MarysLittleFlower Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Just wondering if anyone knows... Did early Church Christians get new names at Baptism? Could they if they wanted to? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes they did, from the very early days that was a common practice when the Apostles were baptizing. At least that's what the nuns taught in the 60's. Sr Mary Donald should be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 OK! thanks! Sorry one more question for anyone who knows... Would the early Christians have been Confirmed right after their Baptism or at a later date like today? Although I guess adult converts always get confirmed right after Baptism anyway? I'm mostly wondering about adults... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 It used to be at same time because they were adults. It is usually still that way in Roman Catholic Diocese. Infant baptism in RC practice is without Confirmation. Eastern practice idoes both with infants. It has to do with their practice of Theology of the Trinity. I used to teach Confirmation classes. I'm pretty spot on. Today, RCs practice of separating the two confuses it with the Protestant adult altar call and coming of age. Confirmation is a Sacrement of gift of Holy Spirit. Maturity is not a requirement but facilitates the fuitful use of the Gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egeria Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Historically the sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation/Confirmation, and the reception of the Eucharist were administered together, in both East and West. It was only around the thirteenth century that the Latin West stopped communing infants, although for a few centuries before that they had been moving in the direction of separating Confirmation from Baptism and the reception of the Eucharist. As to getting new names at Baptism, I'd need to look more, but I seem to remember that there were a variety of practices in the very early Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes they did, from the very early days that was a common practice when the Apostles were baptizing. At least that's what the nuns taught in the 60's. Sr Mary Donald should be proud. Propping for the use of that emoji Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 It used to be at same time because they were adults. It is usually still that way in Roman Catholic Diocese. Infant baptism in RC practice is without Confirmation. Eastern practice idoes both with infants. It has to do with their practice of Theology of the Trinity. I used to teach Confirmation classes. I'm pretty spot on. Today, RCs practice of separating the two confuses it with the Protestant adult altar call and coming of age. Confirmation is a Sacrement of gift of Holy Spirit. Maturity is not a requirement but facilitates the fuitful use of the Gift. Interestingly, there's a growing trend of Bishops reverting to the original order of the Sacraments and doing baptism, confirmation, and first communion, rather than communion and then confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist happened during the same mass, like our Easter Vigil. Confirmation and Baptism were totally linked, until later on when the Church was growing over a larger geographic area and bishops wanted a way to keep a hand in all of their communities when they couldn't get to all of them. So they delegated baptism to the priests and whenever bishops could get to the area they would Confirm a bunch of people, whoever needed it since he had last been there. Christians often got new names, but not at the VERY beginning, as we've got plenty of saints with "pagan" names. It was a later development to further signify your new life in Christ. It took a while for a culture of "Christian" names to develop separate from Pagan culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marigold Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist happened during the same mass, like our Easter Vigil. Confirmation and Baptism were totally linked, until later on when the Church was growing over a larger geographic area and bishops wanted a way to keep a hand in all of their communities when they couldn't get to all of them. So they delegated baptism to the priests and whenever bishops could get to the area they would Confirm a bunch of people, whoever needed it since he had last been there. Christians often got new names, but not at the VERY beginning, as we've got plenty of saints with "pagan" names. It was a later development to further signify your new life in Christ. It took a while for a culture of "Christian" names to develop separate from Pagan culture. And also, there is the practice - which we have retained, I don't know if you guys do it - of 'baptising' those pagan names. So even though your average pagan converting to Christianity would receive a patron saint's name, if/when they were martyred or became saints in other ways, their original pagan name would be entered into the calendar as well, adding to the pool of names that people could choose. I think that's really cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.b99b943cd784bc808dbfb774c4c03726.thumb.jpg.66f20b172d4a6cc1e148e2faf5d59cce.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now