Water Pouring Baptism

[ChristRocket]

So,
I’m being baptized this Easter Vigil. I’m getting really excited in anticipation.
My mother has come back to the Church with me going through RCIA and my 13 year old sister is starting classes to be Baptised next Easter.

My Father is Mormon and has unfortunately prodded my sister questions that obviously are meant to throw her off. He asked her last weekend after she had attended an 8 year old’s Baptism in the Mormon Church, what she thought about it and why the Catholic Church didn’t submerge, because in the Bible they do.

I’ve always looked at it this way - traditionally vast amounts of water weren’t always available to Baptize with. Also, after the Black plague, water (and consiquently cleanliness) took a dive in popularity.

I also point out that the Eastern Rites still do Baptism by submersion.

Any other points that I can share?

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t know if the Church has infallibly taught that immersion is NOT necessary…

Does anyone else know?

 

[eightydeuce82]

We have apostolic tradition that says otherwise please see the didache for further explanation. Also was Paul or Saul at the time submerged? Or was he poured on?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Swhy the Catholic Church didn’t submerge, because in the Bible they do.

Do they? Is there a single passage in Scripture that says anyone was ever submerged in Baptism?

Hint: There isn’t. It’s a popular protestant myth which seems to be taken for granted. But it is not in the Bible. Not anywhere.

I find it amusing that protestants don’t think Baptism actually does anything (it’s just a ritual that happens after you have already been “saved”) but they can get very particular about HOW it happens.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t know if the Church has infallibly answered these questions. Should have

 

[Usagi]

I don’t know if the Church has infallibly answered these questions. Should have

Given that the Church baptizes by both methods, I would think the question is settled.

Usagi

 

[ChristRocket]

DavidFilmer-

I just read all three accounts-
You are right, it just says that he come up from the water, it never uses the word submerge once. Nor does it say that he was dunked three times.

My question is this - does the Greek “he came up from the water” insinuate at all that he was all the way/submerged in the water? Do you know?

I was surprised to see that even Carm - a strong anti-catholic site, acknowledges that he probably wasn’t submerged.

 

[thinkandmull]

Only something that is bound by canon law on every Catholic is covered by infallibility, at least so far as the Church has taught in the past. In so many matters Catholics are almost as much in the dark as Protestants. The Pope prefers to send twitter messages than to define like a real Pope. It really creams my corn

 

[spedteacherita]

So,
I’m being baptized this Easter Vigil. I’m getting really excited in anticipation.
My mother has come back to the Church with me going through RCIA and my 13 year old sister is starting classes to be Baptised next Easter.

My Father is Mormon and has unfortunately prodded my sister questions that obviously are meant to throw her off. He asked her last weekend after she had attended an 8 year old’s Baptism in the Mormon Church, what she thought about it and why the Catholic Church didn’t submerge, because in the Bible they do.

I’ve always looked at it this way - traditionally vast amounts of water weren’t always available to Baptize with. Also, after the Black plague, water (and consiquently cleanliness) took a dive in popularity.

I also point out that the Eastern Rites still do Baptism by submersion.

Any other points that I can share?

I was just reading about this in an apologetics group on Facebook. This is what I read and i remember this from college (eons ago), too.

Baptizo meant “to immerse” in classical Greek. What the Baptists and others don’t understand is that the New Testament was written in Koine, not classical Greek. By the time Koine was in use the meaning of the word had broadened to the point that the best manuscripts of Mark 7:4 use it to describe the Pharisees’ ritual washing of dining couches!

In Koine, the word simply means “wash.” Which means that the New Testament doesn’t specify immersion as opposed to pouring, sprinkling, or any other kind of washing -Robert Elart Waters

 

[felsguy]

I don’t know if the Church has infallibly answered these questions. Should have

It strikes me that anyone needing an infallible statement on every single question related to the teaching of the Church is in for a very long wait.

 

[Usagi]

By your standards, thinkandmull, the number of real Popes is vanishingly small.

Is this really a crisis in need of such resolution? We know what the Church accepts as a valid baptism and what she doesn’t. Are you seriously arguing that, because the Pope has not come out and said it in exactly those words, we are unsure if the many, many Catholic baptisms by infusion (pouring) are valid baptisms?

Usagi

 

[eightydeuce82]

To come up from the water as its used in the biblical passage is exactly that he walked up the hill out of the water. You actually walk down the hill to get to the river.

 

[Porknpie]

So,
I’m being baptized this Easter Vigil. I’m getting really excited in anticipation.
My mother has come back to the Church with me going through RCIA and my 13 year old sister is starting classes to be Baptised next Easter.

My Father is Mormon and has unfortunately prodded my sister questions that obviously are meant to throw her off. He asked her last weekend after she had attended an 8 year old’s Baptism in the Mormon Church, what she thought about it and why the Catholic Church didn’t submerge, because in the Bible they do.

I’ve always looked at it this way - traditionally vast amounts of water weren’t always available to Baptize with. Also, after the Black plague, water (and consiquently cleanliness) took a dive in popularity.

I also point out that the Eastern Rites still do Baptism by submersion.

Any other points that I can share?

CR -

All three forms of baptism are valid in the Church: sprinkling, pouring and immersion.

What’s most commonly practiced today is pouring and in some locations immersion.

See the art pic below from the Catacomb of Callixtus. The very earliest Christian art depicts baptism by pouring, even when a river is at hand, and immersion was possible. Clam shells were frequently used to do so. Note, that in the pic, above John’s right hand is a dove though it is difficult to see.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well the thing is Catholics argue towards Protestants that they don’t have certainty without a Magisterium. But our magisterium hasn’t **infallibly **spoken on so many issues, this one apparently too (unless someone corrects us)

I know Pope Francis is a real Pope, I don’t think writing encyclicals does anything though because they are fallible. Why use fallible words when they could be infallible?

 

[Porknpie]

Well the thing is Catholics argue towards Protestants that they don’t have certainty without a Magisterium. But our magisterium hasn’t **infallibly **spoken on so many issues, this one apparently too (unless someone corrects us)

I know Pope Francis is a real Pope, I don’t think writing encyclicals does anything though because they are fallible. Why use fallible words when they could be infallible?

Also -

Ezekiel 36:25-27. Below. The OT speaks to the NT sacrament of baptism. “Sprinkle” clean water … and I will put a new SPIRIT within you. Nothing about immersion only… quite the opposite. It is very consistent with the Catholic and apostolic teaching that all three forms are valid. And - yes, this is the infallible teaching of the Church, held from apostolic times.

25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

 

[dmar198]

So,
I’m being baptized this Easter Vigil. I’m getting really excited in anticipation.
My mother has come back to the Church with me going through RCIA and my 13 year old sister is starting classes to be Baptised next Easter.

My Father is Mormon and has unfortunately prodded my sister questions that obviously are meant to throw her off. He asked her last weekend after she had attended an 8 year old’s Baptism in the Mormon Church, what she thought about it and why the Catholic Church didn’t submerge, because in the Bible they do.

I’ve always looked at it this way - traditionally vast amounts of water weren’t always available to Baptize with. Also, after the Black plague, water (and consiquently cleanliness) took a dive in popularity.

I also point out that the Eastern Rites still do Baptism by submersion.

Any other points that I can share?

The following are some articles that might help you out:

“Baptism: Immersion Only?” by Catholic Answers • “What’s the Right Way to Get Baptized?” by Catholic Answers • “Baptism - Sprinkling vs. Immersion” by Catholic Exchange • “Baptism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia

Among the more interesting points from these articles:

“But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, ‘[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.’ They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees ‘do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]’ (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.” source

"In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples 'not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” ’ Did this mean they would be ‘immersed’ in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include ‘pouring.’ " source

“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.” source

“Still, it would be nice if we had first century evidence regarding how baptism was practice among the first Christians. And we do. It’s just not in Scripture. Instead, it’s in a document known as the Didache, which served as a kind of manual of Church discipline. It dates to the first century, and it covers a variety of questions. On the subject of baptism, it says: 'And concerning baptism, baptize this way…if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot 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.” … [Didache 7]." source

Please let me know if that helps. God bless!

 

[DavidFilmer]

DavidFilmer-

I just read all three accounts-
You are right, it just says that he come up from the water, it never uses the word submerge once. Nor does it say that he was dunked three times.

My question is this - does the Greek “he came up from the water” insinuate at all that he was all the way/submerged in the water? Do you know?

