Can't find a church - need to get baptized

[Paidiske]

Aspersion is widely used in continental Reformed circles (including among Presbyterians). It is perhaps the most suitable method if you believe in baptising infants on the first Sunday after they leave the hospital.

Are you sure you don't mean affusion, the pouring of water over the head? That's different to aspersion, which is a genuine sprinkling, often with greenery that's been dipped into the water.

 

[Radagast]

Are you sure you don't mean affusion, the pouring of water over the head? That's different to aspersion, which is a genuine sprinkling, often with greenery that's been dipped into the water.

You might wish to call it "affusion with a minimal amount of water." But the word traditionally used in English-speaking continental Reformed circles is "sprinkling" (in Dutch, "besprenging").

The Westminster Confession of Faith seems to distinguish the two (Chapter XXVIII, iii): "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person."

For a Catholic, sprinkling of a non-newborn would be potentially invalid, of course, since insufficient water is used to wet the skin.

But like affusion, baptism by aspersion is seen as a symbolic washing (whereas baptism by submersion is perhaps more of a symbolic burial).

A fairly typical continental Reformed baptism is at 7:53 in this video:

 

[Paidiske]

That video's showing (an admittedly minimal example of) what I am calling affusion.

Aspersion looks more like this (although this priest is going a bit OTT):

Note that this is not a baptism.

 

[Radagast]

That video's showing (an admittedly minimal example of) what I am calling affusion.

I have seen aspersion with greenery before. I have always had the impression that the spirit of 2 Samuel 6:14 was part of the process.

But I thought you might see it that baptism as minimal affusion. However, many people distinguish baptism by pouring (using a dish, ladle, other small utensil, or cupped hand) from baptism by sprinkling (using only a few drops). The distinction goes back to Tertullian, I believe.

The (old) Catholic Encyclopaedia discusses baptism by aspersion at great length; the distinction is important to Catholics in that baptism by aspersion is today seen as potentially invalid. Catholics I know would describe that video I posted as baptism by aspersion.

Presumably for Anglicans, the important distinction is between baptismal and non-baptismal sprinklings with water? So I think I understand why you draw the line the way you do.

 

[Paidiske]

Presumably for Anglicans, the important distinction is between baptismal and non-baptismal sprinklings with water? So I think I understand why you draw the line the way you do.

No, the important distinction is between sprinkling and pouring. Pouring is valid, sprinkling is not.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Aspersion is widely used in continental Reformed circles (including among Presbyterians). It is perhaps the most suitable method if you believe in baptising infants on the first Sunday after they leave the hospital.

That’s a good way to increase the infant mortality rate.... and people wonder why atheism is on the rise. Ones evens more ironic is people before they were baptized post Jesus death and ressurxtion understood Who jesus was and what he did. Phillip even told the Enoch he baptized to make sure he understood that... how could an infant do th at that? He/she can’t.

 

[Radagast]

Pouring is valid, sprinkling is not.

How very Catholic of you to say that.

 

[Radagast]

That’s a good way to increase the infant mortality rate....

Huh?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Huh?

. Google infant morality if you don’t know what that is... you’ll get the joke after that. Dipping infants in water.... great parenting there!

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Huh?

Now if you’re referring to sprinkling then nvm I guess but you werent specific so

 

[Radagast]

Now if you’re referring to sprinkling then nvm

What I said was that sprinkling was the best method for baptising very young infants.

 

[Paidiske]

How very Catholic of you to say that.

?? I thought it was pretty much an ecumenical consensus.

We might quibble over how much water is needed in order for it to really be "pouring," but as far as I know, it's not a peculiarly Catholic position. (Or at least, if it is, it's one we've retained in Anglican practice).

 

[Radagast]

?? I thought it was pretty much an ecumenical consensus.

We might quibble over how much water is needed in order for it to really be "pouring," but as far as I know, it's not a peculiarly Catholic position. (Or at least, if it is, it's one we've retained in Anglican practice).

I believe that it is indeed a peculiarly Catholic position which has been retained in Anglican practice.

As I said, continental Reformed and Presbyterian groups generally baptise by sprinkling.

 

[Paidiske]

But what you showed us as "sprinkling" still falls within our definition of pouring. Water flowing over the head from a cupped hand.

 

[Radagast]

But what you showed us as "sprinkling" still falls within our definition of pouring.

Then why do you say it's invalid?

 

[Paidiske]

Then why do you say it's invalid?

I'm not! I'm saying if someone baptised by aspersion - sprinkling as from an asperge or from greenery or the like - that would be invalid.

 

[Radagast]

I'm saying if someone baptised by aspersion - sprinkling as from an asperge or from greenery or the like - that would be invalid.

AFAIK, nobody does that. And when the continental Reformed say "sprinkling," they don't mean that, because they never sprinkle with greenery in that way.

I guess what makes it difficult to talk about these things in an ecumenical way is that the words mean different things to different denominations. That was true in spades for "deacon."

 

[Paidiske]

There are all sorts of weird practices out there. I remember reading of one group who baptised in sand instead of water (desert tribe).

But that was the distinction I was trying to get at; pouring and sprinkling are different, and one is valid and the other isn't.

 

[Radagast]

There are all sorts of weird practices out there. I remember reading of one group who baptised in sand instead of water (desert tribe).

Sounds unorthodox. I know that in the 13th century it was decided that it had to be water; beer was invalid.

But that was the distinction I was trying to get at; pouring and sprinkling are different, and one is valid and the other isn't.

But baptism by sprinkling, as Catholics and Continental Reformed groups define it, is valid, even from your point of view (because from your point of view it is a kind of pouring).

For Catholics it used to be valid, but is now generally not considered valid.

 

[Paidiske]

That's why we need agreed definitions, and why I tried to distinguish clearly between the two, to start with.

But I think Catholics would accept minimalist-pouring (what you're calling sprinkling) as valid still? Even if not best liturgical practice.