Can you baptise yourself?

[TomUK]

Just a thought!

[No Swansong]

The Roman Catholic Church recognize something called a Baptism by desire. In other words if you truly desire to be baptized, your desire in effect is your baptism. I would think that this would come into play here. As for physical baptism I believe they would require this once the opportunity presented itself.

[DeoJuvante]

The Roman Catholic Church recognize something called a Baptism by desire. In other words if you truly desire to be baptized, your desire in effect is your baptism. I would think that this would come into play here. As for physical baptism I believe they would require this once the opportunity presented itself.
I think baptism by desire and baptism by blood (for martyrs) only come into effect upon death, at least according to RC theology.

[No Swansong]

I think baptism by desire and baptism by blood (for martyrs) only come into effect upon death, at least according to RC theology.


You may be right Saepius. I know that I was facing a pretty serious surgery as a teenager (while in RCIA) and I requested to be baptized. I was told that if something happened then I would be covered by BBD. I haven't really researched the issue beyond this personal experience. I still think they should have baptized me though.

[Colabomb]

You may be right Saepius. I know that I was facing a pretty serious surgery as a teenager (while in RCIA) and I requested to be baptized. I was told that if something happened then I would be covered by BBD. I haven't really researched the issue beyond this personal experience. I still think they should have baptized me though.
Agreed. The Idea of holding off baptism until you understand all the ins and outs of theology is stupid.

You understand the basics of the Gospel, and I think that should be enough.

[Aymn27]

Agreed. The Idea of holding off baptism until you understand all the ins and outs of theology is stupid.

You understand the basics of the Gospel, and I think that should be enough.
Amen!


And Yes..BBD is only upon death...

[No Swansong]

Agreed. The Idea of holding off baptism until you understand all the ins and outs of theology is stupid.

You understand the basics of the Gospel, and I think that should be enough.

Please don't misunderstand, I support classes like RCIA I simply believe that under the circumstances I should have been baptized and allowed to finish the classes after the crises. While I agree with you somewhat son I also believe that a firm knowledge of Christianity and the Church should be the Norm. I am not sure that requires an entire year of study which is the normal RCIA process. Perhaps a series of a few classes. Which of course could be finished after the actual baptism

[gtsecc]

John Smyth started the baptists this way.
The term Anabaptist means self baptiser, and is a perjurative term for this group. However, most don't understand that, and today refer to them selves with a shortened form of the perjorative - baptist.

[SirTimothy]

Uh, no, anabaptist means re-baptiser or renewed-baptiser. It's about the practice of rebaptising people who had been baptised as children as adults.

[Colabomb]

Uh, no, anabaptist means re-baptiser or renewed-baptiser. It's about the practice of rebaptising people who had been baptised as children as adults.
he's right.

[No Swansong]

Uh, no, anabaptist means re-baptiser or renewed-baptiser. It's about the practice of rebaptising people who had been baptised as children as adults.


That's also how I have always understood it.

[gtsecc]

AnaBaptist does mean rebaptiser.
It was used to make fun of the new sect of Christians who rebaptised themselves in addtion to their infant baptism. It has been shortened in recent years to baptist, and is not considered a perjorative to them anymore. The particular person that the term is associated with, because it refers to his own particular selfbaptising, is John Smyth. Heck - check wiki, google don't believe me. There is a better explaination in the Oxford Dictionary.

[gtsecc]

From Britannica:



John Smyth

died August 1612, Amsterdam

Smyth also spelled Smith English religious libertarian and Nonconformist minister, called “the Se-baptist (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109450)” (self-baptizer), who is generally considered the founder of the organized Baptists of England. He also influenced the Pilgrim Fathers who immigrated to North America in 1620.
Most of Smyth's early years are obscure, but it is known that he studied at Christ's College, Cambridge, …

Smyth, John... (75 of 241 words)

[gtsecc]

Christianity Today:

John Smyth
The "Se-Baptist"


"Baptism is not washing with water: but it is the baptism of the Spirit, the confession of the mouth, and the washing with water."
When he was exiled to Amsterdam from his native England, John Smyth gathered three dozen of his followers around him. The former Anglican preacher and Cambridge fellow recited a confession of faith; then he baptized himself.
The brazen act scandalized even those who, with Smyth, despised England's state church. Amsterdam Separatist Richard Bernard nicknamed him a "Se-Baptist" (self-baptizer). Though Smyth's followers preferred the term "Christians Baptized on Profession of Their Faith," the shorter, derogatory "se-baptist," later shortened again to "Baptist," stuck.

[DeoJuvante]

Hmm. Even Jesus was baptised by another, so I would guess that self-baptism is, at best, probably not a good idea.

[cenimo]

Two baptisms occur. One in a church, with a reception afterwards.

The other out in the sticks in a pond or lake.

Is one more valid or "better" than the other? I say defintiley not.

[erin74]

Just a thought!
It would be a mighty strange service - it was hard enough when dh baptised our son. He had to get the other minister to ask us the questions at the appropriate times or else he would have to ask them to himself. In the case of baptism of yourself this would be the entire service.

Imagine if you went for a full immersion service. That would be decidedly odd.

[gtsecc]

Two baptisms occur. One in a church, with a reception afterwards.

The other out in the sticks in a pond or lake.

Is one more valid or "better" than the other? I say defintiley not.
Umm are you reading the same thread I am?
No one here said anything about inside/outside reception, etc...

[john23237]

You may be right Saepius. I know that I was facing a pretty serious surgery as a teenager (while in RCIA) and I requested to be baptized. I was told that if something happened then I would be covered by BBD. I haven't really researched the issue beyond this personal experience. I still think they should have baptized me though.

Agreed. The very idea that any Catholic priest would have denied you Baptism simply because you had not completed RCIA "is outrage" . It flies in the face of 2000 years of catholic theology and the BBD excuse was, to put it mildy, lame. BBD occurs, as I understand it, when there is no possibility of physical baptism (e.g. dying on a battle field alone, etc.). That was clearly not the case here. The priest in question should hve been taking RCIA classes, not giving them.

[Indrid Cold]

I did. However, I survived a life/death issue and was baptized immediately afterward.

[CSMR]

I was told by a Polish friend that another friend of mine had baptised himself. I thought that very odd indeed. However it turned out to be a grammatical mistake: it must be a reflexive expression in Polish.

[Tetzel]

I don't see why you can't do it yourself.

Baptism by blood or desire I don't believe in. Water+word= baptism

[gtsecc]

I don't see why you can't do it yourself.

Baptism by blood or desire I don't believe in. Water+word= baptism
I think it is a communal act - I believe it has to happen in a community.

[No Swansong]

I think it is a communal act - I believe it has to happen in a community.

Well if you want to call two community (which can be) I would agree. However although ideally it should occur within the larger community I do not believe its efficacy is affected if it is not.

[gtsecc]

Well if you want to call two community (which can be) I would agree. However although ideally it should occur within the larger community I do not believe its efficacy is affected if it is not.
Absolutely - that is why we have Godparents - you have to have a sponsor. However, if it is only 2, then baptism is valid, but it is a sad thing that such a wonderful rite is shared by so few.

[marciebaby]

The RCC recognizes baptism by ANYONE-if you were in danger of death, you could request any joe off of the street to baptize you and it would be considered valid.

Of course, ideally baptism would happen in a community, because the body of believers promise to nurture the newly baptized in the faith, but I know that babies born very ill on maternity wards are often baptized by the nurse (not as common now as it used to be), "just in case".

And fyi: The Anabaptists are known as the Mennonites. The Baptists are a completely different denomination.