Why Do Roman Catholics...

[RezaMikhaeil]

I'm Coptic and so we baptize with full submersion, but I was curious as to why Roman Catholics don't do full submersions no more?

Reza

[Era Might]

Pouring is more practical, and because both are valid. Some are still baptized by full immersion, however, if they choose it. Eastern Catholic Churches may still baptize with full immersion, I'm not sure.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1252854' date='Apr 22 2007, 09:13 AM']Roman Catholics don't do full submersions no more?[/quote]

Fraternal. correction to the title your thread -- (Roman Rite) Catholics don't sprinkle. That's a Protestant practice (Methodists and some Reformed; I've seen it done at the Crystal Cathedral; there may be others I'm not aware of).

Whether for the baptism of an adult or a child, it's a choice to baptize by infusion (pouring) or immersion. Byzantine Catholics immerse. I'm not sure about other Eastern Catholics, but their baptismal practices are probably the same as the Byzantines.

The Apostles instructed that baptisms be done by immersion or infusion. See the [i]Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache), [/i]a first-century manual of instructions for adult pagan converts.

The Baptists baptized by infusion (pouring) when they were first formed in 1607 in imitation of the Mennonites from whom they were launched. A sect called the Immersion Baptists - who insisted on baptism by immersion only - developed later (1644) and the practice became the norm for many but certainly not all Protestant denominations.

Palestine and environs -- 2,000 years ago and now -- was very dry and there was a scarcity of water. They drank wine instead of water. The 3,000 in one day who were received into the Church could not have been immersed. The oldest baptistry ever found by archaeologists was designed for a person standing in a shallow pool to have water poured over him. It's been reconstructed and is now at Yale University.

I've always been interested in this subject since I was raised as a Southern Baptist.

Likos

[Mateo el Feo]

This is from Catholic.com:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1253010' date='Apr 22 2007, 10:49 AM']Fraternal. correction to the title your thread -- (Roman Rite) Catholics don't sprinkle. That's a Protestant practice (Methodists and some Reformed; I've seen it done at the Crystal Cathedral; there may be others I'm not aware of).

[. . .][/quote]
Baptism in the United Methodist Church is done by immersion, infusion (pouring), or aspersion (sprinkling), and the form used depends upon the particular circumstances (i.e., the facilities available, or whether the one to be baptized is ill, etc.).

[RezaMikhaeil]

Copts do full submersion unless there's a special concern. If there's like someone on their deathbed, it usually isn't a good idea to do full submersion, so we baptise them with pouring or sprinkling.

St. Catherine [who I think Roman Catholics also venerate thou I'm not posetive] baptised a group of men with fire, that the Emperor had ordered to be thrown into the fire for not being able to out debate her with spirituality.

I'd once asked my priest about the man on the cross, next to Jesus Christ that accepted Jesus Christ, and he said that the man was considered to be baptised with his blood.

Reza

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1253344' date='Apr 22 2007, 06:17 PM']Baptism in the United Methodist Church is done by immersion, infusion (pouring), or aspersion (sprinkling), and the form used depends upon the particular circumstances (i.e., the facilities available, or whether the one to be baptized is ill, etc.).[/quote]

Thank you. The Catholic Church recognizes sprinkling as a valid form of baptism, and therefore accepts any form of Methodist baptism, even though she does not practice sprinking at the present time.

Likos

[Groo the Wanderer]

Mebbe cause we are in a drought....can't water the lawn between 10am and 6pm either....

[jckinsman]

In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit! That is what's important! Sprinkle or drown, why is this so important? What's important is the water and the words. If it makes any difference my preist, dumps a gallon of water over your head.......!!JC

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1255882' date='Apr 24 2007, 10:23 PM']In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit! That is what's important! Sprinkle or drown, why is this so important? What's important is the water and the words. If it makes any difference my preist, dumps a gallon of water over your head.......!!JC[/quote]

Some people believes that it's important because full submersion is whats scriptural, and that traditionally the church originally did full submersions, not sprinkling.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1255905' date='Apr 25 2007, 02:17 AM']Some people believes that it's important because full submersion is whats scriptural, and that traditionally the church originally did full submersions, not sprinkling.[/quote]I have never personally witnessed "sprinkling" (i.e. aspersion) baptisms done in a Catholic Church, nor do I recall hearing of the practice being used at Catholic churches. Quoting Canon Law:
[quote]Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.[/quote]So, maybe a priest could go against Canon Law and baptise by means of sprinkling; I suppose such a baptism would be valid but illicit. In any event, Canon Law is pretty clear.

Other helpful text. From St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#7"]Article 7. Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism? (link)[/url]
He answers in the negative.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1255919' date='Apr 24 2007, 11:54 PM']I have never personally witnessed "sprinkling" (i.e. aspersion) baptisms done in a Catholic Church, nor do I recall hearing of the practice being used at Catholic churches. Quoting Canon Law:
So, maybe a priest could go against Canon Law and baptise by means of sprinkling; I suppose such a baptism would be valid but illicit. In any event, Canon Law is pretty clear.

Other helpful text. From St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#7"]Article 7. Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism? (link)[/url]
He answers in the negative.[/quote]

I was responding to someone above that mentioned sprinkling and pouring were considered acceptable baptisms also...

[desertwoman]

I think a protestant group sprinkles. i can understand pouring and sprinkling a baby's head, cause no one would like to see a baby being dunked in the water.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1256012' date='Apr 25 2007, 07:45 AM']I think a protestant group sprinkles. i can understand pouring and sprinkling a baby's head, cause no one would like to see a baby being dunked in the water.[/quote]

Orthodox still dunk babies My baby was dunked, but she was cool wit it.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1255905' date='Apr 25 2007, 01:17 AM']Some people believes that it's important because full submersion is whats scriptural, and that traditionally the church originally did full submersions, not sprinkling.[/quote]

QUOTE
[b]Baptism[/b]
. . . sprinkling, now in use by some Protestant churches, was never commonly practiced in the Catholic Church. END QUOTE
Source: [i]Dictionary of the Bible,[/i] John L. McKenzie, S.J.

The NT doesn't contain any instructions on how baptisms are to be administered, nor does it give any examples of how it was done. The first written instructions are in the [i]Teaching of the Twelve Apostles[/i] (nicknamed the [i]Didache[/i]), the Church's first-century instruction manual for the reception of adult pagan converts.

QUOTE
7. Regarding baptism. Baptize as follows: after first explaining all these [foregoing] points, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the baptizer and the candidate for baptism fast, as well as any others that may be able. Require the candidate to fast one or two days previously. END QUOTE
Source: [i]The Didache, Ancient Christian Writers[/i], Volume 6

Jesus was depicted in the earliest art standing in the shallow water of the Jordan River
with John the Baptist pouring water over his head.

I mentioned before that:

QUOTE
The oldest baptistry (reconstruction) ever found was in a tiny chapel at Dura Europus on the Euphrates River in Northeastern Syria. The walls of the chapel, which was destroyed in A.D. 258, were covered with biblical scenes, traces of which are still visible. The person to be baptized stood in the shallow pool and had water poured over his head. [i]Yale Univerisity Art Gallery, Dura Europos Collection.[/i][This is the caption for a photograph of the baptistry, which is too shallow for submersion.]
END QUOTE
Source: Understanding the New Testament, Fourth Edition, Howard Clark Kee (a Methodist minister and biblical scholar)

Immersion was practiced in the early Church, but so was infusion (pouring). Both are practiced by the Church even today.

Likos