Baptism certificate

A question for those who completed RCIA:
I was received and confirmed into the Catholic Church this Easter after RCIA. I received an email from my RCIA program today telling me the parish needs copies of birth certificates for everyone who has been through the RCIA program and that it is required to receive baptism/communion/confirmation certificates. Is this normal in everyone's experience, or is this something specific to my parish?
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello, my husband and I are (trying) to go through the process of convalidation and are facing resistance. I need a pep talk.
For context my husband and I have been happily secularly married for 4 years. I was baptized catholic, but returned to my faith 1 year into marriage, my husband was baptized later that same year. We also have a child between us and one on the way, both who we intend to raise catholic. We are all in with no hangups about the faith.
We currently live in a non english speaking country but my husband speaks the language quite proficiently so you'd think it wouldnt be a complete roadblock...
Fast forward to a couple weeks ago we realise that we need to be convalidated! You may be wondering why it took so long, part for sure is our lack of understanding but our previous priest from another country also gave the impression it wasn't imminently necessary and made no mention of abstaining until validation. Now we are here, abstaining, trying to get this done and dusted and our priest here is also reluctant to get this done? After 3 weeks of thinking he was sorting it he has asked us to reach out to our previous priest because of the language difference, I suppose on our baptism certificates? My husband's proficiency is not the issue I am certain. We also have not yet met this priest in person, he is new and our parish does not have priests for every mass. Anyway our previous priest has actually declined to assist us, because it's too difficult to do from overseas, also suggesting it's not immediately important and we should wait until we are in an english speaking country to get it done..
I'm just feeling... Confused. For one it seems like none of the priests think this is even important or necessary. As a result they are being unendingly sluggish to get this sorted, and I feel like because of this they also are not assuming we are abstaining which is not an undue burden on us but I'd sure like to go back to normal! To be honest as well, it's not like I disagree with them, I know the quality and intent of our marriage and I'm sure God does as well. I guess I'm having trouble with where to direct my obedience?

1. This whole process seems so dry and beureaucratic, signing forms, confirming baptism certificates. Can someone please confirm if a) we are supposed to abstain until validation and b) can someone please explain how doing all this inane stuff is going to transform our marriage into a sacrament? (anything from the catechism, something tangible I can look at and confirm this with would be great)We're feeling so confused based on this attitude from the priests. We want to be obedient to God, I love and affirm the church's teachings on the sacrimentality of marriage, this just feels ridiculous.
   
2. Has anyone else met a similar reluctance or sluggishness from priests regarding getting a marriage convalidated?
   
3. Any advice to get things moving?
   

Thank you and God bless.

My daughter, 4, will be starting primary school in September when she will be 5. Due to the rural small town I find myself in, there is only one Primary school in the vicinity run by the Catholic Church.
I'm an atheist but I'm not against religion or teaching religion if it covers all beliefs equally. Where I draw the line is at indoctrination or over emphasis on a single belief structure to the detriment of the others. Understanding religion is important for anyone, even an atheist.
The school in question teaches the Catholic faith as part of its curriculum. Prayers, communion, Catholic rites. Etc. While it does in some circumstances make cultural sense for some of these historically Irish traditions to be understood and taught as my daughter is Irish, I am not. I am a yank. Originally from the USA. So the idea of the only school available in the region being a school run by the church is not something I am happy with but have no choice given nothing is proximal.
Applying for the school, I managed to skirt baptism requirements offering a birth certificate instead. Church identification was left N/A. Still, today I received confirmation she was accepted.
I read that parents in religious schools have a right to object to religious teachings by law. I'd like to know what that entails and how to go about ensuring it happens for my daughter.
Of course I do realize this may put her in a position that she is excluded from other kids shared religious teachings but want to know exactly what needs to be done here to prevent her from being brainwashed with dogma at such an early age. I don't want her foundational beliefs written with the teachings of the catholic faith.
Is this a simple letter and meeting with the principal? Thanks for your input.

Hello everyone,
So I've collected all of my documents at this point and everything lines up very well. I'm super-excited to bring this process to a close (I've been collecting documents for 2+ years), but one final thing is concerning.
My Grandmother's birth record from NYC lists her as "Baby *insert last name*". In addition, her father's name is misspelled. (Minor Anglicization and a minor vowel misspelling)
I know that this isn't an incredibly uncommon problem, but I'm wondering how easy it is to fix, or even if I need to. I am applying at a consulate that doesn't have a lot of applicants, so the rules about what they will accept are pretty nebulous. My lawyers/agency suggests that I try applying with a copy of her birth certificate and a certified baptism record. I would like to change it, however, not just for my application, but because I have other relatives who may like to apply in the future, and I'd like the matter to be resolved once and for all, particularly given that they would be applying in several consular jurisdictions.
I have checked the NYC website and I can't figure out whether it would fall under a "name change," which would require a court order, or a name correction would could be done without going through a court.
In addition, the document we would provide (if it were a simple correction) would be her baptism record. However, it states on the website that her baptism records must be "more than 10 years old." The documents themselves are from last year, but they obviously refer to her baptism from many years prior. Would this sort of document qualify for her name correction?
And finally, to complicate matters further, my Grandmother did actually file for a legal name change several years ago precisely because of this problem when she was applying for a passport. However, my lawyers have stated that this document is "not in a format suitable" to change her name in NYC. I have asked for their reasoning, but I don't quite understand it. They state that the biggest reason is that it is hard to prove it is actually her, and in addition there are two other problems:

1. Instead of her full middle name, the court document establishing her "name change" only has a middle initial.
2. The court document establishes a name change from the "baby *insert last name*" to her married name, rather than her maiden name.

