QUEBEC-RESEARCH-L Archives

Archiver > QUEBEC-RESEARCH > 2010-12 > 1292089854


From: John Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Strange baptismal record - Priest "ondoie" instead ofbaptizing child
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:50:54 -0500
References: <4D02457B.7080509@videotron.ca><AANLkTi=ZDsQtdDNNwxDXZ2bmJ+AX3mJBHkPodwoEBrFR@mail.gmail.com><4D02606B.5010805@videotron.ca><AANLkTinoN0znkX+B+kZ9F9aESj0SpdgQQ=gR0tbRbO-C@mail.gmail.com><4D027355.90309@videotron.ca><AANLkTininXcmkApEvB27AiO8rBPW4KAW=zUiQa5RZxW2@mail.gmail.com><4D0387B5.1010401@videotron.ca><8CD67681EDB478A-1620-1DFD8@Webmail-d110.sysops.aol.com><4D03AAC9.2070200@videotron.ca><AANLkTik+MENH1SotmVos7-7qaiC3K9+ed-eDZ8e369qK@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik+MENH1SotmVos7-7qaiC3K9+ed-eDZ8e369qK@mail.gmail.com>


OOPS!

There is a fatal proofreading error in my previous post.

Corrected text:

The word «ondoyé» refers to a baptism without godparents, or the
rituals usually associated with baptism; the word «baptême» to a
baptism *with godparents and the other rituals.* Both ondoyement and
baptême are genuinely valid baptisms, according to Church law and
practice.



On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM, John Sullivan <> wrote:
> Good morning, Mona, Linnie and everyone:
>
> Linnie said she was "not an expert". But Mona's most recent posting
> suggests that the expertise required here is not in liturgy
> (specifically, the rites of baptism) but in language (specifically,
> the use of words). That brings me back to the days before I entered
> the seminary, when I spent half a dozen years as a teacher of French.
>
> The word «ondoyé» refers to a baptism without godparents, or the
> rituals usually associated with baptism; the word «baptême» to a
> baptism without godparents or other rituals. Both ondoyement and
> baptême are genuinely valid baptisms, according to Church law and
> practice.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Mona Andrée Rainville
> <> wrote:
>> Hi Linnie,
>>
>> Yes, I agree. I've even raised that point in one of my earlier message.
>> The child was alive long enough to be "ondoyé". She probably lived one
>> day, maybe a bit longer, and the burial record just adds to the
>> confusion when it states she was 2 days old when she died.
>>
>> But that is not what prompted my question.
>>
>> My question stemmed from the highly unusual recording of this private
>> baptism, in the 1940 records of this parish, and the fact that it was
>> performed by a priest rather than by a birth attendant. Baptism
>> achieves two objectives. The first one is to wash away the original
>> sin. This is performed by pouring Holy water on the newborn and grants
>> the child access to eternal life. The second is to welcome the child in
>> the community of Christians, and this is done by giving a Christian name
>> to the child. Godparents are optional and are not necessary to the
>> performance of baptism. Obviously this child was given a name. If there
>> was time to name her, there had to have been time to baptize her. So why
>> is this not a full fledged baptism...?
>>
>> Any idea?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mona
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Mona
>>>
>>> Per the "baptismal" record of the provisional baptism on 2 january
>>> 1940, it is stated "born the same day". The burial record on 4
>>> january, signed by a different priest, confuses the issue by claiming
>>> the child lived 2 days, don't think we'll ever know for sure how long
>>> she lived. Marie may have lived another day. I'm no expert, but the
>>> thought crossed my mind that, if there was no expectation that she
>>> would live there would be no "need" of godparents. After all, their
>>> purpose is to see to it that the child be raised as a good catholic,
>>> not to simply give the child a home in case of the demise of the
parents.
>>>
>>> Linnie
>>>
>>> Little Marie Rainville, of course, was not stillborn. She lived a
mere
>>> two days but was a live birth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mona Andrée Rainville <>
>>> To: John Sullivan <>
>>> Cc: QUEBEC-RESEARCH <>
>>> Sent: Sat, Dec 11, 2010 9:19 am
>>> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Strange baptismal record - Priest "ondoie" instead
>>> of baptizing child
>>>
>>> Hello John,
>>>
>>> Persistence is my middle name. :-)
>>>
>>> Little Marie Rainville, of course, was not stillborn. She lived a mere
>>> two days but was a live birth.
>>>
>>> That said, had she been stillborn, unless someone had thought of
>>> «ondoyé» the belly of her mother while the baby was still in it and
>>> alive, would it not have been impossible to "ondoyé" the child if
>>> stillborn? Isn't baptism, in all its form, only given to the living? Or
>>> was practice not as cut and dry as the letter of the law implies,
>>> perhaps allowing for a brief delay immediately after death during which
>>> to "ondoyer" the baby, presumably before the soul had time to entirely
>>> leave the body...?
>>>
>>> As for calling the priest to the home during difficult labour, I know
>>> for a fact that it was customary to do so in Montréal as long as mothers
>>> still gave birth in their own home. For one thing, it was possible to
>>> telephone him. Sometimes the priest drove his own car, sometimes a car
>>> was sent for him, sometimes he even took a taxi, sometimes he walked.
>>> But he came. By extension, today, most hospitals have a chaplain in
>>> attendance, and he only needs to ride the elevator...
>>>
>>> As for a family member performing the "ondoyement", I agree that the
>>> reflex, in 1940, would more likely to have called in the priest. Even
>>> more so in a large city like Montreal. World War II had brought subtle
>>> social changes where each aspect of life was starting to be
>>> compartmentalized, it was the beginning of the age of specialization.
>>> The attendant was more likely to have been a doctor than a midwife, and
>>> he would not have dreamed of overstepping onto another profession's
>>> turf. "Call a priest" would have been a natural response to trouble...
>>>
>>> Interestingly, this act in the parish register appeara to have been the
>>> last one performed by father Romeo Archambault in that parish, and if
>>> you look at it, it is not in his hand, nor signed by him. Someone else
>>> wrote his name in. So perhaps he had not been in attendance at all, and
>>> the information had simply been called in by a family member. Not that
>>> we'll ever know for certain...
>>>
>>> By the way, what do you translate "ondoyé" to in English. I have never
>>> seen anything other than "privately baptized" and that does not sound
>>> right...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Mona
>>>
>>> John Sullivan wrote:
>>> > Mona, thank you for pressing on until you were convinced that "this is
>>> > likely to have been what actually happened." I wish I had thought
>>> > sooner of the emergency baptism at the hospital in North Adams back in
>>> > 1972.
>>> >
>>> > This evening, I was talking with a friend about Marie Rainville, and
>>> > my friend asked me a question I hadn't thought of: "Wasn't it
>>> > customary for a still born infant to be «ondoyé», and isn't it
>>> > possible that the reason the priest recorded the «ondoyement» in the
>>> > parish register because there was no possibility of supplying the
>>> > other rites, for that reason?" Those are very good questions, and the
>>> > answer is "It's possible that was the case." And just thinking
>>> > through the situation, another question comes to mind: "Wasn't it
>>> > customary for a family member to do the «ondoyement», so why was the
>>> > priest called?" The answer to that one is fairly
>>> > clear: This incident occurred in 1940; the priest was called, and came
>>> > to the family home, because he could get there by automobile. That
>>> > wouldn't have been possible in 1740 or 1840.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Mona Andrée Rainville
>>> > < <mailto:> <mailto:
<mailto:?>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for that explanation, John,
>>> >
>>> > This is likely to have been what actually happened.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Mona
>>> >
>>> > John Sullivan wrote:
>>> >> Early in July 1972, about a year after I had been assigned to my
