Why Do Roman Catholics...

[homeschoolmom]

[img]http://metrojersey.com/newchurch/baptism.jpg[/img]
I just think that's pretty cute and funny.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1255930' date='Apr 25 2007, 03:47 AM']I was responding to someone above that mentioned sprinkling and pouring were considered acceptable baptisms also...[/quote]Hence, my response. Sprinkling is valid, but illicit. Pouring is valid and licit.

[desertwoman]

My dad would seriously punch somebody if that had happened to me LOL.

[N/A Gone]

I know this is wrong, but if you use cold water, whats stoppin the baby from peeing all over the priest?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1252854' date='Apr 22 2007, 09:13 AM']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[/quote]


Our parish does full immerision on adults. Pouring on babies and young children. The Catechism says that baptism, dying with Christ and rising with him, is the fullest sign, but pouring, symbolizing the pouring out of the Holy Spirit can be used. Remember thought the mode is the outward sign. It is the inward grace that is important. By the way, sprinkling, which your title implies is not allowed in Catholicism. It's pouring or immersion.

Also in the baptismal rite, at each baptism the dying with Christ and rising to new life is read. So it is not that this belief about baptism is ignored or left out. It is just not symbolized in the pouring.

[thessalonian]

[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]


Actually the case for scripture only doing immerision is quite arguable. For example the jailor and his family were baptized in a home. Now I doudt bathtubs were very common back then so it seems very likely that something else was done. As I recall the Didache also mentions pouring so there is a case to be made that it was done in the early church. Once again, sprinking is not practiced in the Catholic Church. Someone said the methodists do it and their baptisms are accepted. But when my wife went through RCIA and I went with her the preist there said that anyone who was sprinkled would be conditionally baptized.

[jplumey]

Our parish puts you in this big basin with a water fall (man, it's hard to stay focused during a homily when you have the drip drip drip going on) and basically soaks you as you're sitting in the water (after he gives the mic to the altar boy---can you say fried chicken?). For babies, he lets the water from the waterfall pour on them.

I don't really think it matters (though I do prefer the immersion technique), just as long as it's done before Christian witnesses. Which leads to another question about baptism that has come up lately (and maybe should be in another thread)...can a person baptize themselves?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='jplumey' post='1256147' date='Apr 25 2007, 03:40 PM']I don't really think it matters (though I do prefer the immersion technique), just as long as it's done before Christian witnesses.[/quote]Having Christian witnesses does not affect the validity of the Baptism. Further, in extraordinary situations, a non-Christian can be the minister of a valid baptism.

[quote name='jplumey' post='1256147' date='Apr 25 2007, 03:40 PM']Which leads to another question about baptism that has come up lately (and maybe should be in another thread)...can a person baptize themselves?[/quote]A person cannot baptize himself.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1256103' date='Apr 25 2007, 10:55 AM']Actually the case for scripture only doing immerision is quite arguable. For example the jailor and his family were baptized in a home. Now I doudt bathtubs were very common back then so it seems very likely that something else was done. As I recall the Didache also mentions pouring so there is a case to be made that it was done in the early church. Once again, sprinking is not practiced in the Catholic Church. Someone said the methodists do it and their baptisms are accepted. But when my wife went through RCIA and I went with her the preist there said that anyone who was sprinkled would be conditionally baptized.[/quote]

Please provide scripture, so I can research it solo please.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1256166' date='Apr 25 2007, 03:12 PM']A person cannot baptize himself.[/quote]

John Smyth, who founded the first of the Baptist churches in Amsterdam in 1607, baptized himself. In those days, Baptists baptized by infusion (pouring). Immersion only didn't start until 1644.

Likos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1256103' date='Apr 25 2007, 12:55 PM']Actually the case for scripture only doing immerision is quite arguable. For example the jailor and his family were baptized in a home. Now I doudt bathtubs were very common back then so it seems very likely that something else was done. As I recall the Didache also mentions pouring so there is a case to be made that it was done in the early church. Once again, sprinking is not practiced in the Catholic Church. Someone said the methodists do it and their baptisms are accepted. But when my wife went through RCIA and I went with her the preist there said that anyone who was sprinkled would be conditionally baptized.[/quote]

For the text of the Didache on baptism, see my post #15.

I've never heard of a Methodist being questioned about how his baptism was done (see post #5). Interesting.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1256364' date='Apr 25 2007, 08:38 PM']Please provide scripture, so I can research it solo please.[/quote]If you're asking about the jailor and his family, that's in Acts 16.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1256594' date='Apr 25 2007, 10:21 PM']If you're asking about the jailor and his family, that's in Acts 16.[/quote]

Thank you...

upon reading the scripture, it actually says that they were outside being baptized. It says in the scripture, "...he took them to wash their wounds, and was baptised then and there with all his household. Afterwards he took them into his house and gave them a meal, and the whoel household celebrated their conversion to belief in God."

[Mateo el Feo]

Though the text seems clear that they were not in the jailor's house, none of the translations I read made an explicit mention that they were outside during the baptism. Another interpretation is that they were still in the prison area. Also, no mention is made of a river or stream.

If you would like a more clear example, refer to St. Paul's baptism back in Acts 9. The text seems quite clear that he was baptized in a house.

An early extra-Biblical authority which allows pouring (infusion) is the Didache, which mentions it explicitly. Interestingly, when I went to the Wiki, it mentions that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church actually accepts the Didache in its "broader canon" of the NT. Maybe you could confirm this.

I think that the historical record is pretty solid in terms of ancient Christian art (e.g. drawings in the Catacombs) and ancient writings. It's this historical record that is more convincing to me personally than particular Scripture quotes.