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

[Brother Adam]

This is all very silly. Yes, I know what baptism of desire is, but using that concept to wait up to 12 months to baptize someone when you believe in baptismal generation is silly. The funamentalist church I belong to does not believe in baptismal regeneration and they would not here of waiting up to 12 months to baptize. It would always be done within a month or so.

Since this isn't a matter of faith or morals, if I ever became Catholic I would see to it that it was changed.

Edited March 12, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm totally guessing here, but I assume that as the Church grew and there were formal heretical sects and the articles of the Creed grew and all of that, if it became necessary to give a fuller catechesis before full entry in the Church? A catechumen was seen as a member of the Church in some sense (though certainly not technically a member).

I also wonder if the fact that the Church believes in baptismal regeneration may actually be a part of why the practice of waiting to baptise caught on. I know I've read of times in the early Church where certain parts of the Church suffered from the abuse of people commonly deferring baptism until they were old so they could reap the benefits of baptismal regeneration after most of their life of sin had passed. Obviously this is an abuse and was condemned. But it says something of an attitude that existed at least in certain parts of the Church in the early days. Maybe a period of catechesis would give the person time to prepare not just in terms of catechesis but spiritually and morally as well. The idea being that you will try to conquer your sinful habits and develop your spiritual life so that when you are cleansed in baptism you will be in a position to retain that state of purity. If I was a fresh convert, sill addicted to lusts and filled with stubborn pride and lacking of virtue, I would want some time to get in shape before I received the gracious cleansing and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.. Just a thought.

Edited March 12, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Aloysius]

i'm not quite sure... i think i agree with bro adam. because baptism is a sacrament, why should it be conditional on how much you know. granted, you should definitely have a firm purpose to commit your life to Christ and His Church, but why shouldn't you be baptized and then start learning?


this is indeed something that could be changed... maybe it should be

ummm.... i nominate bro adam for Pope!! lol JK

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote]because baptism is a sacrament, why should it be conditional on how much you know. [/quote]
Someone should not receive the Eucharist if they do not know the Real Presence. Lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.

And do not forget that baptism brings with it a certain responsibility. It's not like it's just about being wiped clean and that's it. It brings to responsibility of living the christian life. One should be prepared for this. To those whom much has been given, much will be expected. A reasonable amount of preparation is most fitting if you ask me. And even after a reasonable amount of preparation it's not like the catachumen has scratched the surface of what there is to know. But certainly it is fitting to give catechumens a certain formation and preparation before they receive baptism. It makes perfect sense to me and seems quite wise and just.

And let us remember that the Church in Acts was a baby, things were quite a bit different in many ways. Some straight up fire was falling from the sky, as it were. The Holy Spirit was getting the Church off the ground so the dynamics were different than they are today 2000 years later, or even 50 years later.

I don't think just because one does not understand it, they should conclude that the Church should change it's practice. It has been the practice for almost 2000 years and is certainly expressive of the Church's wisdom and prudence.
And of course baptism has a connection with what you know. When you are baptised you are baptised into a Church and profess the Faith of that Church. If you do not even know that Faith at least in the essentials, then it is not as efficacious. And the Church from the earliest times has taught that a catechumen who dies before receiving baptism receives the baptism of desire. But still the Church does not take it lightly and baptism should be as soon as possible.

The Sacraments are sacred and matters of gravity, so rites of initiation deserve proper preparation lest they be taken lightly or profaned. The book of Acts cannot rightly be wielded against this practice as it does not really contradict it. The Holy Spirit guided the early Church as it has guided the Church for 2,000 years.
And the fact that Paul says things like "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" indicates the necessity of "knowing".

Here is an ancient quote which supports the theory in my last post about the desire for preparation based on the belief in baptismal regeneration.
[quote]"For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments. . . . [b]With what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God?[/b] Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?’ (Second Clement 6:7–9 [A.D. 150]). [/quote]

Here are some ancient quotes which supports the general position I've been defending:
[quote]"[b]Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them[/b]. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’" (Justin Martyr, First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).

