www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism

Dear Father Deacon,

Here are some things from an old Irishman....

Triple immersion and full immersion was considered essential in the Church of the British Isles and this emphasis was maintained up to the 17th c.

1. St. Theodore, 7th c. Archbishop of Canterbury, has in his Penitential:...
2. A Canon of the Council of Calchuth (or Cloveshoo or Chalkheath, take your pick) in the year 816, says:...
3. Gerald of Wales, in his early 12th c. "Jewel of the Church," says:...

Does anybody have information about the practice on the Continent? When did the Church of the West cease baptizing by triple immersion? Could this not be revalourized?

Concerning Baptism
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. 3 But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4 And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

While in some places and in certain circumstances total immersion very likely was practiced, all the evidence (and there is much more!) points to baptism in most cases by partial immersion or affusion (dunking of the head or pouring water over the head, typically when the baptizand was standing in the baptismal pool). Here the words of St. John Chrysostom might be noted: "It is as in a tomb that we immerse our heads in the water... then when we lift our heads back the new man comes forth" (On John 25.2, PG 59:151).

Several arguments, not always clearly distinguished, as to why Latins should be rebaptized are advanced in the sources cited so approvingly by Fr. Metallinos:


1. Latin "baptism " is formally defective. In fact it is no baptism at all, because by definition baptism must be performed by threefold submersion (total immersion). But as abundant archeological and other evidence indicates, the Church has not insisted, always and everywhere, that baptism be performed by submersion (total immersion). The oldest known baptismal vessel, at Dura-Europos, is a raised container 1.63 meters long, roughly 1.00 meter wide, and .95 meter high, installed in a niche (thus C.H. Kraeling, "The Christian Building," in The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report VIII, Part II, ed. C. Bradford Welles (New Haven CT, 1967) 26-27. It very appropriately has the shape of a sarcophagus (baptism as death and burial), but its dimensions and positioning would have made total immersion difficult to accomplish. Of the dozen or more early Christian (3rd and 4th century) baptistries excavated in Greece, only two have fonts (typically sunken or raised pools) of a meter or more in depth, and most are under 50 centimeters (i.e., knee-deep if filled to the very top). Evidence from Palestine, Syria, Egypt and North Africa tells much the same story. Fonts are generally very shallow. That of the famous Eleona church in Palestine is only 24 centimeters deep. Very few are more than a meter deep, and in most cases the other dimensions or positioning of these would have made total immersion as envisioned by Fr. Metallinos very difficult if not impossible. While in some places and in certain circumstances total immersion very likely was practiced, all the evidence (and there is much more!) points to baptism in most cases by partial immersion or affusion (dunking of the head or pouring water over the head, typically when the baptizand was standing in the baptismal pool). Here the words of St. John Chrysostom might be noted: "It is as in a tomb that we immerse our heads in the water... then when we lift our heads back the new man comes forth" (On John 25.2, PG 59:151). In a word, while early Christians were very attentive to symbolism relating to baptism (cf. the funerary shape of the baptistry building; the steps, typically three, for descending and rising from the font; the iconography relating to regeneration, etc.), they show few signs of preoccupation with total immersion. (For bibliographical details and further evidence see J.G. Davies, The Architectural Setting of Baptism [Barrie and Rockliff: London, 1962] 18-26, and S. Anita Stauffer, On Baptismal Fonts: Ancient and Modern [Alcuin Club and Group for Renewal of Worship, Grove Books Limited: Bramcote, Nottingham, 1994].)

Fr. Deacon, as noted in this article

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

There has historically been variance on both sides. Obviously the situation is different now, but it's worth noting.

From the fifth-century writings of St. Augustine on the Donatist Schism, the Latin tradition has been able to draw on a clearly articulated rationale for recognizing the validity, though not necessarily the fruitfulness, of trinitarian baptism outside the bounds of the visible church. This does not mean, however, that the rebaptism of Orthodox has never occurred in the Catholic Church; it appears, in fact, to have occurred rather frequently in the Middle Ages. Pope Alexander VI affirmed the validity of Orthodox baptism just after the turn of the sixteenth century, and Rome has periodically confirmed this ruling since then.

But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored… Also, those baptized by the Latins the Greeks rashly presume to rebaptize, and even till now, as we understand, there are some who do not hesitate to do this.

Can. 4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.
Can. 11. If anyone says that baptism, truly and rightly administered, must be repeated in the one converted to repentance after having denied the faith of Christ among the infidels, let him be anathema.

This gives new meaning to "God bless America." For a grace filled Catholic baptism by Orthodox standards, come to America..

The Didache(7). ca. AD 100

Quote:
Concerning Baptism
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. 3 But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4 And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

Legitimate local custom is always to have a place of honor. Demands of certain practices as necessary, however, must defer to well documented legitimate practices of greater antiquity

Thanks. This is a very fine document containing many interesting points of discussion.

Yes, the Didache and its contents are thoroughly orthodox and accepted as such by both our Churches.

HOWEVER, the world did not even have a single copy of the Didache until the year 1883.

In 1873 Metropolitan Philotheos Briennios of Nicomedia discovered a manuscript...

Leavened bread all round?

I made reference to this American document earlier in our discussions, on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its recommendations have not been received by the Orthodox Churches.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/306858/Re:%20specific%20Orthodox%20disagree#Post306858

Cute, but a topic best avoided; no need to rehashed yet again what kind of bread was used at the Last Supper.

Think economia!

Every Orthodox Church in America may, if it chooses, baptize. They can, they do.

Deacon Anthony,

My final thoughts on the matters you raise above. I have neither intention, desire, nor need to retract or modify what I've written, nor am I in the least concerned regarding its further dissemination or attribution to me. It's not my habit to take fingers to keyboard lightly, a self-discipline that helps me avoid eating crow, a taste that I've never developed ...

Many years,

Neil

Cute, but a topic best avoided; no need to rehash yet again what kind of bread was used at the Last Supper.

Yes, "if it chooses." The Catholic Church is constrained here, having no choice: It must baptize the unbaptized, and not baptize the baptized.