Transubstantiation and Real Presence

[Duane1966]

If you think about it, infant baptism is obvious from the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[susanlo]

Well, I’m rusty on the timeline so I won’t argue the When part … which I don’t think would affect my point anyhow. I just find it hard to accept the notion that all the churches erred together.

There is no concrete evidence that infant baptism occurred in the first 2 centuries. After the Scripture writings, we have the Didache and writings of Justin Martyr which describe baptism in a way that shows that only believer’s baptisms were occurring.

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus was quoted earlier and is often given as the first instructions on infant baptism. The dating and authorship of this writing is disputed, but most scholars believe it came later in the 4th century. Hippolytus, like Tertullian, had very strict views on sin after baptism and opposed Bishop of Rome, Callistus on this issue. I find it unlikely that he would approve of baptizing young children, but I don’t know for certain.

By approximately 250AD, Cyprian and Origen are writing about infant baptism. (Origen even has an unusual understanding of some sort of original sin.) This is the earliest time one can be certain that infant baptism was occurring.

However a century later we have Ambrose, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nanzianzas, Jerome and others who were born to Christian families - some even to Bishops - but were not baptized until adulthood. Ambrose wrote instructions on baptism, and his baptism could only be performed by professing believers. He gave no exceptions for children unable to speak. (He also had a view of a ‘hereditary’ sin from Adam that was removed by foot washing after baptism.)

So it seems from the mid 3rd century up until sometime in the 5th century, there were different procedures at different churches. By the 5th century there was not only the creation of the Doctrine of Original Sin, but also political changes making Christianity the only legal religion. The emperors released edicts on baptism and disobeying them resulted in death. This political influence no doubt had the power to shape practice.

Did the church all err together? It sounds like gradually there was a change of practice that took a few centuries to occur. Is baptizing an infant and allowing him to get confirmed as a teenager a horrible error? I don’t think so. I think many have done this with genuine Christian intentions and are faithful Christians. Was this practice the norm in the first centuries? No.

Did the church ever authoritatively declare that Christians must baptize their children? Or that delaying baptism to allow a child to choose baptism later in childhood is sinful? I don’t know of any church declarations like this until the Council of Trent which only took issue with “re”-baptism. Maybe there was some formal decision of the church declaring that allowing one to become a believer before baptism was wrong that I don’t know about. However without a formal decree against believer’s baptism, it seems that this decision to enforce infant baptism was actually made by Roman emperors and not the church. If people say there was an error in universal infant baptism, they are stating that the Roman emperors erred and not citing an error in an authoritative church decree.

 

[susanlo]

If you think about it, infant baptism is obvious from the Council of Jerusalem.

How would it be obvious?
I think that it is obvious that Christians in the very first decade didn’t believe that baptism replaced circumcision - therefore infants at 8 days must be baptized. If they believed this, there would be no surprise when Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit and there would be no resistance to the uncircumcised becoming Christians resulting in disagreements taken to Jerusalem. We don’t see that the apostles in Jerusalem decided that circumcision was not necessary ‘because baptism replaced circumcision.’ They decided that it was no longer necessary to enforce the law. Many Jewish families continued to practice circumcision and baptism.

 

[Vico]

I should have specified that there are no biblical records of household baptisms that state that the entire household was baptized without specifying that the whole household believed. There are records that develop over the early centuries that show that infants received baptism like the letter you mention. Tertullian, who was also from Carthage like Cyprian, argues against infant baptism 25-50 years before Cyprian’s letter. This shows that infant baptism was already beginning to occur here, but at first it was discouraged.

Tertullian On Baptism Chapter 18
“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

Other regions were not baptizing infants for a few more centuries. Many of the baptism protocols, like Ambrose’s The Mysteries are written only for believers and could not have included infants. In fact Ambrose, like many other of his era like Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen, are known to be born to Christian families and are known to be baptized in adulthood. Many in the 4th century were delaying baptism until the end of life in order for it to cover all sins. There was clearly much variation in the early centuries, but over time after the Doctrine of Original Sin declared that infants were born guilty of Adam’s sin, infant baptism became universal.

Council of Carthage V (419 A.D.)