So, has anyone here dealt with similar problems? How should I proceed? If the process takes 12 weeks (which is how long the NYC website says that a correction will take), I'm totally fine with waiting a little extra time so that my documents are perfectly in order.
However, if this is some long and drawn-out process, then I'd rather apply at the consulate and try and fix the problem later with "homework," if I am provided some or even return once the issue has been ironed out. (I don't anticipate a particularly long wait time in getting an appointment where I live.)
EDIT: In addition, I was also wondering how long it would take to actually get a copy of her birth certificate after her name and her father's name were corrected? Do they send out a new copy automatically?

Hello everyone.
I am 22F, scheduled to be confirmed in June. I was baptized as a baby twenty one years ago.
My priest asked me for my baptism date and place so he could ask the parish for my baptismal certificate in order to proceed to my Confirmation registration.
The thing is… the parish said they didn’t have me in their records. The diocese said they didn’t have me in their records. The priest asked both of them twice, with my father’s name and then with my mother’s maiden name, in case there was a mixup of some sort. I asked them both too. We called them also. Nothing.
I offered to give my priest pictures of my baptism, or have my godparents sign affidavits testifying to my baptism, the priest said it’s not enough.
He said we would do a conditional baptism, however for some reason the diocese said it was not allowed / not possible in my case.
I have been to Mass all my life, I receive Communion every Sunday, I am very involved in the life of my parish. I am seriously starting to freak out. I am totally not sure I’ll be able to receive the Confirmation, and I am terrified to take Communion when going to church now.
Does anyone here have any idea what to do now? It seems I have exhausted all possibilities but I’m hoping someone can help.
Thank you so much.
God bless you all.

Hello. I was originally baptized as a Methodist but then I got baptized again as a Catholic only because my mom thought a baptismal certificate is required (even though I wasn’t even catholic since they were only required if I was actually baptized as one the first time) for enrolling into x school. I still wanna identify as a Methodist since I grew up as one and I only attend the methodist church I was baptized in. Is it wrong since I got baptized again as a Catholic?
I appreciate whatever responses I get. Thank you.

My maternal grandmother was born in the US in 1929.
My maternal grandfather was not born in the US, but his mother was a US citizen born in the US. My maternal grandfather's father was not a US citizen. Maternal grandfather was born in 1925.
My father is a US citizen born in the US. He was born in 1955.
I am not sure what my mother's citizenship status is. She was not born in the US. She was born in 1956.
Everyone was born in wedlock.
I have most marriage and birth certificates, including my own. The only person I do not have is my great grandmother. However, I do have her baptism records as well as Census records.

I know I am still technically Baptist but it just seems if you are going to use oil and have certificates of “baby dedication,” then why are the Presbyterians wrong on Baptism?

I'll sum up a really long story. My friend had this boyfriend for 8 years. The couple was invited to serve as sponsors for the daughter of a former employee of my friend's family. This ex-employee has a really close bond with my friend and is basically family with her, as she watched my friend grow up. So my friend and her boyfriend accepted the invitation, and the baptism was done in 2019.
Today I've discovered that this boyfriend (now ex) of my friend has done the cathecumenate in a church close to my mother. As it's the church she attends and serves at, she was able to confirm that it was him, and that he's done the process with her fiance in order to get married.
So either: (1) in 2019, this guy did not meet the requirements to be the little girl's sponsor and therefore might have even forged a Chrism certificate (we know other episodes of him committing documental fraud, so it's a beliavable hypothesis), or (2) he sought the confirmation twice (?) and this new one is basically null.
But even if it's the latter, and he actually met the requirement of being confirmed when the little girl was baptized, he definitely did not satisfy this requirement:

Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor, a person must:
3) be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

as we have his confession of him having sex with at 2 least two other women while in a relationship with my friend, as we learned 2 months after the baptism.
Basically, he doesn't meet the requirements — maybe the confirmation one, which is easier to prove documentally, but definitely the "lead a life of faith and compatibility with the function to be taken on" one.
Is there a legal way so this can be proclamated, and therefore he can be "discharged" as sponsor? Please notice I'm not considering pleading for the annulment of the baptism, only for him to be declared unqualifed.

Hoping anyone with an LDS account on Familysearch can give some of their valuable time to look up some records. Unfortunately most Philippine records are blocked to non LDS members due to privacy laws. I've tried visiting the local family history center with no success. I have a few links but for the majority I have dates that would have to be manually looked up. I know this is a big ask so I'm willing to look for them myself if its less of a hassle. I can also understand if the holder isn't comfortable with me temporarily using their account or doesn't want to manually thumb through the books themselves. I'd understand if all that can be done is the opening of the links. This is a really big favour but I'm really eager to see these documents.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FJ5J-VY2
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VVX2-3R2
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:H1W1-C5MM
These are the harder to find records without a link:

1. Baptismal certificate of Felixberto Salgado Escario born on April 22 1873 in Bantayan, Cebu, Philippines (different from Bantayan Island)
2. Church marriage certificate of Esanislao Quiamco and Bartola Bontia married on February 21 1861 in Carmen, Cebu, Philippines
3. Church death certificate of Recardo Quiamco died on February 11 1905 in Carmen, Cebu, Philippines
4. Baptismal certificate of Dorothea Regis Escario born on February 6 1853 in Bantayan, Cebu, Philippines
5. If hers isn't available then her brother's should do, Isidro Regis Escario born on March 13 1911 in Bantayan, Cebu.
6. Also this one isn't as necessary especi

In theory according to the familysearch catalog they should all be there. It's only a matter of finding them. This is a huge favor and any help at all is appreciated. In particular the baptismals of Felixberto and Dorothea are of great value to me personally.
Links to the towns in the catalogs:
Registros parroquiales, 1851-1977
Registros parroquiales, 1823-1970

