Baptism not by immersion?

[meaprilrain]

Though the “matter” of the sacrament is crucial – it MUST be water – the discipline of the sacrament can be modified according to pastoral necessity. In cold climates, standing in the river could be downright risky.

Scripture is by no means unequivocal on the subject of how baptism was done. We have first century literature that mentions pouring

Yes this is why I said I didn’t think the Lord would deny anyone the baptism using just whatever few means they had available to them with an honest and pure heart? And I did note the Didache quotes, but they still listed in preference order of how it ought to be done ? first being the river, then the standing water and then pouring .

So if there was no immersion involved then why would the didache list a preference order for the river, the pond and then pouring ? If it is just the “MATTER” being water that is important then why would it matter if it was from moving water, standing water or pouring water ?

So my question is still with the most important scripture being the Lords own baptism “by immersion” my opinion when he asks the disciples can they have the same baptism as he,
Why does the church not choose this first ? and use the others for extreme cases of the first not being an option ? I refer directly to the previous poster that said her Priest does not do immersions because he doesn’t like to get wet ??!!! I find this an unacceptable reason not to perform the way the Lord would have liked the first choice to be ?

 

[cfrancis]

So my question **is still with the most important scripture being the Lords own baptism “by immersion” **my opinion when he asks the disciples can they have the same baptism as he,
Why does the church not choose this first ? and use the others for extreme cases of the first not being an option ? I refer directly to the previous poster that said her Priest does not do immersions because he doesn’t like to get wet ??!!! I find this an unacceptable reason not to perform the way the Lord would have liked the first choice to be ?

You have not come close to proving Jesus was baptized by immersion.

 

[clmowry]

But the evidence is quite strong that The Lords baptism is by immersion in moving water first, standing water second and lastly other means. So why is this not the foremost used by the church with the other means only being a serious second ? Not just a choice because the Priest doesn’t like getting wet ?

Well at the risk of stating the obvious: Why should we use the most inconvenient means of baptism when the other means are also obviously valid?

We have a big baptismal font in our church where adult converts kneel down in about 2 foot of water and have 3 gallons of water poured over their heads “In the Name of the Father” splash “the Son” splash “and the Holy Spirit” splash. I assure you they are thoroughly soaked.

Babies have water poured over their foreheads above the fountain that pours into the pool.

Personally, I would have had very little interest in submerging my weeks old sons and daughter into a river, but to each their own.

Besides, I am not sure we could find a river in the area that the board of health would ok for the immersion any way.

Let’s see, by way of comparison:

Jesus’ primary mode of transportation was his sandals. Should we abandon motorized transportation and all buy a pair of Birkenstocks? Oh wait, maybe we need to hand make the sandals too? Or would driving to mass still be ok?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

If I only need a pouring or a sprinkling then why would I even be in the river or pond to begin with ?

Well, let’s see.

Because it was the most convenient source of water at the time and the symbolism, was nice?

Chuck

 

[meaprilrain]

Acts 8:
38 And he [the Ethiopian eunuch] ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water…

Neither of these is likely, and neither is supported by Scripture.
Indeed, in your argument against Acts 8, you hold both Philip and the eunuch were under the water, a ridiculous assertion.
Further, you are assuming the water into which they entered was deep enough for immersion. Scripture makes no mention as to the depth of the water.

No my point was this… If baptism was not by immersion then why would both Phillip and the Eunuch need to be in the water ? If baptism is by pouring or sprinkling, neither of them needed to be in the water ? Phillip could have just leaned over and grabbed some water to sprinkle or pour with ? but no, They both entered the water. True some assumption is placed on it being for immersion purposes, but why else would it be with the things I just listed ?

This forum pointed out the Didache documents for evidence of various acceptable forms of baptism, those being…

“Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize “into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit” in running water. ( this would denote a river as the 1st choice of baptism) But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. ( Next a pond or lake as a standing water. Still the choice is enough water to immerse. ) Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don’t have either, **pour water three times **on the head, ( and as a last resort by means of no other way less water is acceptable )“into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit.”

Now if the Didache document you (the forum) provided lists as the first choice running water, second choice standing water and third pouring, then why is this not the choice of the church ?

As for immersion why else would you need a river or pond to be the first and second choice if finally a pouring will suffice ?

There is NO REASON for ANYONE to get into the water if pouring is the way. Even if it was river water that was needed, fill the pitcher and pour away ? no one gets wet except the person being baptized and its a little wet ?

 

[mercygate]

Yes this is why I said I didn’t think the Lord would deny anyone the baptism using just whatever few means they had available to them with an honest and pure heart? And I did note the Didache quotes, but they still listed in preference order of how it ought to be done ? first being the river, then the standing water and then pouring .

So if there was no immersion involved then why would the didache list a preference order for the river, the pond and then pouring ? If it is just the “MATTER” being water that is important then why would it matter if it was from moving water, standing water or pouring water ?

