Talk:Baptism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Anglicanism
 Baptism is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
Portal:Christianity
 Christianity Portal
Baptism is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Catholic Baptism

Does anyone have a better picture of a Catholic baptism? The priest's vestments in the one used currently are kinda plain and ugly.

[edit] Trinitarian Formula

I've got some beefs with the opening paragraphs:

Baptism is a Christian ritual or sacrament performed with water, applied 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', by which the baptised person is incorporated into the life and the teachings of Christ, in the context of a Christian church.
Some feminist Christians refer to the persons of the Holy Trinity with more gender-neutral language, such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (or Sanctifier), and substitute this language.

Number one, the comment about the feminist POV is definitely important and belongs in this article (or perhaps another), but just doesn't belong up top like that. That's introducing secondary information before explaining the main point and reads like running off on a tangent.

Second of all, and this should help the other complaint, I don't believe the definitive statement that Christian baptism is performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" should be made at all as a definition of baptism. There are quite a few Christian groups that don't accept the Trinity and/or perform baptisms simply saying "in the name of Jesus Christ," and some other variants. I'm not a member of any of these groups, but I run across them all the time. I think that statement should be moved down below, and then the feminist comment will not seem necessary at the top and can be moved down lower or into the Trinitarian formula page. Jdavidb 15:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright; but there is also the fact that for most of us, the difference between getting wet and getting baptised, resides in the Trinitarian formula. Mkmcconn — 22:43, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The concern with Trinity -- in the Catholic Church at least -- is understanding baptism as being related to persons (the three persons in God). The reason that Father, Son, and Spirit MUST be used is the issue of immenant vs economic Trinity. At Baptism, one is incorporated INTO God -- ie, a relationship of persons. A dubium was sent to Rome asking about Baptism in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Question was as to validity of the baptism. Answer, negative. While the femine aspect of God is quite real, that isn't the issue in teh Sacrament in this case.Davescj 21:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not NPOV

Most recent edit wasn't NPOV. Baptism for Christians may have been instituted by Jesus Christ, but John the Baptist was baptizing first, leading to several possible interpretations of who "instituted" it. Also, baptism seems to have been related to the previous Jewish rites of purification and/or conversion involving a Mikvah; I agree with the previous editor that you can't say baptism originated there, but there is some apparent connection. Moreover, the statement that baptism cleanses Original sin is VERY NPOV. Christians like myself don't even BELIEVE in Original sin. Meanwhile, I have no idea what the "indelible mark on the soul" is, but I've never heard it before in any claimed variant of Christianity. Obviously this is true within someone's religion, but it can't be claimed for all Christianity. Jdavidb 18:26, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed- to POV as it currently reads. -Visorstuff 00:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, while there are some aspects of the new introduction that could use some work, and broadening of reference if necessary, Visorstuff's version is not better. Mkmcconn — 02:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Please be more specific on why the revert - your explanation is too general. Baptism is not only a Christian/jewish ritual. my edits were to broaden the term to what is truly reflected. As it reads now, it is too centric to christianity. Please make the changes to broaden. I think it was better than before... -Visorstuff 13:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The reverted introduction reads:
Baptism is an initiation ordinance (see also sacrament) typically performed with water or in rare cases oil.
Although the rite is usually associated with Christianity, evidence of forms of baptism has appeared in many cultures, including ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, Jewish, Babylonian, Mayan and Japanese cultures, although such evidence is typically archaeological and descriptive in nature, rather than currently performed.
In Judaism and Christianity, baptism is typically performed with water through immersion or aspersion (sprinkling or dipping).
The fact of the matter is, baptism is almost always associated with Christianity. If the only exceptions that we can think of are "archaeological ... rather than currently performed", then they are a footnote, not introductory material. There are certainly other ritual baths, but as far as I know they are not ever called baptisms in English. Even if you ask a Jew, "have you been baptised?", you will be heard as asking, "have you converted to Christianity?", even though the two questions are not absolutely equivalent. Furthermore, you might be talking about chrismation, which is in some traditions is closely associated with baptism. Baptism with oil is rare enough that I've never heard of it: another footnote, rather than suitable to an introduction. Mkmcconn — 01:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought a more generalist approach describing what baptism was and who has performed it would remove recent controversy, but like your edits. However, I feel that the current intro is still POV. Again, good edits. -Visorstuff 06:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] new intro

I've tried to write a new intro. I recognize that there are a few groups that do not baptize using the "trinitarian formula"; but even counting those exceptions this is the most universal of all practices in the various churches. It is one thing that nearly all have in common. It doesn't seem right that because some depart even from this, that it should therefore be denied that Christian baptism is performed "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Mkmcconn — 16:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Baptisms

I put the information on emergency baptisms in the Catholic Church into its own subsection. That way people are aware of the fact, especially in situations where an infant would be in danger of death they can do it themselves instead of waiting for a priest.

JesseG 04:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I remembered that after seeing one episode of ER where the parents of a dying baby wanted the doctors to keep the baby alive long enough so that he could baptized. But the priest was so busy that it took a long time for him to get over to baptize the baby, the baby nearly died before he could do the baptism. I was thinking wait a minute, in an emergency can't they do it themselves?

JesseG 02:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in emergency anyone can baptize. They only have to use water, the trinitarian formula, and intend to baptize. Dave

Question on Dave's clarification - If no actual water is available at an emergency baptism, can saliva (spit) be used in a pinch? Ed

Clarification on Ed's question - remember the Scripture that related Jesus' healing of a blind man by spitting into dirt to make mud, and rubbing the mud on the man's eyes. I haven't a Bible in front of me. I can tell you that emergency baptism using something that is substantially water is generally accepted. The Catechism doesn't say much on the substance of the baptismal water, but generally the idea of baptizing one who is near death is preferable to withholding the baptism for wont of Evian. I've heard anecdotes of broth, juice or wine being used, but I cannot confirm these. Thaddeus Ryan 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Re Ed's question. In the Catholic tradition, the answer would be saliva would be invalid matter. However, the Catholic Church accepts three forms of Baptism: water, blood (mayterdom) and desire. (want to, can't get water. In the case you suggest, the person would be considered baptized by desire if rational and old enough to choose, otherwise, would not be baptized but would be considered to go to heaven, since an infant by defintion can't sin.DaveTroy 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some slight changes in the emergency baptism section. One to be more clear (I hope I was) and a couple of additions. ONte was matter (water) and the second was conditional baptism. Obviously, conditional baptism is not the norm. However, neither is it usually necessary to perform one. In most cases, the priest (or deacon) will simple ask how, who performed the baptism and ask their intentions. If everything is fine, no conditional baptism takes place.DaveTroy 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history and linguistics

Could someone write something about the history of baptism - how and why was it practiced in pre-NT times and cultures, how was it practiced in NT times and what are the meanings of the original words used in various languages (eg. greek)? --charon 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word Baptize comes from the Greek and, as many words do in Greek, it encompasses a concept: To plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it. The most ancient traditions insist on total emersion, the logic being, one doesn’t wash clothes by sprinkling them with water, but by submerging them completely, and so to wash away sins one must be buried in the water as Christ was buried, and rise again as He also rose from the dead.Phiddipus 02:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanx, it would be nice if it was a part of the article, but in some broader form - like a linguistic research with examples and comparations with other texts and occasions of usage. The historical part might include some archeological findings of "baptistries" in ancient buildings where christians met. --charon 10:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I read an old technical book once that cited every reference of the word baptize (and its forms) that is found in Greek literature. It was interesting to see how the word was used. Those texts were using the Greek word in a normal, literal sense, not in a metaphorical sense. But, when the English word "baptize" is used in the English translation, it is easy to read into the Greek text our current connotations of the term. But to do so distorts the actual meaning of the texts. For example, in sea battles ships were "baptized" (they sank). Soldiers "baptized" their swords in their enemies (they stuck their swords clear into their enemies). People were "baptized" in sorrow (they were overwhelmed by sorrow). In all of the secular Greek uses of the word that were listed in the book (and the book claimed to have every instance cited), the term always designated a complete submersion of one object into something else. From this the following observations are made:
(1) The term is a common, non-liturgical term that does not imply an religious or ceremonial activity, unless the context itself explicitly indicates such a meaning. (2) The term in its normal meaning always designates a complete submersion or enveloping of one thing into another. (Of course, individuals could always extend the meaning of the term in a technical sense to indicate something else. But the context always needs to make that extension clear.) (3) The term does not suggest whether or not the submerged item is ever extracted from the medium into which it has been submerged. Context might answer the question, however, or it might leave the issue unclear. For example, when the ship was "sunk/baptized", we may safely assume that it stayed submerged. (4) The view of a few grammarians who argue that the "-izo" ending of the Greek verb means to repeated do something, is simply not valid with this verb. The ship was not repeatedly sunk; it simply sank one time. (I came across this view years ago among some who tried to argue that the Great Commission teaching on baptism implies what they call "trine-immersion" or the three-fold dunking of the person --once each in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The evidence shows that they were "using" --abusing-- Greek grammar to prove / manufacture their point. While the practice of the early church may indeed support trine immersion, the grammar adds nothing to it; such misuse of the Greek was very disappointing.) Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).
This is a very interesting point, thank you. Could you please give us reference to that book? In other languages it is similar. My language also has a manufactured arbitrary term for baptism rather than the correct translation. I've never heared of trine immersion, however the word for "name" in the phrase "in the name of the father..." is in singular, so it does not stand as a reason for 3 immersions. It would also defeat the symbolism of union with Christ's burial and ressurection.--charon 17:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Charon, no, I no longer recall the name of the book. I read it in the seminary library at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. If you really need the reference, perhaps you could contact the seminary librarian there and ask that person to find the book. It was a book on all the references in Greek where the word occurs. It seems to me (this was a few decades ago) that the book was written in the late 1800s by a baptist.

Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).


The tradition of Three-Fold emersion, which is the most ancient Christian form of baptism springs from the apostolic tradition, which St Matthew later put into his Gospel:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Phiddipus 16:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can you prove it historically? How do you get the three-times immersion and rising from the text? Is it based on the three "names"? Isn't just one name mentioned in the greek original? "...baptizing them in the name of the..." (not in the names) And what would be the symbolism of dying and rising with Christ? Did he die and rise three times or once?--charon 17:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Charon, the practice of trine immersion is indeed historically the original pattern. I believe you will find the practice mentioned in the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). The book I mentioned before which was written by a baptist (who did not follow that practice) recognized the historicity of trine immersion as the pattern. As for the symbolism of dying and rising with Christ, etc., it must be remembered that the baptism that Jesus and His disciples administered predated His death, burial, and resurrection. The point of this is that baptism is first of all a "purification" ritual, and only secondarily reflects dying and rising with Christ. Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).
Thanx, I'll look up the references. However, Didache is not an authoritative writing and theoretically may introduce new teaching after the original command of Jesus and teaching of the apostles. "Baptism predated His death" - Priddipus was arguing with the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and those designate the baptism that followed Christ's death, burial and ressurection. This is the baptism that Jesus commanded after He rose: it unites you with Him and you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (unlike the preceding baptisms). Maybe other prior baptisms were trine immersions, but we're talking here about the last one. Baptism's purification is done by uniting the person with the christ's blood and with him dying with Christ, so you can't separate them. Btw. do you consider a single immersion valid? If not, on what grounds?--charon 13:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Text from Main Article

The matter and form of baptism

This is really weird text. Major NPOVing needed. So flagrant that I removed it from the article. Please look over it. I'm going to take some hacks at it myself sometime. Ambush Commander 00:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Most Protestant sects have never objected to or denied that Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Hence it would seem that there was little reason for the post-Conciliar Church to engage in extensive revisions of this rite. Nevertheless highly significant changes were introduced which all but invalidate its usage even where form and matter are retained.

I am indebted to Rev. Father Dominic Savio Radecki, C.M.R.I, for an in-depth study of the changes, but to somewhat steal his thunder would start by pointing out that the documents relating to the new rite of Baptism, or as it is called 'The Rite of Christian Initiation' (RCIA) involves 50 pages of small print with only a single passing reference to original sin while stressing that 'Baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in theSpirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacred bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it.' Under such circumstances the 'intention' of the priest is obviously compromised.

By way of introduction the following comments by Richard Jamison of Los Angeles are pertinent:

'It is obvious that by changing the intent of Baptism from 'removal of original sin' to 'initiation into the Christian community' the purveyors of Vatican II 'null-theology' have invalidated the sacrament. If the intent of the minister can always be questioned, the confection of the sacrament will always be questionable. A consistently questionable sacrament is no sacrament. Ergo, Conciliar Baptism is [almost certainly] consistently invalid....

A premature baby, dying in the arms of its heart broken mother, will never know the 'Christian community' nor does it's tiny soul care about the 'Christian community' Its soul hungers, as do all human souls, for the presence of God Almighty. If the Baptism of Vatican II is false, it will deny that presence to the child for all eternity. The horror of this effect is something which most of us cannot stomach, and therefore we turn way.

A sacrament confers grace, but it also instructs. What are the instructions of Conciliar Baptism?

'Initiation into the Christian community' is relevant and important. 'Removal of original sin' (if original sin even exists) is irrelevant and unimportant.

This is the sum total of post-Conciliar Baptismal teaching. It appears that this teaching is not, strictly speaking an error, because it does not directly deny original sin, it only derogates it to the status of an irrelevancy. Nor can we say that promotion of 'initiation' is an error. Initiation is seemingly just a social irrelevancy, whimsically 'thrown in.' 'Initiation into the Christian Community' is obviously irrelevant. It has no more spiritual significance than initiation into a college fraternity.

So what are we to think of this non-erroneous but probably invalidating Baptismal statement?

Let's identify it as 'null theology.' Null-Theology skirts error by invalidating Truth. It does this by presenting irrelevancies from the realms of pop-psychology, half-baked sociology, quasi-anthropology and oppressive collectivist political theory as Christian Truths. Null-theology is the essence of post-Conciliar 'magisterial teaching,' and Conciliar Baptism is a nearly perfect example of it.

So what is the purpose of conciliary 'null-theology?'

If we can discover the true 'intent' of Conciliar Baptism we will have the answer. What is the real intent of post-Conciliar Baptism?

Is it to deny souls to God? No.

Is it to deny original sin? No.

It is nothing less than to establish the oldest of all heretical lies as truth. The true intent of post-Conciliar Baptism is simply to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The logic is quite simple once the false sacrament is seen as an instruction in null-theology. If Original Sin does not exist or is irrelevant than Redemption is unnecessary. If Redemption is unnecessary than the Crucifixion is not a Redemptive Sacrifice. If there is no Redemption at the Crucifixion than surely Jesus Christ is not Divine. He becomes simply the first leader of the 'Christian community' - a sort of first century crusader for equal rights for the oppressed Hebrew minority within the Roman Empire, on a par with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. (It should be noted that this is exactly the way that John Paul II presented Our Lord in his 1996 Easter Sermon.)

The reason for the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ by the Second Vatican Councilwas this:

The influential bishops of the Church, including John XXIII and Paul VI, believed that the 'side effect,' i.e. 'social progress' was the true purpose of Christianity. Further, they did not believe that the promotion of 'social progress' was compatible with divine law. Therefore, they decided to stop teaching Divine Law and start teaching the quasi-divinity of human beings and human social structures. This can well be summed up by simply saying that the Bishops at the Council and subsequent to it have lost their faith.

Conclusion

For a valid sacrament one must have valid matter, form, intention, and minister. Prior to Vatican II one could assume that a priest had the proper intention when he confected a sacrament. He was well instructed in the seminary in regard to the proper intention for each sacrament. Also, the rite, (i.e., the particular prayers of the Church for each sacrament) sets the proper intention for the priest.

The teachings of Teilhard de Chardin on original sin have been condemned by the Catholic Church. Many priests since Vatican II have followed these errors. A simple error in the mind of the minister does not invalidate a sacrament as long as he intends to administer the sacrament of Christ. In some cases, the person who administers a sacrament not only has a simple error in his mind, but his will positively intends to perform a rite contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church. He invalidates the sacrament. Priests who follow the teachings of Teilhard do validly baptize if they intend to administer the Baptism of Christ and use the proper matter and form.

However, Baptism administered by these priests is invalid if they have an intention in their will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church. The sacrament is invalid if the minister of Baptism elicits a positive act whereby he specifically and definitely excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the essential rite of Baptism. He carries his heretical ideas from the realm of his intellect into that of his intention in such a way that, although pronouncing the words of the essential form in Baptism, he wills and intends to administer a mere external rite or ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy.