Introduction
Does baptism save? Physical water-baptism? Some people think so. But that is not the Biblical teaching. Ephesians 2:8-10 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” We are not saved by works, or even by a combination of faith and works. Some believe that faith and good works together lead to salvation, but the Bible teaches instead that faith alone leads to both salvation and good works. We are saved by grace through faith, which is a gift from God, becoming a new creation, for the purpose of doing good works. Physical water-baptism is by definition a work (there is simply no way of escaping that obvious fact, though many Baptismal-Regenerationists do ridiculous mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to get around it), and thus physical baptism cannot be required for salvation.
However, some Bible passages are misused to defend the idea that it is. But as with any single verse or passage, we must discern what it teaches by filtering it through what we already know the Bible teaches on the subject. Any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that physical baptism (or any other work) is necessary for salvation is of necessity a false interpretation. Passages that I commonly see misused and abused include:

1. Mark 16:16 – “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.”
   
2. John 3:5 – “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
   
3. Acts 2:38 – “Repent, and each of you be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins.”
   
4. Acts 22:16 – “Rise up and be baptized, and wash away your sins.”
   
5. Romans 6:3-4 – “All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death … we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead … we too might walk in newness of life.”
   
6. I Corinthians 6:11 – “Such were some of you; but you were washed.”
   
7. I Corinthians 15:29 – “What will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
   
8. Galatians 3:27 – “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
   
9. Ephesians 4:4-5 – “There is … one baptism.”
   
10. Ephesians 5:26 – “He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water.”
    
11. Colossians 2:12 – “Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God.”
    
12. Titus 3:5 – “He saved us … through the washing of regeneration.”
    
13. I Peter 3:21 – “Baptism now saves you.”
    

In this essay, I will exegetically show that all twelve of these passages are being misused by Baptismal-Regenerationists, and I will demonstrate the correct interpretations of each one in context. Some of the verses mention baptism explicitly and others do not, but upon closer inspection, not even one of them actually supports Baptismal Regeneration in the slightest, and some of them actually refute it. It is a patently unbiblical (and borderline heretical) false doctrine.
Passages in Which Baptism is Explicitly Mentioned
There are several passages that directly reference baptism which at first glance seem to indicate Baptismal Regeneration. Because baptism is explicitly mentioned, instead of just possibly alluding to it like in some other passages, these verses are misused far more frequently.
Ephesians 4:5
Ephesians 4:1-7 says, “Therefore I, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you to walk worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”
At first glance, this may seem like a particularly difficult verse. Baptismal-Regenerationists take the phrase “one baptism” to mean that spiritual baptism and physical baptism must be the same thing. How can spiritual baptism/regeneration be a separate event that happens before physical baptism if there is only one baptism? The answer is that we just have to pay attention to the context to know what Paul actually means here.
In verses 2-3, Paul urges the Ephesians to be patient with each other and to diligently remain unified. To get across the importance of this, in verse 4, Paul reinforces the fact that there is only one body of Christ, not multiple, and only one Holy Spirit who dwells in all true believers. Then in verse 5 he says there is only one Lord that we all worship, and only one true faith that we all share, not multiple faiths, and in verse 7, he says grace is given to all Christians according to the measure of the gift of Jesus. Likewise, he says all Christians share the same of baptism. But why exactly would he need to say that?
Well, I Corinthians 3:1-9, 21-23 says, “And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are still not able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. … So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.”
Additionally, Acts 19:1-7 says, “Now it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper regions and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. And he said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ And they said to him, ‘No, we have not even heard if the Holy Spirit is being received.’ And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And they said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Then Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. Now there were in all about twelve men.”
As you can see, some people in Ephesus, among those being addressed in Ephesians 4:5, had been followers of John the Baptist and had received his baptism of repentance, but had not received Christian baptism yet. Then Paul told them about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and then gave them the Christian baptism. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul addressed division in the Corinthian Church, saying it doesn’t matter whether you are a follower of Peter, Paul, or Apollos, since we are all followers of Christ. Likewise, Paul was clearly addressing disunity in the Ephesian Church in his epistle to them, emphasizing that all Christians share the same baptism. Not the baptism of John the Baptist, or Apollos, or Peter, or Paul, but one Christian baptism and faith and Lord. Ephesians 4:5 does not teach Baptismal Regeneration in the slightest. It simply teaches unity, in the same way that Galatians 3:28-29 does: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” We are “one” in Christ Jesus, so we share one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.
But spiritual baptism and physical baptism are two separate things, with the latter being a sign representing the former. Spiritual baptism is spiritual birth, which is the new birth, which is regeneration. Physical baptism is an outward symbol of the inward spiritual baptism, and is the sign of entrance into the New Covenant. We should not confuse the sign with the thing signified.
I Peter 3:21
Perhaps the most-commonly misused verse is I Peter 3:21. I Peter 3:18-22 says, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that He might bring you to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.”
So Peter does say “baptism now saves you” but then he immediately clarifies that he is not talking about physical baptism. He specifically states that the baptism he is talking about is an “appeal of a good conscience to God” (which is what spiritual baptism/spiritual birth/the new birth/ regeneration is), and not just literal water making you physically clean (“the removal of dirt from the flesh,” which is what physical baptism is). I find it extremely annoying when I see Baptismal-Regenerationists quoting the first part of this verse, arrogantly thinking that they have instantly, easily, and irrefutably proven Baptismal Regeneration, while completely ignoring the second half of the verse (as well as the rest of Scripture) which clearly teaches the exact opposite. To try and misuse this verse to support Baptismal Regeneration is just blatantly dishonest and obviously false. Such a dishonest and deceptive abuse of God’s Word is infuriating to me.
Mark 16:16
Another verse I have seen Baptismal-Regenerationists use is Mark 16:16, and it does indeed seem to support it. Mark 16:16 says, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” There are two important things to note here.
Firstly, while it does say that people are saved if they believe and are baptized, it does not say that people who are not baptized are not saved. Interestingly, it actually specifically says that those who disbelieve shall be condemned, but it leaves out any mention of those who believe but are not baptized. Surely, if this verse was teaching Baptismal Regeneration, it would say “he who has believed but has not been baptized shall also be condemned” or “but he who has disbelieved or who has not been baptized shall be condemned.” But the text doesn’t say those things. It is simply expressing the expectation that all who believe (and thus are saved) will then be baptized.
Secondly, and far more importantly, we shouldn’t forget that this verse falls within Mark 16:9-20, which is called the “Longer Ending of Mark.” It is an addition to Mark’s Gospel that Mark did not write. It was wrongfully added to the book later on by a scribe, and thus it is not divinely-inspired Scripture. It does not belong in the Bible, it is not infallible or inerrant, it is not the Word of God, and we cannot glean any binding doctrinal teaching from it whatsoever. So even if this verse taught Baptismal Regeneration (which it does not), it still wouldn’t matter anyway.
Acts 2:38 and I Corinthians 15:29
Two other commonly misused verses are Acts 2:38 and I Corinthians 15:29. Acts 2:37-39 says, “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men, brothers, what should we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.’” I Corinthians 15:29 says, “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
While at first glance, Acts 2:38 may seem to clearly teach Baptismal Regeneration, since it says to be baptized “for” the forgiveness of sins, the Greek word “eis” (often translated “for”) can be legitimately translated “because of,” and even the English word “for” can itself already be understood with that same meaning. There are other places in the New Testament in which “eis” is used this way, and such usage is not uncommon in Koine Greek generally. No one can insist that “eis” in Acts 2:38 indicates that bringing about forgiveness of sins is the goal of baptism.
