- March 28, 2010 at 5:32 pm #1994
I have not been baptized yet (i am 16 years old) and I do plan on being baptized soon. the question is however i have a choice of two churches. the Armenian Catholic Church or the Armenian Orthodox Church. now my question is not to ask which church i will choose, but rather a problem.
I spoke to my Catholic parish and the Orthodox as well and both said, taking account of my age, i will not be dunked, but sprinkled or water poured on my head. i told this to my teacher at school (i go to a private christian school but they are mostly evangelical/reformed christians) and my teacher told me that we need to follow Christs example and get dunked because dunking has symbolism in it. when you go under water it represents dieing in your sins and when you come out it represents being alive in Christ.
Is this true? will i not have a true baptism unless I am full body dunked?March 28, 2010 at 6:09 pm #9689
While many in the early Church were fully immersed in a river or lake as part of Chrisitan Baptism, the practice was not universal. In the Scriptures we read of those who were converted in great numbers, and there were those who were converted in prison and other places where they did not have access to large bodies of water, but we read they were baptized. Baptism as well as the Eucharist, Marriage, some of the ceremonies of Confirmation and the ordination to the priesthood are carried over from Judaism. How they differ is that Jesus elevated these ceremonies to be a rite which He uses to confir Grace upon us.
If your teacher (as most Evangelicals usually do) wishes to interpret the Bible for themselves as the only source of doctrine, then he or she will have to face up to the fact that Baptism was documented by the early Church Fathers as being valid be it by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. If they wanted to do it as Jesus (who’s baptism was not the same as ours, but rather the Baptism of John the Baptist, which the scriptures tell us could not save.) Then we would also only be able to accept baptisms that were not simply by full immersion, but also were in living water, which per Jewish law cannot have been transferred through a metal or clay pipe, but must be from a natural spring, or river. So any Evangelical baptism that takes place in a large baptisimal tank, or pool is not a valid baptism (using their Evangelical arguments that only what they interpret from the Bible is valid).
Most Evangelicals will disregard the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which while not equal to the Scriptures do tell us what the Apostles and Early Church believed and taught. If we read the Scriptures and the Fathers, the Faith taught and believed is found in the Catholic Church, and not in the abbreviated, and divergent doctrines of the Protestant ChurchesMarch 28, 2010 at 10:30 pm #9690
Here’s another way to look at it. You can clean your body with either a bath or a shower, so why couldn’t pouring be an acceptable form of baptism? It’s the same effect – you get wet and completely covered in the holy water.March 29, 2010 at 1:21 am #9691
sir LARobert, do you mind showing where in scripture does it say that there were people baptized in a place where there is no body of water?
and where it says that John’s baptism could not save?
i find it interesting, but i dont know where it isMarch 29, 2010 at 3:38 am #9698
Before we get to the answer, some housekeeping.
God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings. God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means.
A Sacrament, is an [b:2opwkv00]outward sign [/b:2opwkv00]of an [b:2opwkv00]inward Grace[/b:2opwkv00], [b:2opwkv00]Insituted by Christ[/b:2opwkv00] for our salvation. Some of the Sacraments were prefigured by rites preformed by the Jews in the Old Testament. In the case of the Baptism of John, first Jesus did not need baptism, because He was and is sinless. Secondly in the Scriptures we read in Acts I verse 5 [i:2opwkv00]”For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.” [/i:2opwkv00] John’s baptism was not Trinitarian, (in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) as the concept of the Trinity had not yet been revealed by Jesus when he baptized Jesus. So while Jesus sets an example for us, it is not by being baptized by the Sacrament that He would soon institute.
The second question is inferred by the passages which speak of those who received baptism in Jail etc, and has been the constant teaching of the Church from the time of the Apostles. I’ll look up the actual verses soon, but in the mean time, here is a long article from the CE
[url:2opwkv00]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#V[/url:2opwkv00]April 19, 2010 at 12:47 am #9720
HELP PLEASE….my stepdaughter was baptized catholic @ age 7…now 3 years later her biomom has her “baptized” at a first assembly of god church…biomom was the one that baptized her own daughter..does this mean she was baptized in another religion? or is she still catholic ? my husband & i believe she is still catholic because we as catholics believe in one baptism..are we correct?April 19, 2010 at 5:54 am #9722
Her first baptism was and remains the valid batpism. She remains a Catholic, although if she is living with the Bio-Mom, may be taught things about the Catholic Church that are not true. Even if it was the other way around, and she had been baptized in the AG Sect, the baptism would have been valid. But only the first baptism, additional baptisms would not be valid.
What we as Catholics mean by our belief in One Baptism is that when someone is baptized with water, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. With at the very least the intention of doing what the Church does, the baptism is valid. Even when the person who is doing the baptism holds some erronious theological beliefs, the baptism is valid. In all the the seven Sacraments the Church teaches that the primary minister of the Sacrament is Jesus Himself.
