Council of Ravenna?


#1

I have been discussing some things with a fundementalist, and he mentioned that sprinkling baptims was man made at the council of ravenna. I stated that it is not one of the 21 Exumenical Counsils and he linked where it is listed as a council in the catholic encyclopedia taking place in 1311 during the same time as the Council of Vienna.

What was this council? Any help here?


#2

The Catholic Encyclopedia online doesn’t list it as a council.

But sprinkling baptisms were taught much, much earlier than 1311, for goodness sake.


#3

The “Council of Ravenna” is a ficticious construct created by those who want to claim the Catholic Church is hiding something and therefore sometimes refer to this as a “secret council”.

The reality is the Council of Revenna never happened.

Many early accounts of baptism indicates there were many forms. immersion, sprinkling or pouring. The Catholic Church accepts all of these, not just sprinkling. But the real point is this. What does this person really think Baptism does? Is it symbolic or is truly efficacious? If it is symbolic, what possible difference does it make? If it is efficacious, what effect does it have?

Finally, where in the Bible does it explicitly say Baptism by immersion only? Oh there is the inference at Christ’s baptism, but only an inference. If baptism by immersion was so important, then it is reasonable to think God would have made clear the right way to do it. Like He did when He explained that we must eat His flesh and drink His Blood in John Chapter 6.


#4

From the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve), the earliest instruction manual of the Church, written down in approximately 100 A.D.:

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. 2. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. 3. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

So, um, yeah. Pouring goes back a LOT further than 1311! :smiley:

The Didache was the first writing down of the extra-Scriptural instructions by the Apostles on how to live Church life that we know of, and of which we have copies existing today. So pouring not only goes back past the 1300s, it goes back to the instructions the Apostles themselves orally left the Church.

For those interested in reading it, you can find it here:

newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Peace and God bless!


#5

Wow. This is exactly why I find it difficult to accept Protestantism because if they are extremely fundumentalists, they make up history based on a lie.

Why they preach things which is so untrue? I wonder. :shrug:


#6

I would say most do not lie. Rather, they hear something from somewhere and because it says what they want it to say, they do not confirm details.

In researching my earlier answer, I came across several articles that referred to this council and other writings, yet the authors, except one, did not properly cite their sources. And the one that did cite other references failed to cite any documents that were the product of this fictitious council. This is exactly what I mean, poor research, not lying. Albeit, someone got something wrong somewhere.

Interestingly enough, he cited the Didache and described as “the first departure from immersion”. Odd that he would say that because that is actually the first historical record of the mechanics of how baptism was administered.

In fact, the only real reference I could find to this council was in the writings of fundamentalists who are opposed to baptism by any other means than immersion.


#7

Interestingly enough, he cited the Didache and described as “the first departure from immersion”. Odd that he would say that because that is actually the first historical record of the mechanics of how baptism was administered.

:rotfl:

That’s incredible to me. Saying that the first document on how to administer Baptism is the “first departure” from immersion?

There are no words. No…words.

God bless!


#8

There was indeed a Council at Ravenna (Ravenna III) from 1314 to 1318. But it is not an Ecumenical Council and not along with the Council of Vienna which was from 1311-1313 .


#9

There was actually a Council of Ravenna in the 14th century under the primacy of Rynaldus the archbishop assisted by 5 (1311) then by 6 (1314) bishops [suffrangans]. In 1917 another one linked to it and also known as the Council of Bologna (8 suffrangans) was held under the primacy of the same archbishop.


#10

This was not a Church council. These local meetings were akin the the semi-annual USCCB meetings and did not carry any magisterial weight.


#11

I probably should have included a link to the article. Sorry. Here it is.

Does Archeology prove Baptism by Immersion?

Notice the first paragraph under the first sub-heading “Literary History”.

The careful student of history does not hesitate to acknowledge that a digression from the biblical pattern of baptism came fairly early in the post-apostolic period. The first historical reference to a departure from immersion is in a document known as the Didache (cir. A.D. 120-160). It sanctions pouring water upon the head—as an emergency measure (7).


#12

Well, yes, it was a Synod not an Ecumenical Council.


#13

Ummmm, sure. :wink: Last time I checked the Didache it stated that Baptism was by whatever method you had available to you. Granted immersion with RUNNING water was preferred but, hey, whatever worked. :smiley:

Don’t most fundamentalist use a still pool?


#14

Notice the first paragraph under the first sub-heading “Literary History”.

The careful student of history does not hesitate to acknowledge that a digression from the biblical pattern of baptism came fairly early in the post-apostolic period. The first historical reference to a departure from immersion is in a document known as the Didache (cir. A.D. 120-160). It sanctions pouring water upon the head—as an emergency measure (7).

Ummmm, sure. :wink: Last time I checked the Didache it stated that Baptism was by whatever method you had available to you. Granted immersion with RUNNING water was preferred but, hey, whatever worked. :smiley:

Don’t most fundamentalist use a still pool?
[/quote]

Let’s be clear here, I was quoting a paragraph from the article. It could be misunderstood by some by the way the way you quoted what I posted that this was my belief, and not a quote. I took the liberty of adding some context to the your post.

As for the possible methods of baptism, I conform myself to the teachings of the Church! :slight_smile:


#15

Rpp: It still cracks me up though, that these folks would take the evidence that immersion was used in Apostolic times (duh!) to conclude that ONLY immersion was used, especially since the first record of the Apostolic rules concerning Baptism explicitely allows for pouring. :stuck_out_tongue:

Some folks are just, well, nutty.

Peace and God bless!


#16

Considering the fact that you quoted Fr.John Corapi in your siggy I kind of figured that you were Catholic. :wink: Plus I most usually check people’s profiles. I was responding to what you quoted not you yourself. :slight_smile:


#17

The truth of a doctrine, or the worth of a practice, does not depend on the formally ecumenical character of a council, but upon its being accepted by the Church. Ecumenicality, by itself, is not the cause of the truth or the worth. Otherwise, all councils of which the teaching has ecumenical weight, would have had to be formally ecumenical councils: which is not the case.

Conversely: if Trent (say) had not been recognised as ecumenical, it would not have ecumenical status, however excellent its doctrine.
[LIST]
*]The doctrines of a council (ecumenical or not)
*]the practices approved by a council (ecumenical or not)[/LIST]are independent of the status of a council.

Orange in 529 was not convoked as an ecumenical council; however, its definitions have the weight of that of an ecumenical council, just as though it had been. Its definitions are ecumenical in fact, though the council was formally a provincial council, & not one representing the whole Church ##


#18

Thank you all for your answers. I figured it was something like a synod, but I wasn’t sure.


#19

So did I miss the part where it says what actually happened at this synod?


#20

I can’t help but note that you’ve provided no reference for this claim. I can’t seem to confirm it: can you please provide resources that confirm that this claim is true?

Jeremy


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