Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[mardukm]

Dear brother shaky,

I have not got a clue if Triple Immersion or triple pouring is necessary for salvation!! Some Orthodox say yes some say no. I was baptised in a protestant church by single Immersion

I am asking when did the Roman catholic stop this practice triple baptism?

The Latin Catholic Church never stopped the practice of triple baptism. As stated, triple pouring or triple sprinkling has always been the norm in the Latin Catholic Church. Archaelogical finds of early baptismal fonts (both in art and the architecture of the fonts themselves) from the fourth century indicate that pouring, not immersion, was rather common in the Latin Church (though immersion was also practiced).

Btw, as regards your baptism by single immersion, the key is the Apostolic Canons. As stated, the number of immersions was not an end in and of itself according to the Apostolic sources, but was important for the teaching it symbolized. If one uses the Apostolic Teachings as your standard, then your single immersion would be unacceptable if and only if it was intended to teach something different than the teaching of triune immersion - namely, a baptism in the three distinct Persons of the Trinity. I am aware that some Protestant communities are modalists. If you came from a Protestant community that did not accept the Orthodox Catholic teaching on the Trinity, if you came from a Protestant community that baptized only in the name of Jesus, or only in the name of the Father, or only in the name of the Spirit, then your baptism would be considered invalid, both by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother shaky,

The Apostolic Constitutions are very clear as to why triple immersion was the norm. The triple immersion symbolized baptism into the Trinity, as opposed to baptism into Christ’s death.

The conflict was not between the act of one immersion versus the act of three immersions, but between what one immersion stood for (or symbolized), on the one hand, versus what triple immersion stood for (or symbolized) on the other.

When the rule of triple immersion was given, apparently there was a group who was baptizing not in the three Names, but into Christ’s death.

Other Fathers gave different explanations for the symbolism of the three immersions versus one immersion. For example, one patristic commentator on the Apostolic Canons understood the distinction as a ward against the Patripassians; another understood the distinction as a ward against the modalists; etc.

What is apparent is that the triple action is important because of the meaning, not because the triple action in and of itself has any sort of salvific quality. If you were baptized with a triple immersion but you were a modalist by belief, then the triple immersion is of no effect.

The relevant question is not “why did the Roman Catholic Church stop this practice?” The relevant question - the ONLY relevant question - is, “has the Roman Catholic Church preserved the meaning behind the triple immersion in its local rite?”

Blessings,
Marduk

This is actually very well considered and written, Mardukm!

Congratulations.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Very good sir! As a side note, because of St John Cassian’s conflict with Augustine, he is only honoured locally as a saint in the Latin Church - but is a full Saint in the Eastern Churches.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That is great sir!

It’s also interesting that at the same time as Latin Catholics want to learn more about Eastern Catholicism, EC’s are trying to divest themselves of all things Latin

Ironic or what . . .

Alex

 

[mark_avery]

Maybe a slightly odd approach,to such a question,but the dictionary clearly states orthodox as meaning conforming to traditional or established standards…

 

[JackQ]

Upon this rendering I don’t see the Catholic understanding of Original Sin to be so much different.

 

[JackQ]

That is great sir!

It’s also interesting that at the same time as Latin Catholics want to learn more about Eastern Catholicism, EC’s are trying to divest themselves of all things Latin

Ironic or what . . .

Alex

Why do you suppose that is? It’s not puzzling to me that one would want to uphold his own traditions. But I’m starting to get the sense from some of what I’ve seen on these forums that there are some Eastern Catholics that would just as soon split with Rome and reunite with the Orthodox. One Eastern Catholic poster in particular seems very hostile to the Roman Catholic Church. How do we get past this? Specifically, what can Roman Catholics do to alleviate the sense of alienation that some Eastern Catholics apparently feel?

 

[Aramis]

I have not got a clue if Triple Immersion or triple pouring is necessary for salvation!! Some Orthodox say yes some say no. I was baptised in a protestant church by single Immersion

I am asking when did the Roman catholic stop this practice triple baptism?

They did not stop it. Every Catholic baptism I’ve seen has been either triple immersion or triple pouring. And I’ve seen each in both the latin and byzantine traditions.
The Roman Missal requires triple pouring or triple immersion, or in extremis, triple sprinkling.

Any single immersion “Catholic baptism” is a liturgical abuse.

 

[shaky]

They did not stop it. Every Catholic baptism I’ve seen has been either triple immersion or triple pouring. And I’ve seen each in both the latin and byzantine traditions.
The Roman Missal requires triple pouring or triple immersion, or in extremis, triple sprinkling.

Any single immersion “Catholic baptism” is a liturgical abuse.

well why is it that i read on the web that Roman Catholics do Single Immersion baptism?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shaky,

well why is it that i read on the web that Roman Catholics do Single Immersion baptism?

The real question is - from whom are you reading that claim? Is it from an official Catholic site (like the Vatican website), a blog from a lay Catholic, or is it a non-Catholic site? If it is the latter, I would question why you would even bother trying to find out about the Catholic Church from NON-Catholic sources, or even non-official Catholic sources.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

well why is it that i read on the web that Roman Catholics do Single Immersion baptism?

Because the author of that site was in error. Possibly intentionally so.

 

[shaky]

Hey Shaky…

By the way, when I mentioned post #1, I was referring to a different thread that I started. Regarding post #1, of a different thread, this was the question I was hoping you would ask them:

I was told that the keys of the kingdom were not only given to Peter, but the rest of the Apostles as well, which inspired me to ask the following question:

I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind giving me one example of the church, either east or west,** (prior to the great east-west schism) **- illustrating that the keys were in fact given to another apostle other than Peter, as I have done below, regarding Peter, regarding certain Eastern Patriarchs who lived prior to the great east-west schism? Perhaps I have overlooked those citations. Thanks…

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of the Eastern part of the Church, AD 363:

“For Peter was there,who carrieth the keys of heaven.”

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, (AD 387:

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles…Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church…who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine, AD 645:

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople, 759-826, writing to Pope Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.

Well, it doesn’t seem that the members of the EOC have a consensus regarding Peter. I wonder what the official eastern orthodox teaching is regarding Peter? Some eastern orthodox Christians here at CAF disagree with those claims.

Oop’s. sorry about that! That passage, in my opinion, by itself, does not support the notion that Peter had a divine revelation apart from the rest of the Apostles, and therefore does not support the Petrine office, but, that passage along with other passages reveal, as does the orthodox wiki, that “the holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ” - and if Peter was their leader then it stands to reason that the other apostles were also sheep Peter was commanded to feed, so to speak.

If you get the chance let me know what their answer is to the preceding question, regarding the eastern fathers, prior to the east - west schism? Thanks Shaky…

Hi Joe

I have done as you asked:

This is discussed in detail in the work of Father Rene-Francois Guettee, {The Papacy}
{ orthodoxinfo,com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf }
Specifically discussing {St Chrysostom} for example. Starting on page 57. All of these are addressed. It answers so many of these questions and i have yet to see a well reasoned Refutation.

Enjoy.

 

[sidbrown]

They did not stop it. Every Catholic baptism I’ve seen has been either triple immersion or triple pouring. And I’ve seen each in both the latin and byzantine traditions.
The Roman Missal requires triple pouring or triple immersion, or in extremis, triple sprinkling.

Any single immersion “Catholic baptism” is a liturgical abuse.

Oh really???
Then how come we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia the following:
“In the seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single ablution in baptism, as a protest against the false trinitarian theories of the Arians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which made it imply three natures in the Holy Trinity. To insist on the unity and consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, the Spanish Catholics adopted the single ablution and this method had the approval of Pope Gregory the Great.”

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Sid,

Oh really???
Then how come we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia the following:

Was it the “old” CE or a recent one?

“In the seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single ablution in baptism, as a protest against the false trinitarian theories of the Arians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which made it imply three natures in the Holy Trinity. To insist on the unity and consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, the Spanish Catholics adopted the single ablution and this method had the approval of Pope Gregory the Great.”

