How were you baptized?

[SecretaryMonday]

That is way off from Church teaching. The Church teaches pouring is very much acceptable. It has always taught this.

I wonder if the post was to be taken with a little humor?

This is what I was told in my baptism-prep classes; my former denomination believed that baptism was only a symbol of obedience, not a vehicle of grace, BUT it absolutely must be done by immersion because they were original-language geeks and you can’t possibly derive “sprinkling” from a word that clearly means “total immersion.”

 

[zab]

If I am not mistaken, Baptism is to be done with “flowing” water. Streams and rivers have flowing water. Pouring is a form of flowing water. Here is a photo of my baptism at the church of my childhood.

 

[Zekariya]

Water must flow on the skin. This only poses a problem for sprinkling because the water sprinkled must flow in the skin for it to be valid. Traditionally, Protestant baptisms administered by sprinkling were of doubtful validity since they may or may not have had the water flow.

 

[zab]

Water must flow on the skin. This only poses a problem for sprinkling because the water sprinkled must flow in the skin for it to be valid. Traditionally, Protestant baptisms administered by sprinkling were of doubtful validity since they may or may not have had the water flow.

I suppose by “doubtful validity” that it could mean that sprinkling could be valid if the the droplets were large enough to trickle down the skin. And this would explain the Catholic Answers tract Baptism: Immersion Only? that says:

Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring), they know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to baptize.

 

[Zekariya]

I suppose by “doubtful validity” that it could mean that sprinkling could be valid if the the droplets were large enough to trickle down the skin. And this would explain the Catholic Answers tract Baptism: Immersion Only? that says:

The assumption is that a Catholic priest knows to have water flow but a Protestant might not do this.

 

[zab]

The assumption is that a Catholic priest knows to have water flow but a Protestant might not do this.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
The catechism of the Catholic Church does state the most expressive way of baptizing with water as immersion and it also states that from ancient times it has been conferred by pouring water three times over the candidates head, but I am wondering if these symbolic ways of using water is of lesser importance than fact that it is essential that water be used. While sprinkling may not be an ideal way of baptizing, I cannot find where it would be invalid, particularly in emergency situations. But, I submit to the Church’s instruction on the proper way to baptize.

 

[Zekariya]

Baptism by sprinkling is valid (but illicit) as long as the water flowed on the head.

 

[zab]

Do you have a link to the document that can support the last part of your statement “…as long as water flowed on the head” ?

 

[Zekariya]

Do you have a link to the document that can support the last part of your statement “…as long as water flowed on the head” ?

Here you go:

[The practice of administering baptism by sprinkling arose in the West in the Middle Ages. The 1917 Code of Canon Law states that baptism is conferred licitly “either through infusion, or through immersion, or through aspersion” (canon 758). **Theologians of the time stated that when the water touched the head and flowed, the baptism was valid; otherwise, the baptism was of doubtful validity. While baptisms administered by aspersion according to the Catholic rite were certainly valid, Protestant baptisms administered by aspersion were viewed as being of less certain validity.
Source: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8120

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the “Old Catholics” generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. ]To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.
Source: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[Sarabande]

What method were you baptized with? Infusion(pouring), immersion(dunking), or sprinkling?

I believe they do immersion in my parish. I will be finding out this Easter

I don’t remember how I was baptised, but both of my children were baptised by infusion/trinitarian form.

 

[zab]

Here you go:
[The practice of administering baptism by sprinkling arose in the West in the Middle Ages. The 1917 Code of Canon Law states that baptism is conferred licitly “either through infusion, or through immersion, or through aspersion” (canon 758). **Theologians of the time stated that when the water touched the head and flowed

, the baptism was valid; otherwise, the baptism was of doubtful validity. While baptisms administered by aspersion according to the Catholic rite were certainly valid, Protestant baptisms administered by aspersion were viewed as being of less certain validity.
Source: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8120

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the “Old Catholics” generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. ]To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.
Source: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2V.HTM
I think this is more recent than 1917. From the Vatican website
Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.

and
Can. 850 Baptism is administered according to the order prescribed in the approved liturgical books, except in case of urgent necessity when only those things required for the validity of the sacrament must be observed.

 

[Zekariya]

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2V.HTM
I think this is more recent than 1917. From the Vatican website
Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.

and
Can. 850 Baptism is administered according to the order prescribed in the approved liturgical books, except in case of urgent necessity when only those things required for the validity of the sacrament must be observed.

Yes, sprinkling is no longer listed and, therefore, is illicit except in emergencies.

A side note: The Byzantine Churches have never permitted sprinkling. Pouring is what we do if it is an emergency. We get this from the Didache:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[zab]

Yes, sprinkling is no longer listed and, therefore, is illicit except in emergencies.

A side note: The Byzantine Churches have never permitted sprinkling. Pouring is what we do if it is an emergency. We get this from the Didache:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

Actually, According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, even in emergencies the water is to be poured.
1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

I knelt in a Baptismal font, with water up to my waist. Then Water was poured over my head Three times. I was praying pretty hard as I knelt there, so I don’t clearly remember Father saying anything while I was being Baptized. But I know he used the Trinitarian formula because I was Baptized Catholic and if I for a second though he would not use the right formula, I would not have been praying, I would have been paying close attention to what he was saying

 

[Zekariya]

Actually, According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, even in emergencies the water is to be poured.
1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

I stand corrected.

 

[dans0622]

…
[The practice of administering baptism by sprinkling arose in the West in the Middle Ages. The 1917 Code of Canon Law states that baptism is conferred licitly “either through infusion, or through immersion, or through aspersion” (canon 758). …

Hello,

For your information, that is not really what the 1917 Code said. It said that although baptism can be validly conferred in any of those three ways, the first or second, or a combination of both, is to be retained, according to the ritual books and common practice in a given diocese. So, it didn’t say anything about sprinkling being licit or not–that was determined by whatever approved ritual book was being used. Perhaps the story you cited took the initial word of canon 758 (“Licet…”) to mean “It is licit…” It actually means “Although…”

The post-1917-Code Roman Ritual (1925) said the same thing as the 1917 Code and did not include any method of baptism by sprinkling. To have baptized someone using the Roman Ritual, and with sprinkling, would have been illicit. I don’t know if the Roman Ritual from before the 1917 Code had any option for sprinkling…

Anyway, like most infants, I was baptized via infusion.

Dan

 

[Zekariya]

Hello,

For your information, that is not really what the 1917 Code said. It said that although baptism can be validly conferred in any of those three ways, the first or second, or a combination of both, is to be retained, according to the ritual books and common practice in a given diocese. So, it didn’t say anything about sprinkling being licit or not–that was determined by whatever approved ritual book was being used. Perhaps the story you cited took the initial word of canon 758 (“Licet…”) to mean “It is licit…” It actually means “Although…”

The post-1917-Code Roman Ritual (1925) said the same thing as the 1917 Code and did not include any method of baptism by sprinkling. To have baptized someone using the Roman Ritual, and with sprinkling, would have been illicit. I don’t know if the Roman Ritual from before the 1917 Code had any option for sprinkling…

Anyway, like most infants, I was baptized via infusion.

Dan

I did not realize that. Thanks! I am not a fan of sprinkling.