Baptism by Immersion - Fr. Daniel Sysoev

Fr. Daniel Sysoev (+2009) was a priest, husband, confessor, and martyr. Listen to a brief reading of his life here: https://youtu.be/ufXoK_C1eyU

From "Catechetical Talks", p. 328-336. Buy here: https://mission-shop.com/product/catechetical-talks/

0:09 Baptizing by sprinkling and not immersion, without need, is "one of the most painful and gross violations in performing the sacrament" 

2:08 The scriptural basis for baptism by triple immersion (Mark 1:10, Matt 28:19, etc) 

3:40 The canonical basis for baptism by triple immersion (Canon 50 of the Holy Apostles, etc) 

4:41 Baptism by effusion is only blessed in exceptional circumstances and must not become the standard. This is clearly asserted by Moscow 1620 and Constantinople 1755 

5:26 The 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Russian works against Catholicism, and the Kollyvades Fathers say sprinkling is “vile,” un-Orthodox, and means Lutherans and Catholics who were sprinkled cannot be considered baptized 

6:11 St. Gregory Palamas quoted at length to show that emphasis on form is “by no means meaningless ritualism” 

7:29 St. Gregory Palamas on the three-fold immersion showing forth the three day burial and resurrection of the Lord 

9:32 St. Cyril of Jerusalem explains the symbolism and reality of baptism 

11:44 Symbolism is reality 

12:07 Sprinkling (effusion) is only blessed when immersion is not possible 

13:57 How to properly baptize, step-by-step 

15:28 The whole Body of Christ, not only the bishops but the laity as well, must ensure that innovations and errors are "uprooted from the churches of God"  

Fr. Daniel says: 

One of the most painful and gross violations in performing the sacrament of baptism is baptizing by effusion (pouring), or even by sprinkling, for no apparent reason. Due to this distortion many hundreds of Christians are confused as to whether their spiritual birth was indeed valid. Many commune unto judgment and condemnation because of this. Dozens of schisms profit by this distortion, claiming that many Christians, even bishops, are not actually baptized. The priests' criminal laziness and indifference give rise to conflicts between local churches.

But the "effusionists" brazenly claim that it makes no difference how they baptize, that this is mere "ritualism", and has absolutely nothing to do with the essence of the sacrament. They care nothing for the opinion and the words of God, the tradition of the Church, and the dictates of their own hierarchs.  

Baptism by triple immersion is expressly required by the Word of God.

Canon 50 of the Holy Apostles: "If anyone, bishop or presbyter, does not perform three immersions in a single sacramental rite, but performs only one immersion, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord said not: Baptize into My death; but: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."  

St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes, “Christ was truly crucified, truly buried, and truly resurrected; and all this He gave us by grace, that in becoming participants in His sufferings by imitation we might find salvation in reality.”

And so it turns out that one who distorts the apostolic form of the sacrament disrupts the symbol of rebirth. But for us this symbol is by no means meaningless. It is participation in the reality of the Lord's death and Resurrection! How then can one believe the form of baptism to be irrelevant to salvation?  

Hence, if any pastor departs from similar divinely-instituted standards of baptism by immersion, the flock must humbly point out his error, and if he persists they must take the matter to the ruling bishop, that this lawlessness may be utterly uprooted in the holy churches of God.