QUEBEC-RESEARCH-L ArchivesArchiver > QUEBEC-RESEARCH > 2010-12 > 1292096477
From: John Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Strange baptismal record - Priest "ondoie" instead ofbaptizing child
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:41:17 -0500
The ceremonies omitted in the simple baptism performed by Father
Archambault include the following: 1) Prayer of Exorcism; 2) Anointing with
the Oil of Catechumens; 3) Blessing and Invocation over the Baptismal Water;
3) Renunciation of Sin and Profession of Faith (responded by parents and
godparents in the name of the child; 4) Anointing With Chrism; 5) Clothing
with White Garment; 6) Presentation of a Lighted Candle. Two other rituals,
the Recitation of the Lord's Prayer and the Blessing of the Parents might
well have been performed.
The reason that these ceremonies are omitted in a simple baptism is that the
only rite necessary for the validity of the sacrament is the ablution with
water. The other ceremonies are supplied later in a ceremony performed in
church, if the infant recovers, but the ablution is not repeated. Solemn
baptism, which includes both the ablution with water and the other
ceremonies,is performed entirely in church, on infants who are healthy
enough to be brought to church.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mona Andrée Rainville
> Ah, but John, you are skirting the question...
> What are those "extraneous ceremonies" which were apparently missing in the
> case of the "summary" baptism performed by father Archambault? Or, why could
> he not have "solemnly" baptized that child?
> John Sullivan wrote:
> *Mona wrote: *
> The ceremonial of a "full fledged" baptism is a rather simple affair if one
> sticks to basic Canon law. All it requires is a priest, a bit of holy water,
> a willing and properly instructed adult or a newborn child (whether the
> parents are willing or not), the requisite blessing, and "in so far as
> possible", at least one sponsor.
> That being the case, my initial question remains but I will reformulate it
> If there was time enough to name baby Marie Rainville, what baptismal
> ceremony was then lacking that made hers an ondoiement rather than a
> *Before I had an opportunity to respond, Linnie wrote: *
> Voici la définition de ondoiement : LITURG. CATH. Baptême sans cérémonies
> extérieures réduit à l'ablution baptismale, administré en cas de nécessité
> ou en attendant la célébration solennelle.
> *For the sake of listers who are not bilingual, allow me to translate: *
> Here is the definition of* ondoiement*: CATH. LITURG. Baptism without
> extraneous ceremonies, consisting only of the baptismal ablution,
> administered in a case of necessity, or while awaiting the solemn
> Further, I will remind the gentle readers of my previous comment somewhat
> reformulated here:
> Both "simple" baptism consisting only of the ablution, and "solemn" baptism
> including the "extraneous ceremonies" are genuinely valid baptisms,
> according to Church law and practice.
> /S/ Reverend John L. Sullivan, JCL (Licentiate in Canon Law).
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mona Andrée Rainville <
> > wrote:
>> Hahaha.... Baptism loosing something to translation!
>> Top of the day to you kind sir,
>> Well, I have not taught French, but I have taught Law. :-)
>> Section 872 of the Code of Canon Law, which pertains to sponsors, starts
>> with the following admonition:
>> «In so far as possible»
>> Can. 872 - In so far as possible, a person being baptized is to be
>> assigned a sponsor. In the case of an adult baptism, the sponsor’s role is
>> to assist the person in Christian initiation. In the case of an infant
>> baptism, the role is together with the parents to present the child for
>> baptism, and to help it to live a Christian life befitting the baptized and
>> faithfully to fulfill the duties inherent in baptism.
>> Followed by:
>> Can. 875 Whoever administers baptism is to take care that if there is not
>> a sponsor present, there is at least one witness who can prove that the
>> baptism was conferred.
>> Can. 876 To prove that baptism has been conferred, if there is no conflict
>> of interest, it is sufficient to have either one unexceptionable witness or,
>> if the baptism was conferred upon an adult, the sworn testimony of the
>> baptised person.
>> Can. 877 §1 The parish priest of the place in which the baptism was
>> conferred must carefully and without delay record in the register of baptism
>> the names of the baptized, the minister, the parents, the sponsors and, if
>> there were such, the witnesses, and the place and date of baptism. He must
>> also enter the date and place of birth.
>> Pertaining to the requirement of baptism itself, the Code states:
>> Can. 867 §1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized
>> within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even
>> before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament
>> for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.
>> §2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any
>> Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:
>> 1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully
>> holds their place, give their consent;
>> 2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in
>> the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in
>> accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the
>> parents advised of the reason for this.
>> From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that in English, the word "baptism"
>> encompasses all situations which in French would be described as
>> "ondoiement" or "baptême sous condition". In English un baptême est un
>> baptême est un baptême...
>> The ceremonial of a "full fledged" baptism is a rather simple affair if
>> one sticks to basic Canon law. All it requires is a priest, a bit of holy
>> water, a willing and properly instructed adult or a newborn child (whether
>> the parents are willing or not), the requisite blessing, and "in so far as
>> possible", at least one sponsor.
>> That being the case, my initial question remains but I will reformulate it
>> If there was time enough to name baby Marie Rainville, what baptismal
>> ceremony was then lacking that made hers an ondoiement rather than a
>> 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
>>> 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?
|Re: [Q-R] Strange baptismal record - Priest "ondoie" instead ofbaptizing child by John Sullivan <>|