Transubstantiation and Real Presence

[Wannano]

My RCIA director gave me the option to be Baptized rather quickly, or to wait until the next year long class to prepare the candidates. I think what is more interesting, is that in the days of the Apostles, the new converts devoted themselves to the Teachings of the Apostles. Now days, there are a variety of teachings to “choose from”.

Desire and intent do not have a “legalistic” measurement. It is what it is. If there are intentions and anticipation to do so, then there will be plans and preparation. None of the Sacraments should be done “out of fear of death”, though maybe in preparation for death. But primarily, they are a preparation for a greater and eternal life.

There should be no intentions to “delay” Baptism, but rather “prepare” oneself or child to receive.

Was just thinking that those of us that practice “believers baptism” are actually abiding by the same principles. Parents dedicate their children to the Lord when they are infants. They prepare the child with instruction and teaching with the intent that when the child realizes their own accountability they will be baptized upon their own confession of faith and partake in Communion.

 

[Wannano]

You won’t lose my friendship that easy!

Your comment begs the question, “Is His Spirit opposed to His body and blood, or is the Spirit given to us through Jesus coming in the flesh and accomplishing the will of the Father?”

When we “do this in remembrance of Me” we are doing two things.
First we are participating in the Lord’s Supper, and secondly we are doing it while bringing to mind and heart what He did for us. The first part involves obedience to His command and on His part, descending on the gift of bread and wine to change them from ordinary (or carnal) food, into Spiritual food (His body and blood). The second part is the state of mind and heart we are called to receive in (worthy through self examination and being washed of sins through repentance).

So while Communion is a “thanksgiving” on our part, we actually receive something from God, since we actually eat something. We are not giving thanks for mere carnal food, but the food of Jesus coming in the flesh to reconcile sinners with the father through His life, death, and resurrection.

Those of us with a symbolic Communion would also claim your last sentence.

 

[Wannano]

My RCIA director gave me the option to be Baptized rather quickly, or to wait until the next year long class to prepare the candidates. I think what is more interesting, is that in the days of the Apostles, the new converts devoted themselves to the Teachings of the Apostles. Now days, there are a variety of teachings to “choose from”.

Yes, they devoted themselves to the Apostles teachings and the New Testament seems to indicate that baptism followed repentance/confession of faith. The Great Commission is to go and teach then baptize.

 

[Wannano]

Indeed. But then, Catholics are NFs, Non-Fundamentalists.

So that’s what an NF is! By the way, what is it?

 

[rcwitness]

Was just thinking that those of us that practice “believers baptism” are actually abiding by the same principles. Parents dedicate their children to the Lord when they are infants. They prepare the child with instruction and teaching with the intent that when the child realizes their own accountability they will be baptized upon their own confession of faith and partake in Communion.

Yes, there is definite common ground between us. However, there are opposing principles too.

The intentions of Catholic and Protestant Christians have similar principles. Both would like God to bless their children, and intend to raise the child in the faith.

 

[rcwitness]

Those of us with a symbolic Communion would also claim your last sentence.

Yes, I know. And that’s good.

 

[susanlo]

No. The appearances of the chemical makeup of the bread and wine before the consecration remains the same after the consecration. The chemical makeup, including the protons, neutrons, and electrons of the elemental atoms of bread and wine can be sensibly observed (I’m not sure electrons have been actually observed) due to the accidents of the substances of bread and wine. Philosophically, protons, neutrons, and electrons are not matter in itself but they are parts of an elemental atom or substance made out of matter. In transubstantiation, the matter of the bread and wine or if you prefer the matter of the protons, neutrons, and electrons is withdrawn and converted into the pre-existent matter of Christ’s body and blood while the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine or of the protons, neutrons, and electrons remain. Protons and neutrons are sensible and observable due to accidents and firstly of the first accident of a material substance which is quantity or extension. Quantity extends matter which is one of the two essential components or principles of a material substance (the other principle is the substantial form) into three dimensional space and into the arrangement of the substance’s component material parts. Shape or figure is another accident which gives shape and figure to matter or a body or its parts, and there is also color, weight, density, rarity, surface, and others. A material substance which has matter as one of its substantial parts considered in itself apart from the accidents is indivisible and invisible and does not come under the observation of any of the senses. Transubstantiation is not about converting the protons, neutrons, and electrons of the bread and wine which are visible accidents or appearances of the matter of the bread and wine (accidents which are forms such as quantity and shape make matter sensible), but it is about converting the matter which underlies the visible accidents yet leaving the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine remaining. I think you made a pretty good remark in a previous post in that modern science seems to view substance in some ways at least in what traditional catholic philosophy would view as accidents.