Archbishop Kenrick says that a simple error of the mind may lead to a perversion of the will resulting in a defective intention and an invalid Baptism. 'The belief in its efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: yet may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes (my emphasis), that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ our Lord?'

Could this quotation of Archbishop Kenrick be applied to Chardinian-minded ministers?

In summary, since Vatican II many sacraments have been rendered invalid due to a defect in matter, form, minister and intention. A minister of Baptism who accepts the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin in regard to original sin has at least a simple error of the mind. If his will has an intention contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church when administering Baptism, the sacrament is invalid. Priests who follow the teachings of Vatican II do validly baptize if they intend to administer the Baptism of Christ and use proper matter and form.

Practical application

Father Halligan gives some practical guidelines for the investigation of Baptism. 'It is absolutely necessary to determine if de facto Baptism has already taken place and, if so, whether it was a valid administration. No preconceived notions or presumptions that all non-Catholic Baptisms are invalid or doubtfully valid suffice. Dogmatic errors do not of themselves make Baptism by non-Catholic ministers invalid.

Each case must be carefully considered to provide for the salvation of the soul and to guard against irreverence to the sacrament through a useless administration. Only moral impossibility excuses from such investigation. If nothing can be ascertained about the baptism, at least conditional baptism is necessary.'

Therefore, in receiving those who have been baptized with the new rite of Christian Initiation the priest must investigate each case. If the inquiry reveals that Baptism was conferred invalidly the sacrament is to be administered absolutely. The sacrament should be administered conditionally if the point of validity or invalidity remains doubtful.

'Conditional Baptism is given when it is uncertain whether a person has been baptized, or when there is fear of the sacrament having been administered improperly.'

Father Davis writes: 'Whenever a prudent doubt based on probable reasons persists regarding the validity of a sacrament bestowed, that sacrament may be repeated.'

Baptism is of its nature absolutely necessary for salvation. 'The repetition of the sacrament ought to be done where its validity is doubted - or rather, so long as its validity is not morally certain.'

From THE PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER SACRAMENTS by Rama Coomaraswamy

OK, a few things I don't understand, what is conciliar baptism? In the current Catholic rite of baptism, a single person baptizes. I can't find any reference to the objections you speak of. The rite is quite clear that baptism removes original sin. It is also clear that baptism incorporates one into the body of Christ. That is not new with Vatican II. As to the infant, we would presume baptism by desire, since the child was unbaptized. And since neither hell nor purgatory would be logical, we presume in God's infinate mercy the Child goes with God. The Order of Funerals covers this topic. As to validity of baptism, you don't even need to eb Christian to baptize, only to use water, Trinitarian formula, and intend to baptize. If you can help me understand better what you are saying, I would be interested.DaveTroy 08:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Apostolic" baptism?

The writer has applied his peculiar interpretive tradition here as if it was the only one possible, besides citing a number of irrelevant texts, yet other Christian groups obviously don't interpret these verses the same way. This appears to non-NPOV since it's presenting an opinion as if it were objcetive fact. I'll remove it unless there are any reasonable objections over the next day or two. Csernica 18:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Some references on the web, to large christian groups that believe this:



Perhaps editting is more appropriate than outright removal.

Well, that's a reasonable objection right there! Csernica 22:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree that different Baptismal practices need to be included, so editing to remove POV and yet reflecting the different opinion is needed. -Visorstuff 16:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism

Contrary to the following paragraph, Baptism is an ordinance given to the church and therefore may only be administered by the church. An individual may not baptize himself/herself, nor may their parents.


Baptism is something that you freely chose to do or your parents if you are still young. Anyone can have baptism if they believe in Christ. They have to believe fully in Christ to fully recieve a sacrament. If they don't then they still recieve the sacrament but not fully in the eyes of God and the three persons. Baptism is the act of Christ he did not have to go into the Jordan and get baptized. He was free from original sin so that means he and anyone else that was free from it which where only him, his mother Mary and God. Jesus did it so that he could show us how to recieve the sacrament of Baptism to free original sin. There is two kinds of baptism if they die before they recieve the sacrament. They are Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Baptism of Desire is when someone dies, but they desire baptism or if a baby dies or child and they haven't recieved the sacrament of baptism yet then if their parents wish is to baptize their child then the child is bapized. Baptism of Blood is when you give up your life for Christ and you kinda get baptized in your own blood as you die. Baptism of Blood is not really used today in life. Baptism is needed to go to heaven and so are most of the other sacraments.

[edit] only His blood saves

Baptism cannot save anyone or wash away sins; only the blood Jesus can do that. Sin removal requires a blood sacrifice, which Jesus gave us. Water only washes the outside, not the inside; a washing that ALL of us need.

With respect, and I agree that it is Christ who saves, the NT Gospel commands to baptize. This same action is mandated multiple times by Paul in his letters. Therefore, this article logically does fall under Christianity. DaveTroy
Can we stop with the preaching please and reserve this page for discussing article content and changes? This is extremely tiresome. Those of us who don't share your religious views don't want to hear it, and those who do already know it. (Besides, see Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for keeping us on focus. A religion, among other things, is a system of beliefs, and where there is one disagreement between two systems there must be others, as each independent system must maintain its own logicial internal cohesion. Therefore, I suggest any further arguments against Baptism of any form belong within the appropriate ideological entry. Baptism is an institution, not a controversy, and it does very little good to include pros and cons on every single issue - for instance, to include a "Why ____ are wrong" section where ______ refers to a religion, ideology, or culture.Thaddeus Ryan 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I regard to original comment - Colossians 2:12 makes it abundantly clear that baptism is the participation in Jesus' death burial and resurection. CdHess 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Orthodox - Distinctive Difference - the Efficacy of Baptism

Concerning the Eastern Orthodox approach to baptism we must realistically present the Orthodox Church’s canonical point of view, not the opinion of some who seek to gloss over the very real differences between the Orthodox and the rest of Christianity. First of all, the Orthodox do not recognize the validity of any baptism other than an Orthodox one. Roman Catholics are considered by the Orthodox to be completely outside the church and therefore do not possess the grace of God necessary to make the baptism effectual. This is not a popular thing to say but it is the truth. The Orthodox do not consider any other Christian denomination to be part of the Church, therefore how could a Non-Orthodox baptism be construed as acceptance into the Church? When, for instance, a Roman Catholic joins the Orthodox Church, the rubrics of the Church not only call for him to be baptized, but that he must renounce his allegiance to the RC, formally and publicly. Secondly, while it is true that any Orthodox Christian in an emergency can baptize, it is generally accepted that if the “baptizee” survive the emergency, that a Priest will perform the service of baptism for the individual at the earliest possible moment. This is not considered to be a “Re-Baptism” or a second baptism, but rather a baptism of “Economia” to correct the “Form” of the Mystery. Anyone desirous of joining the Orthodox Church is, in essence, baptized in their Heart the moment they have made such a decision. If they die before the Mystery can be performed in Form, that person is still considered Orthodox. It is in the heart and soul that the love of God resides. Never the less, the Form is important and cannot be disregarded except where it is impossible to be performed. Thirdly, it is not uncommon in this day of modern innovation for a priest to have his opinions influenced by non-Orthodox ideas and practices. The Orthodox do not accept sprinkling as a proper form of baptism, yet many Orthodox practice this. It is not therefore, unacceptable, when one joins a more traditional branch of the Orthodox Church to have one’s baptism “Corrected” by “Economia”. Once again, this is not considered to be a second baptism, nor does it imply that the person was not part of the Church, but rather, that the form used was not canonically acceptable and needed correction. This last area is not a black and white area and requires the careful judgment of a bishop in order to administer. Such cases are very delicate in nature and are never taken lightly.--Phiddipus 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)


Having re-read the article, there remains a problem in trying to speak of Orthodox and non-Orthodox in the same parragraph. I cannot speak for anyone but the Orthodox Church, but seeing how the Orthodox reject all the other Christian denominations as either heretics or schismatics, it likewise does not recognize the validity of their “Sacraments” which are not performed by Orthodox clergy or even members of the Orthodox Church. This may be an unpopular viewpoint in the annals of world church politics and it is not meant to say that only the Orthodox are Christians. What it says is that membership in the Orthodox Church through baptism can only be accomplished by the Orthodox. While the form is important, it is not a magical formula, non-Orthodox following the form do not somehow magically create Orthodox Christians even though they themselves are not Orthodox. The baptism and indeed the sacraments of all other Christian denominations are meaningless to Orthodox. The grace of God is given to Orthodox clergy through the laying on of hands and attaches to apostolic succession; no other church is accepted as having this. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, are not members in any way of the Orthodox Church, they do not confess to believe exactly what we believe, they are not in communion with us, therefore their rites and rituals have no significance with us. If at one time they were members of the church (1000 years ago), they are broken away, their apostolic succession is broken, and the Grace of God, as we Orthodox understand it, is no longer present within them. This may not be a very PC thing to say out loud, but it is the truth as far as the Orthodox are concerned. Phiddipus 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's becuase of systematic problems of this nature that I added the "Attention" tags. The article is in need of a massive refactoring. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United Pentecostal Church

I reverted edits by an anonymous user who added a lengthy section on the United Pentecostal Church. I've nothing against that perspective being part of the article, but the material was really long, not wikified, POV, and was pretty much just verbatim from a tract by that denomination (possible copyright issue?). If anyone wishes to add info from this perspective, please do so, but be concise, write in "wiki language", be NPOV, and be original. Thanks. KHM03 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] de-baptism

is it possbile to become de-baptised? Or do you just renounce your faith and it doesnt even matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.234.213.64 (talk • contribs) 68.234.213.64.

Technically no. Some churches allow re-baptism, and would suggest that on occasion, an individual could do things so sinful that they would need to be re-baptized to eliminate all thier sins. Many churches, however, believe that Baptism imparts a spiritual "seal" on the individual, and can never be undone. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not rebaptize, as the point of baptism is the removal of original sin, which can never be returned. A secondary effect is to eliminate personal sins, however, this can be done through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (often called confession), so a baptism is not needed to forgive personal sins.

There would be no need for a de-baptism (the only effect of which would be to reinstate the sins previously forgiven) and as the real point of baptism is to forgive sins, which is something God does, and once He forgives them, they are forgiven forever. In short, no, no de-baptism, but perhaps re-baptism if allowed. -- Essjay · Talk 18:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that some Christian denominations do not require converts who were previously baptized to be re-baptized. However, this is not entirely transitive, ie the Catholic church will accept a Pentecostal's baptism as legitimate but a Pentecostal church may or may not accept the Catholic baptism as legitimate. The underlying reason is generally a difference of the age of baptism in the original denomination, the language and method of the baptism, and whether the receiving denomination recognizes the language, method and age as being legitimate. Thaddeus Ryan 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism - the reason for the confusion

Why can't the churches/denominations agree on baptism? Jesus Christ promised that when we hold to His Teaching we become His disciples and His Truth will set us free, Jn 8. When Jesus Christ was baptized in physical water by John the Baptist, He was fulfilling the OT Law for those who repent and believe in Him. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance but Jesus Christ had nothing to repent of, He had no sin! If we do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ, God's Word, came in sinless human flesh to perfectly fulfill all of the OT Law for us, including all physical water baptisms, then we will never understand the rest of His saving Gospel Truth, 2Jn. For a short summary of this critical Truth, read Ro 1:16-20; Mt 3; Mk 1:14-15; Mt 5:17-20; Mt 6:1,31-33; Mt 11:12-15; Ro 3:21-24; Gal 4:4-7; Ro 7:4-6; Gal 3:6-10. Failure to acknowledge and declare the righteousness of the Son of God will result in spiritual blindness. This is why the churches/denominations do not understand the one and only true baptism of the Holy Spirit of God, the one and only baptism we must have to be born again, born from above, Ac 1:4-5; Eph 4:1-7; 2Pe 1-3. This is why the churches/denominations do not understand God's definition of Grace. No one will receive God's Grace unless they first receive His righteousness through faith, a faith as Abraham had, Ro 1-8. God's many warnings, in both the OT and NT about those who would rebel against His Word, have come true. Today's churches/denominations, their colleges and seminaries indeed have a form of godliness but deny His power, 1Ti 4; 2Ti 3-4. Not one organized church/denomination understands who God is, they can't, they have not been enabled because they have denied the righteousness of God's Son thereby denying the righteousness of Almighty God, Lk 10:21-24. Study the words, "righteous" and "righteousness" in the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Prophets and the entire NT. Those who believe in physical water baptisms of any kind cannot be saved, they have followed another gospel that is no gospel at all, 2Co 11:12-15; Gal 1:6-12. Salvation begins with Living Water, God's Word in Spirit and in Truth, Jn 7:37-39, never physical water. This is very critical information that no one can prove wrong; it is not wrong, Lk 21:15. God said He would destroy the wisdom of this world and He has done exactly that, 1Co 1-3. For lots of free Biblical proof, just email me at canawedding@aol.com. Canawedding 10:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Friend, I admire your zeal. I must suggest, though, that this is not quite the point of this article. An encyclopedia walks the fine line of presenting an institution as it is in whatever form it exists - especially one that exists under scrutiny and controversy - while simultaneously remaining neutral and avoiding proselytization. May your ministry bless many. Thaddeus Ryan 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Baptism is not "Physical water." Baptism is essential to savlation as Romans 3:25 makes clear that faith in his blood is what is first needed. Next, Romans 6:3-7 shows that we are buried with Christ in baptism and forgiven of our sins through Jesus' death burial and resurection. Acts 2:38 also makes clear that repentance must precede baptism and that baptism forgives your sin since baptism is actually the death, burial and resurrection with Christ. 1 Peter 3:21 makes abundantly clear baptism does save you, it is not just the removal of dirt. How can you make all of the above claims and yet leave out these important scriptures.

In the end, I agree with Thaddeus Ryan in that this is an encyclopeida and that there are differences of opinion on the subject of baptism, therfore all views need to be explained in an encyclopeida. CdHess 19:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed marriage and baptism of children

It's bewildering to me how some Catholic kids are given a primary and secondary education in private Catholic Schools, costing their parents thousands of dollars in tuition fees. They are baptized by a priest, confirmed by a bishop, but later, as young adults, they marry a person of another faith but have no regard for baptism of their own offsprings. Attending Mass becomes irrelevant. Instead, the child is brought up to excel in contact sports. These kids begin to crave the cheers and applause of the spectators who attend the games they play. This seems like a pathway to the mundane and materialistic aspects of life. Musicwriter 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholic school children never come out anymore christian than public school ppl. Most of the time they come out worse.

[edit] Attention tag

I have added the attention tag because as it stands this article is a jumbled mess. There was a strong attempt to combine Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist practices into a single section. While the theology behind baptism in these cases are similar in many ways, they are sufficiently different -- and the practices are so widely at variance -- that it has resulted a completely misleading and useless section. Nearly every sentence has to be qualified, and where they are not they are very often simply inaccurate, with the practices peculiar to one group claimed for all the others. Perhaps following a brief introduction to the section summarizing where they are the same, each group needs to be treated seperately in its own subsection. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this template from the article head. It was added on 25 October 2005 and the article has received substantial attention since then. The template was largely unhelpful and no specific problem has been identified. - mholland 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No specific problem was identified because the problems were systematic. Some of what needed to be addressed were taken care of, but many weren't, especially in the "Conditions of the validity of a baptism" subsection, but I'm not going to argue about it. The problem is much less widespread than it once was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] indelible

In Baptism, for Catholics, Baptism makes an indelible mark. That is to say one that is on the soul that cannot be removed. Therefore, it is never repeated. Even if the person leaves Christianity, if they return they are not re baptized. They merely confess their sin, and at absolution are re admitted to full communion in the Church.