For Baptism, anyone may preform the rite, although the Ordinary minister of the Sacrament is the Bishop or a priest, and the extraordinary minister can be a deacon or any male or female who has reached the age of reason.
The second baptism changes nothing. If the Child is raised from this point on as a Protestant, and decides to come back to the Catholic Church, she will simply have to go to confession. If she had been baptized in a Protestant Church, and never in the Catholic Church, the baptism would be valid, and if she decided to enter the Catholic Church would not be re-baptized in the Catholic Church, but would go through the process of being recieved into the Church where she would renounce the false teachings that she had adhered to in the past, and proclaim that she accepted Theological and Moral teachings of the Church, and would go to confession, then be confirmed.
Any valid Baptism, be it in the Catholic or Protestant church makes one a Catholic, for Jesus did not institute a Catholic baptism, and a Lutheran baptism, and a Baptist baptism. But only one. If one is baptized and joins a Protestant Church at the same time, they were momentarily a Catholic based on a valid baptism, but became a Protestant by the virtue of their entering that other Church, and are described as imperfectly united to the Church.
Many Protestant Sects like the AG, do not accept baptisms administered by the Catholic Church because they do not understand what the Church really teaches. They assume that all Catholics are baptized as infants, (which they do not accept) and they assume that all Catholics are baptized by sprinkling or pouring water on the person baptized, (another thing they deny). We can hope that they thought that they were doing the correct thing, and that they are motivated by untruths they have heard about the Catholic Church. We can pray for them, that one day they may learn the real teachings of the Catholic Church and one day embrace the fullness of the Faith.April 19, 2010 at 2:20 pm #9723
thank you so very much for answering my question…our daughter is with us this week and is very upset…she said her mother made her go thru with it even tho she was just asking questions & being a curious 11 year old..she said she still believes in her heart that she is catholic and not of her biomoms religion…so does she need to go to confession ? & could you please pray for her !! thank you again & god bless youApril 20, 2010 at 1:44 am #9724
No need for her to go to confession for this event. She did no wrong.April 20, 2010 at 2:09 am #9725
Prayers for her, and that her biomom will one day see the truth of the Faith.
I agree with Jon, she did not intend to do wrong, and she did have an obligation to be obedient to her mother. I would simply explain that to us as Catholics the second baptism had no effect, and encourage her in knowing that she is still a Catholic.
My last posting mentioned confession for those who come back to the Church as adults, and in that case it would be to confess any sins committed after they abandoned the Faith.May 25, 2010 at 8:01 am #9756
Soooo….why do Catholics baptize babies? Doesn’t it say somewhere in the Bible that babies cant be baptized?May 25, 2010 at 8:15 am #9758
brother, are you non-catholic christian? ” title=”Smile” />
the bible does not say babies cannot be baptizedMay 25, 2010 at 11:30 am #9759"Papa.Cod":1t3rl1aj wrote:Soooo….why do Catholics baptize babies? Doesn’t it say somewhere in the Bible that babies cant be baptized?[/quote:1t3rl1aj]
No, it doesn’t. In fact the Scriptures talk of whole households being baptized and it’s something that has been passed down through the centuries. It was in the Protestant re-interpretations of Scripture that infant baptism fell out of favor in those churches.
We also have an article on this: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/w … t_baptism/May 25, 2010 at 12:37 pm #9760
here’s more in support of infant baptism ” title=”Very Happy” />
http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot. … l#commentsMay 25, 2010 at 1:42 pm #9761
Yes im a non-Catholic christain and thanks for the postings. So what protestant churches dont believe in this kind of baptism?May 25, 2010 at 2:15 pm #9764
Among the churches that deny infant baptism are the Baptist, (all the various Baptist groups) the Assembly of God, Most Evangelical (although not Evangelical Lutherans) and as new Protestant Churches are founded each day, the list becomes very long, and complex, since some who deny infant baptism today, may change their position in the future.May 25, 2010 at 5:24 pm #9765"LARobert":2hn9irn6 wrote:Most Evangelical (although not Evangelical Lutherans)[/quote:2hn9irn6]
Thanks for the precise detail ” title=”Wink” />
And I’m guessing that these particular groups of Protestant Churches believe that it’s either unscriptural or because it’s a Catholic tradition for centuries?May 25, 2010 at 5:25 pm #9766
And to go into further depth of what LARobert’s saying, no matter what Lutheran synod you belong to, the official title of the Church is the Evangelical Lutheran ChurchMay 26, 2010 at 3:31 am #9769
Thanks for that tidbit, shows we can all learn each day. Now I know something new.May 27, 2010 at 12:17 am #9772
Hey no problem ” title=”Wink” />
I do want you to know that I may not be 100% right. I’ll have to ask my Pastor, but I’m sure I stand correct. Like for instance, the official name of my synod (the LC-MS) would be the Evangelical Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Kinda long, huh? That’s why we simply go by as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod or LC-MS
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.