Baptism by Immersion vs. the Catholic method

[Redguard]

I wanted to find out about Catholic baptism. I know that most protestants baptize individuals by immersing them in water.

But Catholics have a different method, right? I've never witnessed this but it was explained to me that water was sprinkled on them?

Can someone help me out with this and tell me if there is a special term for this kind of baptism? (Somehow, I don't think it's called Sprinkle Baptism).

[SumTinWong]

Honestly, the best way to find out about what they believe and practice in baptism is to ask them. I can give you some articles and stuff but perhaps they could do it in a matter of minutes.

http://www.christianforums.com/f26-one-bread-one-body-catholic.html

Otherwise here are two articles from New Advent(Catholic encyclopedia):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02274a.htm

[Redguard]

Thanks.

I'm over in the Catholic forum right now... there's a discussion where someone is worried about her Protestant friends/family and the fact that they may not be saved since they haven't accepted the Catholic Church.

It's an interesting discussion so far... but I have to claim ignorance to the fact that I'm not familiar with a lot of Catholic teachings.

[Gold Dragon]

Catholics do practice immersion but they also practice sprinkling which some baptists tolerate but do not practice. Other baptists completely reject sprinkling. Catholics also practice infant baptism which baptists universally reject.

Cathechism of the Catholic Church : Sacrament of Baptism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm)

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.

1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister's words: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: "The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

[Redguard]

So if John T. Baptist did the immersion thing... where did the sprinkle method come from?

And is the Cathechism kinda like a Catholic book of rules? I often see them quoting from it... moreso than the Bible itself.

[Gold Dragon]

So if John T. Baptist did the immersion thing... where did the sprinkle method come from?

I dunno. That would be an interesting question of study. Maybe it had its origins in desert areas where water was scarce?

And is the Cathechism kinda like a Catholic book of rules? I often see them quoting from it... moreso than the Bible itself.

The Catechism is the defacto Catholic statement of beliefs like the ones that most protestant/Baptist churches have. It summarizes all the official beliefs that the Catholic church has arrived at through the various councils and teachers in its history. Many points in the Catechism have scriptural referrences where applicable.

[Iollain]

That is a shame that she is putting her faith in a denomination.

[Cright]

they will say that baptism means "a clensing" not "immersion"

They POUR water over the babies head not sprinkle (*note*and on occasion will be insulted by us calling it sprinkleing)

Immersion is also vaild to them if done by a priest "in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit"

I actually just read that from my great grandmothers "Holy Trinity" verison of the Catholic Bible last night.

[Redguard]

That is a shame that she is putting her faith in a denomination.

Were you able to find the thread?

[Gold Dragon]

So if John T. Baptist did the immersion thing... where did the sprinkle method come from?

I did some quick research and it appears that the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents that is purportedly written around 50-120 AD by the 12 apostles themselves mentions the practice of "pouring" for baptism, largely for what I suspected: situations where water is scarce.

The word Didache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache) (pronounced: die-da-kay) is a greek word meaning doctrine or teaching. It is a controversial document but the most common theory is that it was one of the first statements of beliefs and practice of the early church.

Early Christian Writings - Didache (Roberts-Donaldson English Translation) (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html)

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. 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. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

[Redguard]

they will say that baptism means "a clensing" not "immersion"

They POUR water over the babies head not sprinkle (*note*and on occasion will be insulted by us calling it sprinkleing)

Immersion is also vaild to them if done by a priest "in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit"

I actually just read that from my great grandmothers "Holy Trinity" verison of the Catholic Bible last night.

There was a sermon the other day where we were taught that the word "baptiso" (or something like that) was Greek for "dunk" or "immerse".

Maybe it means cleanse in Italian???

Anyway, I had a feeling that the word 'sprinkle' wouldn't sit well with them... which is why I want to make sure I have my facts straight before I approach them with any questions.

[SumTinWong]

Thanks.
Very welcome :)

I'm over in the Catholic forum right now... there's a discussion where someone is worried about her Protestant friends/family and the fact that they may not be saved since they haven't accepted the Catholic Church.
That kind of discourse is very sad really.