"[b]After the foregoing instructions, baptize[/b] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

"And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute falsehood in few? We provide that [b]those who year by year come up for holy baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers[/b]; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each name singly" (Theodoret of Cyr, Letters 145 [A.D. 444]).

"I do not hesitate to put [b]the Catholic catechumen[/b], burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).
(indicates not only the existence of the catechumenate, which many much earlier texts indicate, but also implies an idea I theorized in an earlier post regarding the need for proper formation and preparation, etc.)
[/quote]

I would recommend reading the Didache (a.k.a. "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles") for an idea of the kind of catechesis that was given in the apostolic age. This document is contemporary with the New Testament writings, and according to many scholars was actually written before Acts (although I hold to an earlier dating of Acts).
Also the catechetical lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm[/url]
these are nothing less than 23 lectures which were given to the candidates for baptism at the time in the ancient Church.

Edited March 12, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is sweet. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

[quote]Catechumen
"Catechumen," in the early Church, was the name applied to one who had not yet been initiated into the sacred mysteries, but was undergoing a course of preparation for that purpose. The word occurs in Gal. vi, 6: "Let him that is instructed in the word, [ho katechoumenos, is qui catechizatur] communicate to him that instructeth him [to katechounti, ei qui catechizat] in all good things." Other parts of the verb katicksein occur in I Cor., xiv, 19; Luke, i, 4; Acts, xviii, 24.

I. As the acceptance of Christianity involved belief in a body of doctrine and the observance of the Divine law ("teach, make disciples, scholars of them"; "teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you", Matt., xxviii, 20), it is clear that some sort of preliminary instruction must have been given to the converts. In Apostolic times this would vary according as these were Jews or pagans, and was naturally simple in character and short in duration. When, however, the churches came to be organized, the instruction and probation would be longer and more elaborate. Thus, as early as the date of the Epistle to the Galatians (56-57?) we meet with the mention of catechist and catechumen; but we cannot infer from this that the full regulations were already in force. It was rather the danger of apostasy, or even betrayal in time of persecution which gave rise to special precautions as to admission into the Church. To avert this danger a careful intellectual and moral preparation was needed: intellectual to guard against the arguments of the pagan philosophers; moral, to give strength against the torments of the persecutors. This is the "trial of faith more precious than gold which is tried by the fire" of which St. Peter speaks (I Pet., i, 7). Hence we find in St. Justin's first Apology (c. lxi, P.G, VI, 420), distinct reference to the twofold preparation and also to the more elaborate rites of initiation: "Those who ,are persuaded and believe in the truth of our teachings (didaskomena) and sayings undertake to live accordingly; they are taught to ask, with fasting, the remission of their sins; we also praying and fasting with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same way that we have been regenerated", etc. By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines. Tertullian reproaches the heretics with disregarding it; among them, he says "one does not know which is the catechumen and which the faithful, all alike come [to the mysteries], all hear the same discourses and say the same prayers" (quis catechumenus, quis fidelis incertum est; pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant), "Catechumens are initiated before they are instructed" (ante sunt perfecti catechumeni quam edocti.--"De Praeser."xli, P.L., II, 56) A little later we read of Origen being in charge of the catechetical school (tou tes katecheseos didaskaleiou) at Alexandria (Eusib., Hist., Eccl., VI, iii). It is not necessary to quote further author ities for the third and fourth centuries, the age in which the catechumenate flourished in its full form. During the years of persecution the necessity of the institution was realized, and in the intervals of peace the arrangements were more and more elaborated. When, however, Christianity finally triumphed over paganism, the reasons for retaining the catechumenate became less urgent. The majority were born of Christian families, and so were brought up in the Faith, and were in no danger of falling into paganism. Moreover, with the increasing development of the doctrine of grace, and original sin the practice of early baptism became the rule. Further, the conversion of the barbarians precluded the possibility of submitting them to any prolonged period of preparation. Hence the catechumenate gradually fell into disuse, and has merely left traces in the existing rites of baptism and reception in the Church. Still, even now, an informal species of the old regulations should be observed in the case of grown up converts.

