I was baptized twice (sort of)...which one was "valid"?

[The_Scott]

Hi,

Before I begin, I should introduce some things about my infancy. I was three months premature, with my mother at 28 weeks gestation. Essentially, my lungs were non-functional, and there was a high probability that I would die. So sometime during this crisis, my mother and father quickly had a priest baptize me as a Catholic, in the event I should die.

I survived, and in September of the next year, I was ceremonially baptized in a Catholic Church – certificate and all. I tend to think of this baptism as a ceremonial baptism, while the emergency baptism was the spiritual and necessary sacrament. Is this view wrong? Which of these baptisms are valid, and/or formal?

Thank you and God bless!

Scott

 

[Shiranui117]

I believe your understanding is correct; I have heard that such “emergency baptisms” are intended to be the salvation of the person and the conferring of the sacrament of Baptism, but later, a more formal rite of baptism is performed, just to “make it official”. But as long as your first baptism was in proper form and with proper intent, then I see no reason to discredit it as invalid, but I also see nothing wrong with a more formal baptismal rite being performed later. You were not being RE-baptised the second time; that first baptism was sufficient, as long as it was done while invoking the Holy Trinity and with the intent to bring you into Christ’s Church and to cleanse you from the stain of Original Sin.

If what I have said here is wrong, then please, someone must correct me with all due haste.

 

[MarkThompson]

Hi,

Before I begin, I should introduce some things about my infancy. I was three months premature, with my mother at 28 weeks gestation. Essentially, my lungs were non-functional, and there was a high probability that I would die. So sometime during this crisis, my mother and father quickly had a priest baptize me as a Catholic, in the event I should die.

I survived, and in September of the next year, I was ceremonially baptized in a Catholic Church – certificate and all. I tend to think of this baptism as a ceremonial baptism, while the emergency baptism was the spiritual and necessary sacrament. Is this view wrong? Which of these baptisms are valid, and/or formal?

Thank you and God bless!

Scott

Scott,

Glad you’re alive! Assuming your first baptism was done with the proper formula and all (water, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”), then your first baptism was valid and not the second. In fact, you should not have been “baptized” a second time, since baptism is permanent, cannot be repeated, and trying to repeat it is just the simulation of a sacrament. Sometimes, if it is unclear whether a person had previously been given a valid baptism, he can be conditionally baptized, but it does not sound like that was the case here, since a priest did your first baptism.

Are you just curious, or are you having some sort of problem with your baptismal records? Generally, when an emergency baptism is performed, it is to be recorded afterward in the appropriate parish.

 

[The_Scott]

Are you just curious, or are you having some sort of problem with your baptismal records? Generally, when an emergency baptism is performed, it is to be recorded afterward in the appropriate parish.

I’m afraid it’ll cause problems in the future. I plan to enter the Dominican Order, perhaps, and they (rightfully) would want an applicant to supply baptismal records. Since you claim that this second baptism (the one in which I have the paperwork) is invalid, then it may seem that I have invalid records.

I don’t know if my emergency baptism has paperwork…but I don’t think it does.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’m afraid it’ll cause problems in the future. I plan to enter the Dominican Order, perhaps, and they (rightfully) would want an applicant to supply baptismal records. Since you claim that this second baptism (the one in which I have the paperwork) is invalid, then it may seem that I have invalid records.

I don’t know if my emergency baptism has paperwork…but I don’t think it does.

Well, I’m no canon lawyer, so don’t take what I’m saying to the bank. Nevertheless, under Canon 877 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (I’m assuming you were born after then, and I’d guess that the rule was the same before then anyway), “The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without any delay record in the baptismal register the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, if any, the place and date of the conferral of the baptism, and the date and place of birth.” But if, however, “the baptism was not administered by the pastor or in his presence, the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism . . . .”

If the priest who baptized you did what he was supposed to, he would have entered a record in the parish in which the hospital where you were born was located. That would be your first step, then, in tracking down a certificate of your emergency baptism. (Keep in mind that occasionally parish boundaries shift, parishes close, merge, get carved out of other ones, etc.).

 

[James_OPL]

It sounds like since you were not expected to live, ( if I understood you right ), Your first baptism was an emergency baptism and annointing of the sick, quite possibly in Viaticum since your situation called for it. So your formal baptism should be valid. I would suggest you ask your priest about it. If there were no records of your first baptism, which I don’t know why there wouldn’t be, unless your situation was an emergency, then your second baptism is perfectly valid.

