[George W. Bush]

Didache (c. 70-100 AD) omits to mention that "breaking of the bread" and drinking wine during Eucharist is sacramental, or that it is Real Presence in Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps that was just how some Christians "understood" it. Which is why 300 years later the Church had to convene the first Ecumenical Council to clear up some of the seirous misconceptions that evolved.

But it does raise an interesting question. Just as an example, if baptism of infants is a sacrament, then how is it effective when the object of the baptism, the infant, is oblivious? Does following the teachings of the Church (or a church) by any orthodox believer not in the grip of a fatal heresy but who does not fully understand exactly why he is obeying the dictates of his church (or tradition) still constitute a blessing and proper obedience?

When you look at history, whether Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant, it is not such a simple question. I am not proposing I have an answer by any means. I believe sincere belief and being a diligent student of scripture and the ancient church are the best solution for this. In the end, we have to trust in God to judge the heart and know that we can never practice the faith in absolute perfection.

[kosta50]

if baptism of infants is a sacrament, then how is it effective when the object of the baptism, the infant, is oblivious?

That is a fair question. But I would like to ask you why is our intellect required to make the work of the Holy Spirit effective?

It is not that we adopt God at baptism, but God adopts us, whether we know it or not.

In the end, we have to trust in God to judge the heart and know that we can never practice the faith in absolute perfection

It's always what's in your heart thta matters to God the most. If the Heart of Christ beats inside your Christian soul, you have nothing to fear. :)