How long after birth did you baptise your baby

[Mirror_Mirror]

Backs are not baptizable.

In all cases, at all times, water MUST flow over the child’s (or person’s) head. Even if it just rolls across the hair it is not valid. It must flow across the skin of the head/forehead.

Do you really think if I wasn’t 100% sure of this I’d clumsily say Fr Kemp should be reported to the bishop?

I’ll get your Church documents to you… after I feed kiddo.

No need to get sarcastic about it. I never said that backs were baptized nor did Fr, Kempf say that he felt this way. Again, looking at the picture that is featured in article you posted it seems like Fr. Kempf is submersing the child and would seem that the back of the head is getting into the water.

If the baby is on his/her back and is submersed up to the neck, would that not inculde the back of the head?

I think that the child does need to be baptized by water being poured on the head or being submersed in the water, but do not see what Fr. Kempf is doing as a situation that would warrant a call to the bishop. I am not sure that it says that you “have to” pour water over the forehead. I think that it simply states the head. Again, if it was that questionable, would the Review (a Catholic paper) really put it in the article?

According to the Catechism:

1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Victoria was verging on 3 when she was baptized. Her father did not want her baptized until she decided she wanted to be. To keep peace in our custody battle (there is too much other stuff I am concerned about) I didn’t do it.
When DH and I planned the wedding, though, I decided it was being done the day after the wedding whether he liked it or not. I gave her father the date, time and name of the Church and it was up to him to get there. He showed up, and it went well.
But it was not exactly the child baptism I wanted my new in-laws to see as Vivi’s father manipulated her into a dependant-on-him crying mess shakes head

 

[sanctareparata]

The Rite of Baptism
21. 1. At the moment of death or when there is urgency because of imminent danger of death, the minister, [4] omitting all other ceremonies, pours water (not necessarily blessed but real and natural water) on the head of the child and pronounces the customary formulary. [5]

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.

*Immersion here means the entire body (head included).

The celebrant baptizes each candidate either by immersion, option A, or by the pouring of water, option B. . . . If baptism is by immersion, of the whole body or of the head only, decency and decorum should be preserved. Either or both godparents touch the candidate. The celebrant, immersing the candidate’s whole body or head three times, baptizes the candidate in the name of the Trinity (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults 226).

§ Baptism by immersion (again - this means head as well) is the fuller and more expressive sign of the sacrament and, therefore, is preferred. Although it is not yet a common practice in the United States, provision should be made for its frequent use in the baptism of adults. At the least, the provision of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults for partial immersion, namely, immersion of the candidate’s head, should be taken into account (National Statutes for the Catechumenate 17).

Q. 640. If it is impossible, in case of necessity, to reach the head, may the water be poured on any other part of the body?
A. If it is impossible, in case of necessity, to reach the head, the water should be poured on whatever part of the body can be reached; but then the baptism must be given conditionally; that is, before pronouncing the words of baptism, you must say: “If I can baptize thee in this way, I baptize thee in the name of the Father,” etc. If the head can afterward be reached, the water must be poured on the head and the baptism repeated conditionally by saying: “If you are not already baptized, I baptize thee in the name,” etc.

The Church clearly states baptism takes place by pouring water on the head - there is no wording which says that it can take place on any part of the body, and a priest should never, never assume that water flowing anywhere other than on the head would be valid.

Necks still don’t count as “head”. I did consult a theologian about this at EWTN who agreed that it appears these children are probably not validly baptized.

 

[sanctareparata]

No need to get sarcastic about it. I never said that backs were baptized nor did Fr, Kempf say that he felt this way.

Sorry, I read this wrong because you forgot a word somewhere - so I thought you meant “back” not “back of head”.

“and may even be getting the back of his/her wet with the holy water.”

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

The Rite of Baptism
21. 1. At the moment of death or when there is urgency because of imminent danger of death, the minister, [4] omitting all other ceremonies, pours water (not necessarily blessed but real and natural water) on the head of the child and pronounces the customary formulary. [5]

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.

*Immersion here means the entire body (head included).

The celebrant baptizes each candidate either by immersion, option A, or by the pouring of water, option B. . . . If baptism is by immersion, of the whole body or of the head only, decency and decorum should be preserved. Either or both godparents touch the candidate. The celebrant, immersing the candidate’s whole body or head three times, baptizes the candidate in the name of the Trinity (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults 226).

§ Baptism by immersion (again - this means head as well) is the fuller and more expressive sign of the sacrament and, therefore, is preferred. Although it is not yet a common practice in the United States, provision should be made for its frequent use in the baptism of adults. At the least, the provision of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults for partial immersion, namely, immersion of the candidate’s head, should be taken into account (National Statutes for the Catechumenate 17).

Q. 640. If it is impossible, in case of necessity, to reach the head, may the water be poured on any other part of the body?
A. If it is impossible, in case of necessity, to reach the head, the water should be poured on whatever part of the body can be reached; but then the baptism must be given conditionally; that is, before pronouncing the words of baptism, you must say: “If I can baptize thee in this way, I baptize thee in the name of the Father,” etc. If the head can afterward be reached, the water must be poured on the head and the baptism repeated conditionally by saying: “If you are not already baptized, I baptize thee in the name,” etc.

The Church clearly states baptism takes place by pouring water on the head - there is no wording which says that it can take place on any part of the body, and a priest should never, never assume that water flowing anywhere other than on the head would be valid.

Necks still don’t count as “head”. I did consult a theologian about this at EWTN who agreed that it appears these children are probably not validly baptized.

Again, I posted a reference to the Catechism as well and think that you saying that “necks still don’t count as ‘head’” is assuming that when Fr. Kempf submerses the child he does not even put the head in just the neck?

 

[sanctareparata]

Again, I posted a reference to the Catechism as well and think that you saying that “necks still don’t count as ‘head’” is assuming that when Fr. Kempf submerses the child he does not even put the head in just the neck?

The CCC quote mentions immersion. Immersion means, when used in reference to a Catholic baptism, putting the entire body (head included) under the water (as in = child would be holding his/her breath). I have no idea if Father puts the back of the head in the water or not - the article said he immerses them up to their necks, so it doesn’t seem like he does.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

The CCC quote mentions immersion. Immersion means, when used in reference to a Catholic baptism, putting the entire body (head included) under the water. I have no idea if Father puts the back of the head in the water or not - the article said he immerses them up to their necks, so it doesn’t seem like he does.

The article also shows him holding the baby on his/her back and if he does immerse the baby from that position, he can still get the baby’s head into the water, correct?

(I agree that the head should have water on it)

 

[wigglebrick]

Like others mentioned in the article, we waited 10 months to get family together. Since then, I converted to RCC and my wife and I now teach a 4 week (8 hr) baptism prep class for parents and godparents. For many couples, the baptism prep classes are the beginning of a conversion/reversion back to the Church.

My wife is 7 months pregnant and we’re not horsing around this time. Our baby will be baptized within a couple weeks, regardless if the Godparents can travel. And if we have any complications in the hospital, I’ll summon a priest and a syringe of water if I have to!

Our pastor blesses newborns about once a month during Mass on Sundays, a very sweet tradition. Occasionally, he baptizes them during Mass too. This thread reminds me, we need to get on his calendar. Thanks!

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Since then, I converted to RCC and my wife and I now teach a 4 week (8 hr) baptism prep class for parents and godparents. For many couples, the baptism prep classes are the beginning of a conversion/reversion back to the Church.

My baptism prep class was 45 minutes

 

[annb]

The article also shows him holding the baby on his/her back and if he does immerse the baby from that position, he can still get the baby’s head into the water, correct?

(I agree that the head should have water on it)

If the back of the baby’s head (not the face) goes into the water, is the baptism valid?

If the priest dunked the baby’s backside in the water three times while saying the “I baptize you…”, and then after that poured a little water over the forhead, would that be valid?

Let’s say these baptisms weren’t done with water going over the head. Does that mean every child that has been recorded in the church records as being baptized isn’t really baptized, and now needs to be baptized?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

If the back of the baby’s head (not the face) goes into the water, is the baptism valid?

I would say yes according to what I have read. Do you not agree? If the water is poured on the back of the baby’s head, is it valid?

 

[annb]

I would say yes according to what I have read. Do you not agree? If the water is poured on the back of the baby’s head, is it valid?

I didn’t know till today that the placement of the water could make or break a baptism.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

**I’m sorry that I haven’t had time to read any of the responses but I wanted to add my own experience…

Hubby and I both felt very strongly that our DD be baptized as soon as possible after her birth. But we were having trouble finding suitable Godparents and there were issues with my health.

Anyways, we approached our priest several times (before and after her birth) to see if he could help us and offer guidance. His big advice was that “it can wait, there’s no rush”. So we had to come up with solutions on our own and finally had her baptized at around 5 months.

So maybe your relatives have a priest like we do? They are more likely to take his guidance instead of your advice…

Malia**

 

[3blessings]

What was the new thing that just came from the church about Limbo. I thought that it was to say that an unbaptized baby would still go to heaven. Anyone have the new doctrine on that?

