Why don't catholic's fully emerse people during baptism?

Answer 1

Because of traditions of men. The Bible clearly shows that in order to get baptized you need to take in accurate knowledge of God, his son, and his purpose for mankind. Then when you fully can reason on these things, and you can, then you get totally immersed in water. Not just a sprinkling. Jesus was 30 years old when he got baptized and he was fully submersed by John in the river Jordon. That proves to Christians today that infant baptism would not be correct according to the Bible. Personally, I think it was a way to get money out of the new parents and to try and keep their numbers up.

Answer 2

I don't think that God measures the amount of water used in our baptisms. The water is only symbolic.
In fact I don't think there is any Biblical basis for baptism by emersion. It says that Jesus went down into the Jordan, but that does not mean that there was enough water in it for emersion, bearing in mind that that part of the world is a very dry area and during some parts of the year there is not much water flowing in the Jordan. In addition he was baptised in a part which was flowing through the desert/ wilderness.
Furthermore thare are references in Acts and in Paul's letters of whole families/households being baptised in their homes. Very unlikely that these were baptisms by emersion.
I think the most important point is the fact that the NT talks about the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Why does it use that expression? I believe it is because the writers of the NT books wrote in accordance with the thinking and practices of their time, which indicates that they baptised by pouring water. In another example Acts uses the expression The Holy Spirit fell upon them (presumably like rain). Which would seem to support the view that they also baptised by sprinkling water.

Answer 3

The Catholic Church understands this combination to represent the water of baptism that brings to us the Holy Spirit, which is to say his grace. "Bible Christians," avoiding the plain sense, say that Christians misunderstood this verse from the earliest years right up to the Reformation. Instead of "water and the Spirit" being read as a unit (baptism), they should be read independently: water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit (accepting Christ as Lord as Savior). Only the second is functional; the former is decorative—commanded by Christ but nevertheless not really doing anything to the recipient.
It's not as important as the actions of the recipient later.
Why does a branch that started 1300 years after Catholics think they know better and call Catholics wrong? Why would Christ say that Peter was the Head of His church and then some people come around and change things 1300 years later and say that their way is the only right way? Doesn't make sense.

Answer 4

I attend a catholic church that has full submersion and I must agree with what was stated earlier the important part is what comes later when you make the decision to accept Christ. The real question why fight over the petty things?...oh yeah, that's the point Paul was trying to make in the New Testament to so many churches...don't sweat the small stuff, just follow the commandments Christ gave and you'll be alright!

Answer 5

For Catholics, full immersion is an option, but it isn't a requirement for baptism. As Catholic's are usually baptised as infants, the choice is up to the parents.

Answer 6

Some do. You're overgeneralizing. I've been to Roman Catholic churches with full baptismals.

Answer 7

I think the important thing is the Holy Spirit, not the amount of water...

Answer 8

The practice began in a place where water was scarce.

Answer 9

Because if they are a witch they will float? Nope? Dont know then.

Answer 10

well it's like when there is a water shortage and you can't water your lawn you know . It's like too much water