Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[RZehr]

I think it is strange to have people complain about the lack of unity of Christian denominations, while upholding the Orthodox church as the true church.

All the while, at this very moment, the Orthodox church is not only splitting again, but each side is killing each other, cursing each other, blessing missiles and submarines, and instead of urging peace, they are urging more bloodshed.

And we are to believe that somehow the Orthodox church has some claim to legitimacy, because they said so, and because some people find them exotic.


As has been said before, at the very least, Mennonites don't shoot each other when they split. Which is more than can be said about some, and is really no small thing.

[ohio jones]

As has been said before, at the very least, Mennonites don't shoot each other when they split. Which is more than can be said about some, and is really no small thing.

Physical murder is rare, yes. But anger, affront, and accusation (since Matt. 5 has been brought up, v. 21-22) are not so rare, and are also very wrong.

[temporal1]

Page 18:

T1, you can read about much of it here. It is a good overview of that history.

Thanks. Interesting, it nearly touches on my question:

The Theology of Confirmation
Baptism was the sacrament of the initial gift of the Spirit, while Confirmation was the sacrament of the fullness of the Spirit with his seven gifts.

When in the Middle Ages it became the practice to confirm close to adolescence instead of infancy,
theologians began to teach that Confirmation was the sacrament of maturity. Those who received it were regarded as old enough and ready to live active, responsible Christian lives. The Christian was sealed as a witness for Christ in Confirmation and fortified by an increase of the Spirit’s gifts to fight, suffer, and die for the faith. The notion of the sacrament making a person a soldier of Christ prevailed. The sign of peace in the rite was even replaced by a gentle slap on the face to indicate readiness for life’s battles.

The underlined seems an understatement of what occured, almost as if the process were simply academic and not chaotic.
(Infants could not be Confirmed, or reasonably take Communion.) i realize the article is meant to be brief.

My question is, what were infant baptisms at the time of Luther and Simons? Were they tripartate?
My guess is they were not, that “tripartate” was a response to (the reformers, who began long before Luther and Simons, but lacked the printing press)?

Remembering, infants+children had a high mortality rate (50%?) .. women, too, often dying in childbirth.
There were practical matters of life we don’t experience in the same ways. Infants+children do not contribute much to a household; combined with high mortality rates, these are not the highest value or most powerful. (So, baptised as part of the family, not given a lot of thought?) Some babies were not given names until age 2, because of high mortality rates. Today, many infants are named before birth.

The state had/has a vested interest in claiming populations, from birth is understandable.
Parents likely took comfort in their infants being baptised in the event they did not live long.

i’m not sure. i wonder. about the overall context.

i wonder if Catholic infant baptisms were tripartate in the way they are today, maybe this wouldn’t have been a point of contention?
i wonder if current Catholic tripartate baptisms resulted from the Reformers? the quoted paragraph above suggests so.

[MaxPC]

i wonder if Catholic infant baptisms were tripartate in the way they are today, maybe this wouldn’t have been a point of contention?
i wonder if current Catholic tripartate baptisms resulted from the Reformers? the quoted paragraph above suggests so.

TRIPARTITE, (not -ate) Rite of Christian Initiation theology and doctrine traces back to the Early Apostles and Church Fathers, well before the Middle Ages. It evolved through study of the Bible and early church teachings. It did not emerge in response to the Reformation.

[temporal1]

i wonder if Catholic infant baptisms were tripartate in the way they are today, maybe this wouldn’t have been a point of contention?
i wonder if current Catholic tripartate baptisms resulted from the Reformers? the quoted paragraph above suggests so.

TRIPARTITE, (not -ate) Rite of Christian Initiation theology and doctrine traces back to the Early Apostles and Church Fathers, well before the Middle Ages. It evolved through study of the Bible and early church teachings. It did not emerge in response to the Reformation.

ok regarding spelling.
from your overall article, esp the quote that refers to Middle Ages practices, and explanation that changes in practices occured, i’m not sure about there being no response to the reformers. why would they be singled out? i count “reformers” including those who worked on this before the printing press. (monks who were literate with access to scriptures.)

i’m trying to grasp what infants represented in those times, which i believe was overall different from present overall thinking.
this was before child labor laws, etc.; infants, and women, were viewed differently. did you read your article?

this is not an attack on you, or the C Church. i’m trying to understand the mindset of all involved - then.
to understand the violent chaos that ensued, i think it’s important to understand how the world was viewed, which was not identical to today.

if you recall, i was welcoming to you on this forum. i took some heat for that. too long ago?

[MaxPC]

i wonder if Catholic infant baptisms were tripartate in the way they are today, maybe this wouldn’t have been a point of contention?
i wonder if current Catholic tripartate baptisms resulted from the Reformers? the quoted paragraph above suggests so.

