Having some doubts about infusion vs. immersion

[GloriousOrder]

Friends , as a catechumen for the last 8 months, there are several things I’ve had to get over. My views have been modified extensively, and the Truth has liberated me from the darkness of ignorance. Several things which seemed to be impossible obstacles to my faith have been conquered by the passionate sword of Christ. The Blessed Lord has given me so many graces to understand His Creation; regardless, a few issues plague my mind!

One issue of irritation is that of proper Baptism. The Didache says that pouring water thrice on a person’s head while reciting the Form which Christ gave us is sufficient, but only as an emergency measure. St. Thomas Aquinas, my patron-to-be, argues very succinctly in favour of the notion that pouring is valid… but in dire situations. Everywhere in the Church, from the Apostolic Age to A.D. 1311, Immersion seems to have been the norm, and Pouring an extreme measure for extreme moments.

I want to embody God’s holy virtue in my heart, with His help, all the days of my life. It seems that we humans should try to do the hardest things, never the easiest things. In a way, Immersion would be embarrassing for me on a public level due to my natural diffidence; this fact, combined with 1300 years of Immersion being the Norm and 700 years of Pouring being the Norm, makes me want to be Immersed. The problem here is that all the other catechumens will probably want to be Baptised by Pouring, and I’d feel slightly arrogant asking an exception for myself.

Why should I believe that it’s better to have the relatively easy Pouring when I could have the much more death-like Immersion? Why did the Church normalise the easier, more comfortable form over the harder, more intimate resurrection of the soul? If I am baptised by Pouring, I have a strong feeling that my whole life will be plagued with the question: “was I really baptised?”

 

[MarkThompson]

Your post conflates two points:

1. You suspect baptism by pouring may be invalid. Here, you are wrong, as the Church clearly teaches and practices otherwise.
2. You want baptism by immersion. But your personal preferences in this matter are not really relevant. You’re free to ask, but the pastor is also free to say no.

 

[laszlo]

This is the opinion of St Thomas Aquinas

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins. **Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. **And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezekiel 36:25: “I will pour upon you clean water,” as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being but a small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. **We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism. **

newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article7

Jesus gave to the Church the binding and loosing power, this is one of that cases were the previous ordinary fashion was changed for practical reasons.

 

[His_little1]

Perhaps you should ask yourself, “which is more important? Being immersed in the Spirit, (which is God), or being immersed in the water (which was made by God)”?

If we were to analyze the proper form and procedure, how would we measure it?
Should the baptism be in a River?
Should the water be flowing?
Does it need to be flowing in a certain direction?
How long should we stay under? 3 seconds for the three days in the tomb?
Should we go straight down, face down, face up?

If an astronaut were aboard the space shuttle, and something was going to cause their harm (and possible death), and that astronaut asked the Catholic/Christian pilot to baptize him as he wanted to accept Christ, how would that work?

If you feel you may have doubts, leave them with God in prayer. He’s probably going to be up all night anyway.

Peace.

 

[GloriousOrder]

This is the opinion of St Thomas Aquinas

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezekiel 36:25: “I will pour upon you clean water,” as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being but a small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.

Jesus gave to the Church the binding and loosing power, this is one of that cases were the previous ordinary fashion was changed for practical reasons.

Friend, it seems you’ve not bolded the correct parts. Those which are most morally relevant to my problem have been bolded. Of course, St. Thomas is not the Church entire, but he was still a great man of faith and wisdom. We should give ear to the faithful opinions of all the saints. Necessity is not the best reason to do something, especially when the said necessity is lacking. I seriously doubt we will have 2 000 people to be baptised this easter, and our rector is a strong man. None of Aquinas’ conditions apply in this situation.

Your post conflates two points:

1. You suspect baptism by pouring may be invalid. Here, you are wrong, as the Church clearly teaches and practices otherwise.
2. You want baptism by immersion. But your personal preferences in this matter are not really relevant. You’re free to ask, but the pastor is also free to say no.

1. Sorry, but I suppose I still have the faithless atheist/protestant mindset that: human beings are too sinful and fallible to be trusted to guard right morality 100% of the time. Even the human beings who appear to have been given this guardianship have failed. We must always be suspicious of people who say they’re right on everything; that’s my gut-feeling, anyway. St. Peter denied God several times before repenting, both in the Gospel and in Acts. I’m wary about it!
2. Quite so! Personal preference is nothing compared to the Truth.

 

[thistle]

Friend, it seems you’ve not bolded the correct parts. Those which are most morally relevant to my problem have been bolded. Of course, St. Thomas is not the Church entire, but he was still a great man of faith and wisdom. We should give ear to the faithful opinions of all the saints. Necessity is not the best reason to do something, especially when the said necessity is lacking. I seriously doubt we will have 2 000 people to be baptised this easter, and our rector is a strong man. None of Aquinas’ conditions apply in this situation.

1. Sorry, but I suppose I still have the faithless atheist/protestant mindset that: human beings are too sinful and fallible to be trusted to guard right morality 100% of the time. Even the human beings who appear to have been given this guardianship have failed. We must always be suspicious of people who say they’re right on everything; that’s my gut-feeling, anyway. St. Peter denied God several times before repenting, both in the Gospel and in Acts. I’m wary about it!
2. Quite so! Personal preference is nothing compared to the Truth.

The Church can never be in error in matters of faith and morals.
The Church does not require baptism to be by immersion. Why is that not sufficient for you?

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.

 

[laszlo]

Friend, it seems you’ve not bolded the correct parts. Those which are most morally relevant to my problem have been bolded. Of course, St. Thomas is not the Church entire, but he was still a great man of faith and wisdom. We should give ear to the faithful opinions of all the saints. Necessity is not the best reason to do something, especially when the said necessity is lacking. I seriously doubt we will have 2 000 people to be baptised this easter, and our rector is a strong man. None of Aquinas’ conditions apply in this situation.

It is a fact that in the time of St Thomas Aquinas the immersion was the regular way of the baptism. The point is that the Church changed it, and that Jesus Christ gave power to the Church to do so:

Matt 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matt 16:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

To be Catholic means to accept this passages of the Holy Bible. Sometimes it is hard, the Adversary is ready to suggest that we are like God, we know good and evil (Gen 3:5)

 

[Nowhere_Man]

GloriousOrder,

It should be sufficient that the Church, in her wisdom, has allowed Baptism by affusion because she has been given the power to ‘bind and loose’ as she sees fit. And as Holy Scripture does not give a form in which Baptism is to be carried out, it is perfectly within her realm to dictate the form of the Sacrament.

Besides, the form of all the Sacraments have evolved and change at least slightly over the centuries, although not enough to change there validity, obviously.

Read this tract from Catholic Answers that refutes Baptism by immersion only: Here