Weirdest baptism ever

clairefontaine

This was a Catholic baptism. I never saw anything like it in my life. The baby was stripped out of its onesie, diaper removed, totally naked. The priest lifted up the baby, held him all the way up high to the congregation and dunked her into the water, submerged, but not the head.

Has anyone ever heard of this?

LordSutch

In Ireland by an Irish priest?

clairefontaine

LordSutch wrote: »

In Ireland by an Irish priest?

No. In the US.

Does it matter? Aren't they all supposed to be the same? I never saw anything like it before.

LordSutch

clairefontaine wrote: »

Does it matter? Aren't they all supposed to be the same? I never saw anything like it before.

Doesn't matter, I only asked because I never heard of anything like that before in Ireland.

Will be interesting to hear if anybody else has come across similar events.

Benny_Cake

Sounds a little like an Orthodox baptism, though I think they submerge, three times if I'm not mistaken. What you describe sounds weird alright, and it may not be legit from a sacramental point of view. Others will know better.

martinedwards

what's wrong sacramentally?

a symbolic splash of water is all that's needed, right?

lmaopml

It would be strange to be honest to see this kind of Baptism in Ireland, and it's not entirely necessary as far as a Catholic Baptism is concerned - all that is necessary is to be baptised in the name of the 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' and with water - as Scripture says - with Water and the Spirit.

However, perhaps there are traditions that dunk a newly baptised person three times or whatever - so what?

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Sounds a little like an Orthodox baptism, though I think they submerge, three times if I'm not mistaken. What you describe sounds weird alright, and it may not be legit from a sacramental point of view. Others will know better.

You're correct Benny ... Eastern Orthodox Baptism is done by immersing the totally naked child into water three times ... and you can read all about Eastern Orthodox Baptism here ... if anybody wants to:-
http://www.blessedcelebration.com/All_About_Orthodox_Baptisms_s/14.htm

All that is needed to be Saved (as distinct from being baptised into a particular religion), is to believe on Jesus Christ.


.

LordSutch

So might this actually have been a Greek/Eastern Orthodox baptism? (post#1), and not a R.Catholic baptism?

only asking . . .

J C

LordSutch wrote: »

So might this actually have been a Greek/Eastern Orthodox baptism? (post#1), and not a R.Catholic baptism?

only asking . . .

Possibly could have been an Eastern Right Catholic Baptism (as distinct from a Roman Catholic one)? ... not sure ... as I dunno much about their particular rites.

Perhaps some Catholics of the Eastern Right might be able to clarify.

clairefontaine

It was performed by a Catholic priest in a Catholic Church. He said to me "You've never seen this before?!!!" As if I were the abberration.

brevity

Could have been a neocatechumenate ceremony, it's a proper dunking!

lillycool

Held 'him' up high then dunked 'her' into the water?? How did that happen?

AerynSun

Pouring and immersion are both liturgically valid under the Roman rite, according to the general instruction. Regional customs differ, of course. But the baptism described in this thread is perfectly legit.

Aside: baptisms in the Neocatechumenal Way are quite spectacular! (as brevity says: 'a proper dunking'). I've been in a parish church where they have a baptism pool in the sanctuary, and the Easter liturgies are done in spectacular fashion, full immersion baptisms in front of the entire worshipping community at the busiest time of the church year. You'd want to have guts, to step up for that!

brian_t

AerynSun wrote: »

full immersion baptisms in front of the entire worshipping community at the busiest time of the church year. You'd want to have guts, to step up for that!

Are we still talking about babies here ?

AerynSun

brian_t wrote: »

Are we still talking about babies here ?

The baptisms at Easter start with the babies, and then the queue of adults right after them. All in the same pool, if its the Neocatechumenal baptism.

Pouring and immersion are valid under the Roman rite, for babies and adults.

leonil7

the practice of paedobaptism is weird in itself (regardless of sect), never used by the 1st century christians.
it presumes you become a christian by a ritual.

AerynSun

leonil7 wrote: »

the practice of paedobaptism is weird in itself (regardless of sect), never used by the 1st century christians.
it presumes you become a christian by a ritual.

It doesn't presume that - if you read the rite and are familiar with the Catholic liturgical theology, you'll appreciate that Catholic sacraments are about what God does rather than what the recipient does. In the case of Catholic baptism, it is 'an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace'. Which basically means that being baptised a Catholic - according to the doctrine of the church - means that God's grace is given to the recipient. It doesn't imply that the recipient has full intellectual understanding of that grace, and it doesn't imply that the recipient has had a 'metanoia' moment or insight or made any personal decision about wanting that grace or acknowledging Christ as their saviour.

This is why Catholic baptism and the baptisms that happen in some 'born again' churches are very different things.

Confirmation is the closer Catholic sacrament to many Christians' understanding of baptism, where a person is supposed to be of reasoning age and able to make an intentional personal commitment to Christ and a statement about belonging to the community of believers.

leonil7

the question is not whether baptism is a sacrament or not, but whether you could call it 'weird''. i simply call it weird because it is not found in the NT.

the missionary mandate by christ himself gives you the order of things,

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them (disciples) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them (disciples) to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

you -> make disciples -> baptize disciples, teach disciples.

there is a certain rational awareness in the part of the disciples undergoing baptism. you don't make disciples of people without their willful consent, and more so for them to undergo a ritual as baptism they are not even aware of.

whatever the rcc believe in practice (paedo-baptism) is their own tradition alone. and whatever superstition-made-doctrine they attached to baby baptism is alien to what the apostles believed and practiced.

AerynSun wrote: »

It doesn't presume that - if you read the rite and are familiar with the Catholic liturgical theology, you'll appreciate that Catholic sacraments are about what God does rather than what the recipient does. In the case of Catholic baptism, it is 'an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace'. Which basically means that being baptised a Catholic - according to the doctrine of the church - means that God's grace is given to the recipient. It doesn't imply that the recipient has full intellectual understanding of that grace, and it doesn't imply that the recipient has had a 'metanoia' moment or insight or made any personal decision about wanting that grace or acknowledging Christ as their saviour.

This is why Catholic baptism and the baptisms that happen in some 'born again' churches are very different things.

Confirmation is the closer Catholic sacrament to many Christians' understanding of baptism, where a person is supposed to be of reasoning age and able to make an intentional personal commitment to Christ and a statement about belonging to the community of believers.

irish_goat

Sounds like the priest has been watching too much of The Lion King.

AerynSun

leonil7 wrote: »

the question is not whether baptism is a sacrament or not, but whether you could call it 'weird''. i simply call it weird because it is not found in the NT.

Sure look you could call a lot of things weird if they don't measure up to your own world view - wouldn't make them weird, would just mean you personally experience them as weird.

the missionary mandate by christ himself gives you the order of things

Scripture can be interpreted in many ways. The way you've outlined your understanding is your way of interpreting the mandate, but your way is not the only way. To each, their own.

leonil7

no, the worldview has a reference, and that is what i am trying to tell you - but you seem to ignore it. it is NOT in scripture or practice by the apostles. your reference is your tradition.

which one would you rather refer too ?

and thus i want to make it clear that paedo-baptism as a matter of tradition (and whatever way they want to do it - either overacting like the lionking version, or simple wishywashy raidrops or the use of a cup of water from the fingers of a priest) are just practices made to look religious.

but based on NT and the apostles scripture view of baptism, it is weird.

AerynSun wrote: »

Sure look you could call a lot of things weird if they don't measure up to your own world view - wouldn't make them weird, would just mean you personally experience them as weird.

Scripture can be interpreted in many ways. The way you've outlined your understanding is your way of interpreting the mandate, but your way is not the only way. To each, their own.

AerynSun

leonil7 wrote: »

no, the worldview has a reference, and that is what i am trying to tell you - but you seem to ignore it. it is NOT in scripture or practice by the apostles. your reference is your tradition.

And so do other worldviews have their own references. Yours is clearly sola scriptura - which makes perfect sense to you, but isn't applicable to people from traditions different from yours. And who are you to judge? Be happy with your own tradition. No need to throw rocks at anyone else's.

which one would you rather refer too ?

Since I'm agnostic, it makes little difference which one I would prefer.

and thus i want to make it clear that paedo-baptism as a matter of tradition (and whatever way they want to do it - either overacting like the lionking version, or simple wishywashy raidrops or the use of a cup of water from the fingers of a priest) are just practices made to look religious.

Yes, it IS a matter of tradition. That doesn't warrant your use of emotive terminology like "over-acting" and "wishywashy raindrops" to trash something that you don't really understand. If it's not your thing, don't do it. But you don't have to ridicule someone else's tradition. And no, I don't have the time or the inclination to explain the origin of the Catholic tradition to you, especially when you've already expressed your preference for your own tradition and made it clear how you feel about anything outside of that.

but based on NT and the apostles scripture view of baptism, it is weird.

Based on your interpretation of the NT and the apostles, you think it's weird. For other people who interpret the texts differently and have a different approach to their religion, it's not weird at all.

I wish you well with your tradition, may it bring you many blessings and graces.

J C

leonil7 wrote: »

the question is not whether baptism is a sacrament or not, but whether you could call it 'weird''. i simply call it weird because it is not found in the NT.

the missionary mandate by christ himself gives you the order of things,

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them (disciples) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them (disciples) to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

you -> make disciples -> baptize disciples, teach disciples.

there is a certain rational awareness in the part of the disciples undergoing baptism. you don't make disciples of people without their willful consent, and more so for them to undergo a ritual as baptism they are not even aware of.

whatever the rcc believe in practice (paedo-baptism) is their own tradition alone. and whatever superstition-made-doctrine they attached to baby baptism is alien to what the apostles believed and practiced.