Dave

The same is true for United Methodism. KHM03 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The list of external links here is much longer than appears to be indicated per WP:EL:


It seems to me that at least some of these should be Wikilinks to proper discussions (e.g. the LDS, much as I hate to encourage yet more LDS articles) rather than being what is, in essence, offsite forks. Some of the sites appear to be personal points of view. I know it's more difficult in this case than in some others. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me a great many of these are covered under number 4 at WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to. Like Eucharist, this is a very large subject with a wide variance in what is believed about it, and these links all appear representative of real viewpoints. No doubt the article already represents some of these, but I'm not sure it represents all of them. I'm reasonably certain that more than one of them were used as references, which is covered under number 2 above.TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
But the variety of opinon can and should be covered in the article, not by linking to dozens of external sites. Those which are references should of course be included and listed as such.
The real problem here is that once the list of lnks gets above a certain length it becomes difficult to discern which are "official" views and which are just personal takes on it. Also, the more links there are, the more likely it is that individual vanity links will get added (and missed).
You may well be right that many of these are relevant. But I am sure that others are either not relevant, not authritative or are duplicates (in that the persoective is covered in other articles). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It may be appropriate to come to an understanding here as to what is appropriate (of course, respecting WP guidelines). For instance, I think it is reasonable to have a link or two from the Catholics, a link or two from the Orthodox, a link or two from the Methodists, a link or two from the Baptists, etc. These are major groups which deserve mention. KHM03 13:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Being bold again and restoring link or two in this manner. Dominick (TALK) 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Reviewing the current list, that does seem reasonable; I get carried away sometimes. I might tweak the text so it is a bit more consistent (picky!). One question: why two Catholic ones? Catholic Encyclopedia seems authoritative and complete. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be 2 Catholic, 2 Orthodox, etc.; that was merely a suggestion. I suppose if one really good representative link is found, then one is OK. KHM03 13:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I restructured a bit; not sure if it's better or worse. Feel free to change. KHM03 13:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I debated doing that. Lets see if it works. Dominick (TALK) 14:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Sound in principle, a bit clunky in rendering. I wonder if we should use formatting rather than headings to make it a bit tighter? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Make it so. KHM03 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

With everyone's consent, I'm going to add back in bebaptized.org as representative of the Church of Christ in "Other groups." However, I'll leave out the pejorative "Campbellite." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mikvah

I read the opening line that states "and has its origins with the Jewish ritual of mikvah.", and I also read the linked article on the Jewish mikvah, but the relationship is not apparent.

The Jewish mikvah does not require a priest to be present - an individual washes him or herself, and this washing can be repeated by themselves as required, which contrasts with Christian Baptism, which is preformed by a priest on an initiate, and then only once. I cannot see why is there a claim that Baptism originated from mikvah.

The action of ritual bathing seems to have its origin with the mikvah, but the significance has totally changed. John the Baptist shifted the emphasis from ritual cleanliness to moral cleanliness: it was a "baptism of repentence". Christianity took John's baptism and added to it the meaning of being joined to the death, and resurrection of Christ. Strictly speaking baptism doesn't require a priest either, and some groups don't even require the person administering it to be a Christian.
Still, a reference would be nice.
I am transferring this to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads should go. The simplest way to do this is to click on the "+" next to "Edit this page", which prompts you for a topic name and then adds your post to the bottom automatically. Also, you should sign posts to talk pages. An easy way to do this is to type 4 tildes (~~~~) which signs your username with a link to your user page and a timestamp. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two small edits.

Reading over this article I saw a couple of things I thought needed clarification.

Under "Baptist and other Protestant baptism" it said that "a wide variety of other Protestant denominations deriving from the Anabaptist tradition, including Mennonites and Pentecostals." I changed that to "some Pentecostals" as not all of us do follow the Baptist interpretation.

Under "Baptism in Churches of Christ" there was a statement that said no one taught that receiving the Holy Spirit meant receiving such gifts of the Spirit as speaking in tongues. Rewritten to make it clearer that the Chruch of Christ does not teach this (other churches do).

David Bird

[edit] Emergency Baptism cont.

In one such case, antifreeze from a car radiator was used under extraordinary necessity, and declared valid.

Could somebody please dig out the source of that?

Seems purely anecdotal. Baptismal 'water' must be substantially that. Broth, juice, wine have been used, but antifreeze is ethelyne glycol. It'd seem easier, anyway, to use precipitation or condensation from the air conditioning coils.Thaddeus Ryan

Yes, antifreeze isn't water. But the Catholic Church has said, that, in an emergency, if you're not sure whether something's water or not, use it anyway.--Gazzster 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even in an emergency, the matter would be invalid. Only TRUE WATER (aquae verae) is valid matter for the sacrament (cf can. 849). The Holy See has said that urine, blood (not martyerdom), fruit juice, saliva, etc are INVALID matter, even in cases of necessity. In those instances, baptism of desire would take place.DaveTroy 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But I was looking at a situation where a person has a subjective difficulty in distinguishing what is regarded as valid matter from invalid matter. Sometimes it is tricky to determine what is 'true water'. Do we mean pure water? Mixed with something else? Ice? Steam? The meaning of what is 'true water' may vary from person to person and from society to society. The Roman Catholic Church considers the sacrament so important that even doubtful matter, even probably doubtful matter, may be used sub condicione. I did not have the example of antifreeze specifically in mind. I was thinking of something like thin broth or tea, where the authenticity of the matter is harder to ascertain.--Gazzster 13:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My POV for broth would be invalid as the substance has radically changed, for example the same reason Coke (or similar) would be invalid. While club soda (water with gas) would be valid, as it is still water, basically the matter has not changed. Ice and steam are both water, but would need to be liquified sufficiently for "washing" (water moving) over the head. I would consider tea doubtful, adn would re-baptize personally (again the nature of the matter has been changed). Woestman in his commentary defines water as "whatever is commonly and ordinarily understood as water" (Woestman, Sacraments Intiation, Penance, Annointing of the Sick, Ottawa, St Pauls Univeristy Press 2004, pg 37) The Holy See has given the following as examples of "water" -- sea water, well water, natural spring water, and other similar things. But notice in all cases, the water is natural -- that is not mixed with anything. The 1917 code used the words "true and natural" to get at the same concept.85.20.110.17 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions about Catholic Baptism

1. Didn't the Catholic Church substantially reverse itself on unbaptized infants in the last year or so? 2. Hasn't the Catholic Church abandoned the "baptism is necessary" track, or at least heavily altered it? (I know that Catholic theologians have been very vocal of late about the claim that you don't have to be Catholic to be saved) Phil Sandifer 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Not as far as I know. The Catechism says, essentially, we have no idea what happens, but trust in God's mercy; previously, it was thought that they couldn't go to Heaven, so they'd end up in Limbo, a place of perfect physical happiness but no spiritual happiness. The Catholic Church teaches that for all we know, that might still be true, but we hope and trust that God has means of allowing them into Heaven.
2. No to both. As the article states, baptism by desire or blood can replace "ordinary" baptism, but something of the sort is still needed, as far as we know. (NB: "Catholic theologians" don't count as "the Catholic Church" - a given theologian can say anything, but until explicitly approved, it's just them saying it.)
--Cheyinka 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About Limbo - The present Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger has stated, notably in an interview published as The Ratzinger Report (1986) that Limbo has no basis in the Scriptures. It was an idea developed in the Middle Ages to explain what happens to infants who die before baptism. As such it is not a teaching that commands compulsion of belief in the Catholic Church. As Cheyinka states, it is, from a doctrinal position, sounder to commend them to the mercy of God.--Gazzster 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref Phil's question, not the Church has not changed on the requirement of baptism for salvation. The question of those unbaptized and their salvation is discussed and understood apart from the normal sacramental process.85.20.110.17 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about "Part of the series on Latter Day Saints"

why is Baptism, a general topic, a part of the series on Latter Day Saints? wahlau 16 April 2006

[edit] Revoking baptism?

Does anyone know if it's possible to revoke a baptism, and, if so, how? -Christiaan 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Revoke someone else's? No. One might become excommunicated, but reconciliation to the Church after that does not involve another baptism. Renounce your own? You can. But in that case, again you do not get rebaptized if you change your mind later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you can renounce anything at a personal level I guess. I'd like to know if there's any formal process that somebody can go through to revoke their baptism (and Confirmation for that matter). Do you know of any? -82.35.13.121 12:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
One cannot undo what is done, One cannot turn back the clock. One can only change direction.--Phiddipus 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a story from the desert fathers (2nd century) that answers this question. There was a boy who was born, baptized and raised a Christian. He fell in love with the daughter of a pagan priest. He asked this man for his daughters hand in marriage. The priest consulted his pagan gods (who in fact, were demons) and asked them if it was possible for this Christian to marry his daughter. They told him to have the boy renounce his Christianity and offer sacrifice to them. Amazingly, when the boy was given this task, he immediately renounced Christ and offered up libations to the pagan “demon” gods. The father then consulted his “gods” once again – could the boy now marry his daughter? But the demons replied that despite his having renounced Christ, the Holy Spirit still enshrouded the boy and would not release him. Once a Christian, nothing the boy could do would change that. When the father saw the awesome power of Christ and heard from his own demons their lack of power, the pagan priest immediately renounced his false gods in favor of the one true God. The boy later repented of his sin, seeing the profound change in the father of his beloved. He realized that though he had abandoned Christ, Christ never abandoned him. --Phiddipus 03:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to the question of whether the sacrament of Holy Orders - i.e., the priesthood - can be revoked. The short answer, according to Catholic teaching, is that it can not, as the recipient is considered to have been indelibly marked by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament, which can not be revoked by any earthly authority, including the Church itself.
Thus, even though a priest may be "laicized", "defrocked" or "kicked out of the priesthood" as in the well known sexual abuse scandals of recent years, he nonetheless remains a priest and in certain extraordinary cases (principally those involving persons in danger of immediate death), he has not only the right but the duty to exercise his priestly office. But routine exercise of the priestly office is forbidden and would be a grave sin for the laicized priest. Interestingly, even though marriage or any other sacrament routinely performed by such a person would be illicit it would nonetheless be canonically valid. This doctrine is summarized by the tag phrase "once a priest, always a priest".
The same logic applies to Baptism, which is why the Church rejects re-baptism of adults who have converted to Catholicism from other denominations which it considers to possess canonically valid sacraments, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[edit] On Orthodox Acceptance of Non-Orthodox Baptism

