Let'say I was baptized in a Protestant church (for example, Presbyterian) that is in the list of churches whose baptism is recognized by the Catholic church (such as [this list](https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/15206/documents/2017/4/Valid%20Baptisms%20Reference%20List.pdf)) . But let's say I'm increasingly desirous to be Catholic and through self study came to believe all the doctrines of the Catholic church. **Main question:** Can I go to the sacrament of reconciliation to confess my mortal sins and receive absolution before being confirmed? *Related questions*: 1. How about if my status changes to be a catechumen (through the RCIA program) but not yet confirmed until next Easter. Does it make a difference? 1. If the two situations are different, what is the explanation? 1. Is the answer up to a particular bishop's discretion / policy, or is it governed in global Canon Law?

St. Augustine's mother, St. Monica, was very devout, praying for St. Augustine's conversion, even following him to Milan and successfully getting Bishop St. Ambrose to baptize him, Easter 387. But why didn't St. Monica baptize St. Augustine when he was an infant? Was her husband Patricius, a pagan idolator, opposed to this? (How was St. Monica even validly married to a pagan? Mixed marriages, barring a special dispensation, are invalid.) Fr. Alban Butler's biography of St. Monica says: >In his infancy she had ranked him among the catechumens; and once in an illness, all things were prepared for his baptism, but it was deferred. Why did she defer his baptism? It seems an illness would be all the more reason to have him baptized sooner.

The Wikipedia articles on [affusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affusion) and [catechesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechesis) contain the following (unsourced) claims: > The most common use [of affusion], however, was for ill or dying people who could not rise from their beds. It was consequently known as "baptism of the sick". Receiving this baptism was regarded as a bar to Holy Orders, but this sprang from the person's having put off baptism until the last moment—a practice that in the fourth century became common, with people enrolling as catechumens but not being baptized for years or decades. While the practice was decried at the time, the intent of the criticism was not to encourage baptism by immersion, but to refrain from delaying baptism. > In the fourth century, a widespread practice arose of enrolling as a catechumen and deferring baptism for years, often until shortly before death, and when so ill that the normal practice of immersion was impossible, so that aspersion or affusion—the baptism of the sick—was necessary. I find myself at a loss to come up with a motivation or explanation for this alleged behaviour. From [a post here by James T](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8534/23250) I understand early Christian communities may have imposed fairly lengthy periods of instruction for catechumens—even a period of three years would be "nothing particularly special", according to James. The intent, on the part of the receiving church members, was to ensure the converts' beliefs were both sincere and orthodox. However, this doesn't explain why the converts themselves would want to defer their baptism for so long after the mandatory period of instruction. Even presuming that someone sought a Christian affiliation only to improve their social status, as [Augustine of Hippo condemned](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_III/Doctrinal_Treatises_of_St._Augustin/On_the_Catechising_of_the_Uninstructed/Chapter_5) , what advantage was there for them in remaining unbaptised? And if such a person was insincere in their beliefs, why bother with a deathbed baptism at all? So in summary, my questions are as follows: 1. Is it true, as the articles above state, that it was common in the distant past for converts themselves (i.e., not the church) to delay baptism for decades, or even until shortly before death? 2. If so, what were their reasons for doing so?

One Protestant source says it wasn't until the 16th century that the word "catechism" came into use and it refers to the Heidelberg Catechism, first published in 1563 and approved by the Synod of Dort in 1619. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that a catechism was established much earlier: >By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines. Source: https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2661 I seek information on when and how catechisms first came into use, and welcome Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed Protestant input. Ths is NOT a who is right or who is wrong question - it's a genuine enquiry into how and when catechisms originated within the Christian faith. Question: Is there any biblical basis to support the use of a catechism within the Christian faith and how did they originate?

Some Anglicans 'cross themselves' at various points of an Anglican church service. It is common practice for Roman Catholics. Is there in standard Roman Catholic or Anglican catachesis / instruction any guidance as to a 'correct' motion when crossing yourself:

• left-to-right or right-to-left, for example?
• the horizontal motion first, or the vertical?

Prior to being baptized, a prospective adult convert to Catholicism attends the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) wherein they are taught the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). According to Roman Catholicism, is there a requirement of agreement with the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church (i.e., **100% agreement**) before a convert is permitted to be baptized?

If Baptists do not believe in the formalized confessional creeds of the church , then how do they catechize children? In the Small Catechism, Martin Luther notes that learning the Creeds is very important in the Christian education. If Baptists avoid confessionalism, then how do they teach the children the exact doctrine of the church?

When a person converts or decides to convert to Christianity, they might believe in Christ but not have a strong body of knowledge and understanding of the Bible. They also may know very little about the Christian faith itself. What is an overview of common practices in the Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical denominations to teach new converts more about these things so that they can become full members and take part in ministry within the church? Note: this question was written and answered to address [this deleted question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40919/how-to-understand-the-bible-better-by-questions) , in which a new convert asked for advice on learning about the faith. Since that question was off-topic and was promptly deleted, I referred that asker to this on-topic question and answer.

I realize that the Eucharist is taken for the first time at Easter Vigil, but is it continued for candidates of RCIA through Confirmation, or is it a received for the second time at confirmation?

This is a follow-up question for Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally? In Czech Republic the pre-baptismal formation is often called "preparation for baptism" or something like this, but not "catechumenate" - the Rite of Acceptance or the start of catechumenate start near the end of this period, even as late as the first sunday of Lent, when the Rite of Election should take place. In the light of Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults , this practice seems to be a misunderstanding of how the Christian initiation should be performed. While this practice may be fine for those hesitating, why should those desiring to be baptised wait months or even years until they will be allowed to express this desire publicly? Why do they have to be called "inquirers" and denied of catechumens' rights, while they are effectively catechumens except for that they are not recognized as such? I understand there are some practical reasons for this, but I feel some important aspect of Christian intiation is missing in those "preparation for baptism" groups. My question is: is there any canon law/ liturgical rule saying that postponing the Rite of Acceptance when the inquirer is determined they want to be baptised is OK/ forbidded/ tolerated, but discouraged? And why?

This question and its answer reminded me a question I wondered about a long time ago: the ritual of entering catechumenate usually takes place some time during the process of pre-baptismal catecheses (i.e. learning the basics before someone is prepared for baptism), so there is some time (often quite a long time) when the person is being instructed but didn't enter catechumenate yet. My question is whether the person is considered a catechumen by canon law since the moment the process of pre-baptismal catecheses begin (may be hard to find out when did it begin!), or since the ceremony of entering the catechumenate? If the latter is the case, have those learning so that they could be baptized any special status?

According to this article ‘Catechumen ’ means one receives instruction from “a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism”. I understand that some churches have this before baptizing people. I do not criticize this practice, but I am curious when this idea may have developed. In the scripture people are baptized immediately upon believing and there does not seem much delay in the matter. For example: >But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (NIV ACTS 8:12) The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (source ). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition . Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized only after three years of catechism. > 17 Catechumens will hear the word for three years...When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens will pray by themselves, separate from the faithful...After the prayer, the teacher shall lay hands upon the catechumens, pray, and dismiss them. ...When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition ) I am wondering is there any evidence that this switch occurred before 215-400 AD, or not? Do some churches still practice a three year regiment?