That may explain why there are so many 'lapsed' Catholics around ... they were never 'born again' or Saved, in the first place.
However, in fairness I would also point out that infant baptism isn't just confined to Roman Catholocism ... the Eastern Churches as well as the established Protestant churches all engage in infant baptism.

Everybody is quite entitled to believe in what they wish and I have no desire to challenge the doctrine of other churches as accepted by their members ... but I would make the point that in order to be Saved, people must believe on Jesus Christ themselves ... and nobody else can do do this for them.:)

leonil7

you got it right jc, baptism doesn't save. Christ did, and this is grace, the means is faith. [Eph 2:8]

and if the rcc got this simple truth in perspective, the ritual of paedo-baptism has no bearing at all. for as long as the sacrament of water baptism is an outward expression of an inner transformation, brought about by an understanding and awareness of this change/event in the part of the disciple/believer then this becomes aligned with the NT belief and practice.

in other words, outward baptism is based on inward baptism brought about by faith in jesus.

babies have no understanding , nor rational awareness. they cannot express faith. therefore paedo-baptism gives no weight, but only provides an outward identity of belonging to a certain sect. this is where tradition comes in, the emphasis on the external but their is no change within [Mark 7:13]. it is just a presumption and false assurance that the baby now becomes/belongsto this and that, a placebo effect.

georgieporgy

J C wrote: »

That may explain why there are so many 'lapsed' Catholics around ... they were never 'born again' or Saved, in the first place.
However, in fairness I would also point out that infant baptism isn't just confined to Roman Catholocism ... the Eastern Churches as well as the established Protestant churches all engage in infant baptism.

Everybody is quite entitled to believe in what they wish and I have no desire to challenge the doctrine of other churches as accepted by their members ... but I would make the point that in order to be Saved, people must believe on Jesus Christ themselves ... and nobody else can do do this for them.:)

According to this way of thinking all children who die young are doomed.

martinedwards

Acts 16:33.

the jailer believes and is baptised, and all his household with him.......

Infant baptism is common throughout the christian world, with most protestant denominations joining the RCC in practicing it.

leonil7

use your reason for a minute.

its either you believe that :

a) the household got themselves baptized because the slaver believed, so the 'household' got themselves baptized- regardless of them believing or not. which supports your speculation that babies (who is without reason), assuming they are part of the 'household', are/can also be baptized.

b) that the household also 'believed' like the jailer and is baptized. which rules out babies (who is without reason and cannot believe), assuming they are part of the 'household'.

so this again falls down to the previous issue, that the rcc actually believed anyone can be baptized with or without them consenting. in other words, the person's assent/will is not a necessity (e.g. babies).

do you really and honestly believe the apostles baptized masses of people even with them not consenting or convinced that they should be christians and undergo such procedure ? a forceful baptism in this case.

as you can see this resonates throughout history until today the colonial and forceful cosmetic-conversion of people by the rcc tagging themselves to be christians (simpy because they were baptized) without really a change of heart or the devotion to a biblical christ, a self-deception to the very core.

Christianity by affiliation (and not by true conversion) brought about by undergoing baptism -now this is the weirdest baptism ever.

martinedwards wrote: »

Acts 16:33.

the jailer believes and is baptised, and all his household with him.......

Infant baptism is common throughout the christian world, with most protestant denominations joining the RCC in practicing it.

lmaopml

Congratulations lional you really nailed those Catholics, well done you - and not only that showed best of all what you are against. Cheers. Nice job.

Peregrinus

Baptism by immersion is perfectly legitimate, theologically and ritually, and as far as we know was probably the dominant mode of baptism in the early church. It's still the dominant mode in the Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) churches; it's only in the Latin church that it has largely been supplanted by sprinkling.

Since Vatican II it has enjoyed a (modest) revival in the Latin church, under the influence of ressourcement ("return to the sources") theology, which looks to the theology and practices of the apostolic and patristic periods. A number of churches and cathedrals construycted in the last fify years have purpose-built baptism pools, which at one time were standard features of all churches. But the great bulk of baptisms in the Latin church are still conducted by sprinkling.

Screaming Abdabs

We lived in the US (Seattle area) for 12 years and three of our children were baptized like this as babies at our local Catholic parish. They would be naked, placed in the warm water of the font and water poured over them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then held aloft (usually by their dad) and the congregation sang a song of celebration. It was a big parish so often about 10-15 baptisms at the same Mass.

Very moving. Did not seem weird at all, but that was our norm as we started a family in the US.

katydid

leonil7 wrote: »

the practice of paedobaptism is weird in itself (regardless of sect), never used by the 1st century christians.
it presumes you become a christian by a ritual.

It came from the idea that if one died without being baptism you would go to limbo and never see heaven, and there was a high infant mortality rate, so infant baptism became the norm. Confirmation is the follow up, where the child takes over responsibility for its own faith.