I do not object at all. Some of the timelines vary but all in all that covers it. Well spotted. There are also scholarly articles and books that present a plethora of viewpoints on the particulars. Rather than being a straight timeline, many of these doctrines were emerging simultaneously in different parts of the world and were implemented in different manners. Eventually some joined with the Roman rite, others chose to remain independent, others formed a loose affiliation.ohio jones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:45 amTo quote Wikipedia on the timeline (and I know Max will object, but give us a better source):Now of course there were dissenting groups prior to and during this time, well before the Reformation era, but the Catholics either ignored or persecuted them. I don't think either group influenced the other on this issue (or most others).After the Fourth Lateran Council [1215], Communion, which continued to be given only after confirmation, was to be administered only on reaching the age of reason. Some time after the 13th century, the age of confirmation and Communion began to be delayed further, from seven, to twelve and to fifteen.
As a side note, this council is the one that formally established transubstantiation, which Reformers and Anabaptists alike cited as a reason for dividing from the Catholic church.
Going back a little farther, per Brittanica:Well no, it wasn't necessary. The two could have been kept together and maintained as adult ceremonies.During the first several centuries of Christian history, when most of those who joined the church were adult converts from paganism, the baptism of these adults and the ceremony admitting them to the full rights of membership (equivalent to, but not yet called, confirmation) probably coincided. Early Christian theologians, therefore, closely connected the meaning and effects of confirmation with those of baptism. But as the baptism of infants rather than of adults became customary, a sharper distinction between baptism and confirmation became necessary.
What's interesting to me is that Confirmation (Chrismation, for the Orthodox) involves an anointing with oil and laying on of hands that (supposedly) confers the Holy Spirit, subsequent to baptism. The counterpart of this in Pentecostal and Methodist traditions (and others influenced by them) is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace separate from and subsequent to water baptism. Historic Anabaptist theology, like the Orthodox and the early church, keeps them more closely linked.
Long before the Reformation, there are points in church history in which the sequence of RCI varied; there were even variances between the different liturgical rites of the church and among the different branches, e.g. Coptic, Irish Catholic Rite, etc. Those variances continue in some dioceses around the world. Even now in parts of India and elsewhere, there is violence over liturgical matters. Does that edify the Body? I think not.
Liturgy is fluid based upon cultural contexts. In my experiences, whenever people become bored and forget to put their energy into forming a mature relationship with Christ, they will chase other matters that do not edify the Body. The history of the human race in general and of Christianity in particular is rife with these rabbit trails that distract from the true mission of bringing the Good News to the world.
THAT SAID: I am loathe to take up the entire Anabaptist forum speculating upon unknowables such as "they did this or that because..." It very nearly always leads to disputes and if I am to implement nonresistance into my spirituality, I do not see how debating and disputing such matters helps that effort. Everyone did what they did in that time period based upon what they knew and understood. It cannot be changed; only the lesson learned to avoid closed mindedness and assumptions about the motives of the other.
i admit, i feel a bit used. no biggie. a minor annoyance on the grand scale of things. 
i was not happy to learn, i was shocked to learn. 
it was unsettling. 
, based upon that which they had learned from the missionary apostles. Standardisation of liturgical practices evolved in the early years while the teaching continued to inspire understanding. It did not always happen within a linear timeline; instead multiple cultures were known to have formed their practices simultaneously but in different locals then shared those practices with others. Today there are seven formal rites in communion with Roman Catholicism. There have been many more rites that have disappeared altogether or have been resurrected but do not share communion.