Matthew 12:41 says, “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” The word “at” in the phrase “repented at the preaching of Jonah” is “eis” again. It certainly can’t mean they repented in order to obtain the preaching of Jonah! It means they repented due to the preaching of Jonah, when they heard it.
Matthew 10:40-42 says, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” The word “in” in the phrases “in the name of a prophet,” “in the name of a righteous man,” and “in the name of a disciple” is the Greek word “eis.” In these verses, the meaning of “eis” cannot indicate a goal, since “receiving a prophet for his name” makes no sense. It instead indicates the grounds. Righteous men are received because they are righteous.
In Acts 2:38, Peter is telling those who had already repented (and thus had already received forgiveness, due to their repentance) to be baptized, because they had been forgiven. An objectively better translation of “eis” in this verse is “because of,” which not only doesn’t support Baptismal Regeneration, but directly refutes it! What Acts 2:38 really says is, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins.” Baptismal Regeneration is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures. I Corinthians 15:29 is also better translated this way, saying “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized because of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized because of them?” There isn’t a hint of Baptismal Regeneration in this verse, either.
Acts 22:16
Acts 22:14-16 says, “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. Now why do you delay? Rise up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’”
The Greek words for “rise up” and “calling” (“anastas” and “epikalesamenos”) are aorist participles, and the Greek words for “be baptized” and “wash” (“baptisai” and “apolousai”) are aorist imperatives. These words form two distinct pairings: the first being “Rise up and be baptized,” and the second being “wash away your sins, calling on His name,” which is more literally translated as, “wash away your sins, having called on His name.”
Due to this distinction in the literary construction of the Greek in this passage, it is clear that the washing away of sins (regeneration) is simply the result of calling upon the name of the Righteous One, and this forgiveness is then outwardly represented by physical baptism. The text does not indicate that baptism washes away sins any more than it indicates that rising up washes away sins. Ananias is simply telling Paul to rise up, to call upon Christ’s name in faith to wash away his sins, and to be baptized.
And let’s not forget about Acts 9, a parallel passage. Acts 9:17-20 says, “So Ananias departed and entered the house. And he laid his hands on him and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord sent me—that is Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming—so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he rose up and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’” Ananias laid his hands on Paul, saying it was so Paul could regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Collating the two passages, it is clear that Paul regained his sight, was filled with the Holy Spirit, calling on the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of his sins, and then was baptized. Baptismal-Regenerationists may argue that Paul wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit until he was baptized, but that makes no sense given what happens in the very next chapter.
Acts 10:44-48 says, “While Peter was still speaking these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the word. And all the circumcised believers who came with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone refuse water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for a few days.” It is indisputable that these people were regenerate before physical baptism!
Colossians 2:12
Colossians 2:8-14 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and in Him you have been filled, who is the head over all rule and authority; in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you being dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive with Him, having graciously forgiven us all our transgressions. Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us, He also has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
So Paul is referring to “a circumcision made without hands,” which is obviously spiritual regeneration, and he compares this to being “buried with Him in baptism” and “raised up with Him through faith.” Paul is obviously talking about spiritual baptism! We are saved by grace alone through faith alone, and the Holy Spirit regenerates us, which is what spiritual baptism and the “circumcision made without hands” are. Physical baptism is only a symbol of this, and a sign of the New Covenant, just like how physical circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, but was separate from the circumcision made without hands, which is spiritual.
Romans 6:3-4
Another verse some have used is Romans 6:3-4, once again out of context. Romans 6:1-7 says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died has been justified from sin.”
In the context, it is clear that Paul is primarily referring to the spiritual baptism that is regeneration, not physical baptism, since the language closely parallels Colossians 2. This passage provides no warrant for the idea of Baptismal Regeneration, since Paul is speaking symbolically throughout the passage (since we haven’t literally died or been buried), and physical baptism is an outward symbol that represents the inward spiritual baptism (spiritual birth/the new birth/regeneration) that is salvation.
Galatians 3:27
Galatians 3:23-29 says, “But before faith came, we were held in custody under the Law, being shut up for the coming faith to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor unto Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.”
The text does indeed say that everyone baptized into Christ has been clothed with Christ, but there are three separate reasons this passage actually hurts Baptismal Regeneration rather than supports it. Firstly, the mental gymnastics that Baptismal-Regenerationists often do to get around the fact that physical baptism is a work usually involve saying that it is a work of God and not a work of man. But the text here says that “you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Physical water-baptism is clearly a good work done by the believer (and whoever baptizes them).
Secondly, the text technically never indicates that baptism is necessary for salvation. If Paul was teaching Baptismal Regeneration here, he should have said, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ, but you who have not been baptized are not clothed with Christ.” But Paul doesn’t say that. He doesn’t strictly limit salvation to those who have been physically “baptized into Christ.” Certainly everyone who has saving faith is regenerate whether they have been physically baptized yet or not, but like in Mark 16:16, the text expresses the normative expectation that all true believers will be baptized.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear once again, like in Colossians 2:11-12 and Romans 6:3-4, that Paul is talking symbolically about spiritual baptism, and not about physical water-baptism at all. “Faith” is referenced repeatedly in the passage, and right before Paul mentions baptism, he says “you are all sons of God through faith.” He didn’t say, “you are all sons of God because you have been baptized,” or, “you are all sons of God through faith and baptism.” Paul is once again talking about spiritual baptism here, and we should not confuse the sign of physical baptism with the thing it signifies: spiritual baptism/spiritual birth/regeneration.
Passages in Which Baptism is Not Explicitly Mentioned
Many passages that Baptismal-Regenerationists use simply refer to “washing” or “water” without directly referring to “baptism.” They assume that these verses refer to physical water-baptism when they really do not. Baptism did not exist in the Old Testament, but the same exact language is used symbolically in the Old Testament many times.
For example, Psalm 51:2, 7 says, “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. … Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” Proverbs 30:12 says, “There is a generation that is clean in its own eyes, Yet is not washed from its filthiness.” Isaiah 1:16 says, “Wash yourselves, purify yourselves; Remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes.” Jeremiah 4:14 says, “Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, That you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts Lodge within you?” Ezekiel 36:25 says, “Then I will splash clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols.” Obviously these cannot possibly be referring to any physical act (except perhaps for Isaiah 1:16, but certainly not the others), much less water-baptism, which did not even exist at the time. Thus, when the same language is used in the New Testament, there is no reason to think it refers to physical water-baptism.
In fact, there is one passage like this which would actually hurt Baptismal Regeneration if it was interpreted that way. Hebrews 10:19-22 says, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”