So my question is still with the most important scripture being the Lords own baptism “by immersion” my opinion when he asks the disciples can they have the same baptism as he,
Why does the church not choose this first ? and use the others for extreme cases of the first not being an option ? I refer directly to the previous poster that said her Priest does not do immersions because he doesn’t like to get wet ??!!! I find this an unacceptable reason not to perform the way the Lord would have liked the first choice to be ?

What exactly is your question? The Church does immerse. The other options are used for reasonable necessity.

I will refer your disapproval of the Priest’s distate for getting wet to the bishop, who will doubtless censure him severely. :yup: You have no idea why he doesn’t like to get wet. Is he diabetic with circulatory problems? Has he arthritis that can be exacerbated by the cold water? Has he balance problems that would make him unsteady without shoes?

Consider also that Baptisms of adults in the Catholic Church are done during the Easter Vigil Mass and entail a lot of undressing and dressing; the Mass can easily reach to two-and-one-half hours, even without baptisms, so there are pastoral reasons for not stretching the Rite of Baptism out in time. My parish has the Catechumens stand in the pool while the pastor remains at the side to pour the water (and plenty of it!) over them.

 

[meaprilrain]

Well, let’s see.

Because it was the most convenient source of water at the time and the symbolism, was nice?

Chuck

your comments are all cute but I was asking a serious question. If salvation comes by way of Baptism then don’t you think it should be accurate and performed the way Lord wanted ? Baptism I don’t think falls into the category of sandals or car to Mass .

Neither the forum nor myself can find any scripture that explicitly says the term “immersion” yet if someone actually thought about it …really why do you need a river or pond if you can just use a pitcher ?

The forum offered the Didache but it also lists in order of preference with a defanite “baptize this way” at the beginning. and then lists in order the river, the pond and if nothing else is availabel to pour 3 times ?

If it just the water that matters, then why does it list an order of acceptance ? If it lists pouring as the last option then what would be the opposite of pouring that you could do in the river or pond as the first choices ?

 

[cfrancis]

your comments are all cute but I was asking a serious question. If salvation comes by way of Baptism then don’t you think it should be accurate and performed the way Lord wanted ? Baptism I don’t think falls into the category of sandals or car to Mass .

Neither the forum nor myself can find any scripture that explicitly says the term “immersion” yet if someone actually thought about it …really why do you need a river or pond if you can just use a pitcher ?

The forum offered the Didache but it also lists in order of preference with a defanite “baptize this way” at the beginning. and then lists in order the river, the pond and if nothing else is availabel to pour 3 times ?

If it just the water that matters, then why does it list an order of acceptance ? If it lists pouring as the last option then what would be the opposite of pouring that you could do in the river or pond as the first choices ?

You have yet to provide any Scripture that states the rite of Baptism.
You have yet to provide any Scripture that states Christ was fully immersed.
You have, however, asserted much on the weight of your opinion.

 

[jmcrae]

Im not sure if I have this right but I believe at one time the RCC practiced baptism by immersion. Could someone point me to when this changed to approve sprinkling and if there is any scripture to support the change ?

We don’t currently approve sprinkling. If someone you know was baptized by sprinkling, you were in the wrong Church.

The Catholic Church currently permits full body immersion, and pouring of water over the head. In both cases, the person is immersed or has water poured over them three times, as the priest or deacon says, “In the name of the Father, (dunk or pour) and of the Son (dunk or pour) and of the Holy Spirit (dunk or pour).”

Here in our cold climate, pouring is the preferred option, but immersion is also not all that uncommon.

 

[jmcrae]

No my point was this… If baptism was not by immersion then why would both Phillip and the Eunuch need to be in the water ? If baptism is by pouring or sprinkling, neither of them needed to be in the water ? Phillip could have just leaned over and grabbed some water to sprinkle or pour with ? but no, They both entered the water. True some assumption is placed on it being for immersion purposes, but why else would it be with the things I just listed ?

It would depend on how deep the water was. If it was only ankle deep or knee deep, then they would still pour the water over the person’s head, right? Since immersion would be inconvenient. But if the water was quite deep, then they could do immersion - but it couldn’t be too deep, or else the person would be carried away in the current when you duck them under.

 

[NotWorthy]

If I only need a pouring or a sprinkling then why would I even be in the river or pond to begin with ? I have to be in it to come up out of it.

Now If I was just having a pouring or sprinkling I wouldn’t have to be IN the river or pond ? I could just be next to it and have the pitcher poured over my head, in this instance I wouldn’t be coming up out of anything would I ? because I wouldn’t be in it ? He came up straightway out of water… which means he was down in the water and there is no reason to be IN the water versus just pouring on top unless you are immersioning a large something ? like a body… I wouldn’t have to get IN the water to just have some poured over my head ?
Yet many peoples came TO the river Jordan to be baptized, why if they could just get a pitcher from the well in town ?

