Why do Catholics Baptize by sprinkling water?

I was Baptized in the river Jordan, but not all people can do that. It cost a lot of money to get it arranged, and they have to get the Priest the family and their guest there, and then they have a gathering, a party after ward, it cost a lot. These days it cost too much, it is not very safe, and the river is drying out, not enough rain. It is in the desert after all,

I think some churches still do that, not all of course. The reason is, because Baptism now down inside the church, and it is easier to pour the water over the head, and then anoint the person with oil after ward. That is the only difference, but all the procedures and the words are the same.

It does not matter how a person is being Baptize. Whether they are immerse in the water, or sprinkled with it as you might wrong think, or poured the water over their head. What matter is receiving the Baptizim itself.

IN the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Why do you trouble yourself with such a superficial detail. I've been to Europe and seen many pool-sized Baptismal fonts as well. But it never troubled me. The important thing to remember is that Baptism is by WATER, and thus, the Spirit. Whether it's a full-body immersion or just sprinkle is really irrelevant. Have you not considered the fact that it was traditional for entire families to be Baptized - at the same time, all at once, in the same Baptismal font? Also, many older Churches had their Baptismal fonts in a building next to, not in, the Church itself. That was because, at the time, the unbaptized were not allowed into the Church itself. As you might imagine, there were a lot of people being Baptized just to get in the church. The process becomes a whole lot easier with a large baptismal pool, as opposed to a tiny font.

Why do Catholics sprinkle instead of immersing?

Immersion is the proper way to do baptism to convey the full symbolism of the sacrament. Sprinkling in the early church was only used for emergencies, such as impending death. As the Church expanded into Northern Europe, it is highly probable that cold weather caused Christians to turn more often to sprinkling. Irish missionaries may have carried the practice back southward. The Church defends that baptism by sprinkling is valid. At the same time, Vatican II called for a renewal and retrieval of the meaning of sacramental gestures so that the fullness of what was conveyed in the New Testament is mediated in the signs. I have seen more and more Catholic churches building baptismal fonts large enought to immerse an adult. In the future, I expect immersion to once again become the norm.

I've been to a lot of baptisms in the Catholic church, and all are with water being poured over the forehead. I've never seen sprinkling except in certain blessings.

As with most rituals in religions, it's recognized that the act, the spirit of what you're doing is more important than the precise way in which you do it. So ultimately, if you're accepting Christ into your heart and joining the church, it doesn't really make a difference if you jump into a river, or if someone sprinkles you with a bit of holy water. It's the spirit, the act, the ritualism that matters. You're still immersing yourself in your religion.

Christian Baptism is by the Spirit the use of water is purely symbolic referencing back to the Israelite tradition of full imersion bathing to cleanse ones self before entering the temple. A good Catholic is rebaptized every time they enter the church. that dipping the fingers in the container outside the door and genuflecting is rebaptism.

As in all things of God, it is far less important the dynamics of an activity than the meditations of the heart behind the ritual/practice.

Sprinkling I suspect has origin in the Catholic church during the plague and or times of drought. It would be unwise during the time of the plague to imerse an ill person then imerse a health person in the same water. WIth so many dying so quickly and wishing salvation sprinkling with a wand would be the only safe way to offer salvation and protect the priests.

Catholics do not baptize by sprinkling water. Where do you guys get this stuff? All of the above Catholic EXPERTS who are not Catholic should know that Catholics do not sprinkle water for baptisms and in fact it is taught that that kind of baptism is invalid. There are two kinds accepted. Full immersion and pouring water over the head.

well back when the Rcc started you did go to theriver, lake, etc. however that became very difficult and quite dangerous in the winter months. afterwhich, with water rather scarce or a challenge to get - they would use the fonts for immersion, however people would get sick or transfer illnesses. the water is symbolic and stll remains the same.

in regards to batizing infants - don't you want your child to be of God as soon as possible. aren't you raising your child to love God from day one? don't you believe your child is a gift from God? Jesus told the apostles to go out and baptize - were they picky. if they were baptizing a whole family did they turn anyone away or do the whole family - children included?

train then up when they are young.....

It was because some people could not make it to the river or were to sick to be immersed in the water, to it was poured over them, Some Catholics are still baptised by imersion, some are not. Either way is acceptable and valid.

Another good question is why do catholics sprinkle babies? Speaking as an ex-catholic I've personally seen them do many unscriptural things and I've never been given satisfactory answers as to why. As a matter of fact, when I was trying to decide about WHY I was in the catholic church and I asked my priest "what happens if the Bible says one thing and the catholic church says another thing, how do you know which to go by?" he told me flat out that they go by the church! In other words they make up their OWN rules!

It does mean immerse. The heart of catholicism is a belief that the "church" can CHANGE SCRIPTURE to suit what IT WANTS rather than what scripture really says. (Church tradition is more important than scripture.)

... Infant baptism is also not valid, it assumes that children are born with the guilt of sin. Ezekiel 18 CLEARLY TEACHES THAT IS FALSE... Which makes "immaculate conception" a bunch of bologna.