It's an interesting discussion so far... but I have to claim ignorance to the fact that I'm not familiar with a lot of Catholic teachings.
Some Catholics have that same ignorance, so you are in good company :)

[Iollain]

Were you able to find the thread?

I saw it earlier today. I don't go over there often, it makes me sad.

[SumTinWong]

Me too.

[Gold Dragon]

They POUR water over the babies head not sprinkle (*note*and on occasion will be insulted by us calling it sprinkleing)

Thanks for the heads up. I never knew that the term sprinkling could be considered insulting.

[Crazy Liz]

Another reason for baptism by pouring is what is referred to today as "clinical baptism." In ancient times, many people were confused about whether God would forgive sins committed after baptism, and so it became common in many areas to put off baptism until the person was near death. Constantine is one well-known historical example of this.

However, when a dying person needs to be baptized quickly, it is often not possible, or at least not practical, to baptize them by immersion, so pouring became a more common method.

I'd also like to add to those who have begun to correct the assumption that pouring is the Catholic method. Many protestants do not baptize by immersion. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and even some Mennonites do not ordinarily baptize by immersion, even adults. The first Baptists in England and America were baptized by pouring as adults.

OTOH, newer Catholic churches are being built with baptistries large enough to be used for immersion. Take a look at the baptistry in the new Cathedral in Los Angeles (http://www.olacathedral.org/):

http://www.olacathedral.org/zoom/images/bapt_font_js.jpg

[SumTinWong]

Pretty cool looking church :)

[Redguard]

Look at the more recent verses discussing the 'eucharist'.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14021814#post14021814

Have I been sheltered my whole life, or am I misunderstanding this?

[SumTinWong]

I didn't go there but if you are referring to the belief of the actual presence I was quite amazed when I found out about that as well. Even though I understand the theology behind it, I reject it still today.

[aReformedPatriot]

I wanted to find out about Catholic baptism. I know that most protestants baptize individuals by immersing them in water.

But Catholics have a different method, right? I've never witnessed this but it was explained to me that water was sprinkled on them?

Can someone help me out with this and tell me if there is a special term for this kind of baptism? (Somehow, I don't think it's called Sprinkle Baptism).

The only term I know is paedobaptism (infant baptismt).

The will argue that the early church taught and held to this. Early on, Christianity was spread through word of mouth until all the scriptures were collected.

I have to speculate and I encourage your thoughts on this, that I am not sure how much the early church can be relied upon. For instance:

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--

The Galations, not very long after Paul taught them the truth they were turning away from the truth. How much more so is this possible a couple hundred years later? Just because some oral traditions and what not are closer to pentecost means nothing. Praise God for the reformation + printing press for making the scriptures available to all. That, however, is not to say that we are without our problems as well.

[aReformedPatriot]

I didn't go there but if you are referring to the belief of the actual presence I was quite amazed when I found out about that as well. Even though I understand the theology behind it, I reject it still today.

Indeed

[Redguard]

The part speaking on the fact the the bread and wine don't only represent Jesus' body and blood, but that it literally TURNS INTO Jesus' body and blood.

[Crazy Liz]

I didn't go there but if you are referring to the belief of the actual presence I was quite amazed when I found out about that as well. Even though I understand the theology behind it, I reject it still today.

UB, the technical term is "real presence." Actual may be synonymous with real in normal English usage, but isn't the correct term in this context. ;)

[Gold Dragon]

The part speaking on the fact the the bread and wine don't only represent Jesus' body and blood, but that it literally TURNS INTO Jesus' body and blood.

This has to do with taking the "this is my body" and "this is my blood" parts of the upper room more literally than Baptists. However, it should be noted that symbolic communion really is the historic and global exception, not the norm.

It also has to do with their interpetation of John 6:32-58 where Jesus talks about being the bread of life and it confuses and appals the Jews when Jesus suggests that they need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Here is an excerpt but I would recommend reading the entire section from 32-58.

NASB - John 6:51-53 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=John+6&section=0&translation=nas&oq=joh%252020&new=1&nb=joh&ng=20&ncc=20)

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

[Crazy Liz]

The part speaking on the fact the the bread and wine don't only represent Jesus' body and blood, but that it literally TURNS INTO Jesus' body and blood.

