In the early centuries the Church considered immersion the norm and pouring an exception when immersion could not made. The Greek word βαπτίζω [baptizo] means to immerse.
The Didache (2nd century) writes: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."
Later, in Latin Church, pouring became the norm, but that is liturgically incorrect.
What do you think about?

The Church has the right and privilege to determine the ways to administer a Sacrament. For example, Confession used to given in front of the whole community and could only be obtained once in a person’s life. Immersion is the fullest sign of baptism, but not the only way it can be validly administered. Another example is when, for a time, the people were not allowed to recieve both Eucharistic Species. Why? Because heresy at the time claimed that you had to recieve both species in order to recieve all of Christ. I’m not sure why the Church currently allows other forms; maybe because not everywhere did you have enough water for a full immersion?

Because the immersion is the fullest sign of baptism, it should be used as much as possible.

I think you are historically and liturgically incorrect, The early Church accepted all three forms, adopted from the Jewish custom, immersion, pouring or sprinkling.

I think that the “fuller sign” is misleading people into thinking that their reception of a Sacrament, is somehow lacking. Because Baptism by immersion is “fuller than” pouring, Holy Communion with one or both forms, pouring oil on the head of a person instead of making the sign of the Cross on the forehead in Confirmation.

I wilil respectuflly disagree.

From what I’ve read, the Rite of Mikveh (the Jewish precedent of Baptism), the candidate was always IMMERSED–and usually in the nude.

In the case of women who follow the rules of Niddah, it’s triple immersion.

Think about it!

While I believe that immersion should be the usual practice, I’m also the first to say that it’s not the amount of water that saves.

I think when people say that it is “fuller”, maybe they mean the symbolism is “fuller” (dying, burial, and rising, etc.)

From the Didache, it seems that immersion was the norm, and pouring was the exception.

In the Orthodox Church, please correct me if I’m wrong, but immersion is the norm.

In the Orthodox Churches (and also in the Catholic Eastern Church) immersion is the norm (as well the nudity of baptized). When the immersion is impossible, pouring is made with many water to wet plentifully the head and, if possible, the whole body.

Thanks, this seems to be more in line with what we see in the Didache. Obviously it isn’t authoritative, but we do see an example of what the early Church did.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit