Clearly you do not even know what conditional baptism is.

Another "variation" of conditional baptism would be in the case of a stillborn or miscarriage, or if (for example) a catechuman had been hit by a bus on his way to be baptized and was killed.  So long as decomposition has not started, one may conditionally baptize in such a case by using the phrase "If you are still alive, I baptize..."

We do not know when the soul leaves the body.  The only certain sign that it has left and death has occurred is when the body begins to exhibit signs of decomposition.

Let me see if I understand.  It seems there's a baby who hasn't been baptized and the parents are hoping for a particular priest to baptize him, but that priest can't come until the baby will be 2 months old.  The parents are concerned about the baby going 2 months without baptism, although there's no danger of death whatsoever.  And to get the baptism done faster they're considering going to an NO priest.  Is that correct?

I understand the concern about going to a NO priest.  The NO rite of baptism is not the same as the traditional rite.  But if the form and matter are right, then the effect is the same, as far as I understand.  

But if there's no danger of death, there shouldn't be any problem waiting for the other priest.  As long as the parents and caregivers know how to baptize someone, and are prepared to do so in case of the baby being in danger of death, then all should be well.

Also, if the baby is in danger of death and is baptized and recovers, the priest can do a conditional baptism, as far as I'm aware.

Can anybody here tell me under what conditions it would right for a parent to baptise conditionally? Only if the baby is in danger of death, but that would not be a conditional baptism, it would be baptism - a real one.

Say if the baby will be 2 months old when the priest arrives? No, although that is too long of a time to wait, that is not a reason for a parent to baptize their baby.

Also if a parent conditionally baptises a healthy newborn in no immediate danger of death? That would not be a conditional baptism, that would be a baptism, a real one and the parent should not baptized their baby unless there is at least some danger of death.

If conditionally baptised, what part would a priest have in confirming that the child is baptised? If the baby's parent's already baptized the baby, then the priest could then conditionally baptize the baby.

Would there be another ceremony? Yes, with God Parents, baptismal vows, candles, etc.

What would you say about having this baby baptised by another priest (say a conciliar priest)? A conciliar priest is not recommended, yet if the proper words are said while the water is poured over the baby's forehead, that baby would be baptized even if a Jєω did the baptizing.

All input appreciated.

Conditional baptisms are only done when the original baptism's validity is determined to be invalid or at least doubtful. Only a priest should baptize unless there is danger of death - in danger of death, anyone can baptize.

It is well to know that the person who baptizes contracts a spiritual affinity with the person baptized, same goes for the sponsor with the godchild and its natural parents, so that between all these, marriage cannot be lawfully contracted, and if contracted, it is null and void.

   

Quote from: Guest

If conditionally baptised, what part would a priest have in confirming that the child is baptised? If the baby's parent's already baptized the baby, then the priest could then conditionally baptize the baby.

Would there be another ceremony? Yes, with God Parents, baptismal vows, candles, etc.    

I think Stubborn's answer clarified things, although this part - my understanding is, as long as there is no reason to doubt that the parents baptized correctly, the priest would not necessarily repeat the Baptism conditionally, but just do the other ceremonies that normally surround Baptism, such as Stubborn mentioned: vows, candles, exorcism, etc…  I don't think he would repeat the actual Baptism itself, unless there was reason to doubt it was done correctly.

My other thought is, have the parents asked the priest for advice?  

I was under the impression that conditional baptisms should only occur if there's reasonable doubt that the baptism wasn't valid - an example would be incorrect verbiage in regards to the persons of the Trinity. (not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost)

I was under the impression that conditional baptisms should only occur if there's reasonable doubt that the baptism wasn't valid - an example would be incorrect verbiage in regards to the persons of the Trinity. (not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost)

I was my mistake in confusing conditional baptism with baptism in a (perceived) emergency or the parent not wanting to delay Baptism.