If this refers to physical baptism, it doesn’t say it is necessary for salvation or is the means of saving grace. The writer says we already have confidence to enter the holy places, and that Jesus already inaugurated a new and living way for us, and that because we already have a great priest, we should have our bodies washed with pure water. If this is talking about physical water-baptism, then it says we are saved before it, not through it, which contradicts Baptismal Regeneration. But clearly it is just symbolic language anyway. “Bodies washed” is simply an an idiom showing the thoroughness of the cleansing of the conscience by God. Because Jesus thoroughly cleansed us of our sins, we can have peace with God and enjoy fellowship with Him. In light of these facts, lets now look at the rest of the Scripture passages that Baptismal-Regenerationists misuse.
Titus 3:5
Titus 3:5-7 says, “He saved us, not by works which we did in righteousness, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that having been justified by His grace, we would become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
The text says we are saved “through the washing of regeneration,” which Baptismal-Regenerationists think refers to physical baptism, which they believe is what regenerates us. But immediately before that, the text says we are not saved “by works which we did in righteousness” which obviously includes physical baptism. The context clearly indicates that “washing of regeneration” is just the spiritual baptism done by God in our hearts, and nothing more.
I Corinthians 6:11
I Corinthians 6:9-11 says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
Even if “you were washed” refers to physical water-baptism (which I have already shown it does not), that doesn’t mean the verse is implying that it is necessary to be saved. It would simply mean that the people who had been committing those sins were justified and sanctified, thus being saved, and were also baptized as well. This passage once again reflects the expectation that believers will be baptized, just like Mark 16:16 and Galatians 3:27 do.
And let us not forget what Paul says elsewhere in this same epistle! I Corinthians 1:14-17 says, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel, not in wisdom of word, so that the cross of Christ will not be made empty.” Then I Corinthians 4:15 says, “For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” It is clear that the Corinthians were saved through Paul preaching the Gospel to them, even though he didn’t baptize them, and a clear distinction is made between the Gospel and Baptism. The Gospel is about salvation, so if physical baptism is necessary, this distinction would not have been made, and Paul certainly would have baptized them!
Ephesians 5:26
Ephesians 5:25-27 says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless.”
Again, like in Titus 3:5, I Corinthians 6:11, and all those Old Testament passages, this is obviously symbolic language that has nothing to do with physical baptism, especially given the phrase “with the word,” which clearly refers to the Word of God, who is our savior Jesus Christ. It is He who has cleansed us in spiritual baptism in the new birth.
John 3:5
John 3:3-8 says, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born again.” The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.’” (Note that “born again” is more literally translated as “born from above.”)
First, if Jesus had actually wanted to say that one must be physically baptized to be saved, He obviously could have just said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is baptized in water and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” But that is not at all what He said. Baptism is never mentioned a single time in the context of this passage.
Second, it is important to note that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the Christian sacrament of baptism hadn’t even been instituted yet. Baptismal-Regenerationists are extremely inconsistent here, since they say that the reason why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved is because he was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to Christian baptism, and was saved like everyone else under the Old Covenant. Not only is that simply false (since he was under the New Covenant by the time that he died), but Baptismal-Regenerationists also insist that Jesus here is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized in order to be saved, even though he was inarguably under the Old Covenant! But obviously neither Nicodemus nor the thief on the cross needed to be physically baptized to be saved.
Third, the Greek grammar indicates that “being born of water” and “being born of the Spirit” are a single of action, not two different things. Jesus is not speaking of two separate births, but of one birth from above, which is spiritual birth, or spiritual baptism.
Fourth, Jesus later rebukes Nicodemus by asking him: “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?” (John 3:10). What Jesus had just told him was something Nicodemus should have known and understood from the Old Testament. Ezekiel 36:25-27 says, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to do My judgments.” Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he failed to remember and understand one of the most important Old Testament passages that pertains to the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). Nicodemus should have been expecting this, so why would Jesus rebuke Nicodemus for not understanding baptism, when baptism is literally never mentioned in the Old Testament?!
The phrase “born of water and the Spirit” describes two different aspects of what it means to be spiritually born again from above. Jesus was not referring to literal water, but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. It is symbolic washing language representing the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings forth spiritual life to dead sinners.
There are more examples of this later in John’s Gospel as well. John 13:5-11 says “Then He poured water into the washbasin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel which He had tied around Himself. So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, ‘Lord, are You going to wash my feet?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘What I am doing you do not realize now, but you will understand afterwards.’ Peter said to Him, ‘You will never wash my feet—ever!’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.’ Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.’ Jesus said to him, ‘He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.’ For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, ‘Not all of you are clean.’” John 15:3 says, “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.”
The work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying a believer, whereby God cleanses and purifies the believer’s heart or soul, is compared to water in Isaiah 44:3 and John 7:37-39. Isaiah 44:3-4 says, “For I will pour out water on the thirsty ground And streams on the dry land; I will pour out My Spirit on your seed And My blessing on your offspring; And they will spring up among the grass Like poplars by streams of water.” John 7:37-39 says, “Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ”From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.”’ But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were going to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The water that one must be born of in John 3:5 is this living water, which is the Holy Spirit! Jesus reinforces this truth when He restates that one must be born again and that this newness of life can only be produced by the Holy Spirit (John 3:8).
The Barclay Daily Study Bible explains it thus: “There are two thoughts here. Water is the symbol of cleansing. When Jesus takes possession of our lives, when we love Him with all our heart, the sins of the past are forgiven and forgotten. The Spirit is the symbol of power. When Jesus takes possession of our lives it is not only that the past is forgotten and forgiven; if that were all, we might well proceed to make the same mess of life all over again; but into life there enters a new power which enables us to be what by ourselves we could never be and to do what by ourselves we could never do. Water and the Spirit stand for the cleansing and the strengthening power of Christ, which wipes out the past and gives victory in the future.”
Thus, it is evident from the immediate context of the passage, the wider context of the entire Bible, and even the Greek grammar itself that Jesus is not talking about physical water-baptism. After considering all of this evidence, there is no reason to believe that John 3:5 (or any other verse in the entire Bible) teaches that physical water-baptism is required for salvation or is the means of saving grace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is absolutely no biblical basis for the idea that physical water-baptism is necessary for salvation. The New Testament is abundantly clear that we are not saved by works. The baptism that is necessary for salvation is spiritual baptism, spiritual birth, the new birth, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is regeneration. The Holy Spirit regenerates us and gives us new hearts, and gives us the desire to do good works, which can be used as evidence of true faith and repentance and salvation.
Physical water-baptism is a symbolic public declaration of our faith, and it represents spiritual baptism as a sign of having entered into the New Covenant. God commands Christians to be physically baptized, and we should desire to do it for that reason. It is not a means of saving grace, but only a means of sanctifying grace. Spiritual baptism is salvation, and physical water-baptism is an outward symbol that sanctifies us.
Sources and Further Reading
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/reformed-apologetics/a-brief-rebuttal-of-baptismal-regeneration/
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/buried-and-raised-in-baptism-through-faith
https://versebyversecommentary.com/2019/06/11/hebrews-10-22
https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-John-3-5.html
Please tell me if you notice any typos, so that I can fix them. God bless! :)

