A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
Does anyone know when was the standard mode of baptism changed from immersion to pouring, and why this was done? Why do we not baptize by immersion today?
- Status
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Immesion is one of the two licit forms of Baptism. There are instances in the New Testament where it is most likely that pouring was the form.
1
1ke
Guest
Immersion and pouring are both “standard” modes and have been so from the beginning. Nothing has changed. Pouring is more practical for many reasons, and I would presume that is why it is more dominant in many areas.
Why do you think we do not? There certainly are Catholic parishes that do so.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Note that when Paul baptized the jailer and his family [Acts 16] or Peter baptized the Cornelius and his family [Acts 10] they seem to have done it in their homes. It is doubtful that the house contained an immersion pool.
Also that first Pentecost they baptized 3000. I am not familiar with Jerusalem, but don’t know of any large body of water there. That is a lot of people to get into a few small pools in one day.
Also that first Pentecost they baptized 3000. I am not familiar with Jerusalem, but don’t know of any large body of water there. That is a lot of people to get into a few small pools in one day.
P
Phemie
Guest
Probably because few parishes are equipped with immersion fonts. When we decided to offer baptism by immersion for infants we had to decide how to make it possible. We purchased a large Rubbermaid container, found a basket in which it would fit snuggly and, voilà, immersion font! Now we give parents the choice of immersion or pouring, noting that the Church has a preference for immersion as a fuller symbol of the dying and rising in Christ.
In my experience, parents who have witnessed an immersion baptism before they have their own children are more likely to opt for that method, unless their baby is only a few weeks old at the time.
The first one that was done by immersion in our parish was done by a priest who was over 70 years old. This child was about 15 months old and he was wonderful with her. When she was returned to the mom’s arms she tried to get back in the font.
Y
YADA
Guest
The Didiche [do a google search] was written sometime between 70 AD and 140 AD [depending on the scholar]. Needless to say this document is very early in the realm of Christian writings … For context: Thessalonians dates to 70 AD is condsidered the earliest new testament work …
The Didiche privides the following instructions on baptism
The Didiche privides the following instructions on baptism
As you can see, immersion and pouring are both identified as valid from the earliest dyas of the church …
I think you will find that many, if not most, American churches built in the last 20 years or so have immersion pools. Such pools are also common in remodeled churches.
1
1ke
Guest
Because in most places of the world, throughout time, it was highly impractical. And, it still is today.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
It would be mor like most parishes today offer immersion first, then pouring. I have yet to be in a parish in my very orthodox, conservative diocese where immersion was not offered as the preference.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The various methods of baptism have given rise to a whole host of names that are not always used consistently: submersion, immersion, infusion, affusion, aspersion (etc.?). If you look around at the design of ancient fonts, though, and check out the iconography, you’ll find that “immersion” does seem to have been one of the most widespread options - but “immersion” is actually a cross between “submersion” and “pouring” (the above “infusion” and “affusion”). Immersion involves the one to be baptized standing in water and then having water poured over his head. So while some ancient churches did use submersion (which is commonly also referred to as immersion), creating a dichotomy between submersion and pouring doesn’t do justice to the broader practice of the Church or even what was probably most common in the first 5 centuries.
As far as forces behind the “switch” from submersion/immersion to simple pouring go, as has been noted in some cases there wouldn’t have been a need for a switch because pouring would have been the ancient custom. In other cases, though, the rise and eventual “normativity” (in terms of most common practice) of infant baptism had much to do with not just changes in the mode of baptizing but in the structure of the “catechumenate” and baptismal rites in general.
Another factor to consider is that “emergency baptism” for the sick and dying, in which case submersion/immersion might often be highly impractical if not impossible, slowly became the mental paradigm according to which infant baptism was understood, i.e. who is more in danger of death than a helpless, sickly infant? This seems to have been a contributing factor in separating confirmation from baptism, as well.
A last suggestion to throw out on the table would be that Augustine’s sacramental theory allowed for a sort of “minimalism” in the celebration of sacraments (although it is not something he would have condoned or done himself), and the fact of the matter is that if a person can get just as baptized by having a bit of water poured over his head, you know people are eventually going to gravitate toward that “easier”/“less messy” option over time. Who wants to change clothes or dry a floor, etc., when you can just hold a kid over the font?
The story is obviously a highly complex one and often shrouded in the mists of history, but hopefully you can now see a few possible contributing factors.
As far as forces behind the “switch” from submersion/immersion to simple pouring go, as has been noted in some cases there wouldn’t have been a need for a switch because pouring would have been the ancient custom. In other cases, though, the rise and eventual “normativity” (in terms of most common practice) of infant baptism had much to do with not just changes in the mode of baptizing but in the structure of the “catechumenate” and baptismal rites in general.
Another factor to consider is that “emergency baptism” for the sick and dying, in which case submersion/immersion might often be highly impractical if not impossible, slowly became the mental paradigm according to which infant baptism was understood, i.e. who is more in danger of death than a helpless, sickly infant? This seems to have been a contributing factor in separating confirmation from baptism, as well.
A last suggestion to throw out on the table would be that Augustine’s sacramental theory allowed for a sort of “minimalism” in the celebration of sacraments (although it is not something he would have condoned or done himself), and the fact of the matter is that if a person can get just as baptized by having a bit of water poured over his head, you know people are eventually going to gravitate toward that “easier”/“less messy” option over time. Who wants to change clothes or dry a floor, etc., when you can just hold a kid over the font?
The story is obviously a highly complex one and often shrouded in the mists of history, but hopefully you can now see a few possible contributing factors.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
To answer Joe Kelley’s questions, the impluvium–a pool to catch rain water–was a standard part of Roman houses. It’s entirely possible that either Cornelius and the Philippian jailer had them.
As far as the baptisms done on Pentecost, they were probably taken to the mikavoth–ritual immersion pools–of the Temple–and dthere were many of them.
As far as the baptisms done on Pentecost, they were probably taken to the mikavoth–ritual immersion pools–of the Temple–and dthere were many of them.
B
Brendan
Guest
Impluvae were generally only a few inches deep. The idea was hold enought water so that the evaporation would cool the house. Excess water was channelled off to either drains (middle class) or underground cisterns…
Here is an example of an impluvium, you can see that an immersion would not be possible, but a pouring certainly could be.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Such an illustration and baptismal fonts of similar depth (or up to, say, 2 feet or so) is precisely why they think most early baptism was done by having someone stand in water and then pouring more water over his head.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
It’s very pretty.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Another thought - As the Church moved north objections to being dunked in a lake in March or April [Easter vigil] probably increased.
We have them stand in the pool and the pastor pours the water over them. [Usually three shots from a quart pitcher.] You should hear the fuss if we forget to start the heater soon enough - especially from the pastor who has to stand in the pool.
We have them stand in the pool and the pastor pours the water over them. [Usually three shots from a quart pitcher.] You should hear the fuss if we forget to start the heater soon enough - especially from the pastor who has to stand in the pool.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I don’t know how reliable the particular source is for the Wikipedia article, but AD 52 for First Thessalonians sounds correct from what I was taught. If I recall, Paul’s other epistles are thought to have been written over the next 10 or 15 years - in other words, before 70.
S
Seatuck
Guest
Two churches here have Jacuzzi’s for baptism. They run all the time to give the effect of living water. All through Mass. If you sit near it you get a little wet and have trouble hearing.
ugh!
ugh!
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Ours is usually turned off during mass. Occasionally it comes on by accident, and there is a parade to the restrooms.
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
- Status