It does not insinuate this. There is nothing in Scripture (or Greek) that would contradict the typical portrail of Our Lord’s Baptism in cinema (such as the epic film Jesus of Nazareth), that he waded into the riverbank, at perhaps mid-calf depth, and that John scooped up handfuls of water and poured them on Our Lord’s head.

In fact, Scripture indicates that this is a probable interpretation, even of later Christian Baptism, such as performed by Philip and recorded in the Book of Acts:

And he [the Ethiopian Eunuch] ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. [Acts 8:38-39, NRSV]

If “going into the water” means submersion, then BOTH the eunuch and Philip were submerged. But, surely, Philip was already Baptized (and surely did not Baptize himself here). Again, if we think of both the minister and recipient of Baptism as wading into the water, and water was scooped over the eunuch’s head, the passage makes perfect sense. But if we think of it as total submersion, the passage gets downright silly (and is not anything like ANY protestant Baptism, where NO minister submerses himself).

A Catholic would stipulate that Scripture indicates that Baptism involved both the lower legs getting wet, as well as the head, but nothing in-between. And the wetting of the lower legs could simply be a matter of convenience, as we have no accounts of any Baptism occurring away from some readily-available natural source of water.

 

[Porknpie]

if “going into the water” means submersion, then BOTH the eunuch and Philip were submerged. But, surely, Philip was already Baptized (and surely did not Baptize himself here). Again, if we think of both the minister and recipient of Baptism as wading into the water, and water was scooped over the eunuch’s head, the passage makes perfect sense. But if we think of it as total submersion, the passage gets downright silly (and is not anything like ANY protestant Baptism, where NO minister submerses himself).

A Catholic would stipulate that Scripture indicates that Baptism involved both the lower legs getting wet, as well as the head, but nothing in-between. And the wetting of the lower legs could simply be a matter of convenience, as we have no accounts of any Baptism occurring away from some readily-available natural source of water.

As you say above, the earliest Christian artwork shows one being baptized by going down into the water…, and having water poured over the head. The artwork below is from the mid-3rd century. Hopefully, this attachment is a little clearer.

 

[Porknpie]

As you say above, the earliest Christian artwork shows one being baptized by going down into the water…, and having water poured over the head. The artwork below is from the mid-3rd century. Hopefully, this attachment is a little clearer.

Another image of early baptism below. First half of the 3rd century. This time in the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter (Rome).

 

[LivingWaters7]

So,
I’m being baptized this Easter Vigil. I’m getting really excited in anticipation.
My mother has come back to the Church with me going through RCIA and my 13 year old sister is starting classes to be Baptised next Easter.

My Father is Mormon and has unfortunately prodded my sister questions that obviously are meant to throw her off. He asked her last weekend after she had attended an 8 year old’s Baptism in the Mormon Church, what she thought about it and why the Catholic Church didn’t submerge, because in the Bible they do.

I’ve always looked at it this way - traditionally vast amounts of water weren’t always available to Baptize with. Also, after the Black plague, water (and consiquently cleanliness) took a dive in popularity.

I also point out that the Eastern Rites still do Baptism by submersion.

Any other points that I can share?

It is good that you point out that Eastern Rites do baptism by submersion/immersion. The Catholic Church has always practiced immersion and pouring as valid ways to baptize.

As you have seen from other posts, it is not completely clear that baptism was done by immersion in the New Testament. However, even if it was (and that would be fine for Catholics, who do practice immersion baptism), there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible where it is said that baptism must be done by immersion only. That is something they are adding to what the Bible actually states.

We see pouring allowed for baptism very early on. The Didache provides for pouring if immersion is not possible. This seems to have been expanded to simply being a valid practice whether or not immersion is possible (instead of being an exception). I believe the Eastern churches still do immersion as a rule and pouring is the exception.

Specific to Mormonism, you should point out the changes made in the Initiatory washing and anointing ordinance done in the temple. Originally, this was done as an actual bath and anointing. It then changed in form to putting water and oil on various parts of the body (i.e. those mentioned in the ordinance). It then changed to its current form, where the temple worker puts water and oil on the head and “symbolically” washes and anoints the mentioned body parts. So, it seems that Mormonism itself accepts changes in the form of an ordinance, so ask him why that is acceptable, but an alleged change in the mode of baptism (which again, isn’t a change since we still do immersion and always have) isn’t. It will then come down to authority, and you can say that Catholicism, as the Church established by Jesus Christ, has the authority through apostolic succession to do what it does.