 

[MarkThompson]

It sounds like since you were not expected to live, ( if I understood you right ), Your first baptism was an emergency baptism and annointing of the sick, quite possibly in Viaticum since your situation called for it. So your formal baptism should be valid. I would suggest you ask your priest about it. If there were no records of your first baptism, which I don’t know why there wouldn’t be, unless your situation was an emergency, then your second baptism is perfectly valid.

Well, an “emergency” baptism is not somehow less a baptism, like it only lasts until the emergency is over. If he was validly baptized, he was baptized, whether or not the records have been destroyed or were ever made in the first place. So if it was done but wasn’t recorded, then the second “baptism” still is an invalid simulation of a sacrament. One baptism lasts forever, and God doesn’t require records.

As the OP notes, though, some earthly offices do. So the first thing is to find out for certain whether a record of your emergency baptism was made. Actually, let me step back: the first thing is to make sure from your parents (I assume that’s who you’ve heard this from) that you were actually baptized, and not just given a blessing, or that you misunderstood the story, or whatever. Assuming they’re sure, then determine whether or not a record was ever entered with the parish in which it was done.

 

[baltobetsy]

I’d recommend that you contact the parish where the ceremonial baptism occurred. They should have the information, if not the official record, of the emergency baptism in the hospital. They should also be able to tell you which set of records you need, or if you need both. This kind of thing happens frequently, so there is surely a procedure to follow.

Betsy

 

[MarkThompson]

I’d recommend that you contact the parish where the ceremonial baptism occurred. They should have the information, if not the official record, of the emergency baptism in the hospital.

Probably, but not necessarily. Under canon law, the record of the emergency baptism should be in the parish where that took place.

 

[AJV]

Hi,

Before I begin, I should introduce some things about my infancy. I was three months premature, with my mother at 28 weeks gestation. Essentially, my lungs were non-functional, and there was a high probability that I would die. So sometime during this crisis, my mother and father quickly had a priest baptize me as a Catholic, in the event I should die.

I survived, and in September of the next year, I was ceremonially baptized in a Catholic Church – certificate and all. I tend to think of this baptism as a ceremonial baptism, while the emergency baptism was the spiritual and necessary sacrament. Is this view wrong? Which of these baptisms are valid, and/or formal?

Thank you and God bless!

Scott

It is possible that depending on your age, the second rite was not a re-baptism but either a Supplying of the Ceremonies omitted in Baptism, or the “Rite of Bringing a Baptized Child to the Church” (essentially the same thing as supplying the ceremonies - the priest does the anointing with chrism, etc., etc.). There is no baptism in either - just some/all of the ceremonies accompanying a baptism

Also, I do not actually see the problem, kindof. Assuming you were actually ‘baptized’ a second time: if indeed your baptism was *only *recorded at the second time that should not make a difference. The second baptism is invalid ONLY if the first was valid - otherwise, the second one would be valid. Either way, you have received a valid baptism.

 

[5Loaves]

. So sometime during this crisis, my mother and father quickly had a priest baptize me as a Catholic, in the event I should die.

If the priest who baptized you did what he was supposed to, he would have entered a record in the parish in which the hospital where you were born was located. That would be your first step, then, in tracking down a certificate of your emergency baptism. (Keep in mind that occasionally parish boundaries shift, parishes close, merge, get carved out of other ones, etc.).

Like you I am not a canon lawyer. I think it’s established that the emergency baptism would have been valid (assuming that a priest would know the valid means and form). The second so called “ceremonial baptism” did nothing since baptism can never be repeated. OPs parents would be valid witnesses to attest to the baptism having taken place in the hospital, although it should have been properly recorded. It’s not uncommon to use the statement of witnesses to verify a baptism having taken place, even an ordinary baptism. I think you’re right that the place to have recorded it was the parish whose boundaries where in the hospital is located. The local canon law office can easily clarify that. Of course that doesn’t mean it was recorded where it should have been recorded. It may have been recorded in the parish of the priest who performed the baptism, or of the parents.

I was just going to add that it’s entirely possible OP received the sacrament of confirmation at the time of the emergency baptism, which should also have been recorded if it did rightly take place then. A priest familiar with baptism done in danger of death situation would also be prepared to perform the confirmation. I think this is the canon that covers this:

Can. 891 **The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion **unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.

 

[Spirithound]

Before I begin, I should introduce some things about my infancy. I was three months premature, with my mother at 28 weeks gestation. Essentially, my lungs were non-functional, and there was a high probability that I would die. So sometime during this crisis, my mother and father quickly had a priest baptize me as a Catholic, in the event I should die.

I survived, and in September of the next year, I was ceremonially baptized in a Catholic Church – certificate and all. I tend to think of this baptism as a ceremonial baptism, while the emergency baptism was the spiritual and necessary sacrament. Is this view wrong? Which of these baptisms are valid, and/or formal?

Hi Scott, have you seen your sacramental record? Are you sure it does not say, as a previous poster suggested, that your September ceremony was “supplying the rites”, instead of a baptism? (that is what mine says). Or perhaps it was a conditional baptism? But even if your sacramental record does not say either of those things, and you are sure about your history, I don’t think it should negatively affect you. You must explain your history to the vocations director of the Dominicans, and I am sure he will make the right call.

 

[5Loaves]

I’m afraid it’ll cause problems in the future. I plan to enter the Dominican Order, perhaps, and they (rightfully) would want an applicant to supply baptismal records. Since you claim that this second baptism (the one in which I have the paperwork) is invalid, then it may seem that I have invalid records.

I don’t know if my emergency baptism has paperwork…but I don’t think it does.

Glory to God in all things. I’m sorry I didn’t say this in my earlier response-- Thank you for your discernment to a vocation in religious life. I’ve assisted at daily Mass now and again at our local Dominican priory over the years and more often recently. For the past year one of their members was a deacon at my Byzantine parish. To our great joy he was ordained a biritual priest in June. He was assigned elsewhere, as expected, and we do miss him very much. His time with us made me feel an even deeper connection with the OPs. This summer I had two weeks of classes at DSPT on holy icons with another wonderful OP priest.

Our local paper had a front page article today about the increase in those men responding to the call to the priesthood. Thanks be to God! May this time of discernment be filled with many blessings for you. You will be in my unworthy prayers.

I’m sure this issue about your baptism will be no problem. It gives you a greater understanding of the value of good record keeping etc for the peace of mind of all concerned, which is a good thing. I ran into problems with locating my daughter’s baptismal records-- she was baptized, confirmed, first Holy Eucharist in a deaf mission which had the records it turned out but the parish where it took place did not have the records. They do now. Also the record of my nullity for lack of form records were not where they ought to have been.

 

[choy]

Hi,

Before I begin, I should introduce some things about my infancy. I was three months premature, with my mother at 28 weeks gestation. Essentially, my lungs were non-functional, and there was a high probability that I would die. So sometime during this crisis, my mother and father quickly had a priest baptize me as a Catholic, in the event I should die.

I survived, and in September of the next year, I was ceremonially baptized in a Catholic Church – certificate and all. I tend to think of this baptism as a ceremonial baptism, while the emergency baptism was the spiritual and necessary sacrament. Is this view wrong? Which of these baptisms are valid, and/or formal?

Thank you and God bless!

Scott

what you received in the church is the complete Rite of Baptism. it goes through the whole Rite including the anointing of the oils and other parts of the Rite. its not necessary, but a complete Rite is highly encouraged by the Church even for those baptized because of necessity

my son went through the same process. we had his baptism scheduled 1 month after my wife was due. but at 4 day old he was diagnosed with Intestinal Malrotation and had to undergo surgery. i called a priest over to have him baptized in the hospital just before surgery. on the scheduled date of baptism he went through the Rite but the baptism was omitted (the priest just gave him a conditional baptism, this was a different priest)

so your first baptism in the hospital was the valid baptism. the one that followed is just the baptismal rite.

although your baptism should have been recorded the first time around. that was the case for my son. now his baptismal record is on the other side of the metropolis because it is in the parish where the hospital is located.

 

[PJR]

The same thing…sorta…happened to me when I was born. I was premature, my mother had already lost a couple of babies from Rh negative antibodies and if I had been Rh positive-which I wasn’t-I could have died very quickly…ANYWAY

Parents weren’t Catholic, but it was a Catholic hospital and the Dr. baptized me immediately-with her permission.

Then parents took me to a Methodist “sprinkling” a few months later…coming into the church at the age of 21 I was given a conditional baptism with confirmation because the records were iffy and the priest was concerned about the validity -evidently there is quite a variety of “christening” out there in protestant denominations…

I would like to think that the one at 21 was the real deal considering the less than ideal life I had led in college…ahem…but I’ll bet the one in the catholic hospital was the one.

I am quite sure your baptism will be seen as valid…one of them anyway

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi,

Before I begin, I should introduce some things about my infancy. I was three months premature, with my mother at 28 weeks gestation. Essentially, my lungs were non-functional, and there was a high probability that I would die. So sometime during this crisis, my mother and father quickly had a priest baptize me as a Catholic, in the event I should die.

