www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Baptism - Pouring or Immersion?

The correct way is to receive baptism by triple inmersion, this is the ancient practice of the Eastern Church.

This is an oft repeated myth. Immersion is recommended, but not required; the key feature is that the water used be "living," that is, fresh and running/flowing if possible. See this post.

I looked at it, and found this passage significant--and probably misunderstood:


Yes, living water is ideal, but so is full immersion. Note that the passage quoted simply assumes that the catechumen will be immersed, and that pouring is specified only as a last resort.

Now, while the requirement for living water--meaning a natural body of water--was rather quickly abandoned as congregations increased in size, the requirement for immersion did not. Visit any of the great churches of Europe--particularly the oldest of these--and you will find separate baptistries, often recognized by their octagonal floor plan, each containing a font large enough to hold several people and often as much as four feet deep. As it was the practice for the catechumen to enter the font naked, and with the water as deep as it is, are we expected to believe that, having entered this deep pool, the priest then merely poured water over his head?

Furthermore, we have testimony from mass conversions, such as that of the Rus in 985, that the people en masse were taken down to the nearest stream or lake, and fully immersed in the water.

There is only one conclusion, and that is full triple immersion is normative, and anything else is done through oikonomia. Even baptism by aspersion (sprinkling) is acceptable, but even the Latin Church now says it should be used only in cases of dire necessity.

Yes. As excavations have shown in early Greek churches the fonts were not deep enough for full immersion. The baptized stood in water up to their knees and had water poured on the heads or knelt and had their heads dunked.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This might be a conclusion that is desired or presumed, but it is not warranted by a close reading of the text from the Didache that I provided.


Yes, and even earlier based on the excerpted conclusion of Fr. Erikson in the link I provided: In particular, as noted in the link, the oldest evidence is:

This assumes that the font at Dura was the place in which baptisms were normally performed, or whether it was used only when it was not possible to perform baptism by immersion out of doors. That the platform on which the container was situated was raised could also indicate that it was not used by adults, but by infants and children. Also consider that the church in Dura was a converted house. We do not know what sort of compromises were made in order to accommodate the Christian community in that building.

Regarding churches in Greece, I would want to see the archaeological analyses before making any conclusions. Which churches in particular does Deacon Lance have in mind?

On that passage from the Didache:


A straightforward reading clearly indicates that pouring is an exception to the rule, because if you are standing in running water, you can still pour. If you are in some other water, you can still pour. And if you are in warm water, you can still pour. But. . . and notice it says "But" only if you do not have either cold or warm water, then you may pour water over the catechumen's head. The clear implication is something other than pouring is considered normative.

As I said:


The claim concerned "full triple immersion":


As indicated below, the only explicit mention of "three" is said about pouring:

This thread resulted from the splitting off of posts that were significantly off-topic from a simple question posed by a new forum member.

Many years,

Neil

Interesting exegesis.

I understand that at her baptism in infancy, St. Maria Skobtsova (AKA Mother Maria) almost drowned in the font. So the priest must have been using the submersion/immersion method.