II. The catechumens were divided into mere inquirers (audientes, akromeni) and catechumens properly so-called; and in each stage there was a three-fold preparation -- catechetical, ascetical, and liturgical.

(1) If a pagan wished to become a Christian he was given some elementary instruction in the fundamental doctrines and practices of the Church (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). He had to show by his conduct that he was in earnest about the step he was about to take. So far, he was only in the stage of inquiry, and was not counted as a Christian at all. He was allowed to be present at the first part of the Mass, but he was dismissed immediately after the sermon.

(2) As soon as his instructors were satisfied that he was likely to persevere, the inquirer was promoted to the rank of catechumen. He was now entitled to be called a Christian, though he was not looked upon as one of the "faithful". "Ask a man, 'Are you a Christian?' He answers, 'No', if he is a pagan or a Jew. But if he says 'Yes', ask him again, 'Are you a catechumen or one of the faithful?'" (St. Aug., "In Joan.", xliv, 2, P.L., XXXV, 1714).

In the early ages the rites of admission to the catechumenate were quite simple, but in the course of time they became more elaborate. At first the candidates were merely signed on the forehead with the sign of the cross, or hands were imposed on them with suitable prayers; and sometimes both ceremonies were used. Thus St. Augustine in his model of an instruction to an inquirer says: "He should be asked whether he believes what he has heard, and is ready to observe it. If he answers in the affirmative he should be solemnly signed and treated according to the custom of the Church" (solemniter signandus est et ecclesiae more tractandus.-- De Cat. Rud., xxvi, P.L., XL, 344). Eusebius mentions the imposition of hands and prayer (Vita Constantini, iv. 61, P.G., XX, 1213). Among the Latins, and especially at Rome, breathing accompanied with a form of exorcism and placing in the mouth a little exorcised salt, was employed in addition to the signing with the cross and the imposition of hands. Other rites were the opening of the ears (Mark, vii, 34) and anointing. See Martène, "De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus" (Rouen, 1700), I, where several ordines ad fasciendum Christianum, or catechumenum, are given; Chardon, "Hist. des Sacrements", in Migne's "Theol. Cursus Completus", Paris, 1874, XX, 31 sqq., 149 sqq.

Catechumens when present at Mass were not dismissed with the inquirers, but were detained while a special prayer was recited over them. They then also withdrew before the Mass of the Faithful began. The instruction which they received is described in the article CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. As to their standard of living they had to abstain from all immoral and pagan practices, and give proof by their virtue and works of penance that they were worthy to begin a more immediate preparation for baptism. The duration of this stage was not fixed. In general it lasted long enough to test the dispositions of the catechumen. The council of Elvira alludes to the custom of making it last two years and the civil law fixed it at this (Justinian, Novel. cxliv). But the causes which ultimately led to the abolition of the catechumenate (see above) tended also to shorten it. Thus the Council of Agde (506) allowed even Jews (with regard to whom special caution was required) to receive baptism after eight months preparation; and later on St. Gregory reduced the term to forty days. On the other hand the duration of the catechumenate might be extended, and the catechumen might be reduced to the rank of the audientes, if he was guilty of grave crimes (fifth canon of Neocaesarea, fourteenth canon of Nicaea). What seems extraordinary to our modern notions is that the catechumens themselves put off their baptisms for many years, sometimes even till their last illness. Constantine the Great is an example of this extreme delay. St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom were not baptized till after their thirtieth year. A question much discussed was the fate of those who died in this stage. As we have seen, they were looked upon as Christians, but not as belonging to the "faithful", because the cleansing waters of baptism had not been poured over their souls. St. Gregory describes his terror during a storm at sea lest he might be taken away unbaptized (Carmen de Vita Sua, 324, sqq., P.G. XXXVII, 994). However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374). Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire. This was especially held with regard to those who were in the later stage of immediate preparation, to be described presently. On this whole question see Franzelin, "De Ecclesia" (Rome, 1887), 414 sqq.