The accidental forms of the original particles of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. The matter underlying the bread and wine or the original particles is converted or changed into the pre-existent matter of the body and blood of Christ. The only matter underlying the accidents of the bread and wine after the consecration is the matter of Christ’s body and blood. God keeps the accidents of the bread and wine in existence without the substance of the bread and wine which includes matter to inhere in. The accidents of the bread and wine remain in existence by divine power without matter. Nor do the accidents of the bread and wine remaining after the consecration inhere in the body and blood of Christ.

I think I understand what you are saying, but the terminology is hard to adapt to today. I understand substance and matter to have similar definitions meaning the chemical composition of something. (My husband is a chemist, and he is sitting here insisting that protons, neutrons and electrons are matter because they have mass - and substances are made out of matter. But it sounds like you are saying protons, neutrons and electrons are not matter “philosophically”) I know there are other definitions for substance (and maybe for matter) that are more on a philosophical level.

It sounds like you are saying that from a chemistry perspective the bread and wine are unchanged. The exact same protons, neutrons, and electrons are present before and after the consecration. However, on a philosophical level the meaning of what they are has changed. Is that close?

 

[susanlo]

You may find it interesting that the Byzantine Catholic sacramental discipline is to give all three mysteries of Christian Initiation at the same time, even to infants. These are given in this order: baptism, chrysmation, and communion. It is through the Holy Mystery of Baptism, that we become regenerated into the divine life of God’s children in Jesus Christ and living members of His Church. Chrismation is our participation in the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The Lord said to ‘let the little children come to me’ (Mt 19:14), so the Church administers the three Holy Mysteries of Christian initiation to infants.

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox Churches do this as well. It makes sense if someone takes John 3:5 literally to mean that an unbaptized baby is condemned as a sinner and separated from God unless they are infant-baptized, (Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.) that they would also take John 6:53 literally to mean that the child is not saved until they have had communion. (Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.)

I think that in both verses Jesus is speaking truths, but he is talking to adults who are guilty of sins that they are old enough to be accountable for. When he addresses the children in Matthew 19:14 that you referenced he says: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” He accepted them and did not rebuke them or insist that they be purified. All Christians take John 3:5 and John 6:53 seriously, but there are disagreements as to what exactly happens.

St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)
“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”

I would agree that infants are sinless (but with a nature prone to sin). Infant baptism began before the Doctrine of Original Sin was developed by Augustine who came after Chrysostom, but their dates overlapping. The idea that babies are actually condemned as sinners was developing at this time as a way to explain infant baptism. Augustine even seemed to use the fact that infant baptism was performed in churches as a reason to prove that babies were guilty of Adam’s sin. It sounds like Chrysostom was supporting infant baptism, but separating baptism from repentance. In the Bible we always see belief and repentance come immediately before baptism. I don’t understand why some would separate baptism from repentance.

 

[Duane1966]

If anyone ever watched Star Trek, the very last episode that ever aired, was basically an episode about transubstantiation, though they did not call it that. In Turnabout Intruder, an old girlfriend of Kirk’s is able to switch places. Everything about Kirk is the same, but his substance, is that of his old girlfriend Dr. Lester.

P.s. Some horrible acting in this episode.

 

[Vico]

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox Churches do this as well. It makes sense if someone takes John 3:5 literally to mean that an unbaptized baby is condemned as a sinner and separated from God unless they are infant-baptized, (Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.) that they would also take John 6:53 literally to mean that the child is not saved until they have had communion. (Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.)

I think that in both verses Jesus is speaking truths, but he is talking to adults who are guilty of sins that they are old enough to be accountable for. When he addresses the children in Matthew 19:14 that you referenced he says: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” He accepted them and did not rebuke them or insist that they be purified. All Christians take John 3:5 and John 6:53 seriously, but there are disagreements as to what exactly happens.

I would agree that infants are sinless (but with a nature prone to sin). Infant baptism began before the Doctrine of Original Sin was developed by Augustine who came after Chrysostom, but their dates overlapping. The idea that babies are actually condemned as sinners was developing at this time as a way to explain infant baptism. Augustine even seemed to use the fact that infant baptism was performed in churches as a reason to prove that babies were guilty of Adam’s sin. It sounds like Chrysostom was supporting infant baptism, but separating baptism from repentance. In the Bible we always see belief and repentance come immediately before baptism. I don’t understand why some would separate baptism from repentance.

Baptism was done to entire families including infants, and this is given in the New Testament, therefore repentance is not strictly needed *before *baptism. Cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16;

Latin Canon Law (CIC) Can. 865 §1 does not required sorrow for sin as a requirement for baptism, rather: “The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.”

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that the infants without actual sins (only the stain of original sin) need to be baptized.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. … Col 1:12-14.

