Is it possible to embrace / recreate lost aspects of Baptism?

[Aethel]

One thing's for certain if you studied Church history and the conversions of heathens to Christ - Baptism for those people in those times seriously meant a total destruction of previous identity and re-birth into someone else. Literally.

In Baptism, the person - born with a pagan name, a pagan identity - often took a new name that signified a devotion / spiritual patronage to a particular Saint. They would be a Saint that speaks to you, and you would embody their particular virtues and seek their guidance as one's who made the cut at the Last Judgment in order to emulate the Person of Christ and find salvation. It meant the destruction of the name of who you were previously into that of a Saint, signifying your goal to be saved as that Saint was. A change in name is no insignificant thing.

However, in the West, we live in a world far post-conversion where having a Biblical or Saint name is just common place, and Baptismal names are just given by parents. I think this was what a lot of Protestants criticized about child Baptisms; this "rebirth of identity" aspect is missing now.

While, per Trent, Baptism is a permanent Sacrament that can't be changed, and who you are Baptized is now is who you will always be Baptized as - has the Catholic Church, in any way, given something like economia towards those people who lived such a life of sin with a Saint's name that they feel that a change in identity would warrant a fresh start, to be "born again" as it were?

Ironically enough, in many aspects I find that the Catholic Church has always been charitable in listening to genuine criticisms of the Church. For example, giving some breathing room to Calvinism via Jansenism, or allowing the Eastern Rites, the formation of particular monastic orders that sought revitalization of the Church (For example, listening to Francis of Assisi's criticism of the wealth of the Church or allowing a more Platonic-transcendental type spirituality via Saint John of the Cross), or allowing devotions / private revelations that, while subordinate to the Final Revelation of Saint John, still allow the Faith to be a living thing which God interracts with.

But this is one criticism I find from Protestants that still has validity to it, and I was wondering, in its devotions / spiritual praxis, has the Catholic Church ever made room for a type of "secondary Baptism" or "rebirth" to allow people to try again at life?

Thank you.

[·]

Baptism is a sacrament by which we are born again to the grace of God, and become Christians. (Catechism of Pius X, Baptism, Q 1) To him who is being baptised is given the name of a saint in order to put him under the protection of a heavenly patron and to animate him to imitate that saint's example. (Ibid., Q 21)

Original sin is the sin in which we are all born, and which we contracted by the disobedience of our first parent, Adam. Original sin is cancelled by holy Baptism. (Ibid., The Main Kinds of Sin, Q 2, 4)

Your question is answered by itself. It seems to be questioning infant baptism only. However, if sanctifying grace is lost, which is a choice, in mortal sin, then one is spiritually dead (Ibid,, The Ninth Article, Q 26) and can be brought back to life with the Sacrament of Penance. The sacrament of Penance, also called Confession, is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ to remit the sins committed after Baptism. (Ibid., The Sacrament of Penance, Q 1)

Babies are born while they are infants and they have Original Sin, and thus, they can be reborn as infants. (ST III Q 68 A 9)

Actual Sin is not required or desirable. Your question is concerned with the Baptism of those who are converting away from a previously sinful life, and Baptism does wash these away as well, but that is not its primary effect: after all, the Church never required people to have committed any grave sins to enter the Church.  One cannot re-acquire Original Sin after Baptism, but only lose the Sanctifying Grace that was conferred.

Only those without the Sacrament of Penance would ever find any desire to "baptise" again. This Sacrament is indeed the answer to your question. The other Sacraments should also be studied. Confirmation is likely related to this topic in another way, but it is not a rebirth, but spiritually strengthens us and usually is associated with a new name.

The Sacraments are not cultural experiences for the body, but spiritual experiences for the soul.

[Acolyte]

Joseph offered a good answer.

This sermon also explains how we put our soul back in the same state it was when we were carried away from the baptismal font.



ETA: It doesn't end with the Confession. Reparation and strong, if not perfect Contrition is required. And Reparation.

[Goldfinch]

But this is one criticism I find from Protestants that still has validity to it, and I was wondering, in its devotions / spiritual praxis, has the Catholic Church ever made room for a type of "secondary Baptism" or "rebirth" to allow people to try again at life?