Per the additional requirements listed on application guide it seems that I need to provide additional supporting documents in order to sponsor my wife as her birth certificate was registered late. However, I do not have any of the listed example documents available to provide as evidence. Would Passport and Citizenship qualify as "other original documents establishing identity"? What other documents would be acceptable?
Additional Requirement:
Birth certificates issued in this country:If a birth is registered late, include the original baptism certificate and other original documents establishing identity such as:
-Old school records (Fifth class, Middle standard and Matriculation/secondary school certificate), and - Voter's ID card.
Your input would be greatly appreciated!

My partner and I are both eligible for jure sanguinis and are planning to apply in Italy. I have a typical male line on one side and if for some reason that were to fail I have a 1948 case. My partner’s GGF never naturalized, however his case is seeming to be more complicated.
We know he could be eligible by JM after I’m a citizen for 2-3 years (depending on where we live), but he’d like to go through the process himself.
His line looks like this: GGF > GF > F > Him
Here’s the complications we’re running into:

1. His dad is living and on his birth certificate but denies being his dad. He walked out on my partner when he was about 7 years old. As an adult, my partner tried reaching out to his dad to reconnect. His dad’s response was to deny having any children and block him. For clarification, this man is most definitely his father, he’s just a jerk.
2. His dad has a violent criminal record. Unfortunately, this isn’t the type of deadbeat dad who maybe we could try to convince to just sign some papers and we’ll be on our merry way. If my partner needs anything from him for JS, my guess is the only route that would work is a legal one. I don’t think that man’s going to do anything out of the kindness of his heart.
3. Most of the vital records in his line come out of Cook County, IL including his father’s. Cook County is notorious for their strict rules about who can access vital records. We might be able to get his GF and GGF’s records through his aunts, but we’d probably have to get a court order for his dad’s (and I’m not certain if that would work). Both his GM and GF passed quite a few years ago, so we can't go through them to get his dad's birth certificate.
4. His parents’ marriage didn’t take place until after my partner was born, approximately 3-4 years later, just before they had his younger siblings. They are currently divorced.
5. His birth certificate wasn’t signed by his dad, we don’t think there’s a custody or child support agreement and there’s no baptismal record that we know of. I say all this because my understanding is deadbeat daddy-o’s name on his birth certificate isn’t enough to prove paternity if his parents weren’t married at the time. We plan to do some digging and see if something pops up, but he’s mostly estranged from his family because they’re ab*sive, as you probably already inferred.

I think ultimately, if my partner does pursue his own JS, we may have to get an attorney no matter what. But we’re not quite at that point yet, so in the meantime let me know if ya’ll have any thoughts. I’d love to be able to find a solution, even if it’s a legal one. Also low key mad at his dad for sucking so much and would love to be able to pull a golden nugget out of the shitstorm of a family he was forced into.
I get this is a sticky situation and thank you in advance for anything you can offer. I really appreciate it.

I'm looking to obtain my great grandfather's baptismal certificate but don't have his complete birthday. Unfortunately, all of his children have since passed and his grandchildren don't know.
He was born in 1885 in Cataluña. Some say in Barcelona, some say in Olot or Sant Joan les Fonts.
Don't have much to go with and need help!

Not easy at all, when they never answer the phone haha. Bring confirmed this year though.

I’ve been anxious for years now about being Confirmed due to not having a certificate of first Communion, and have sadly put it off. I have(do) go to Confession, and received my first Communion, and do receive Communion. I was able to get by Baptismal certificate when I needed it, but there is no record of my communion. Can I still be confirmed?

I sent away for the original birth certificate of my Irish-born grandfather, which I have already received. I also happen to also have the original baptism certificate for him. Will sending along this extra documentation be helpful? Or will it just delay things? The reason I was thinking to send it along is because the birth date listed on his death certificate is off by two years. I thought if I have two documents (original Irish Birth Certificate and original Irish Baptism Certificate), then maybe that might help?