The paragraph, as it currently stands, sounds a lot like posturing. If the baptism of Non-Orthodox utilizes the same form as Orthodox, yet the Orthodox do not believe the Non-Orthodox baptism has grace, then there would be no reason whatsoever to forgo performing a proper Orthodox baptism. If, on the other hand, a convert is allowed to believe his Non-Orthodox baptism is in some way acceptable then I warrant that the clergy involved have made a grave error and denied the very faith they claim to support. I am, of course, not overlooking “economia” as a means of correcting “incorrectly done” baptisms, but I think this applies to questions of incorrectly done Orthodox baptisms, not those of Non-Orthodox.--Phiddipus 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I largely wrote that paragraph as it stands, if memory serves. I'm aware of the controversy, but we're not here to present one side's or another's "correct" vision of things, but only to report matters as they are. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, this is how it's done in churches of the Russian tradition and this is the reasoning for it. Nor is this a recent innovation: Chrismation was the method by which (for example) Roman Catholics and Lutherans were directed to be received long before the Russian Revolution. The OCA does it that way because the service books it inherited from Russia say to do it that way. I don't know the history behind why they say that, but have only been told the reasoning behind it. I don't need to know the history to report the current practice.
For what it's worth, the Greeks and Russians have almost never agreed on this. Back when the Greeks were receiving Roman Catholics by chrismation, the Russians were baptizing them. Now the situation is reversed.
In any event, I carefully tried to include both sides of the issue without passing judgment on either. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism-like ritual in Norse pagan practice?

A few poems in the Elder Edda refer to the Norse name-giving ceremony of "sprinkling with water" (vatni ausa); scholars have disagreed whether this developed independently or as a reaction to Christian baptism. --ISNorden 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's something of a problem with the study of Nordic religion in general. Most of what we know about it postdates contact with Christianity, so we can never really tell which apparently similar features were due to borrowing. The wearing of the Thor's Hammer talisman may be another example, reacting to the Christian crucifix. (Or maybe not, but I don't think we can tell either way.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conditions of the validity of a baptism

Is it worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church no longer considers Mormon baptisms valid? --Cheyinka 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Cheyinka, that interests me. Do you have details?--Gazzster 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Straight dope here: [1] Goldfritha 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed LDS tag

I removed the "LDS" tag from the section talking about baptism in the LDS church. It was the only religion sidebar in the article. If it were included, we might as well have each religion's giant sidebar tag in every single section in the article, leading to anarchy and a hard to read article. Tempshill 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction, there was 1 other sidebar, "Panj Pyare", which I just removed for the same reason. Article is now free of sidebars. Tempshill 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Baptism of Desire

In Catholic Theology, baptism of desire not only refers to catechumens, as the article says, but to any person desiring baptism who cannot, for whatever reason, obtain baptism by water. This desire might be explicit, in the case of a non-Christian who believes he must be baptised to be saved, or even implicit, in the case of a non-Christian, who, through no fault of his own, does not realise the necessity of baptism yet desires union with God. This teaching can be found in standard Catholic texts.--Gazzster 07:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian baptism as a sacrament

Sacrament as defined in the Anglican and Roman catechism - "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace".

Outward sign - water; inward grace - the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

This is apparently the first effect of baptism. It seems to me that this, in effect what baptism is supposed to achieve spiritually, isn't really mentioned in the article - it is glossed over as being a matter of dispute - while only the secondary effects (salvation from sin, integration into the Church) get stated. Can I add this to the denominational paragraphs to bring out this important point? Or does this come under NPOV rules?

I'd like to put in a link to "Catechumen", which has information on what may happen before baptism and the need for belief to precede it. OK?

Jeremynicholas 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative Summary

I formatted the comparitive summary - and copyedited anything I have knowledge of - I think there is probably a need to copy edit other rows. I am not sure on whether this is useful - or somthing that will be difficult to maintain as neutral --Trödel 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Another note - the cited reference for this section does not seem to be verifiable. --Trödel 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Updated entries on Episcopalian practice and belief. Someone else may want to figure out how to insert reference near the chart. http://www.holycross.net/anonline.htm CAHeyden 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptize or baptize

The Catholic Church teaches that the use of the verb "baptize" (or "baptize") is essential.

What was the second one supposed to say? "Baptise"? Marnanel 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism in Norse Culture

A pagan rite of "sprinkling with water" for newborn infants is mentioned in Egil's saga and in Njal's saga as well as various other writings. The instances cited occur in pagan households, prior to the introduction of Christianity to Iceland.

[edit] Roman Catholicism

The reverts by Lima look good, given that this page compares details of different baptisms in a cursory way. Most of the other sacraments have individual pages, so I'll likely start a Baptism (Catholic Church) page today. Freder1ck 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

I see that the page I was looking at earlier had been mostly blanked, leaving only the comparative summary. That makes things quite different. Freder1ck 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The reference to increased popularity of immersion among Catholics is interesting. I know many parishes that feature small pools like the one shown in the photo of St. Raphael Cathedral. However, these pools are not deep enough to practice full immersion, in which the head and body are immersed in water; instead, the baptisms that I have seen are better described as pouring (drenching), but over the whole body instead of just the head. It would be more accurate perhaps to say that "forms of immersion" "the idea of immersion" are becoming more popular. I just found the following article discussing recent changes: Adoremus - "Immersed in controversy:fonts or pools?" Freder1ck 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck


[edit] "Reformist churches"

This appears in the phrase "Reformist churches such as the churches of Christ" under the heading "Meaning/Effects of Baptism". I removed the hyperlink associated with the term, as it led to the article on political "Reformism" in the UK. The term does not appear to be defined elsewhere in Wikipedia. It would appear to be distinct from "Reformed churches". Perhaps another term was intended. Someone who knows should correct it if necessary. Thanks. 71.122.156.77 01:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I found out that it should be "Restorationist", so I made the change. Someone has evidently been making deliberate subtle-plausible changes. 71.122.156.77 01:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salvation Army

Salvation Army Do not baptize anyone today. Believe it was to be done only at the time of Christ. That was from the table in the article.Now,it may vary according to different countries,but my best friend recently got baptized in the Salvation Army church.Could someone clarify? Serenaacw 10:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[2] says that the SA don't baptise adults or children even in Australia. Are you sure that your friend was baptised by the SA, rather than just in a SA building or something? Marnanel 19:09, 26 December 2006

(UTC)

It was definitely in the SA.Their whole family are members of that church.I'm wondering if that particular church of the SA demonination doesn't agree with the main SA's ruling on baptism,so they practice it as a private thing.Thanks for looking that up,I'lll look into it a bit more.:) Serenaacw 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us know what you find out! Marnanel 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methodist Contradictions

In the comparison chart, it says that Methodists see baptism as merely an outward sign. Under the section Meaning/Effects of Baptism, it says that Methodists believe in baptismal regeneration. The section Baptism in most Christian traditions also lists this claim.

In addition, the Meaning/Effects of Baptism claims that Methodists were formed early in the Reformation, which doesn't seem correct to me, but I'm not certain. Freder1ck 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

[edit] ISBN -> OCLC

Not seeing a valid ISBN for this

  • Scaer, David P. ''Baptism.'' Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Vol. XI. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 1999. ISBN 0-9622791-2-1{{Please check ISBN|Calculated check digit (9) doesn't match given.}}

I am removing the ISBN and inserting an OCLC and ASIN. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Small Edit

Amended section 5.5 , "Who may administer baptism," to reflect new traditions towards the baptism practices of non-denominational churches.

"Newer movements of Protestant Evangelical churches, particularly non-denominational, have begun to allow those persons most instrumental in one's faith to baptize. The rationale for such a practice lies in the New Testament accounts of John the Baptist baptizing his own disciples, Christ his own, Phillip his own (such as the Ethiopian Eunich), etc."

72.86.7.190 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)rthomasneace

[edit] More on emergency baptism

In an emergency, someone who is not a priest can baptize someone, and (depending on Church) perhaps even someone who is not themself baptized; so, if the conditions called for it, could someone baptize themself? To put forward a purely hypothetical situation: someone trapped alone down a mineshaft, on a desert island, or injured after an accident, thinking death imminent and wanting baptism.... Could someone in that situation perform a self-baptism (water plus "I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit")?

Speaking from a Catholic perspective, the answer would be no, but again falls under baptism of desire.DaveTroy 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christian practice

Early Christian period is generally regarded as the period after the Death of Jesus c.33. St. Cyprian (Epistle 75), was baptised in 245 or 246, well beyond this period.

If there is dispute surrounding early Christian time period, perhaps the heading could be changed to "First Century Christian practice"? This would certainly remove ambiguity? Or place sub headings for various "early Christian" periods?--Traveller74 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines "early Christianity" (to which Traveller74 has kindly inserted a link in this article) as follows: "The term Early Christianity here refers to Christianity of the period after the Death of Jesus c.33 and before the First Council of Nicaea in 325." Cyprian belongs to this period.
We have documents and paintings that indicate how baptism was administered in early Christianity (normally, but not always, by immersion). I think it would be useless to add a section on the practices of first-century Christianity, what some call Primitive Christianity. It would only be speculation. Have we any evidence of the manner in which the Philippi jailer was "immediately" baptized, apparently in his house, not in a river or the city baths (Acts 16:33)? How long would it have taken to baptize by total immersion the three thousand or so who "received (Peter's) word (and) were baptized ... in that day" (Acts 2:41)? One can speculate that these people of Philippi and Jerusalem were indeed baptized by total immersion. One can just as easily speculate that some other form of baptism must have been used. Surely we don't want to dedicate a whole section of the article to such speculation. Can Traveller74 point to any hard and fast evidence of how first-century Christians administered baptism? I suppose that, only if the Didache could be shown to be of the first-century and not of the first half of the second, would we have evidence about first-century practice, and that document states clearly that merely pouring water on the head was recognized as a form of baptism. (I had better (re)insert the Didache's statement in the article, especially since someone who disliked the idea must have removed (censored?) it: the article still has a reference to "the above quotation from the Didache".) Lima 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I must disagree that having a section devoted to first century Christian baptism would be "useless", nor would it be speculation to mention/quote (without bias or speculative comments) first-hand accounts from the Bible. Any speculation regarding this period should be left to the reader. If added this section could present known texts from the bible (or reference to), and references from historians.

As noted by Lima, this period is distinctly different from latter periods. --Traveller74 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC) --Traveller74 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I await with interest the "first-hand accounts from the Bible" that show how Primitive Christians baptized. I have now read the Wikipedia article on the Didache, and I have learned from it that the prevalent scholarly view is that the Didache is of the first century, and that some would even put it as early as 44 or 47, making it contemporary with the earliest letters of Saint Paul. This last opinion I am reluctant to accept. But I cannot formulate a judgement on the basis of any expertise of my own. And even if I could, it would be excluded by Wikipedia's "no original research" (in other words, verifiability) rule. Lima 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I Fail to see where I’ve mentioned first-hand accounts that give any direct reference to the method of baptism? If somehow I’ve inferred this, please accept my apologies. What I propose is to merely mention biblical references and let the reader draw their own conclusions as to how the baptisms were actually performed. After all, no one is disputing the veracity of these texts, and they should be able to stand on their own.
I’m also concerned that the (baptismal pool) http://www.koelner-dom.de/index.php?id=88&L=1#b link is dead, and has been for some time. --Traveller74 11:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have checked and found that the link works for me. Does anyone else have problems with it? I wonder whether, if Traveller74 tried this link and then scrolled down to the words beginning with the letter B, the problem would be overcome. The text there is: "Related to the later medieval baptismal font, this was an early basin often in the floor of a baptistery which allowed Early Christian baptisms to take place with a pouring of water over the person standing in the pool. Many different forms of baptismal piscinas follow Antique models, but only in the 5th/6th century they were clearly related to Christian use with a definite form: e.g., the octagonal piscina with the ciborium in Cologne. More often round and square versions survive from Early Christian times." If others too have difficulty in reaching this text, I should perhaps insert it in the article. Or perhaps I should insert it immediately. A description of the baptismal pool in the Cologne cathedral is given here. More general information on baptismal pools, the average depth of which was less than three feet, can be found in the Archeology section of the article Baptismal Font of the Catholic Encyclopedia of a century ago. Perhaps that is the link that I should put in the article. With renewed thanks to Traveller74. Lima 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added two sub-headings to this section, Apostolic period, and Post apostolic period. Contrary to Lima's assertion that the Apostolic period could only be filled with speculation, it currently has verifiable, non-denominational and non-biased information. --Traveller74 13:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Again I thank Traveller74 for the kind assistance given, through which I have learned that the Didache is generally considered to be a first-century work (and therefore extremely important for knowledge of the earliest manners of administering Christian baptism, about which the New Testament gives no details), and have also learned much more than the very little I knew about baptismal pools. Some of this knowledge I have now inserted into the article. Lima 15:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank Lima for his/her paitence and brilliant editing abilities. During research into various historical texts I've managed to expand my own knowledge on the subject, and have hopefully contributed something to this article.

However, there are a few points that need attention:

  • References to historian Augustus Neander's works regarding infant baptism have been removed. This should go somewhere in the baptism article, as it does relate to baptism.
  • Other references to Augustus Neander's works have been removed, why?
  • References to Histoire Dogmatique, Vol. 1, page 236. has been removed, which would give the reader a more balanced view of aspersion and a time period for its introduction.

--Traveller74 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful for Traveller77's continued collaboration.
  • On infant baptism, Traveller77 could begin a new section. This section is on the manner or method of baptism: immersion etc.
  • The only other reference to Neander seems to be: Augustus Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries states: "Baptism was originally administered by immersion." (Note that Neander does not say: "Baptism was originally administered only by immersion.") My omission of this was not deliberate: it must have dropped out together with the talk about infant baptism. For my part, I do not see its importance. Nobody, as far as I know, denies the statement. But if Traveller74 thinks it important, it can easily be put in along with the other quotations in footnote 3.
  • The quotation about aspersion from Corblet's Histoire dogmatique refers to the thirteenth century, long after the period we are considering. One might as well say (and with truth): "Even in the twenty-first century baptism by aspersion is still an out of the ordinary practice in the Roman Catholic Church." Besides, the quotation from Corblet must surely be a mistranslation, if not an out-and-out fabrication. Thomas Aquinas most certainly did not say that "a minister would sin gravely in baptizing other than by immersion, because he would not be conforming to the ceremonial of the Latin Church." Look up what he actually did say on the question Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism? Lima 06:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Continued thanks to Lima, whose contributions continue to enlighten me.
  • Infant baptism is necessary in the section on the post-apostolic period, as it gives reason for the introduction of aspersion. Even if it is an out of the ordinary pracitce, it is another form of baptism introduced during this period of early Christianity. Also it's referenced in an earler quotation provided by Lima: "Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed" therefore deserves further explanation.
  • Further research on the history of infant baptism has uncovered works by historian Louis Réau, who discusses infant baptism and shallow baptism pools. It is a fitting introduction to Lima's paragraph on these archaeological uncoverings.
  • Given Lima's comment on the quotation about aspersion from Corblet's Histoire dogmatique I didn't re-insert this. But may do so if further research uncovers more solid information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