Christian initiation is not complete until all three Holy Mysteries are given. In the eastern Catholic Byzantine Church they are given together to infants in the traditional order: Baptism, Chrysmation, and Communion. The Latin Catholic Church has a different discipline and so delays Confirmation and Communion.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Good biblical and common sense explanation for infant baptism:

youtu.be/YX9prB5tNg8

 

[susanlo]

Baptism was done to entire families including infants, and this is given in the New Testament, therefore repentance is not strictly needed *before *baptism. Cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16;

In the 1st century, households were large extended family households. The households were not 2 parents and a few kids as we mostly think of a household today. Were there children present in the households? Maybe. Were they baptized? There are no records of household baptisms that state that the entire household was baptized without specifying that the whole household believed.

I think that “all” may have meant “all who were old enough to repent and believe.” In Judaism the age when children became accountable to atone for sin was 12 for girls and 13 for boys.

We often speak in terms like this when we say “everyone,” but don’t mean literally “everyone.”
“I went to the family reunion this weekend and my uncle brought his brand new Porsche. Everyone got to have a turn driving it around the block.”
Would someone ask: “How did your 2 year old nephew reach the gas pedal!?”

“Everyone in the wedding party got drunk.”
Would someone ask: “Why did they let the 4 year old flower girl get drunk?!”

I think the one hearing these stories would assume that everyone old enough to drive and everyone old enough to drink alcohol were included in “everyone.”

Household baptisms:
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues** and praising God**.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Were there infants in the household? Were the infants speaking in tongues and showing signs of being filled with the Holy Spirit? Was the entire household or just the believers baptized?

Acts 16:14-15 – One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira, named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us.

Was some or all of the household baptized?

Acts 16:30-34 – He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole household.

“All” his household were baptized and his “whole” household believed. Were there no children too young to believe? Or does “all” and “whole” only include those old enough?

Acts 18:8 – Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

His “entire” household believed and “many” were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16 – (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)

Did this include everyone?

And then of course there is this verse to consider:

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Were there no children in Samaria? Or were only men and women receiving baptism?

 

[Peter_J]

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox Churches do this as well. It makes sense if someone takes John 3:5 literally to mean that an unbaptized baby is condemned as a sinner and separated from God unless they are infant-baptized, (Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.) that they would also take John 6:53 literally to mean that the child is not saved until they have had communion. (Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.)

I think that in both verses Jesus is speaking truths, but he is talking to adults who are guilty of sins that they are old enough to be accountable for. When he addresses the children in Matthew 19:14 that you referenced he says: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” He accepted them and did not rebuke them or insist that they be purified. All Christians take John 3:5 and John 6:53 seriously, but there are disagreements as to what exactly happens.

I would agree that infants are sinless (but with a nature prone to sin). Infant baptism began before the Doctrine of Original Sin was developed by Augustine who came after Chrysostom, but their dates overlapping. The idea that babies are actually condemned as sinners was developing at this time as a way to explain infant baptism. Augustine even seemed to use the fact that infant baptism was performed in churches as a reason to prove that babies were guilty of Adam’s sin. It sounds like Chrysostom was supporting infant baptism, but separating baptism from repentance. In the Bible we always see belief and repentance come immediately before baptism. I don’t understand why some would separate baptism from repentance.

WRT adult baptism, I wouldn’t separate them.

 

[Vico]

In the 1st century, households were large extended family households. The households were not 2 parents and a few kids as we mostly think of a household today. Were there children present in the households? Maybe. Were they baptized? There are no records of household baptisms that state that the entire household was baptized without specifying that the whole household believed.

I think that “all” may have meant “all who were old enough to repent and believe.” In Judaism the age when children became accountable to atone for sin was 12 for girls and 13 for boys.

We often speak in terms like this when we say “everyone,” but don’t mean literally “everyone.”
“I went to the family reunion this weekend and my uncle brought his brand new Porsche. Everyone got to have a turn driving it around the block.”
Would someone ask: “How did your 2 year old nephew reach the gas pedal!?”

“Everyone in the wedding party got drunk.”
Would someone ask: “Why did they let the 4 year old flower girl get drunk?!”

I think the one hearing these stories would assume that everyone old enough to drive and everyone old enough to drink alcohol were included in “everyone.”

Household baptisms:
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues** and praising God**.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Were there infants in the household? Were the infants speaking in tongues and showing signs of being filled with the Holy Spirit? Was the entire household or just the believers baptized?

Acts 16:14-15 – One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira, named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us.

Was some or all of the household baptized?

Acts 16:30-34 – He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole household.

“All” his household were baptized and his “whole” household believed. Were there no children too young to believe? Or does “all” and “whole” only include those old enough?

Acts 18:8 – Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

His “entire” household believed and “many” were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16 – (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)

Did this include everyone?

And then of course there is this verse to consider:

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Were there no children in Samaria? Or were only men and women receiving baptism?

There certainly are records that testify that infants are baptized, for example, the baptismal instruction of St. John Chrysostom. Baptism replaced circumcision. There was even an argument about ASAP baptism vs waiting for the eighth day.

 

[MartinJordan]

There certainly are records that testify that infants are baptized, for example, the baptismal instruction of St. John Chrysostom. Baptism replaced circumcision. There was even an argument about ASAP baptism vs waiting for the eighth day.

Romans 2: 28- Romans 3:2

28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

God’s Faithfulness
3 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 **Much in every way! **First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

MJ

 

[Wannano]

Good biblical and common sense explanation for infant baptism:

youtu.be/YX9prB5tNg8

Honestly LA, I just watched this and found it rather weak. Question for you: in the reference to Peter telling the Jews that this promise is for you and your children and for those afar off…who are the people afar off? Tim indicates this means you should baptise your children as well as yourselves, but what about those who are afar off, they need to get them baptized too.

 

[Richca]

I think I understand what you are saying, but the terminology is hard to adapt to today. I understand substance and matter to have similar definitions meaning the chemical composition of something. (My husband is a chemist, and he is sitting here insisting that protons, neutrons and electrons are matter because they have mass - and substances are made out of matter. But it sounds like you are saying protons, neutrons and electrons are not matter “philosophically”) I know there are other definitions for substance (and maybe for matter) that are more on a philosophical level.

It sounds like you are saying that from a chemistry perspective the bread and wine are unchanged. The exact same protons, neutrons, and electrons are present before and after the consecration. However, on a philosophical level the meaning of what they are has changed. Is that close?

According to the catholic philosophical and metaphysical tradition, matter does not exist without form. Concerning protons, neutrons, and electrons, I did not mean to say in a previous post that these things are wholly devoid of matter but I believe I said they are made out of matter. There is matter in these subatomic particles yet not without accidental forms, the matter underlies the forms. For example, protons, neutrons, and electrons have dimensions such as length, width, depth; they also have shape, possibly color, and weight. Dimensions, shape, color, weight are not matter yet it is by such ‘forms’ as these that matter is made sensible. Without dimensions or extension, matter or a substance (which also includes in metaphysics the substantial form) would be invisible and imperceptible. Quantity or dimensions and extension is considered in philosophy the first accident of a material substance. For example, the body of an infant has not the same dimensions as that infant full grown. The infant and the full grown are the same person though, he/she is the same substantial human being whether an infant or fully grown. The dimensive quantity of some substance is an accident, it does not change the nature or kind of thing a thing is. Material substances in the natural order of things always exist with at least some accidents and generally are usually always extended even elemental atoms composed of the protons, neutrons, and electrons.

I need to get to bed for now but would like to comment later on more of what you posted here.

Peace and blessings, Richca

 

[Vico]

Romans 2: 28- Romans 3:2

28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

God’s Faithfulness
3 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 **Much in every way! **First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

MJ

Catholic Encyclopedia

The Council of Jerusalem decided against the necessity of the rite, and St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, condemns the teachers that wished to make the Church of Christ only a continuation of the synagogue: “Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (v, 2). Here he refers to the supposed efficacy and necessity of circumcision, rather than to the mere ceremony; for he did not consider it wrong to circumcise Timothy.

and

St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure of baptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body — which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He gives three reasons why the organ of generation rather than any other was to be circumcised:

• Abraham was to be blessed in his seed;
• The rite was to take away original sin, which comes by generation;
• It was to restrain concupiscence, which is found especially in the generative organs (III, Q. lxx, a. 3).

According to his teaching, as baptism remits original sin and actual sins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, but ex opere operantis, i.e. by the faith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by the faith of the parents.

Tierney, J. (1908). Circumcision. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm

The Council of Florence:

[Denzinger 712] It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism’ to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians [n… 696].

 

[susanlo]

There certainly are records that testify that infants are baptized, for example, the baptismal instruction of St. John Chrysostom. Baptism replaced circumcision. There was even an argument about ASAP baptism vs waiting for the eighth day.

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.

 

[susanlo]

Honestly LA, I just watched this and found it rather weak. Question for you: in the reference to Peter telling the Jews that this promise is for you and your children and for those afar off…who are the people afar off? Tim indicates this means you should baptise your children as well as yourselves, but what about those who are afar off, they need to get them baptized too.

Acts 2 NABRE
37Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 38Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,[g] every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. 39For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” 40He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41*Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

The offer for forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit is made for everyone. However only those who accepted his message would be baptized that day. There is no sign that they baptized the children under the age of 7 if one or both parents received baptism, as well as no record that they baptized those far off who did not believe either.