You are missing the entire significance of the Jordan River with this question. John was making the people of Jerusalem cross over to the other side of the Jordan and than re-cross it to get back to Jerusalem. This was symbolizing a re-entering into the Promised Land. And the Jordan River served, not only as a crossing point into the Promised Land, but as a symbol of purifying, as in Namaan, who Elijah cured of leprosy.

And you glossed over Ezekiel’s quote. What was Ezekiel talking about when he was putting a pen to the Word of God? Could it be anything other than Baptism?

 

[clmowry]

Interesting, what you think the Diadache says:

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize “into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit” in running water. ( this would denote a river as the 1st choice of baptism) But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. ( Next a pond or lake as a standing water. Still the choice is enough water to immerse. ) Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don’t have either, **pour water three times **on the head, ( and as a last resort by means of no other way less water is acceptable )“into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit.”

What the Diadache actually says:

"Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize “into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit” in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don’t have either, pour water three times on the head, “into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit.”

I don’t see all that stuff about “as a last resort” in the original. Maybe you are reading that into the text?

Just maybe?

In any case, it sure looks like the form seems to be less important than the substance.

Chuck

 

[NotWorthy]

No my point was this… If baptism was not by immersion then why would both Phillip and the Eunuch need to be in the water ? If baptism is by pouring or sprinkling, neither of them needed to be in the water ? Phillip could have just leaned over and grabbed some water to sprinkle or pour with ? but no, They both entered the water. True some assumption is placed on it being for immersion purposes, but why else would it be with the things I just listed ?

Well for one, have you seen any of the rivers in my area? Yeah, I could be cleansed of my sin and contract several diseases at the same time!

 

[meaprilrain]

Consider also that Baptisms of adults in the Catholic Church are done during the Easter Vigil Mass

You only do Baptisms once a year ? so someone that decided to join the church could wait a whole year if they decided just after Easter ?

What exactly is your question? The Church does immerse. The other options are used for reasonable necessity.

my original question was just that. Why does the church not immerse with all the scripture I could think of to back that it should, and even the Didache with its list of preferences using pouring last !

Instead of just saying what you did, that they mostly do and use the others out of necessity; the forum proceeded to try to prove or show me that immersion was not doctrinally the first choice and that scripture did not support immersion ?

Thats all I wanted was your answer that the Church does immersions first and the others second just as the Didache stated.

 

[jmcrae]

You only do Baptisms once a year ? so someone that decided to join the church could wait a whole year if they decided just after Easter ?

Actually, RCIA (the preparation for adult baptism) takes up to two years. If they started RCIA on the Sunday after Easter, the preparation process would take almost exactly two years, since the deal is that you observe your first Easter Vigil, to see what goes on, and then participate in the second one.

my original question was just that. Why does the church not immerse with all the scripture I could think of to back that it should, and even the Didache with its list of preferences using pouring last !

It does. Why are you under the impression that it doesn’t?

 

[meaprilrain]

Interesting, what you think the Diadache says:

I don’t see all that stuff about “as a last resort” in the original. Maybe you are reading that into the text

Um the blue lettering is my notes thats why its in parenthesis… the black and red is the actual wording. :doh2:

It still denotes a list of preference…

 

[NotWorthy]

You only do Baptisms once a year ? so someone that decided to join the church could wait a whole year if they decided just after Easter ?

my original question was just that. Why does the church not immerse with all the scripture I could think of to back that it should, and even the Didache with its list of preferences using pouring last !

Instead of just saying what you did, that they mostly do and use the others out of necessity; the forum proceeded to try to prove or show me that immersion was not doctrinally the first choice and that scripture did not support immersion ?

Thats all I wanted was your answer that the Church does immersions first and the others second just as the Didache stated.

Do you recognize that the Church has the authority to determine how Baptisms are done, as long as they don’t contradict what Scripture has instructed? Does the Church have the authority to determine at one time that “option a” is best and then at a later time that “option b” is best?

These are all very Catholics beliefs, but ones that are not shared with many of our Brothers of other faiths.

 

[meaprilrain]

Actually, RCIA (the preparation for adult baptism) takes up to two years. If they started RCIA on the Sunday after Easter, the preparation process would take almost exactly two years, since the deal is that you observe your first Easter Vigil, to see what goes on, and then participate in the second one.

It does. Why are you under the impression that it doesn’t?

Because that is always one of the things listed against the church is that they don’t do baptisms by immersion just sprinkling, and when my grandson was baptised it was by pouring over the head over the shell fountain ?

 

[NotWorthy]

Regarding immersion, I don’t know of any candidate who has requested it that has been denied it, unless it was just not viable. But the vast majority that I have seen have been happy with the simple pouring.

 

[jmcrae]

Because that is always one of the things listed against the church is that they don’t do baptisms by immersion just sprinkling, and when my grandson was baptised it was by pouring over the head over the shell fountain ?

Who is “they”?

I assume your grandson was an infant - we typically don’t immerse infants, for safety reasons and also reasons of comfort for the infant. Pouring the water over their foreheads is much safer and more comfortable for the infant, and just as valid.