Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!ukma!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Pagan baptism
Message-ID: <Nov.16.16.19.21.1990.20462@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 90 21:19:24 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner)
Lines: 25
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Tom Albrecht wrote:

    Joe Buehler wrote:
    
    >Just a clarification; the problem with aspersion is not whether you get
    >wet or not, it's whether the water flows or not.  The water has to flow
    >for a valid Baptism.  It makes sense, Catholic-wise, because a Sacrament
    >has to signify what it effects (in this case, the cleansing of a soul).
    
    I don't understand how, looking at the action from a biblical viewpoint,
    you can make such a fine distinction about pouring vs. sprinkling.
    
Sorry, I misled.

The three ways of baptizing: infusion (pouring), immersion, and
aspersion (sprinkling) can all be valid.

I think Charley made a comment about aspersion.  I should have suggested
a reason why some such baptisms might be considered invalid from the
standpoint of Catholic theology and left it at that.

If you want a full treatise, read the article on Baptism in the (old)
Catholic Encyclopedia.

Joe Buehler