TRIPARTITE, (not -ate) Rite of Christian Initiation theology and doctrine traces back to the Early Apostles and Church Fathers, well before the Middle Ages. It evolved through study of the Bible and early church teachings. It did not emerge in response to the Reformation.

ok regarding spelling.
from your overall article, esp the quote that refers to Middle Ages practices, and explanation that changes in practices occured, i’m not sure about there being no response to the reformers. why would they be singled out? i count “reformers” including those who worked on this before the printing press. (monks who were literate with access to scriptures.)

i’m trying to grasp what infants represented in those times, which i believe was overall different from present overall thinking.
this was before child labor laws, etc.; infants, and women, were viewed differently. did you read your article?

this is not an attack on you, or the C Church. i’m trying to understand the mindset of all involved.

At this point you are attempting to read motives where there were none vis a vis the Reformation. Tripartite RCI teaching has existed since the Early Church and it was refined before the Middle Ages. Nothing more to it than that; no rabbits nor ghosties involved.

The article was a scholarly examination of a particular point in history. It merely explains the theology and doctrine of Confirmation within the context of RCI.

[temporal1]

P.18 / https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-re ... nfirmation

.. The Spirit is present in the Church, moving and breathing where he wills, but allowing historical events and cultures to shape our practice and understanding of the faith.

A striking example of this is the history and the theology of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Through the centuries the way we have celebrated the sacrament and understood its meaning has undergone many changes.

It is almost universally accepted as a celebration of the Spirit within us and a time for affirming our Baptism. Yet different schools of thought exist concerning its meaning, its purpose, and the age at which it is to be celebrated. ..

The article is focused on Confirmation, which hints at baptism, but doesn’t quite answer my question, which is simple and limited:

Were Catholic infant baptisms done at the time of the Reformation as they now are, formally, in 3 stages?

[Ernie]

I meant to say
"Any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw many folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God."

I still find this confusing when you say 'churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God'. Perhaps we need a new thread on what is believed to be entering the Kingdom of God. Churches, as in local congregations, don't enter into the Kingdom of God but individuals who are born again do enter the Kingdom of God whether their local church preaches nonresistance or not. And not all who are members of a nonresistant teaching church are guaranteed to be members of the Kingdom of God.

NT scripture does often refer to what the Kingdom of God is like but I don't find any direct verse that requires a belief in nonresistance for anyone to have 'entered the Kingdom of God'. But I'm open to have this pointed to.

Sudsy, perhaps Ernie considers teachings like literal nonresistance (such as taught by Jesus in Scriptures such as Matthew 5) to be straightforward enough in the Scriptures that any confession of Jesus as Lord which does not adhere at least to His explicit teachings is not a true/full submission to His Lordship. But I'm just speculating on his thought process here, perhaps he can expand on that for us.

I was actually talking about pople who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God, who are joining churches. But what you say Heirby is also true.

[MaxPC]

The article is focused on Confirmation, which hints at baptism, but doesn’t quite answer my question, which is simple and limited:

Were Catholic infant baptisms done at the time of the Reformation as they now are, formally, in 3 stages?

Now you are asking a different question. Infant baptisms were never celebrated in 3 stages either now or then. The Rite of Christian Initiation was then and is now, celebrated in 3 stages at different ages of the individual.

In my perspective it does no earthly nor heavenly good to rehash old battles; ancient animosities; nor resurrect mistaken assumptions. In my experience it leads to new battles, new animosities and new mistaken assumptions. The past is done and dusted. The important task for each of us in the present is to learn what it is that we are called to do in Christ and to grow closer to Him. Prayer; reading the Bible; and seeking to help others who need help is of the paramount importance in my life. As Jesus states in Luke 9

60 And Jesus said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

[temporal1]

Page 18:

Max:
Catholic World
The RCI (Rite of Christian Initiation) is tripartite: it is not complete until all 3 sacraments are administered sequentially. It is not Baptism only.

Those 3 sacraments proceed in the following order:
1. Baptism (any age)

2. 1st Holy Communion

3. Confirmation (the earliest age for Confirmation in most USA dioceses is in the teens after they have received instruction).

Catholic teaching on Free Will is very much highlighted for teens and adults: they have the Free Will to continue instruction and to receive Holy communion and Confirmation to complete their Christian Initiation.

In Catholic World when children are baptised, the sacrament’s prayers involve a commitment by the parents and godparents to raise the child in the Faith.

i’m not sure if you’re misunderstanding, or just annoyed with me in general. i have no quarrel either way.

This topic is much about infant baptism and its importance in church history.
This forum is one of believers who believe it’s an important topic that hasn’t altered over time.

i’m just curious about what infant baptisms meant in the day, compared to today.
From my small experience, i believe your P.18 description is accurate for today.

The infant baptisms i’ve witnessed have been Part 1, expected to be followed with Part 2/First Communion, then, Part 3/Confirmation. This is what i understand you to describe on P.18. i’m not sure why the cold shoulder. i’m not protesting it.