On further inspection, this section seems to be contradicting itself. In the Apostolic period section, one paragraph clearly states of Bible accounts "None of these accounts describe the manner of administering baptism", which seems to be correct. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia has seemingly derived methods from these same texts "Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed." --Traveller74 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction between the statement about the absence of description of the method used for the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament and the statement about baptisms administered to people in prison awaiting martyrdom in subsequent early-Christian times. The latter statement does not say that aspersion was used; only that, since immersion was impossible, these baptisms must certainly have been conferred either by infusion/affusion or by aspersion, the only other methods that could be used.
I do not see on what grounds it is presumed that baptism by aspersion arose because of baptizing infants. Surely it is easier to immerse infants than adults. If a discussion of infant baptism is to include such considerations, it needs a section of its own all the more. Lima 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is other supporting evidence, the assertion that immersion was impossible can only be pure speculation given that Bible texts don't give details of how these baptisms were administered. certainly affusion may have been possible during this period, however aspersion seems highly unlikely at such an early time.
The infant baptism comments are not my own, rather, they're from a reliable and verifiable source, French historian Louis Réau. His grounds for reasoning are quite clear, specifically, the dangers of immersing infants in water. This text certainly gives the reader one reason for when and why aspersion was introduced. If you can find other information regarding when and why aspersion was introduced, please fell free to add.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs).
Apologies for not being sufficiently clear.
  1. The quotation in question spoke of immersion as impossible in the circumstances of imprisoned catechumens about to be martyred. It was not referring to the baptisms mentioned in the "Bible texts".
  2. The quotation does not say that aspersion was actually used for those persons. It merely says that, since immersion was not possible for them, and since these were in fact baptized before execution, some other method (and there are only two other possibilities) must have been used.
I do not have Réau's book, not have I found anything much about it on the Internet. Does it say that aspersion was in fact used by early Christians? And on what evidence? If there is no clear evidence either that aspersion was actually used, even if only occasionally, in that period, or on the other hand that it was never used, even occasionally, in that period, then it is out of place to speak of it specifically (rather than just as one of the possible forms of non-immersion baptizing) in this section that treats of the method(s) the early Christians used in baptizing. I hope too that the information about the book is not just second-hand and perhaps no more trustworthy than the attribution to Corblet of the above statement about Thomas Aquinas. Lima 09:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Lima for the clarification, perhaps the article could be updated to reflect this.
Information supplied regarding Corblet and that of Réau's book is true and accurate, and certainly has not been altered by myself. The fact that Corblet was not re-inserted after your deletion does in no way lessen its veracity; it was removed until supporting evidence could be located, as a courtesy to yourself . Surely, this should be given the benefit of doubt, rather than suggesting some form of underhanded work? And I certainly hope your not inferring anything about my character, or the writers who originally referenced this work. Unambiguous references have been given, and it's open to public scrutiny for verification. Dare I say, perhaps bias toward the Catholic church is somehow interfering with intellectual reasoning.--Traveller74 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you happen to have better information regarding the emergence of aspersion I'd like to read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
No, I was not casting aspersions (good word!) on the character of Traveller74, in whose good faith I have full trust. But I have cast them on whatever source attributed to Corblet a statement that I cannot believe Corblet actually wrote. I wonder whether, in accordance with Wikipedia rules about verifiability, more of the quotations that Traveller74 gives should be rephrased to read: "Source X says that such-and-such an author wrote that ..."
Well then, I await enlightenment about what is the earliest evidence of the use of aspersion, rather than affusion or immersion, for baptism. As far as I know, baptism by aspersion is still very rare today and any discussion of it is done with a view not to practising it, but rather to considering on a theoretical level whether it would be valid. Perhaps someone will enlighten me on this question also. Lima 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The claims made in this article are not exceptional, and have already been given strong sources, therefore according to wikipedia should not require any stronger sources (see verifiability). They may however go against teachings from one or more Christian denominations, which of course, cannot be avoided. For the sake of neutrality, I have carefully avoided using sources that would bias this section toward one particular denomination, which is why notable historians have been primarily used. Of course, if you're still in doubt, you could seek original texts for verification.
The search for more information regarding the emergence of aspersion is in progress and awaiting my next visit to the library. You'll be one of the first to know if/when more information is found. I've tried to avoid mentioning any texts regarding the validity of any particular baptism method. This topic is entirely subjective and open to all sorts of opinions from virtually every denomination, therefore should be restricted to the appropriate sections. At this point, the evidence suggests aspersion has seemingly been introduced at some point after the apostolic period, would you agree? --Traveller74 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I see now that some questionable additions escaped my notice yesterday. "In stark contrast to adult only baptism practices of first-century Christians ..." is certainly a POV statement. Infant baptism shows that the first-century situation is not that clear. Just as unsourced is what is said of aspersion. The quotation from Réau in fact says nothing of aspersion: why should aspersion, rather than affusion, have been used for those standing in a baptismal pool? Corblet too, who the Traveller74 editing says spoke of aspersion, in fact explicitly speaks instead, in the quotation from him, of affusion (pouring). Since Traveller74 puts such store by these quotations, I have preserved them by putting them with the others that speak of how immersion was the usual, normal, prevalent form (not necessarily the only form) everywhere at first, but later gave way to affusion in the West. (I would have thought it unnecessary to put more than, at most, one quotation about this matter: surely nobody disputes it.) I have preserved the Neander quotation also, and even inserted it in the article on infant baptism. Lima 07:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's difficult to see how a complete lack of evidence for infant baptism is "not that clear"? But given the nature of the topic in general, it is understandable. In fact the Infant baptism article is full of POV and bias toward Catholicism. This is obviously a sore point for the modern day catholic church and its proponents. Jesus aptly prophesied about such matters in Matthew 15:3-9.
I've re-inserted the Corblet paragraph, and changed the error that you've so kindly pointed out. It now reads "Regarding the transition from immersion to affusion". This was an error on my part. With the error fixed, there is no valid reason to remove this paragraph. Lima's preceding paragraph mentions affusion, so it is fitting to have a background on this manner. If removed/moved, it can only be because of POV reasons. --Traveller74 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There may be "complete lack of evidence for infant baptism" in the first century. Much more certainly, there is complete lack of evidence that baptism of infants was excluded in the first century: at a time when Christianity was growing by conversion much more than by by child-bearing, it was inevitable that people would write of baptism principally with converts in mind. Conclusion: "the first-century situation is not that clear", i.e. as clear as Traveller74 still thinks it is.
The Corblet quotation is already in the article, together with other quotations - an unnecessary number of them - dealing with the same matter. See footnote 3. I have also clarified that it refers to the centuries-later change whereby pouring became the prevailing method in the West. It has in fact been said that the change was due to the colder climate of northern Europe, the same reason given for the change whereby solemn baptism began to be conferred at Pentecost rather than at Easter. In the East, immersion has remained the prevailing (but not the only) method. Lima 05:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some editing and corrections

I did some minor editing to clarify or rectify some things. First of all, under "Meaning/effects of batism", it was said that WATER baptism was a requirement for salvation, a belief "shared by the Roman Catholic...". I removed "water" and specified right away the other types of baptism although I know they are explained in more details in another section. Otherwise, someone who reads this will think that the Catholic Church holds that only water (sacramental) baptism can save, which is not true. Secondly, I added the John 3:5 quote in the section "Catholic baptism and salvation" because the opening sentence "this teaching dates back to the teachings... of first-century Christians" is a half-truth since it is really based on Jesus' own words. In the section "who may administer a baptism", I would suggest to remove the last sentence "The rationale for such a practice..." since there are no New Testament accounts of Christ baptizing his own disciples (there never will be a citation!), so I think the whole line of reasoning doesn't hold up. Finally, in the comparative summary chart, the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church about baptism should be clarified. Grace doesn't "starts one's path to salvation"... it is salvation! Grace is divine life. If you have divine life (if you're filled with Holy Spirit!), you have salvation. It would be better to say : "Sacramental baptism infuses the sanctifying power called grace. It 'removes' original sin and confers forgiveness of actual sins. Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation." or something among those lines. Of course, if the entire Chart is taken as an external source, it may not be possible to modify it (?) --66.131.26.228 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I add my signature at a later date to identify myself properly --Benz74 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic understanding of LDS baptism

I added the citation for the invalidity on LDS baptism. It is worth noting that the CDF DID NOT specify reasons, only made a declaration. Further, as noted in the following sentence, no other group was effected, only the mainline denomination. This is because only the main LDS church was studied as to sacramental validity. I added a citation for that as well.DaveTroy 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/p/Talk%7EBaptism_a8ee.html"