Church Fathers on baptism

[aksmoot]

Primitive Church Fathers that the Catholic Church rely on for information say that in the early Church, baptism was by immersion. Why has the Catholic Church abandoned this practice?

 

[SMHW]

Primitive Church Fathers that the Catholic Church rely on for information say that in the early Church, baptism was by immersion. Why has the Catholic Church abandoned this practice?

Why do you think that the Catholic Church abandoned baptism by immersion?

 

[EasterJoy]

My kids were baptized by immersion. They were infants.

I believe baptism by pouring was introduced so that a male priest could baptize a grown woman without compromising her modesty. This was the role of deaconesses when immersion was the norm: women had to be deputized to do baptisms by immersion of the female catechumens. Once the ritual allowed baptism without total immersion, the women could be baptized with the men, and all in front of the entire congregation, and all by a member of the clergy.

 

[aksmoot]

Why do you think that the Catholic Church abandoned baptism by immersion?

I just believe immersion to not be used unless requested when I believe other methods (pouring, sprinkling) should be those of last resort.

 

[Seatuck]

Baptism in the Early Church

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the *Didache, *a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water “not much (or not at all) the cleaner.”

catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

 

[aksmoot]

catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

I’ve read the page from that link before and just scanned it. Clearly the Vatican believes baptizo can mean other things besides immersion, but if the early Church Fathers felt that baptism was meant to be by immersion unless circumstance prohibited, shouldn’t that tradition be kept?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Primitive Church Fathers that the Catholic Church rely on for information say that in the early Church, baptism was by immersion. Why has the Catholic Church abandoned this practice?

The Church Fathers do not say that baptism was by immersion only, but that other forms were permissible as well. For example, perhaps the best known document from the time of the early Church, the Didache (which was written within or very close to the lifetime of the apostles) and was understood to be an early Christian manual on various things, says,

Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

To quote from a Catholic Answers tract:

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]).

• catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

God bless

 

[Seatuck]

I’ve read the page from that link before and just scanned it. Clearly the Vatican believes baptizo can mean other things besides immersion, but if the early Church Fathers felt that baptism was meant to be by immersion unless circumstance prohibited, shouldn’t that tradition be kept?

Right from the get go more than one type was used.

After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

Christ gave the church the authority to bind and loosen. I’d say this is one that after proper reflection as is demonstrated over the ages the church has ruled properly. I’d also say that the church hasn’t abandoned it as I’ve seen baptisms done by pouring and immersion.

 

[broski234]

Primitive Church Fathers that the Catholic Church rely on for information say that in the early Church, baptism was by immersion. Why has the Catholic Church abandoned this practice?

Check this site out!

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306frs.asp

 

[Cluny]

Primitive Church Fathers that the Catholic Church rely on for information say that in the early Church, baptism was by immersion. Why has the Catholic Church abandoned this practice?

---

Where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church had abandoned immersion?

Eastern Catholics, especially Melkites, baptize by immersion as the norm and never stopped.