The technical term for that would be transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is one way of understanding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is not the only one. Lutherans and Calvinists also believe in the real presence, but explain it quite differently. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the real presence, but refuse to explain it at all, preferring to say, "It's a mystery."

Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has taught that transubstantiation is one acceptable way Catholics may understand and teach the real presence, but not the only one.

[Filia Mariae]

Thank you for those who corrected, and pointed out that Catholics do not sprinkle. Some Protestant denominations, such as Methodists, do sprinkle. Catholics baptize either by full immersion or pouring water over the head.

Anyone who has questions about the Catholic faith is most welcome to ask Catholics themselves in OBOB.

Pax Christi,
Carly

[aReformedPatriot]

Thank you for those who corrected, and pointed out that Catholics do not sprinkle. Some Protestant denominations, such as Methodists, do sprinkle. Catholics baptize either by full immersion or pouring water over the head.

Anyone who has questions about the Catholic faith is most welcome to ask Catholics themselves in OBOB.

Pax Christi,
Carly

I've heard arguments about sprinkling from the book of hebrews, but took it forgranted that this was the same as pouring. Now that there has been a disctinction defined, i fail to see anywhere in scripture that would make baptism by "pouring" valid.

[Redguard]

Well, what I've learned today is that Catholics don't necessarily regard "scripture based proof" as being mandatory.

The idea to them is as follows:

- God gave power to Peter to be the head of their church
- Peter can make whatever rules he wants, and they are to be followed
- Rules don't necessarily have to come from the Bible
- Popes have this same power

So this is why we always here about "The Church" when speaking to Catholics. "The Church" has this position, "The Church" says this, "The Church" says that.

Protestants are more like, "The Bible" says this and "The Bible" says that.

[Filia Mariae]

I've heard arguments about sprinkling from the book of hebrews, but took it forgranted that this was the same as pouring. Now that there has been a disctinction defined, i fail to see anywhere in scripture that would make baptism by "pouring" valid.

You know I cannot answer you here.

[Filia Mariae]

Well, what I've learned today is that Catholics don't necessarily regard "scripture based proof" as being mandatory.

The idea to them is as follows:

- God gave power to Peter to be the head of their church
- Peter can make whatever rules he wants, and they are to be followed
- Rules don't necessarily have to come from the Bible
- Popes have this same power

So this is why we always here about "The Church" when speaking to Catholics. "The Church" has this position, "The Church" says this, "The Church" says that.

Protestants are more like, "The Bible" says this and "The Bible" says that.

If you would like an accurate representation of Catholic beliefs, please ask here on OBOB. Your current understanding is not correct.

Pax christi,
Carly

[Gold Dragon]

I've heard arguments about sprinkling from the book of hebrews, but took it forgranted that this was the same as pouring. Now that there has been a disctinction defined, i fail to see anywhere in scripture that would make baptism by "pouring" valid.

I think a parallel concept would be grape juice. Catholics see nowhere in scripture that would make grape juice a valid alternative to the cup. But both pouring and grape juice have valid practical reasons for why we practice them.

[aReformedPatriot]

I think a parallel concept would be grape juice. Catholics see nowhere in scripture that would make grape juice a valid alternative to the cup. But both pouring and grape juice have valid practical reasons for why we practice them.

but 100% pure welches grape juice is "fruit of the vine" is it not :P

[Gold Dragon]

but 100% pure welches grape juice is "fruit of the vine" is it not :P

Just as pouring is still "cleansing by water". ;)

[aReformedPatriot]

Just as pouring is still "cleansing by water". ;)

oooo touche! semantics are fun :P:cool:

[Celticflower]

Thank you for those who corrected, and pointed out that Catholics do not sprinkle. Some Protestant denominations, such as Methodists, do sprinkle. Catholics baptize either by full immersion or pouring water over the head.

Anyone who has questions about the Catholic faith is most welcome to ask Catholics themselves in OBOB.

Pax Christi,
Carly

Actually every Methodist baptism I have witnessed has been by some form of pouring--usually the minister cups the water from the font in his hand and pours it over the head. "Sprinkling" always sounds so hit or miss to me.