>>> >> first parish after ordination, as assistant pastor in Notre Dame
>>> >> des Sept Douleurs parish in Adams, Massachusetts, I received a
>>> >> call from North Adams Regional Hospital, informing me that a
>>> >> parishioner had given birth in the fifth month of pregnancy, and
>>> >> the baby was not expected to survive. I drove to the hospital
>>> >> and baptized the tiny infant boy, prayed with the parents, and
>>> >> returned to the rectory. Two days later, I received a call from
>>> >> the maternal grandmother, informing me that the boy had died, and
>>> >> we began to make arrangements for the funeral.
>>> >>
>>> >> In point of fact, neither the presumption that the parish priest
>>> >> was present at the birth of Marie Rainville, nor that her
>>> >> «ondoyement» took place in the church is well-taken. Father
>>> >> Archambault provisionally baptized the infant either at the
>>> >> hospital or at the family home, If she had lived long enough to
>>> >> be brought to church, the prayers and anointings associated with
>>> >> baptism would have been performed, and a notation would have been
>>> >> made that the infant had been baptized previously.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Mona Andrée Rainville
>>> >> < <mailto:> <mailto:
<mailto:?>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you for your input, John,
>>> >>
>>> >> I suppose what surprised me is that this emergency baptism
>>> >> (ondoiement) was performed by a priest.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, nothing prevents a priest from performing one when
>>> >> faced with a situation which warrants it.
>>> >>
>>> >> But the only way I can make sense of this, however, is by
>>> >> assuming that either father Archambeault was in attendance
>>> >> and present at the birth; or that the record was completed
>>> >> after the death of the child.
>>> >>
>>> >> If the child was actually brought at the parish church, well
>>> >> then, would it not not have made better sense to baptize her?
>>> >>
>>> >> According to her burial record, little Marie lived to be two
>>> >> days old which is what makes this lack of baptism peculiar.
>>> >> She died on the 3rd of January, and so was born on the 1st of
>>> >> January, unless of course there is mistake there. She was
>>> >> buried on the 4th, and from that standpoint would have been
>>> >> two days old if she was born on the 2nd...
>>> >>
>>> >> Drouin - Ancestry - Montréal Cimetière de l'Est, Repos
>>> >> St-François-d'Assise, 1940, image 4:279
>>> >>
>>> >> It is probable that New Years celebrations prevented her
>>> >> mother from getting the proper care, but could it have
>>> >> prevented the parish priest from performing a full baptism?
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >>
>>> >> Mona
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> John Sullivan wrote:
>>> >>> Mona, that is a very interesting record. I will translate
>>> >>> rather than transcribe the data:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> St Pierre Apôtre Montréal 1940
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Register of Baptisms
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No 3 Rainville, Marie
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On January second, nineteen forty, I, priest undersigned
>>> >>> provisionally baptised «avons ondoyé» Marie, born the same
>>> >>> day, legitimate daughter of Louis Rainville, telegraph
>>> >>> messenger, who signed, and of Andrienne Masson, of this
parish.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The godfather was ___________ and the godmother ___________.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> /s/ Louis Rainville /s/ P. Romeo Archambault OMI, priest
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The term «ondoyement» refers to a baptism performed in an
>>> >>> emergency situation, either because the infant is premature,
>>> >>> or in the colonial period, during winter, when it is
>>> >>> impossible for the family to bring a full term infant to
>>> >>> church until the spring thaw. Most often it is performed by
>>> >>> a midwife or another person present at the birth of the
>>> >>> infant, and rarely by a priest. It is followed by a formal
>>> >>> ceremony at the parish church if the infant survives. The
>>> >>> absence of the names of a godfather and godmother indicate
>>> >>> that this «ondoyement» was not followed by the rites of
>>> >>> supplying the other ceremonies performed at a formal
>>> >>> baptism, because Marie Rainville was no longer of this world
>>> >>> when this record was entered into the Parish Register by
>>> >>> Father Archambault.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Marie, we ask you to ask blessings on your cousin Mona, on
>>> >>> myself, who was provisionally baptised on the day of my
>>> >>> birth, and on all of us, from your place among the
>>> >>> blessed. Amen.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Mona Andrée Rainville
>>> >>> < <mailto:> <mailto:
<mailto:?>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have come across an interesting record for the parish
of
>>> >>> Saint-André-Apôtre in Montréal.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Drouin on Ancestry - Montréal (St-Pierre-Apôtre), 1940,
>>> >>> image 2:135
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A child, Marie Rainville, is brought for baptism.
>>> >>> Instead of baptizing
>>> >>> her, the priest "ondoie" the child, and no godparents
>>> >>> are named.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On the standard baptism form, the priest then scratches
>>> >>> out the word
>>> >>> baptism, and insert "ondoyé", he also puts a line
>>> >>> through where the
>>> >>> godparents should have been listed.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Never seen this before - and I've seen literally
>>> >>> thousands of baptismal
>>> >>> records.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So, if anyone has an explanation, I'm interested.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The only possible - but tenuous - explanation I can come
>>> >>> up with is that
>>> >>> perhaps the parents were not members of that parish and
>>> >>> so the priest
>>> >>> did not feel obligated to perform a proport baptism....?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The same couple had another child the next year which
>>> >>> was baptised in
>>> >>> that same parish, with nothing out of the ordinary.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Mona
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For the list web page, goto:
>>> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~unclefred/main.htm <
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Eunclefred/main.htm>;
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
<mailto:
>
>>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
body of
>>> the message
>>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For the list web page, goto:
>> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~unclefred/main.htm
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>


This thread: