How long after birth did you baptise your baby

  • Thread starter Thread starter ElizaE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sanctareparata said:
Yes.

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

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.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen a Baptisim like this. Abate, on the News and not in person. It’s really neat to see. The baby is placed in the baptismal font, leaning back in his mother’s hands. Then the priest pours water over his head. Believe me, that child was baptised:thumbsup: The water goes forward and backward.

Kim
 
sanctareparata said:
Yes.

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

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.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen a Baptisim like this. Abate, on the News and not in person. It’s really neat to see. The baby is placed in the baptismal font, leaning back in his mother’s hands. Then the priest pours water over his head. Believe me, that child was baptised:thumbsup: The water goes forward and backward.

Kim

Oops. Sorry Stephanie C. I didn’t see your post until after I posted.
 
Both of my children were baptised at 18 months. We wanted the priest that married us to baptise our son. It took some time to get that “approved”, as the priest that married us was assigned to another parish about 30 miles away. Our daughter was baptised in a private ceremony, as the new priest assigned to the church only did baptisms during mass. Not what we wanted. I did not hold either child over the font, my sister, their Godmother did that. I had a few Baptist friends there and they thought it was awesome to see. My brother in law (sisters husband) was the Godfather to our daughter. He is not Catholic. The Monsignor was great during my daughters baptism, he explained each step to our friends who were not Catholic what each part meant and what the roles of the Godparents were. My brother-in-law was told of his role as well and he was amazed that Monsignor took the time to talk him through it. My DH and I really appreciated that. We all learned something on this blessed occasion.
 
Hello, all.
Code: 
  We baptised our child one month after birth.  I was worried, too!  Anything can happen any day.  I mean, no one wakes up knowing they'll be involved in a car crash that day or what have you.  So, I wanted to be sure that she was taken care of in the awful event that something like this took place.  I saw it as a "life insurance policy," I guess you could say.

 The only problem with your situation is that although (rightfully) you feel the way you do about baptism, people have a tendency to get all bent out of shape when you advise them on "how to raise their children," even if it's just a small suggestion.  Maybe you could try to stress the fact that if they don't hurry up, your husband will not be able to attend, like you said.  Or tell them what I said - make it a safety issue.  Take pictures for the relative that can't get there, or a video if you got that kind of camera.  Make these suggestions, and if the parents persist, then oh well, rest easy knowing that you've done all you can do.  I hope things work out.
Tracy 🙂
 
StephanieC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I went ahead and posted over at Liturgy & sacraments.
 
The DH and I attended our baptism class before our daughter came home (we were adopting, and didn’t even know when she was coming yet) and she was baptised within a few weeks of coming home.

For our son, I remember talking to the woman at church, who was going through her checklist for baptisms. “Let’s see, birthday? I guess you don’t have that yet… Name?” Martin. We’re not sure what baby that’s going to be attached to yet, but he’s going to be Martin. (There were legal issues to sort out, but if one baby had not been ready, the agency was going to assign us another one who was also waiting) “Ok, so when you get the birthday, let me know so it can go on the baptismal certificate, and you’re on the schedule for Mother’s Day…”

I’ve seen the “six months in advance” requirement for weddings (which makes perfect sense; the Church has an interest in trying to ensure you have some idea of what you’re doing and have thought this through!), but never for baptisms. It seems very strange; I mean, the baby is here, so, if the parents have taken the preparatory class, what’s the wait for? I wonder if it was some sort of typo.
 
My dd was baptized two months later on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. We could have had her baptized earlier but wanted her to be baptized on such a special day (she was born the day after the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, but I later found out that Oct. 8 is the feast of Our Lady of Good Remedy). I was shocked that no one else had their babies baptized on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe at our parish (there were plenty two weeks prior and two weeks after, but she was the only one on that Sunday).
 
Julie was about 6 weeks old, and it was scheduled while I was still pregnant because the schule was very tight due to Lent starting (that parish won’t baptize during Lent). Had I delivered closer to my due date she would have been about 4 weeks old.
 
StephanieC said:
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t :o --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.
Click to expand...
Oh, well thank you. Sometimes tones get lost when writing. Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate it.

I have to say that my little cousin is so beautiful. I was away for a month and saw her a couple days ago and she is such a BEAUTIFUL baby. They grow so quickly:p.
 
PatienceAndLove said:
My baptism prep class was 45 minutes :mad:
Click to expand...
Sadly, I think this is common.

Fortunately, our parish mandates 4 week baptism prep (as well as a 7 week marriage prep and a 15 week confirmation prep) before receiving these sacraments.

Some of the young couples come begrudgingly, but we always get high marks in follow-up surveys. I see many in the pews afterwards too, which is kinda the point.
 
My mother told me she was upset when they stopped baptizing babies before they left the hospital. She had her children in the thirties and forties.

My own children were baptized within two week except my oldest son we waited three weeks for his God Parents to arrive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top