It is called confession.

Something Protestants also lack.

[james03]

But this is one criticism I find from Protestants that still has validity to it, and I was wondering, in its devotions / spiritual praxis, has the Catholic Church ever made room for a type of "secondary Baptism" or "rebirth" to allow people to try again at life?

This really doesn't make a lot of sense.  Prots fall into various categories.  A lot are "once saved, always saved", so a dude might take up with hookers, then decide it's wrong.  He'll say, "I need to get serious about religion again, so I'm trying harder to attend Sunday service and Wednesday bible study regularly.".  OSAS don't believe in any rebirth after they've said their non-biblical altar call prayer.

The liberal main line prots are basically universalists who deny hell.

Others don't even baptize.

The only thing close are the pentecostal nutters that roll around and bark like dogs.  But they don't even fit your description.  They just criticize Catholicism in general; and even those I've never heard talk about a fallen away sinner needing a rebirth.  They just go back and start barking again.

Protestantism is a joke, purely emotionalism.  And most are frauds.  The prot dudes go out on the road and screw around, then go to "service" when they are home.  Also I know a dude that was Mr. Prot.  Went to every service and bible study.  Always volunteered to help at his church.  Family prayer and bible study at home.  Ran off with another woman.  His wife stated he never had "saving faith".  Yeah, right.

As far as your question, the general procedure is to schedule a "general confession" because the sinner was away for a long time.  Really bad, notorious sinners like Bella Dodd worked with Bishop Sheen for a period of time, but that is an exceptional case.  And he had to repair a lot of damaged caused by her long adherence to communism.

[Michael Wilson]

Confession was called "The Second Plank" by many Church fathers, because it was the way that Catholics who suffered "shipwreck" after Baptism, could recover Sanctifying Grace and Baptismal innocence.

[Jean Carrier]

Ironically enough, in many aspects I find that the Catholic Church has always been charitable in listening to genuine criticisms of the Church. For example, giving some breathing room to Calvinism via Jansenism...

You have a funny view of the Jansenist crisis. The Popes cracked down pretty hard on the Jansenists, and even to this day the word is thrown around as if it's some kind of insult. Heck, even as late as the early 20th century St. Pius X magisterially took potshots at the Jansenists (who didnt even exist anymore and hadn't existed in any meaningful sense for a century) in his decree on frequent reception of Holy Communion

[Michael Wilson]

Pope Pius IX called Jansenism: a pest transplanted from hell:
"Heaven Open to Souls" Rev. Henry C. Semple, S.J. Pg. 56.

"And Pius IX in the Encyclical of July 7, 1871, in which he responds to the petition and grants the requested title (To declare St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Church), says: "By his learned and laborious writings, the pest of Jansenism, which had been transplanted from hell, was torn up by the roots and thrown out of the field of the Lord."
pg. 146 (ibid):

[Jean Carrier]

Pope Pius IX called Jansenism: a pest transplanted from hell:
"Heaven Open to Souls" Rev. Henry C. Semple, S.J. Pg. 56.

"And Pius IX in the Encyclical of July 7, 1871, in which he responds to the petition and grants the requested title (To declare St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Church), says: "By his learned and laborious writings, the pest of Jansenism, which had been transplanted from hell, was torn up by the roots and thrown out of the field of the Lord."
pg. 146 (ibid):

Hard to condemn something any more strongly than that.

[Bonaventure]

However, in the West, we live in a world far post-conversion where having a Biblical or Saint name is just common place, and Baptismal names are just given by parents. I think this was what a lot of Protestants criticized about child Baptisms; this "rebirth of identity" aspect is missing now.

In my experience, that has not been the case. First of all, damn few friends, family, and acquaintances I know actually have kids. Those who give their kids what we call "normal," or saint names, have for the most part been my Catholic friends. Others who come from very ethnic backgrounds (Italian, Mexican, Polish) have also given traditional names, however they aren't practicing.

Of coworkers, friends, and relatives, I can think of the following names: Mia, Gia, Haden, Haven, Kaden, Caden, Phin, Tuck, Riley, Jackson. Hell, my own nephew was named Ocean Ylfonso.

The only person who named their child based on the saint of the day is a sede friend in Cincy.