I will try to find it, my brother works for our diocese and trains all those that teach the baptism classes. but if anyone else knows. please reply.

my first three children were baptized at 2 weeks, 2 weeks and one month due to church scheduling. This new little child will be born Aug. 8th, but the first available date isnt until the first Sunday in Sept. We have one of thelargest parishes around, over 7000 members, so scheduling sacraments of any kind can be a tough situation.

 

[Em_in_FL]

My boys were both baptized at 3 weeks old.
I just scheduled it way ahead of time to make sure we got on the list.

 

[sanctareparata]

If the back of the baby’s head (not the face) goes into the water, is the baptism valid?

Yes.

If the priest dunked the baby’s backside in the water three times while saying the “I baptize you…”, and then after that poured a little water over the forhead, would that be valid?

Doubtfully. That’s why he shouldn’t deviate from the norm, because one just can’t be certain.

Let’s say these baptisms weren’t done with water going over the head. Does that mean every child that has been recorded in the church records as being baptized isn’t really baptized, and now needs to be baptized?

If there was no water flowing over the head at all, they should be conditionally baptized.

Because the Church is explicit in her “baptism protocol” - that water must flow over the head, it is gravely irresponsible on the part of a priest to try to baptize in any other way. There was a situation once of a priest just dipping baby butts in the water while reciting the baptismal formula.

When water flows across the head, the baptism is certainly valid. If it flows across the neck or shoulders, it is less certainly valid. Anywhere else, very doubtfully valid if not absolutely invalid.

This is why the Church states if a child is being born breech and the situation is an emergency, he or she may be *conditionally *baptized on whichever part of the body is seen first: “If I am able to baptize you in this way…I baptize you…”, and then once the child is born because it is doubtful Baptism actually took place or not, the child is to have water poured over the head and the words said: “If you have not already been baptized, I baptize you…” to make Baptism certain and valid.

There should be no messing around with this and it’s uncalled for to try to Baptize anyone anywhere other than the head if there is no emergency, precisely because it calls the validity of the Sacrament into question.



If I’m wrong about the back of the head being valid - someone correct me. I’m pretty sure back of the head is certainly valid because after all, it is still the head.

 

[masondoggy]

My first baby was baptized at 3 months, DD was 1 month, and my last two babies were 9 months. I have felt, and still do, a tremendous amount of guilt over delaying the baptisms of DD & DS.

If I ever have any more, I will be making a point to have the baptism scheduled before I even give birth. No more waiting games.

 

[StephanieC]

I’m thinking that the spin-off discussion about immersion/whole head baptism would make an interesting separate thread in the Liturgy & Sacraments thread? Yes?

As for the OP, my answer to the thread title question for my son is: 5 months.

My answer to the question you asked w/in your post:
You’ve already spoken up once & gotten a response. Now just sit tight and let the parents be the parents. Not only did you share that they are “very good Catholics”, but they are also your Aunt and Uncle. A little respect for your elders should be in order…pressing the matter further would not be showing such.

If you can make it, great, if not, so be it.

 

[ElizaE]

My answer to the question you asked w/in your post:
You’ve already spoken up once & gotten a response. Now just sit tight and let the parents be the parents. Not only did you share that they are “very good Catholics”, but they are also your Aunt and Uncle. A little respect for your elders should be in order…pressing the matter further would not be showing such.

If you can make it, great, if not, so be it.

I have alot of respect for my elders. It not like I am harrassing them everyday about this. I just asked them once or maybe twice if they had a date so we could figure out our schedule and also, since they are considering my DH for Godfather, so that they are not suprised when we won’t be able to make it. I saw my aunt yesterday and she did not mention it and neither did I. I am satisfied to wait until they set a date without saying anything else.

I was just wondering how long the people here waited to see if 5 months was unusual or usual. It seems that people have had their children Baptised within days to months and even years, so I will stop worrying and just consider this usual rather than unusual.

God bless and thank you for your responses

 

[StephanieC]

I have alot of respect for my elders. It not like I am harrassing them everyday about this. I just asked them once or maybe twice if they had a date so we could figure out our schedule and also, since they are considering my DH for Godfather, so that they are not suprised when we won’t be able to make it. I saw my aunt yesterday and she did not mention it and neither did I. I am satisfied to wait until they set a date without saying anything else.

I was just wondering how long the people here waited to see if 5 months was unusual or usual. It seems that people have had their children Baptised within days to months and even years, so I will stop worrying and just consider this usual rather than unusual.

God bless and thank you for your responses

Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t --what I was trying to say (maybe too abruptly, sorry) was that to press the issue further would be disrespectful…sorry, should’ve taken more time.

In any case, I wanted to make a point of answering the last question in your post (“Should I say something or be quiet?”) since that seemed to be missing in most of the replies to date.