Hello, all -
I wanted to share some information about my process of reclaiming my Luxembourg citizenship. A little over 4 years ago my cousins emailed me to let me know that we qualified, thus starting a multi-year dive into my family history with a few snags hit along the way. There isn't a lot of clear-cut information online about the process, which can be complex, so I hope this post can be as informative as possible for what that process looked like for me.
---
About Me: I'm a 27M and had always been taught about my Luxembourgish ancestry growing up, even at an age when I was not quite sure what it meant. My extended family has had scattered Francophone speakers and also some ties to Quebec. My ancestry to a Luxembourger was through an all-male lineage (known as Article 7) which my cousins informed me made me eligible to reclaim Luxembourg citizenship without any sort of timeline/deadline as the law states that you have always been a citizen, you just need to reclaim the status as a recognized citizen. For me my Luxembourger was my great-great-grandfather (emigrated to the United States from Luxembourg), passed along to my great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and then to me. Note that there are other pathways based on ancestry that do not follow the all-male lineage requirement: some pathways have expired but others have not; some require an in-person visit to Luxembourg, but mine did not. There are various tools/decision paths/quizzes online that can help you decide whether you qualify through a different pathway, but I'm not well-versed in the ins-and-outs so I'm going to limit this post just to my experience with the all-male lineage.
Vital Documents: I found the hardest part of the process to be acquiring the vital records to prove your ancestral line back to a Luxembourgish immigrant. As you start on the process, you'll find out or hear that you will need to submit the birth, marriage, and death certificates (i.e. vital documents) of all people in the relevant ancestral line back to the Luxembourgish immigrant. Most counties will keep and produce these records upon request, and there are even a few websites that will do this for you without needing to get in touch with the local government. Each record will run you about ~$25 dollars, and you should request notarized and official documents when possible. An apostille seal isn't necessary. If you're unsure about the year of the birth/marriage/death then the county or city may also be willing do a full search for you, usually at a cost as well. Ancestry.com will be your best friend here and I found that it was able to pinpoint pretty accurately the birth, marriage, death locations and dates of my ancestral line through its various sources, which means you can put in a very targeted records request to the state/county/local government to reproduce a vital document. Note that sometimes you will also need to prove that you have a family tie/reason for accessing the document. For example, I needed to produce my birth certificate to request my father's birth certificate to demonstrate that I am indeed his son, so I'd recommend starting with your immediate family and moving back in time.
The pièce de résistance of this process is getting the birth certificate for your Luxembourgish ancestor from Luxembourg. You can usually do this by sending an email or putting a form request in online to the commune in which they were born. For me, this was Ettelbruck and they shipped the vital document to me in under 2 weeks.
Missing Vital Documents: For me, I hit a couple roadblocks in acquiring all of these documents which made me put my application on hold for a couple years. My great-great grandfather was born in 1886 in Brooklyn and we were not able to locate a birth certificate for him (which is not uncommon from those days), nor were we able to find a baptismal record noting his date of birth. I also could not find the death certificate of the Luxembourgish immigrant who died in 1910 (again, also not uncommon). When I hit these issues I gave up on the process for a couple years having been told by the Luxembourg American Cultural Society (LACS) that I would need to strictly adhere to getting all of those vital documents and they needed to be verified or notarized within 6 months of each other. You can see how if you spin your wheels for a few months trying to find a difficult document how some of the documents would then lose validity, forcing you to start all over again requesting new documents. In short, I've found this statement to not be fully true: I haven't heard of anyone getting rejected from Luxembourg because their documents were acquired more than 6 months apart and I didn't adhere to this with my application. In addition, not having all of the vital records also seems to be fine.
As I mentioned above, a few folks helping me through the process recommended that I try and find a baptismal record from a church for to substitute in for the missing birth certificate, or a church death record for the missing death certificate. In the end, I couldn't find either of these so I substituted in census documents that showed the people in my ancestral line living together at certain time periods, as well as notes from the state/local governments stating that they did a search for the vital document in question and couldn't find them. I also included a short note with my application, in French, explaining how the census documents still prove an ancestral line. Again, this is where Ancestry.com will be your friend as I was able to locate the exact document I needed and request an official copy from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) which I received in about 2 weeks. I think the TL;DR here is that you don't necessarily need all of these documents but you still enough official sources to demonstrate the ancestral line to a reasonable level. I think the Luxembourg government understands that sometimes these documents simply weren't issued in the past.
Hire a Consultant or Not? A quick search online will show you that there are a few individuals and organizations that will serve as "consultants" to help guide you through the process, or to help prepare your applications. Generally this will run you multiple hundred dollars, sometimes even more if you're applying as a family, and will require multiple interviews to shepherd you through the process. Some people have hired one of these consultants and had a great experience with it so if the price point works for you then you can go for it! They will very clearly lay out the steps that you need to take, explain the process clearly, and even help with final submission of your application. For me, I was not in a position to spend ~$1,000 on a consultant who was just going to tell me I needed to find those missing vital documents anyway and reach the same place where I started.
One of the things that most consultants will not help you with is acquiring all of the vital documents discussed above. So, it's not really a "pay and forget about it until it’s ready” kind of purchase as you'll still have to do all of the legwork in tracking those documents down which, again, can be the most time-consuming and frustrating part. I have heard that the consultants will help you acquiring the immigrant's birth certificate from Luxembourg and help you to submit your application. So, I want to stress that with a little help from the Facebook group (below) I was able to do this process almost entirely on my own. I'm not a geneologist and I'm not even an Ancestry.com afficionado but once it's laid out for you the process is fairly straightforward. Again, the hardest part is acquiring all of the birth/marriage/death/other vital documents back to the Luxembourgish immigrant but from there you essentially just add in a couple supporting documents and ship it to the Ministry of Justice.
Facebook Group: I won't spend a lot of time explaining this one, but want to underscore how helpful this Facebook group is. I delayed my applicaiton for years because I was convinced it wouldn't be accepted, but asking a few quick questions from this Facebook group got be back on track and to a position to submit my application next fall. Importantly, in the "Files" section of the Facebook group there is a step by step guide to what makes a completed application that you can submit. It also includes letter templates and other helpful docs. Don't be scared off by the "Article 29" in the Facebook group title: there is loads of information about, and people in the group that have pursued, other citizenship pathways.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/luxembourgcitizenship/
Anatomy of a Completed Application
1.) Notarized original copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates from everyone from the principal immigrant to yourself. Include a birth certificate for yourself. 2.) Notarized first two pages of your passport (photo pages). They can notarized this at a UPS or someplace similar. 3.) A letter requesting recognition of citizenship (a template for this is in the Facebook group). 4.) A family tree (this doesn't need to be in a "tree" format, I did mine in an Excel spreadsheet listing the name in the male lineage, their birthdate and location, their spouse, their marriage date and location, their death date and location including myself).
Timeline: note that timeline can vary considerably between applications and in different times of years, but here was my experience: - I submitted and received confirmation that my documents were received in Luxembourg in October 2023. - I received an extract from the National Registry asking me to confirm my personal details (address, marriage status, etc.) in early December 2023. At the time, this document listed my nationality as just "American" so I got a little panicked, but you should not fret over this, it's a good sign if you make it this far. - I signed up for a MyGuichet.lu account to track the status of my application as this will be the first place that your Nationality will be updated once you are listed in the national registry. Note that this will cost you ~ $100 to make an account as you'll need to sign up for Luxtrust. My nationality was updated to "Luxembourgish, American" in mid-January 2024. - I received a paper copy confirming my nationality (i.e. sometimes called a "Lion Cetificate" because of the lion seal on it) in early February 2024. - I had my passport appointment at the Luxembourgish Embassy in Washington, D.C. in April 2024.
Closing: I'm happy to answer any questions directly through messages or replies to this post. Good luck!
DISCLOSURE: having always known about my Luxembourg ancestry growing up, I learned a lot diving into my family history for this project and want to help others doing the same, since the process can be complex. I have no ties to the Luxembourgish government nor am I a paid ancestry or immigration consultant or lawyer. The statements above are attrributable only to me and my experience. I have no stake in Ancestry.com, and I neither run, nor get any benefit from linking out to, the Facebook group mentioned in this post.

Hello! I am a first generation American. My paternal grandfather was of Spanish nationality. I have his immigration documentation with the data from his Spanish passport from 1952. Where can I request a copy of his data? Am I trying to locate his birth or baptism certificate?
I also know that he served in the military in the late 1940s, but I don't know in which branch. Information on this would also be helpful.
I haven't had any luck using geneological searches like "family search" or "ancestry". Thank you very much for your help!!

Any Catholics in PR?
My family and I are meeting in PR and we will be seeing each other for the first time in forever. We will not all be together for years. The Godfather of my baby, my brother, will be there and I haven’t seen in him in so long, and don’t know when I will again. I wanted to take this chance to have my new baby baptized so all of my siblings especially his godfather will be there.
We are staying in Río Grande.
Can anyone recommend Catholic Churches we can reach out to to coordinate this? I know it’s tricky since we are not parishioners, but we are devout catholics, all of us are caught up on our sacraments, and we have all attended baptism classes for both parents/godparents numerous times. Our home parishes would be happy to send all documents and certificates of this. We would pay of course and tip the priest generously.
Thank you in advance!