the Father’. Non-Greek speakers rebelled cos they couldn’t understand and there was an early schism. However, the business of whether to allow a second baptism FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS was also discussed.
They came up with “one baptism FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS!!!”, which phrase, since we now have confession FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS is redundant.
My second baptism (fully immersed in water, as my Lord Jesus was, not just sprinkled) was not carried out FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS but because I didn’t know what went on the first time. Jesus, I know, understood - and approved. I was (and am) not the only Catholic to eagerly desire a personal, baptismal covenant with Father, Son and Holy Spirit - in fact the Charismatic Elder who dunked me was my eldest brother, another Cradle Catholic.

 

[ElizabethPH]

As a cradle catholic aged 73 I must have recited the (amended) Nicene Creed thousands of times (the original creed, in 325, made no mention of the Holy Spirit; Basil of Nicodemia made waves in the mid-330s and the Holy Spirit was added to the creed). I am well aware of that line (which I now blench at): “…one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”.

Baptism, imprints a spiritual mark or indelible character on the Christian’s soul; for this reason one can receive this sacrament only once in one’s life.

 

[jmcrae]

(‘Confession’ came some centuries later).

“Confession” is mentioned in the Epistle of James, which presumably he wrote prior to his death in 56 AD. Please try again.

So what about sins (particularly horrible ones like denying Jesus) committed AFTER baptism. Could they let sinners back into the church? There was a move afoot to baptise recanters a second time so that their new sins got forgiven.

Which failed.

My second baptism (fully immersed in water, as my Lord Jesus was, not just sprinkled)

You were not “sprinkled” in the Catholic Church either, and whoever told you that you were has (as they often do) confused us with the Presbyterians. Catholics pour three times over the head, or else immerse in water, but either way, you got good and wet.

was not carried out FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS but because I didn’t know what went on the first time.

Actually it was; it released you from the Original Sin of Adam, and made you a member of Christ’s Church.

Jesus, I know, understood - and approved.

Based on what?

I was (and am) not the only Catholic to eagerly desire a personal, baptismal covenant with Father, Son and Holy Spirit - in fact the Charismatic Elder who dunked me was my eldest brother, another Cradle Catholic.

So a lot of people are confused - it is a problem that we have been having for the past 40-some years, with the loss of effective Catechesis that happened during the late 1960s, and is only now being gradually restored. But majority doesn’t rule, and a majority of people being confused does not cause Jesus to change His mind about One Baptism (see Matthew 28).

 

[IanGE]

“Confession” is mentioned in the Epistle of James, which presumably he wrote prior to his death in 56 AD. Please try again.

James wrote (5:16): “Confess your sins to one another”. The SACRAMENT of Confession was not instituted until the twelfth century. Between the fourth and twelfth century auricular (public) confessions were made in the hope that the prayer of faith (James 5:15) would render forgiveness. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, writing some 350 years after the brother of Jesus, thought that confession could be either public, to a priest, or private, to God. If confession were to a priest, he had no power to do anying except pray and advise.
Much later a formula for priestly confessions was arrived at.

You were not “sprinkled” in the Catholic Church either, and whoever told you that you were has (as they often do) confused us with the Presbyterians. Catholics pour three times over the head, or else immerse in water, but either way, you got good and wet.

As a cradle catholic aged 73 I have attended hundreds of baptisms: nobody told me, I observed!

Actually it was; it released you from the Original Sin of Adam, and made you a member of Christ’s Church.
So you believe that baptism forgives sin, then? Nothing to do with Jesus’ supreme sacrifice? And Deut. 24:16 tells me Adam’s disobedience has nothing to do with me: “Children shall not be put to death for their fathers, each is responsible for his own sin” I prefer to believe it was my SECOND, fully aware,adult baptism at which Jesus accepted me as a true believer, follower, disciple AND led me to a baptism of Fire in the Holy Spirit. Note that in Acts 10, Peter baptises Cornelius and his household AFTER they received the Holy Spirit. Surely the Holy Spirit shouldn’t have touched them with a barge-pole if they were still wallowing in sins, original or nay.
Having said all that, I am grateful to the late Father Rock of St. Joseph’s cathedral, Hyderabad, India who baptised me on 15 February 1936. A ‘just in case’ baptism which I cherish! Guess I would still advocate infant baptisms - ‘just in case’ - but I would still push for an adult follow-up to seal the commitment.

Based on what?

Merton writes “for adult Christians prayer becomes a dialogue.”

So a lot of people are confused - it is a problem that we have been having for the past 40-some years, with the loss of effective Catechesis that happened during the late 1960s, and is only now being gradually restored. But majority doesn’t rule, and a majority of people being confused does not cause Jesus to change His mind about One Baptism (see Matthew 28).

The majority does not rule, indeed: members of the Charismatic Renewal are in a much castigated minority.
I checked Matthew 28 in several versions, notably the original Greek (Koine) text: no mention of ONE baptism. The only mention is in the formula reached at the Council of Nicea (which was chaired by an unbaptised (Non-Christian?), Constantine) and that, I say again, refers to “one baptism FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS”

I see no point in trying again and again. I was trying, in this thread, to get converts to realise that cradle catholicism is not the Be all and end all. Jesus was an adult when he submitted to baptism and so was just about everyone else at that time.
But it seems I’ve stirred up a nest of bigotry and hate. Goodbye.

 

[ElizabethPH]

The majority does not rule, indeed: members of the Charismatic Renewal are in a much castigated minority.
I checked Matthew 28 in several versions, notably the original Greek (Koine) text: no mention of ONE baptism. The only mention is in the formula reached at the Council of Nicea (which was chaired by an unbaptised (Non-Christian?), Constantine) and that, I say again, refers to “one baptism FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS”

I see no point in trying again and again. I was trying, in this thread, to get converts to realise that cradle catholicism is not the Be all and end all. Jesus was an adult when he submitted to baptism and so was just about everyone else at that time.
But it seems I’ve stirred up a nest of bigotry and hate. Goodbye.

I’m sorry you feel like this, truly. The bottom line is we are all Catholic period. Whether it’s cradle or convert or charasmatic. That we use all these sorts of labels to differentiate one sort of Catholic from another is all it is. And none of it is meant to be in a bigoted or hateful way. As far as baptism… We as Catholics believe in ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. It is what the Church teaches. That the charasmatic movement believes otherwise is news to me.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry you feel like this, truly. The bottom line is we are all Catholic period. Whether it’s cradle or convert or charasmatic. That we use all these sorts of labels to differentiate one sort of Catholic from another is all it is. And none of it is meant to be in a bigoted or hateful way. As far as baptism… We as Catholics believe in ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. It is what the Church teaches. That the charasmatic movement believes otherwise is news to me.

Me too. I was involved with Charismatic Catholicism during the late 80s and early 90s, and they were very, very orthodox in their teachings - they certainly did not teach re-baptism, and they were always very, very careful to make sure that their ceremonies were differentiated from the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, with constant explanations and teachings about the Sacraments, as well as about the meaning of their ceremonies, and making sure people understood that they weren’t being re-baptized or re-chrismated, but rather that these water and oil ceremonies had a symbolic meaning of their own, related to the Sacraments but not intended as substitutes for them, or as re-doing them. Also, their ceremonies were totally optional - you could be a Charismatic Catholic without ever going through any of them.

 

[cdanison]

Many people speak of “Cradle Catholics.” The use of that phrase often comes from Protestant to Catholic converts, and the phrase rarely ever comes across well. Frankly, the use of that phrase often sounds condescending and a bit arrogrant with many converts acting as if they are somehow “better” Catholics then those born into the faith.

I am a convert from 2004. My husband was a “cradle Catholic” and so are many of my friends. I only use the term “cradle Catholic” in the most reverent, respectful way. I wish I had been a "cradle Catholic. I missed out on being Catholic for the first 66 years of my life.

If one is a cradle Catholic, he or she is blessed. Take the term and love it!

C

 

[agstockstill]

Note to all converts: We’re here now, please don’t be so touchy. Many “Cradle Catholics” don’t embrace the gift they’ve been given, that is for them to answer for.

I love being a member of the 2009 Tiber Swim Team. Oops another label.

Life’s too short, don’t be bothered by the little things.