(3) When the catechumens had completed this stage of preparation and trial, their names were inscribed among the competentes; i.e. those seeking to be baptized. The Greeks called them photizomenoi. This might mean that they were being enlightened in the mysteries of the faith; or, more probably, that they were being baptized, for the Greeks commonly spoke of baptism as "light" (cf. Heb., vi, 4; x, 32). In this advanced stage they were sometimes called fideles by anticipation (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, 4; V, 1; P.G., XXXIII, 373, 505). Lent was the time when the three-fold preparation -- instructive, ascetical, and liturgical -- was carried on. The ascetical preparation was severe. Prayer and fasting naturally formed part of it; but the competentes were also exhorted to keep silence as far as possible and, if they were married, to observe continence. (St. Justin, "Apol.", lxi, P.G., VI, 420; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, sub fin.,P.G., XXXIII, col.376; St. August., "De Fide et Op.", ix, P.L. XL, 205). Confession was also enjoined (Tertullian, "De Bapt.", xx, P.L. I, 1222 where he quotes Matt., iii, 6: "they were baptized, confessing their sins". See also St. Cyril, ib.; Eusebius, "Vita Const., iv, 61). The instruction given at this time is described in the article CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, where an account of St. Cyril's "catecheses" will be found.

The rites connected with this stage were elaborate. There are considerable survivals of them in the first part of the order of baptism, and also traces in the Lenten Masses, especially the Mass of the Wednesday of the fourth week. The assemblies were called "scrutinies" (examination and presentation of the candidates), and were seven in number. At the first scrutiny the candidates gave in their names. After the collect of the Mass, and before the lessons, the ceremony of exorcism was performed over them. This was done at all the scrutinies except the last, by the exorcists, and then the priest signed them with the cross and laid hands upon them. It is interesting to know that the words at present used in baptism "Ergo, maledicte diabole", etc. belonged to the exorcism, and the words "Aeternam ac justissimam pietatem" etc. belonged to the laying on of hands. The third scrutiny was of a specially solemn character, for it was then that the candidates received the Gospel, the Symbol (Creed), and the Our Father. Each of these was accompanied by a short explanation. For example, St. Augustine has left four sermons (lvi-lix) "De Oratione Domenica ad competentes" (P.L., XXXVIII, 377 sqq.), and three on the delivery of the Symbol (ibid., 1058 sqq.). In our present missal the Mass of the Wednesday of the fourth week in Lent has a lesson in addition to the ordinary Epistle, or rather lesson. The former is taken from the thirty-sixth chapter of Ezechiel, the latter from the fiftieth of Isaias; and both (together with the Introit and the two Graduals, and the Gospel, the healing of the man born blind, John, ix) have obvious reference to the "great scrutiny". The seventh scrutiny took place on Holy Saturday, apart from the Mass, as indeed there was formerly no Mass for that day. The priest himself performed the ceremony of the exorcism and the Ephphetha (Mark, vii). Then followed the anointing on the breast and back. The candidates pronounced the three-fold renunciation of Satan and recited the Creed. The actual initiation, (baptism, confirmation, and Communion) took place at the Paschal Mass, at which the neophytes assisted for the first time, being now no longer mere catechumens. But until the Sunday after Easter they were considered as "infants", receiving further instruction, especially on the sacraments which had lately been conferred upon them (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). Finally, on Low Sunday (Dominica in Albis depositis) when the Introit of the Mass speaks of the "new born babes" (I Pet., ii, 2), they put off their white garments, and were henceforth counted among the regular "faithful".
[/quote]