Baptism by Pouring

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_the_Aleut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_the_Aleut

Guest
According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, immersion was the main method of baptism throughout Christendom into the High Middle Ages, the 10th-12th centuries, although pouring and sprinkling were permitted in extreme circumstances. During or after that time, but apparently before the Reformation (16th century), pouring became predominant in the Western Church, as it remains today (at least in the Latin Church). Does anybody know why this change took place? Unless I’ve missed it somewhere, I can’t seem to find it.

Thank you very much. I wish you a profitable Lent.

–Peter
 
Peter_the_Aleut said:
According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, immersion was the main method of baptism throughout Christendom into the High Middle Ages, the 10th-12th centuries, although pouring and sprinkling were permitted in extreme circumstances. During or after that time, but apparently before the Reformation (16th century), pouring became predominant in the Western Church, as it remains today (at least in the Latin Church). Does anybody know why this change took place? Unless I’ve missed it somewhere, I can’t seem to find it.

Thank you very much. I wish you a profitable Lent.

–Peter
Click to expand...
I believe it was a matter of practicality, and since we baptize primarily infants, an enormous pool of water which was hard to maintain was seen as unnecessary. Many Catholic churches now have immersion pools which also serve as holy water fonts.

From what I understand, immersion was the ordinary means in the Catholic Church until the end of the 13th century.

Peace

P.S. After posting, I found this article which will be of interest to you: catholicapologetics.org/ap060200.htm
 
kell0618 said:
From what I understand, immersion was the ordinary means in the Catholic Church until the end of the 13th century.

Peace
Click to expand...
It remains the preferred way of conferring Baptism according to “Christian Initiation General Introduction” which describes it as “more suitable as a symbol of participation in the death and resurrection of Christ.”
 
Phemie said:
It remains the preferred way of conferring Baptism according to “Christian Initiation General Introduction” which describes it as “more suitable as a symbol of participation in the death and resurrection of Christ.”
Click to expand...
I apologize for any confusion. I didn’t mean ‘ordinary’ in the context that it was the preferred method; I meant that it was the most common way. 🙂
 
We must be careful that immersion does not lead to the view that baptism by pouring is somehow insufficient.
 
But we shouldn’t avoid immersion for that reason.

It behooves us to properly catechize our people. We go to great length to explain to the parents that either method is perfectly OK, but that the symbolism of the death & rising is more obvious with immersion. Then we leave it up to them to decide which way they prefer. It remains their choice pretty much until the minute of the baptism because if they show any indecision we prepare for an immersion baptism. That way if at the last minute that’s what they’d prefer we can do it.

With children older than toddlers but not yet 7, we explain what we’ll be doing and give them the option of getting all wet or just having their head wet.
 
Phemie said:
But we shouldn’t avoid immersion for that reason.

It behooves us to properly catechize our people. We go to great length to explain to the parents that either method is perfectly OK, but that the symbolism of the death & rising is more obvious with immersion. Then we leave it up to them to decide which way they prefer. It remains their choice pretty much until the minute of the baptism because if they show any indecision we prepare for an immersion baptism. That way if at the last minute that’s what they’d prefer we can do it.

With children older than toddlers but not yet 7, we explain what we’ll be doing and give them the option of getting all wet or just having their head wet.
Click to expand...
Catechizes across the board in the current Church is not what it should be. In the wrong hands the the “symbolism” of immersion can be used to undermine our doctrine that pouring is a proper and valid form of baptism. That one does not loose anything by being baptized by pouring.

When to much emphasis is placed on the “sign/symbolism” of triple immersion – them the sign can start eating away at doctrine itself.
 
The size of old baptismal fonts and paintings indicate that baptism was no by submersion – like the Baptists do. The usual method generally involved the person standing in the font with water up to about the waist and having water poured over the head. The Amish, who are the most traditional modern Anabaptists baptize by pouring water from a large bucket through the hands of the bishop over the head of the person being baptized. [Talk about a lot of prepositions!]
 
There are actually three ways to baptise: immersion, pouring or sprinkling.
 
That site has a nihil obstat so I’m not going to dispute the validity but sprinkling is not mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor in Canon Law nor in the Rite:

CCC 1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.
Canon 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.
 
Nihil Obstat is an official declaration that a publication is free from moral or doctrinal error.
 
The option of Pouring is given in the didache (written between AD50 and AD170) see chapter 7.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

So it is perhaps as old as baptism.

ALSO the word baptism (in greek) means washing. And when there is talk of washing in the OT(in greek) or NT, like at the water at the wedding at Cana, the word is baptism. So a washing of hands was a ‘baptism’. That is what the priest does at the lavabo rite in the mass: he baptises his hands. Of course this is not the sacrament we know as Baptism, it is simple the word from which we get the name of the sacrament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top