I survived, and in September of the next year, I was ceremonially baptized in a Catholic Church – certificate and all. I tend to think of this baptism as a ceremonial baptism, while the emergency baptism was the spiritual and necessary sacrament. Is this view wrong? Which of these baptisms are valid, and/or formal?

Thank you and God bless!

Scott

most likely, since a priest was involved both times, is that you were baptized only once, with water and the Trinitarian formula, the first time when you were in critical condition. He may also if he had advance notice, have anointed you, the proper procedure for a gravely ill infant. When you recovered, your parents took you to the local parish and “completed the Rite” that is, the priest supplied the other elements of the baptismal rite, anointing with chrism, white garment etc. and the other prayers, profession of faith and so forth. The certificate should list the first date, but it may have been that the priest neglected to register the actual baptism, so the later date appears on the records. But if he was a different priest and your parents told him the circumstances, he did not use water again. It may have been however, that your parents were naturally rattled and did not tell the second priest, simply not knowing they should or just forgetting. In either case, the first baptism is your only baptism. Don’t worry about the date as long as the event is properly registered, although you can bring it to the attention of your baptismal parish. Your parents may have some paperwork from the hospital. Even if they don’t it is nothing you need to worry about. I have in my files now at least 3 baptismal certificates from confirmation candidates who were baptized in a hospital immediately after birth, with complete documentation from the hospital. Two also have records of “completing the rite” the third does not, and all that will be taken care of when she is confirmed. If the Dominicans need further details for which your parents cannot find paperwork, they can also attest and sign a statement to document the first, valid, only baptism in the hospital.

 

[Phemie]

I’ve known times when the babies have received emergency baptisms but the parents neglected to tell their pastor. It’s happened twice in the past year in the mission whose records I keep:

1. Baby was baptized prior to being medevaced to the regional children’s hospital. The record of the baptism was brought to me and I entered it into the register, the computer records and I sent off the Return of Birth to Vital Statistics as was required in my province. A few weeks later I received notice that the child had subsequently been baptized in the other hospital and the record of that baptism entered in the parish where the hospital is located. I can only assume that the parents didn’t understand that their pastor had already baptized the baby. I informed the hospital’s parish that the child had already been baptized before he went to them.
2. A couple of months ago another emergency baptism prior to a medevac. The parents are given a form to give to their pastor for completion of the Rite. They presented for baptism and never mentioned anything. Baby was ‘rebaptized’. Again I picked up on it when I went to enter the second baptism into the register and found it was already there. I entered only the ‘completion of the rite’.

Another place the OP might want to try is the hospital where he was born. In nursing school we were trained to record something like baptisms and clergy visit in the nurses’ notes. There have been times that that was the only record of an emergency baptism.

 

[choy]

I’ve known times when the babies have received emergency baptisms but the parents neglected to tell their pastor. It’s happened twice in the past year in the mission whose records I keep:

1. Baby was baptized prior to being medevaced to the regional children’s hospital. The record of the baptism was brought to me and I entered it into the register, the computer records and I sent off the Return of Birth to Vital Statistics as was required in my province. A few weeks later I received notice that the child had subsequently been baptized in the other hospital and the record of that baptism entered in the parish where the hospital is located. I can only assume that the parents didn’t understand that their pastor had already baptized the baby. I informed the hospital’s parish that the child had already been baptized before he went to them.
2. A couple of months ago another emergency baptism prior to a medevac. The parents are given a form to give to their pastor for completion of the Rite. They presented for baptism and never mentioned anything. Baby was ‘rebaptized’. Again I picked up on it when I went to enter the second baptism into the register and found it was already there. I entered only the ‘completion of the rite’.

Another place the OP might want to try is the hospital where he was born. In nursing school we were trained to record something like baptisms and clergy visit in the nurses’ notes. There have been times that that was the only record of an emergency baptism.

props then to the priest who came to baptize my son. he did all the paperwork. he pulled out a form and a pen and asked us questions, like birthday, our full names, etc. even informed us which parish the baptismal record is going to

and the parish was kind enough to send us the baptismal certificate

 

[5Loaves]

Another place the OP might want to try is the hospital where he was born. In nursing school we were trained to record something like baptisms and clergy visit in the nurses’ notes. There have been times that that was the only record of an emergency baptism.

When I was a hospital chaplain 30 years ago we also recorded something like baptisms in the patient’s chart.

 

[puzzleannie]

the emergency baptisms I have seen all have had records with the name and address of the hospital where they took place, and a couple have had an added notation of the registration in the parents’ parish and completion of the rite. OP would be well advised to ask at the hospital or at the parish his parents were in at the time for a record of his baptism, most likely all details will be there including whether or not he was confirmed at the same time (not uncommon down here).