Could you cite the page, and if possible the author to that article?

Thanks

 

[sidbrown]

Hi Sid,
Was it the “old” CE or a recent one?

Could you cite the page, and if possible the author to that article?

Thanks

Greetings Mr. Hesychios: The author and the onling citation:
Fanning, W. (1907).
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Sid,

Oh really???
Then how come we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia the following:
“In the seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single ablution in baptism, as a protest against the false trinitarian theories of the Arians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which made it imply three natures in the Holy Trinity. To insist on the unity and consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, the Spanish Catholics adopted the single ablution and this method had the approval of Pope Gregory the Great.”

Brother Aramis’ assertions are perfectly correct. If you will notice, brother Shaky was asking about a comment made that the Catholic Church is DOING single immersion baptism. That is certainly a false claim.

As far as your citation from the CE, my previous comments on the matter are sufficient to refute any possible claim that the Fourth Council of Toledo did something wrong. To repeat, according to the Apostolic Constitutions, the number of immersions was not an end in and of itself, but depended on the MEANING behind the immersions. It is the MEANING that counted to the Apostolic Fathers.

If there was a group that was giving a heterodox interpretation to the triple immersion, the Fourth Council of Toledo would have been perfectly justified to make a temporary change to single ablution.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Dear brother Sid,

Brother Aramis’ assertions are perfectly correct. If you will notice, brother Shaky was asking about a comment made that the Catholic Church is DOING single immersion baptism. That is certainly a false claim.

As far as your citation from the CE, my previous comments on the matter are sufficient to refute any possible claim that the Fourth Council of Toledo did something wrong. To repeat, according to the Apostolic Constitutions, the number of immersions was not an end in and of itself, but depended on the MEANING behind the immersions. It is the MEANING that counted to the Apostolic Fathers.

If there was a group that was giving a heterodox interpretation to the triple immersion, the Fourth Council of Toledo would have been perfectly justified to make a temporary change to single ablution.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here’s another reference that says that the threefold ablution is not necessary for the validity of the Sacrament:
“The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church and apparently of Apostolic origin. It is mentioned by Tertullian (De cor. milit., iii), St. Basil (De Sp. S., xxvii), St. Jerome (Dial. Contra Luc., viii), and many other early writers. Its object is, of course, to honor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. That this threefold ablution was not considered necessary to the validity of the sacrament, however, is plain. In the seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single ablution in baptism, as a protest against the false trinitarian theories of the Arians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which made it imply three natures in the Holy Trinity. To insist on the unity and consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, the Spanish Catholics adopted the single ablution and this method had the approval of Pope Gregory the Great …”
saintjamesrcc.org/faith/sacraments/baptism/item/matter

 

[sidbrown]

Dear brother Sid,

Brother Aramis’ assertions are perfectly correct. If you will notice, brother Shaky was asking about a comment made that the Catholic Church is DOING single immersion baptism. That is certainly a false claim.

As far as your citation from the CE, my previous comments on the matter are sufficient to refute any possible claim that the Fourth Council of Toledo did something wrong. To repeat, according to the Apostolic Constitutions, the number of immersions was not an end in and of itself, but depended on the MEANING behind the immersions. It is the MEANING that counted to the Apostolic Fathers.

If there was a group that was giving a heterodox interpretation to the triple immersion, the Fourth Council of Toledo would have been perfectly justified to make a temporary change to single ablution.

Blessings,
Marduk

Also, we read in Summa Theologica, Baptism and Confirmation (3a, 66-72)
“Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: “It cannot be in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion.”
AND
“…Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan., cf. De Haeres. lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their error, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth) council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: “In order to avoid the scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us hold to the single baptismal immersion.”

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for the extra references, brother Sid.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

4th Toledo was a local council of the Iberian peninsula, not a general council of the West.

Pope St. Gregory simply asserts that they were not in error restricting Iberia to single immersion to combat a local heresy.

The 1917 Catholic Encylopedia reference cited is rather clear as well… as long as one remembers, realizes, or looks up and sees, that the 4th Council of Toledo was not church-wide council.