Acts Part Ii

[Brother Adam]

As I'm reading through Acts, I'm noticing that everytime a disciple lead someone to the Lord, they were immeadiately baptized. I'm wondering, if someone converts to the Catholic faith and strongly believes they need to be baptized right away- will the Catholic Church deny them an immeadiate baptism?

Why do so many Catholic Church even wait until Easter when an infant is baptized by 8 days old? If baptism is necessary for salvation to Catholics, wouldn't it make sense to baptize as SOON as possible?


And a challenge to non-Catholics and Catholics: Is there any instance in scripture when someone converted under the New Covenant and was not baptized?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]I'm wondering, if someone converts to the Catholic faith and strongly believes they need to be baptized right away- will the Catholic Church deny them an immeadiate baptism?[/quote]

I don't know. According to the Church, under this condition the person would receive Baptism of Desire if he died, so there really wouldn't be a rush...

[quote]Why do so many Catholic Church even wait until Easter when an infant is baptized by 8 days old? If baptism is necessary for salvation to Catholics, wouldn't it make sense to baptize as SOON as possible?[/quote]

I'm guessing, but again, I think it's Baptism of Desire. We don't like to baptize during Lent, and since it's an infant, s/he will probably go to heaven right after death, if death should occur.

[quote]And a challenge to non-Catholics and Catholics: Is there any instance in scripture when someone converted under the New Covenant and was not baptized?[/quote]

Yes. The repentant thief on the cross wasn't baptized (at least not by water...but probably by desire).

Edited March 12, 2004 by Raphael

[Brother Adam]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Do you know what Baptism of Desire is?

[IcePrincessKRS]

lol He should by now! He's been around long enough. (You DO know, don't you Adam?)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

There are two ways in the Catholic Church for a person to be baptized without water.

One is by Baptism of Desire, by which a person who did not know the truth about Christ (and therefore could not have rejected it) but who lived a virtuous life, would be baptized by virtue of their desire, but not with water. Essentially, they would have to be ignorant of the gospel message by no fault of their own.

The second is Baptism of Blood, by which, in short, a person who dies defending the Catholic faith is baptized in his own blood (from his martyrdom) and could reach heaven.

These are early Christian beliefs...in fact, Plato and Virgil were both considered saints in the Middle Ages because they were believed to have qualified from Baptism of Desire.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I believe Baptism of Desire also applies to those who would be Baptized but die before the Baptism takes place. Like if an infant died before the parents were able to get them Baptized, or someone who was in RCIA and in the process of becoming a member of the Church officially. Am I right?

[homeschoolmom]

Thanks for asking these questions, Bro. Adam... I've been wondering them myself.

So, what about my five year old? He has a pretty good understanding of the Gospel, loves Jesus etc. but is not baptized. However, he can't be baptized until after Easter... so, what if (heaven forbid) something happens to him in the next few weeks? He says he wants to be baptized. (at least that's the story he's going with today) We want him to be... but he's not a baby! He certainly has not rejected the truth, but hasn't lived the most virtuous life, either... (see thread re: sammiches)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]I believe Baptism of Desire also applies to those who would be Baptized but die before the Baptism takes place. Like if an infant died before the parents were able to get them Baptized, or someone who was in RCIA and in the process of becoming a member of the Church officially. Am I right?[/quote]

Yes, because the baptism was desired by the parents and in an infant baptism, it is by the parents' faith and desire that baptism can be conferred.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]So, what about my five year old? He has a pretty good understanding of the Gospel, loves Jesus etc. but is not baptized. However, he can't be baptized until after Easter... so, what if (heaven forbid) something happens to him in the next few weeks? He says he wants to be baptized. (at least that's the story he's going with today) We want him to be... but he's not a baby! He certainly has not rejected the truth, but hasn't lived the most virtuous life, either... (see thread re: sammiches)[/quote]

I want to remind everyone that these things are not for me to know for certain. That is, I can't say for certain what will happen to any given person and I will never say that a person is doomed to hell.

With that said, I tend to think that a five year old is not mature enough in the faith to understand the concept of salvation and all the effects of sins. He has a conscience, and he knows that he does bad things, but he probably doesn't understand that bad things can mean hell (and he may say that bad things lead to hell, but he might not understand what hell really is).

I don't tend to think that a five-year-old has the rationale to consciously reject God and commit mortal sin.

God wills that all might be saved. That even includes little children who probably don't fully understand the consequences of their goofy and sinful actions.

I don't think God would condemn your son to hell...he's only five, after all.

All in all, however, I cannot read his heart and cannot say whether he would or would not desire to be baptized.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Edited March 12, 2004 by Raphael

[Mary's Knight, La]

GENERAL DISCLAIMER: *I have no official teaching authority except that of every Catholic layperson*

i believe the wait is to impress upon the person that the graces & charisms the church has comes from the death of Jesus

just a thought

[Jake Huether]

Baptism is one of the Sacraments that can be administered by anyone (of course given the right circumstances). Therfor if it is imperitive that one MUST be baptised like right now, then you yourself can administer it using water, and the right formula of course. But the Church recommends it be done by an ordained Priest.

The reason for it being done so quickly in Apostalic times was for the simple reason that there werent many "lay" people to administer it anyway.


That's my guess anyway. And I'm sticking with it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Baptism is one of the Sacraments that can be administered by anyone (of course given the right circumstances). Therfor if it is imperitive that one MUST be baptised like right now, then you yourself can administer it using water, and the right formula of course. But the Church recommends it be done by an ordained Priest.[/quote]

Yes, I suppose that I should have mentioned that...

[frozencell]

My priest described that baptism can be administered by ANYONE as long as the intention of the baptism is to enter that baptizee into the Church and into Communion with Christ. He also said that it is usually performed at Easter because the symbolism and actuality of a new beginning corelates directly with the new beginning after Christ rose from the grave. Hope this helps.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 11 2004, 07:53 PM'] As I'm reading through Acts, I'm noticing that everytime a disciple lead someone to the Lord, they were immeadiately baptized. I'm wondering, if someone converts to the Catholic faith and strongly believes they need to be baptized right away- will the Catholic Church deny them an immeadiate baptism?

Why do so many Catholic Church even wait until Easter when an infant is baptized by 8 days old? If baptism is necessary for salvation to Catholics, wouldn't it make sense to baptize as SOON as possible?


And a challenge to non-Catholics and Catholics: Is there any instance in scripture when someone converted under the New Covenant and was not baptized? [/quote]
Something I would point out is that one should take into account the writing style of the Gospels and Acts. The accounts of events given are usually more or less summaries of significant details. Just because an event in acts is presented in Acts as:. Apostle talks to guy, guy believes what Apostle said, guy is baptised. I assume there was usually more to it than that. The practice of the Church that we know to be the case from early on was that an adult convert would be baptised after they had received sufficient instruction in the Faith. This is the discipline and a person can be baptised with little or even no catechisis, but it is ideal that the person knows what Christianity is before being baptised.
Anyway, I think it is likely that these adult converts in Acts were generally given sufficient instruction in the Faith and asked to give a profession of faith before they were baptised,= similar to the documented practice of the ancient Church. It fits with the literary style of Acts that such details would be excluded, this is also typical in the style of the Gospels. Events and chronology are kind of distilled and we get the important highlights. The important thing being conveyed is that they accepted what the Apostles were preaching and teaching and were baptised. I suppose also that many of these converts were Jews who already knew the Scriptures and perhaps had heard Jesus Himself and kind of knew a lot of stuff already. Later when the gentile pagans were converting the formal instruction may have proved to be more of a necessity. Anyway, this is more a matter of discipline anyway and the exact level of instruction given to prepare an adult convert for baptism is variable.

An example might be the apostolic preaching. There are many good highlights of sermons given in Acts. But sometimes it makes it sound like an Apostle got up and said "Jesus Christ is Lord" and everyone believed (I'm exaggerating a bit). I am sure the Apostles preached long sermons and had involved debates with Jews and others. This fact is summarized or distilled often times by reducing what actually took place into it's most basic message. So a long dialogue with a Jew (or even a long series of dialogues over a period of time) might be described in a way that makes it sound like the Apostle said "Jesus is Lord" and the guy said "amen!" and was baptised.
I've observed this phenomenon in people's conversion testimonies as well (including my own). It always tends to seem more simple and kind of clear cut/instantaneous than it really was. My own conversion story sound like I just woke up one morning and started going to Mass, obviously it wasn't that simple.

This short, sweet style of presenting things (which is so common in the Gospels and Acts) is also an effective stylistic quality because it emphasises the power of God working in the conversion rather than the merely human power of talking. And the insignificant details would bog down the account and make it less powerful.
I don't mean to deny that there were many conversions that were sudden miracles of grace and people were swept off their feet after one sermon and all of that. I'm just pointing out a fact of the writing style which may account for some of this effect in Acts.

The practice of receiving adult converts during Easter is perhaps meant to represent the fact that in Baptism we have all died with Christ and are raised with Him to a new life in Him.
And certainly the Church does not believe in prolonging baptism. It is recommended as soon as possible, but it is also important that converts know the Faith so that they can make the profession of Faith and know what they are actually saying. I imagine if a convert really wanted to be baptised right away for some reason the Church would not refuse. For example if a person had a terminal illness or something. Also if they new their faith really well already or whatever. There are always exceptions to things.

To your third thing, I can't think of anything clear cut. Although there are people who are situated in the new covenant who are not reported to have received Baptism. For example Our Lady. She received the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and gave flesh to the Word made flesh and she was conveived with the fullness of Sanctifying Grace so obviously she is a most unique example. But also Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" through Christ (and Mary) and was not baptised. John the Baptist as well. The three wise men came and worshipped Christ and were not baptised.. Anna and Simeon, also Zacheus (sp?) of whom Christ said salvation had come to him and his house (there is no mention of baptism). It raised many interesting questions anyway.
Baptism really seems to be a big thing after Christ's Ascension. This makes sense to me Theologically for different reasons. It is supports the fact that Baptism is the ordinary means of Salvation and that God is not bound by the Sacraments. People often seem to forget this. I suppose this is good though because the extraordinary things can be over-emphasized and lead to an carefree of indifferent attitude toward the Sacraments which is certainly not was Christ has desired.

Edited March 12, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum