Immersion is perfectly licit; it’s just not practised much any more. I’m not sure if there’s any reason for that - there could be several reasons… IIRC immersion is more common in the east than the west.IIRC, immersion is a valid but currently illicit means of receiving Baptism, though it was the common method at least for the first several centuries of the Church.
Why did the Church decide to switch methods, and make other methods illicit?
Illicit? Where did you get this idea?IIRC, immersion is a valid but currently illicit means of receiving Baptism, though it was the common method at least for the first several centuries of the Church.
Why did the Church decide to switch methods, and make other methods illicit?
The cold is a good point. For the Great Schism with the Orthodox, for Russia (the nations of the former Soviet Union), the eastern Rites were all pretty much is temperate parts of the world (with few exceptions).As others have said, immersion is definitely NOT illicit. I don’t know how the Ritual is written in other countries but when you read the Canadian Rite of Baptism for Children you realize that immersion is presumed. I was quite surprised when I read it the first time.
We offer parents the choice of immersion or pouring. I’d say about 25% opt for immersion but our Pastor wishes it was 100%.
Why did immersion disappear from western churches? Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons: lack of running water in churches, freezing temperatures. Unless you have a flowing font you have to improvise. We have a plastic bin inside a large wicker basket. It sits on a low table beside the traditional font to make the point that both methods are normal. It takes a lot of footwork to fill that bin on Sunday morning before Mass, going back and forth from the kitchen to the Sanctuary with pitchers of water.
Interesting. I would have thought that babies were natural candidates for immersion. I’ve seen a number of pictures of Eastern Baptisms where babies were immersed.Immersion is all we do at our parish, except fro babies, of course.
No. Parents antsy and babies cry at the sea shell poured 3 times, LOLInteresting. I would have thought that babies were natural candidates for immersion. I’ve seen a number of pictures of Eastern Baptisms where babies were immersed.
Actual sprinkling (aspersion) isn’t licit under current law, though it used to be permitted under the 1917 code. When immersion isn’t used, the water should be poured. Sometimes people refer to this pouring as sprinkling, but it’s not. I see one source that states that the Church would only consider it valid if the water actually flowed - which would mean a rather strong aspersion (which is a good reason to avoid it). Apparently, some early Calvinists used aspersion. If someone was actually baptized by aspersion and wanted to become Catholic, they’d probably get a conditional baptism.Is it sprinkling of infants that is valid but illicit?
.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 no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
They cry less with immersion. They are simply stunned, especially for the younger ones. When they get older (4-5 months or more), they tend to cry more.No. Parents antsy and babies cry at the sea shell poured 3 times, LOL
This is what I was thinking of.They cry less with immersion. They are simply stunned, especially for the younger ones. When they get older (4-5 months or more), they tend to cry more.
In my (Byzantine) parish it is the opposite. Babies are always by immersion, but adults are usually by pouring, because we lack the facilities for immersing adults. We’ve been known to have a baptism at the river, but it isn’t usually done.
There is a very simple reason why from the very earliest days of the church that the pouring of water was used in place of full immersion. For a large portion of human history, if you lived in a city, your local river was also the local sewer. Even if you DID have access to aqueducts and fountains, they probably weren’t available for baptisms, since Christianity was illegal until 318 AD, and then Western civilization collapsed with the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476 AD. That said, full immersion baptism has always taken place in the Catholic Church in every era (as an option, when possible). A good look at the inside of the baptistry of Pisa Cathedral (more famous for the Leaning Tower) will show you a medieval full-immersion baptismal font.Similarly, the Didache (written in the first century) makes it clear that at least some Christians in the very early Church considered pouring valid:
“.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 no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
Living water would be moving water, e.g. a stream or river.
You milage may very. Parents ask that their children not be immersed. We believe people know their children better than we do and we do as the ask. Both practices are fine.They cry less with immersion. They are simply stunned, especially for the younger ones. When they get older (4-5 months or more), they tend to cry more.
In my (Byzantine) parish it is the opposite. Babies are always by immersion, but adults are usually by pouring, because we lack the facilities for immersing adults. We’ve been known to have a baptism at the river, but it isn’t usually done.
We’ve experienced little crying with immersion. The water is warm though. The only kid who really cried did so because the water was too hot.No. Parents antsy and babies cry at the sea shell poured 3 times, LOL
Oh yeah. We get a lot of people that think it’s the “protestant way”.We’ve experienced little crying with immersion. The water is warm though. The only kid who really cried did so because the water was too hot.
I’ve experienced parents come in totally opposed to immersion and then see a video and do a 180 and say “That’s how it should be done.” I always make it clear that, while immersion is a more visible symbol of the dying and rising to new life, both methods achieve the same effect. It’s always disappointing when a family has the first baby immersed and then return with a second and ask for pouring because Grandma said that immersion is not the Catholic way. I know Fr. wishes grandma would keep her mouth shut.
I have a question, and since you mentioned “flowing font”, I’ll quote you. I always hear that flowing water is a requirement for baptism. I was baptized as a child in a baptist church. It was an immersion baptism, but I’m not so sure there was flowing water. It was just a big tub of water. The faucet wasn’t on. Would that be valid/licit? I’ve since been confirmed in the RCC.As others have said, immersion is definitely NOT illicit. I don’t know how the Ritual is written in other countries but when you read the Canadian Rite of Baptism for Children you realize that immersion is presumed. I was quite surprised when I read it the first time.
We offer parents the choice of immersion or pouring. I’d say about 25% opt for immersion but our Pastor wishes it was 100%.
Why did immersion disappear from western churches? Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons: lack of running water in churches, freezing temperatures. Unless you have a flowing font you have to improvise. We have a plastic bin inside a large wicker basket. It sits on a low table beside the traditional font to make the point that both methods are normal. It takes a lot of footwork to fill that bin on Sunday morning before Mass, going back and forth from the kitchen to the Sanctuary with pitchers of water.