Immersions only?

[Jshy]

Can anyone give a explanation of canon 7 of the first council of Constantinople. Where it says “ one immersion”. The orthodox churches use this argument to show that baptism is only to be given by immersion under the normal circumstances… and I know we can go to chapter 7 of the Didache but they claim the Didache is only saying that pouring is to be used only if no other way is possible . I just started looking into this argument … wonder if anyone else one here came across any of these arguments . Thoughts ?

 

[1ke]

Can anyone give a explanation of canon 7 of the first council of Constantinople.

Heretic group A just need a profession of faith and confirmation because they baptize validly.

Heretic group B (Eunomians) doesn’t have valid baptism because they do a single immersion.

Heretic group C (Monatists, Sabellians, and a host of others) doesn’t have valid baptism because of what they believe about the persons of God.

The canons make no statement about what constitutes a valid baptism (triple immersion, triple pouring) only that this specific group lacks it because they do “single immersion”.

Frankly I think it’s a waste of time to argue with someone who sets their insistence on immersion by that canon, it doesn’t say what they are trying to imply, while plenty of other documents say otherwise.

It only says one thing: Eunomians Baptism is invalid due to single immersion. It does NOT say immersion is the only type of valid baptism.

 

[Jshy]

So I guess that means we need to be dunked three times if we chose immersion ? Single immersions aren’t valid?? … also are their any other church writings of pouring than the Didache ? They claim the Didache only uses pouring as a extraordinary means for emergency purposes usually if you can’t find any other water ( body of water or living water, aka a river )

 

[JerryZ]

My good friend, if the living water was the ONLY way to Baptize many people would be in trouble.
There are so many places on Earth that a bottle of water is more precious than gold. It is the reason that the Church allows for the other means of applying the water. Not every body has a river or a lake nearby.

Peace!

 

[twf]

Interesting, because most Evangelicals / Pentecostal baptisms would be a single immersion… and are generally accepted by the Church.

 

[1ke]

Yes thanks for this important clarification, I’m assuming it has something to do with their theology (the group being denounced).

 

[Jshy]

With all due respect did you read anything I just said? I said that the orthodox claim the Didache is only saying that water pouring can be done in emergency or extra ordinary situations when no living water or body of water can be found … it’s not the ordinary way or traditional way of baptism … so it seems they would agree with us Catholics that pouring is valid they just differ because they argue that it’s just not ordinarily … or maybe just not licit … I would have to look further into the orthodox claim on that … also I wonder does this mean all the Protestants who have been baptized with one immersion are in validly baptized ?

 

[Jshy]

Oh ok so your saying it’s only pastoral ? Interesting … But isn’t it declaring something as not sacramentally valid ? Which would then seem to me as something that can’t be changed . I could grant that argument if it was about weather it’s licit or not but validity would to me seem like it’s a higher level of church teaching than just some kind of pastoral doctrine or teaching

 

[Jshy]

Yea , thanks for pointing that out , this seems like a great explanation to me as well in regards to single immersion , It seems like it’s invalid not because of the act of single immersion but because of the form ( they believed the heresy of sabellianism) … so great job pointing this out … But i still wonder about The evidence against pouring being a ordinary Means of baptism. Or being the traditionally held way of baptism … do we have any early church quotes that show people ordinarily being baptized outside of immersion ? Because like I said they say the Didache is just saying pouring should be done as a last resort which I pretty much can see how they could argue for this interpretation

 

[Jshy]

What about this : Apostolic Canons ca. 1st century

If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord said not, Baptize into my death, but, “Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Canon 50)

 

[Jshy]

Ok Now but what about sprinkling and pouring ? Everything I’ve found about pouring is only given in emergency situation like people’s death beds and immersion was always given … the Didache even tells them to immerse and only in last resorts to pour water … the earliest there is on pouring being the ordinary norm is super late .

 

[Jshy]

Yea I think I agree so far because why would the Didache say to pour water if we can’t immerse … obviously it’s something that was illicit if used in the normal circumstances in the early church but it certainly wasn’t invalid … it seems that Russian orthodox pretty much agree its valid just not licit unless it’s absolutely necessary to give infusion … so while they have a more traditional pastoral discipline it seems they agree it’s always been valid … I’ll look more into this … I wonder if our eastern Catholics hold that same view . That it’s not licit in the eastern rite under the normal circumstances but still valid ? Hmm idk