Celtie

[InnerPhyre]

Well, what I've learned today is that Catholics don't necessarily regard "scripture based proof" as being mandatory.

The idea to them is as follows:

- God gave power to Peter to be the head of their church
- Peter can make whatever rules he wants, and they are to be followed
- Rules don't necessarily have to come from the Bible
- Popes have this same power

So this is why we always here about "The Church" when speaking to Catholics. "The Church" has this position, "The Church" says this, "The Church" says that.

Protestants are more like, "The Bible" says this and "The Bible" says that.


This isn't the case, but I'm afraid I'll start to make a few trigger fingers itchy if I offer an explanation of what we believe here, so if you bring this question to OBOB I'll be happy to offer an explanation of what we believe :)

[Cright]

Or better yet then asking in OBOB and risking getting a thread closed and a warning... just go to www.vatican.va (http://www.vatican.va) and type in "baptism" in the search box and get it straight from the horses mouth!!

:hug:
Carina

[ZiSunka]

Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has taught that transubstantiation is one acceptable way Catholics may understand and teach the real presence, but not the only one.

Some episcopals also believe in transubstantiation, but it is left up to the individual believer to make up his/her own mind on the subject.

I'm very interested in hearing more about the other ways catholics might understand the "real presence".

[ZiSunka]

All of the catholic baptisms I have been to (around 2 dozen or so) have been done by pouring water, not sprinkling. It's a small amount of water, less than a quarter of a cup I would guess.

At one of the baptisms the priest gave a little summary of the history of the custom of pouring as opposed to immersion, and he said that when the custom of baptizing infants became popular, it was apparent that babies could not be immersed without endangering their well-being so baptizing by pouring became the typical mode of baptism, but that adult initiates should be given a choice between pouring and immersion. He also said that in many parts of the world it is difficult to obtain enough fresh clean water for an immersion, but usually enough for a pouring could be spared and baptisms should always be done with purified and blessed water, hence pouring.

Incidentally, or perhaps importantly, baptismal water can't be just plain tap water except in emergencies and churches have a limited supply of holy water and that may also contribute to the custom of pouring rather than immersing. :)

[Redguard]

Where does Holy Water come from?

[Filia Mariae]

Where does Holy Water come from?

Holy Water is simply water that has been blessed.

[Redguard]

Then based on what lambslove was saying about needing holy water for baptism, couldn't a pool be filled with regular water, and then have it blessed?

[Filia Mariae]

Then based on what lambslove was saying about needing holy water for baptism, couldn't a pool be filled with regular water, and then have it blessed?

Lambslove portrayal of Catholic beliefs is not accurate. I am not free to explain them here or to answer your question. That's why I keep inviting you to OBOB.:wave:

[ZiSunka]

Lambslove portrayal of Catholic beliefs is not accurate. I am not free to explain them here or to answer your question. That's why I keep inviting you to OBOB.:wave:

I can't pretend to know all the catholic beliefs, I can only report what I have seen practiced and heard from priests. This is the history and conditions that the priest gave on that day, if you feel it is inaccurate, please PM me and I will give you the name and address of the priest and you can set him straight. :)

[ZiSunka]

Then based on what lambslove was saying about needing holy water for baptism, couldn't a pool be filled with regular water, and then have it blessed?

Yes, the church where my cousins go recently built a new sanctuary and had an immersion pool installed and then had a ceremony to make the water holy. It involved a specific ritual that was performed over the water holy. The archbishop of Cincinnati came to the dedication of the church and said a number of prayers over the water to make it holy water. He used another ceremony to make a smaller amount of holy water for the dedication and blessing of the new structure, and it involved prayers and the addition of other things, ashes from palms from the preceding palm sunday, salt and wine are the only ones I remember.

[Mary of Bethany]

At one of the baptisms the priest gave a little summary of the history of the custom of pouring as opposed to immersion, and he said that when the custom of baptizing infants became popular, it was apparent that babies could not be immersed without endangering their well-being so baptizing by pouring became the typical mode of baptism, but that adult initiates should be given a choice between pouring and immersion. He also said that in many parts of the world it is difficult to obtain enough fresh clean water for an immersion, but usually enough for a pouring could be spared and baptisms should always be done with purified and blessed water, hence pouring.

I've never been Catholic, so I can't comment on whether this is their normal belief or not, but the Orthodox baptize by immersion 3 times, for each Person of the Holy Trinity. For babies, the priest holds the naked baby over the water and dunks him/her 3 times.

Mary

[SumTinWong]

Hey Mary. I had heard that this was the early practice, so i am glad you all at least still do it :)

[Carrye]

Then based on what lambslove was saying about needing holy water for baptism, couldn't a pool be filled with regular water, and then have it blessed?

Holy water isn't needed for baptism. Any old water will do.

[woman.at.the.well]

[QUOTE=Cright]they will say that baptism means "a clensing" not "immersion"

even though the literal translation for baptism comes from the greek word baptizo which means IMMERSION :)

[RED that's ME]

MOD HAT ON

Just a reminder of the Baptist/AnaBaptist forum rules:


3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here


MOD HAT OFF

[Nightwatchsong]

Thanks, everyone, for the information shared here regarding baptism. I had wondered how the tradition of baptism by pouring may have begun. Still, while the symbolism of the cleansing of sins may be carried in this way, it seems to me that only baptism through immersion portrays our burial with the Lord. We pass with Him into death as one day, we will join Him in resurrection through His great mercy toward us.

Does anyone know when the baptism of infants began?

Elizabeth

[Ian68]

Thanks, everyone, for the information shared here regarding baptism. I had wondered how the tradition of baptism by pouring may have begun. Still, while the symbolism of the cleansing of sins may be carried in this way, it seems to me that only baptism through immersion portrays our burial with the Lord. We pass with Him into death as one day, we will join Him in resurrection through His great mercy toward us.

Does anyone know when the baptism of infants began?

Elizabeth
I've only been turned onto this doctrine within the last few days, but I'm struck by what a divisive issue this has been throughout Christendom.

There's no Biblical support for infant baptism. Only believers were baptized. The earliest mention we have of infant baptism was Tertullian's condemnation of it around 204 A.D. as being unscriptural and unfamiliar. In 410, Augustine wrote that "The Catholic church has ever held that unbaptized infants will miss not only the Kingdom of Heaven, but also eternal life."

I don't yet know where this originated, but it was a hot issue when it arrived. But it's been a real disaster for chuches, let alone souls: secularizing churches (people don't resist infant baptism the way they resist the gospel) and leading unsaved people to believe that they're saved.

[mont974x4]

water means nothing (as far as Salvation is concerned)....there is one baptism and that is in the Holy Spirit...which happens when we are saved.


Should we be baptized in water? sure, after we are saved.

[L3g3nd]

This may or may not be of interest. I was recently discussing this issue with a priest who was filling in at my parish. I personally was immersed as a Southern Baptist. He said that immersion is becoming popular again within the church (at least in the U.S.), and that he personally had immersed all of those that he had baptized.

Also, in regard to an earlier post mentioning baptism by priests, I think it's important to point out that Catholics believe any person (even a non-Catholic or non-Christian) can baptize another, as long as it is done with proper intent and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

[Tonks]

Also, in regard to an earlier post mentioning baptism by priests, I think it's important to point out that Catholics believe any person (even a non-Catholic or non-Christian) can baptize another, as long as it is done with proper intent and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Generally it is only done in emergency situations (near death etc) and the "intent" is, properly, "the intent of what the Catholic Church" teaches - a significant caveat when it comes to non-Christians. However, it is not my place to really talk about it here.

As to the sprinking - I wouldn't say that we get annoyed. I'd probably just ask for a bit of clarification since it wouldn't make that much sense to me if we were discussing Baptism. FWIW, there are other times when Catholics do "sprinkle," as it were, when the priest blesses the congregation with holy water. However, my vocabulary is simply not good enough to accurately describe it. :doh:

[Rhamiel]

The Catholic Church recognizes all baptisms that are done in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, any protestent can convert to catholocism without getting re-baptized, unless the person got a "Jesus only" baptism but the Baptists don't do that right? In the new testement it speaks of intire households getting baptised, how do we know if any babies were part of the household or not? so infant baptism could be in the New Testement or it could not be.