Thanks for the note and the interesting information that your husband's
baptism certificate stated that he was conditionally baptised AS AN INFANT.
I was brought up pre-Vatican II and the explanation I gave was what we were
taught then and it has been re-iterated to me recently by the clergy. The
records Ted was quoting were before from 1800. As far as I know there has
been no change in this teaching.
The only reason for a conditional baptism would be that there is a question
about the initial baptism - did it fulfil the requirements of the Church to
be the sacrament. If there was some doubt in the priest's mind about the
initial baptism of your husband then he would have given conditional
Pauline's comments are interesting. It looks as if the priest forgot to
record the baptism. In our family, there is another variation. Our youngest
child was baptised in the school so that the children who were learning
about Baptism at that time could see and take part in the ceremony, in a
real baptism. That baptism is entered in the Baptism register, but without
any reference to where it took place.
The Bishop is the main authority in each diocese and can make his own
decisions about some things. During the last War, many of the regulations
were relaxed, including the one about abstaining from meat on Friday. The
Bishop of Lancaster did not relax this rule and the reason given was that as
there were many small fishing ports on the coast of Lancashire and
Cumberland, fish was plentiful and relaxing the rule was not justified.
----- Original Message -----
From: "EDWARD LETTIERI" <Lettieri9s(a)msn.com>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [LAN] HELP WITH LATIN PLEASE