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Might a separate thread be appropriate to discuss baptism? The discussion has veered quite a bit from the opening topic…

 

[rcwitness]

Yes of course, we are to take our disputes to the Church. Have I given the impression I do not believe in that? I never meant to. In my lifetime in our congregation this has happened numerous times.

I’m sure you do believe in the practice. But you also remain in local “pools”, so in certain matters you aren’t actually relying on “the Church” but a group of Christians.

Some matters can be resolved easily, while others must take a long time with much effort. But eventually and inevitably, the magisterium must be relied on. It is Christ’s promise. He promised it through Peter and the Apostles. We all have a share in these, so long as we uphold these.

As it is, Protestants do not believe we can possess infallible judgments through the Church. So they each make a stand, and say “I could be wrong, or I could be right” and “I try to choose right, but we are all wrong about some things”.

Yes we all make mistakes, and no one is impeccable. But we can have assurance of Teaching if we take it “to the Church”.

But there are also abuses! And this can and does happen in Catholic Parishes everywhere. This is where the real fight is. We need to uphold the Teachings, learn them, convey them, love them, and allow them to rule in each of us.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

There is no concrete evidence that infant baptism occurred in the first 2 centuries. After the Scripture writings, we have the Didache and writings of Justin Martyr which describe baptism in a way that shows that only believer’s baptisms were occurring.

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus was quoted earlier and is often given as the first instructions on infant baptism. The dating and authorship of this writing is disputed, but most scholars believe it came later in the 4th century. Hippolytus, like Tertullian, had very strict views on sin after baptism and opposed Bishop of Rome, Callistus on this issue. I find it unlikely that he would approve of baptizing young children, but I don’t know for certain.

By approximately 250AD, Cyprian and Origen are writing about infant baptism. (Origen even has an unusual understanding of some sort of original sin.) This is the earliest time one can be certain that infant baptism was occurring.

However a century later we have Ambrose, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nanzianzas, Jerome and others who were born to Christian families - some even to Bishops - but were not baptized until adulthood. Ambrose wrote instructions on baptism, and his baptism could only be performed by professing believers. He gave no exceptions for children unable to speak. (He also had a view of a ‘hereditary’ sin from Adam that was removed by foot washing after baptism.)

So it seems from the mid 3rd century up until sometime in the 5th century, there were different procedures at different churches. By the 5th century there was not only the creation of the Doctrine of Original Sin, but also political changes making Christianity the only legal religion. The emperors released edicts on baptism and disobeying them resulted in death. This political influence no doubt had the power to shape practice.

Did the church all err together? It sounds like gradually there was a change of practice that took a few centuries to occur. Is baptizing an infant and allowing him to get confirmed as a teenager a horrible error? I don’t think so. I think many have done this with genuine Christian intentions and are faithful Christians. Was this practice the norm in the first centuries? No.

Did the church ever authoritatively declare that Christians must baptize their children? Or that delaying baptism to allow a child to choose baptism later in childhood is sinful? I don’t know of any church declarations like this until the Council of Trent which only took issue with “re”-baptism. Maybe there was some formal decision of the church declaring that allowing one to become a believer before baptism was wrong that I don’t know about. However without a formal decree against believer’s baptism, it seems that this decision to enforce infant baptism was actually made by Roman emperors and not the church. If people say there was an error in universal infant baptism, they are stating that the Roman emperors erred and not citing an error in an authoritative church decree.

Would it be fair or realistic to surmise that both practices likely occurred? Perhaps it was left to the discretion of the Bishops and/or the parents?

Unfortunately we just don’t have much information from the first 2 centuries as Christians were being fed to lions and their possessions destroyed. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The words Trinity or Communicatio idiomatum probably didn’t exist in the first few centuries, but that doesn’t mean the Church didn’t believe in the concepts.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yes of course, we are to take our disputes to the Church. Have I given the impression I do not believe in that? I never meant to. In my lifetime in our congregation this has happened numerous times.

Matthew 18:15-17New Living Translation (NLT)

Correcting Another Believer
15 “If another believer[a] sins against you,** go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. 16 But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. 17 If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.**

What if the two believers in Matthew 18 are at different ends of the theological spectrum?

“John” is a Baptist and “Mike” is a Anglican. They have their dispute.

What Church do these two go to for that final decision?

 

[Duane1966]

How would it be obvious?
I think that it is obvious that Christians in the very first decade didn’t believe that baptism replaced circumcision - therefore infants at 8 days must be baptized. If they believed this, there would be no surprise when Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit and there would be no resistance to the uncircumcised becoming Christians resulting in disagreements taken to Jerusalem. We don’t see that the apostles in Jerusalem decided that circumcision was not necessary ‘because baptism replaced circumcision.’ They decided that it was no longer necessary to enforce the law. Many Jewish families continued to practice circumcision and baptism.

What did circumcision do?

 

[rcwitness]

What if the two believers in Matthew 18 are at different ends of the theological spectrum?

“John” is a Baptist and “Mike” is a Anglican. They have their dispute.

What Church do these two go to for that final decision?

Right. This instruction and rule that Jesus gives has no power at all, if a universal Church authority is recognized.

So we cry out to separated brothers to uphold this, while our separated brothers cry out to stop abuses. I believe we need our separated brothers and sisters to admonish us to stop abuses. But when the final judgments of the Church are endlessly disputed, their remains division.

But we, who have His Eucharist are called to suffer and sacrifice. We should be serving better.

 

[Wannano]

What if the two believers in Matthew 18 are at different ends of the theological spectrum?

“John” is a Baptist and “Mike” is a Anglican. They have their dispute.

What Church do these two go to for that final decision?

If the dispute has not been rectified by each consulting his own church, I know for a fact that disputes have been settled amiable by the joint meeting of both churches. I know that from personal experience. It is not so impossible as you have been led to believe.

 

[Wannano]

Right. This instruction and rule that Jesus gives has no power at all, if a universal Church authority is recognized.

So we cry out to separated brothers to uphold this, while our separated brothers cry out to stop abuses. I believe we need our separated brothers and sisters to admonish us to stop abuses. But when the final judgments of the Church are endlessly disputed, their remains division.

But we, who have His Eucharist are called to suffer and sacrifice. We should be serving better.

Don’t agree with your first statement.

Final judgements of the CC cost thousands of innocent lives. How can they be not disputed?
I would think you are aware that people were martyred for not presenting their babies for baptism?

 

[rcwitness]

Don’t agree with your first statement.

Final judgements of the CC cost thousands of innocent lives. How can they be not disputed?
I would think you are aware that people were martyred for not presenting their babies for baptism?

I would strongly argue that those are abuses.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

If the dispute has not been rectified by each consulting his own church, I know for a fact that disputes have been settled amiable by the joint meeting of both churches. I know that from personal experience. It is not so impossible as you have been led to believe.

Ok, I could actually see that working as the final authority described in Matt 18 if humans weren’t so full of pride.

Do you think it’s important for all Churches to be in communion with one another, at least somewhat?

 

[Wannano]

I would strongly argue that those are abuses.

Ok, yes, I never thought of it that way, think of abuse in more modern context!

 

[Wannano]

Ok, I could actually see that working as the final authority described in Matt 18 if humans weren’t so full of pride.

Do you think it’s important for all Churches to be in communion with one another, at least somewhat?

Absolutely, as much as we can.

 

[Faithdancer]

Don’t want to start yet another Eucharist thread so I’ll post my question here. Hope its ok with OP if not please ask moderation to delete.

For those non Catholic Christians who believe in real presence. Do you bow before receiving the body and blood? Do you genuflect to the Lord in the tabernacle? Assuming you have a tabernacle? If not, why not?

Thanks

I receive kneeling, at the altar, via intinction. All consecrated elements are consumed-- no “leftovers.”

 

[rcwitness]

Ok, yes, I never thought of it that way, think of abuse in more modern context!

The distinction between abuse and false teaching is important.

As a Catholic, I can admit that abuses are prevalent in the Church. One example of many is that an estimated 80% of Catholics regularly use contraception and receive Communion.

 

[Church_Militant]

Final judgements of the CC cost thousands of innocent lives. How can they be not disputed?
I would think you are aware that people were martyred for not presenting their babies for baptism?

Documentation please because that sounds like specious a-C propaganda to me.

 

[RyanBlack]

Documentation please because that sounds like specious a-C propaganda to During the Reformation, Anabaptists, who do not practice infant baptism, were killed as heretics by both Catholics and other Protestants.