Baptized child takes the sui juris church of his dad?

[Vico]

Wait, so just to be clear:

If a Chaldean rite Catholic male marries a woman who is Roman Catholic of the Latin rite, and they baptize their children in the Roman rite, the child really is a member of the Chaldean particular church?

Yes, the canon laws permit that if the father is Chaldean and the mother is Latin, and they both agree to baptize the infant in the Latin Church that the infant will be Latin sui iuris. But there is more permitted for holy days and penitential practices.

CCEO (Eastern Canon Law)

Canon 8831. The Christian faithful who are outside the territorial boundaries of their own Church sui iuris can adopt fully for themselves the feast days and days of penance which are in force where they are staying.
2. In families in which the parents are enrolled in different Churches sui iuris, it is permitted to observe the norms of one or the other Church, in regard to feast days and days of penance.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Vico,

I believe you are misinterpreting that canon. The parents have to inform the pastor that they wish the child enrolled as Latin, and this must be registerd in the baptismal record. Simply having a Latin priest baptize the child of the Chaldean father does NOT make the child Latin.

 

[Vico]

Vico,

I believe you are misinterpreting that canon. The parents have to inform the pastor that they wish the child enrolled as Latin, and this must be registerd in the baptismal record. Simply having a Latin priest baptize the child of the Chaldean father does NOT make the child Latin.

They must request at the time of baptism, but I did not say anything that, only it is possible. You must be thinking of CCEOCan. 29 §1 By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

Canon 883 that I posted is for families with mixed sui iuris members.

 

[babochka]

So that would mean that the child would have to follow fasting regulations and holy days of obligation of the Chaldean Church too. Also meaning he could technically ignore the holy days of the West if he wanted, even though he attends a Roman parish.

Weird (if true…)

No, canon law has provisions for mixed families to choose which rite they will follow in terms of fasting and Holy Days. I can’t think of the canon off the top of my head, but I’m sure Vico knows it.

 

[Vico]

So that would mean that the child would have to follow fasting regulations and holy days of obligation of the Chaldean Church too. Also meaning he could technically ignore the holy days of the West if he wanted, even though he attends a Roman parish.

Weird (if true…)

Yes, the canon laws permit that if the father is Chaldean and the mother is Latin.

CCEO (Eastern Canon Law)Can. 29 §1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
But there is more permitted for holy days and penitential practices.

CCEO (Eastern Canon Law)Canon 883

1. The Christian faithful who are outside the territorial boundaries of their own Church sui iuris can adopt fully for themselves the feast days and days of penance which are in force where they are staying.
2. In families in which the parents are enrolled in different Churches sui iuris, it is permitted to observe the norms of one or the other Church, in regard to feast days and days of penance.

 

[Vico]

No, canon law has provisions for mixed families to choose which rite they will follow in terms of fasting and Holy Days. I can’t think of the canon off the top of my head, but I’m sure Vico knows it.

See post #65. I posted originally in reply to the wrong post.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, the canon laws permit that if the father is Chaldean and the mother is Latin, and they both agree to baptize the infant in the Latin Church that the infant will be Latin sui iuris. …

No.

That is not true.

The child does not become Latin Rite by virtue of the place or rite of Baptism. The Codes are very clear on this point.

Even if the parents decide to have the child baptised in the Latin rite, they must still declare (at the time) that they want the child to actually be enrolled in the Latin Church—absent such a declaration, the child is still Chaldean.

 

[FrDavid96]

Vico,

I believe you are misinterpreting that canon. The parents have to inform the pastor that they wish the child enrolled as Latin, and this must be registerd in the baptismal record. Simply having a Latin priest baptize the child of the Chaldean father does NOT make the child Latin.

Yes, exactly.

The parents must actively declare that they want the child enrolled in a different Church (other than the father’s). As you just wrote, the act of having the baptism done according to the Latin rite and/or by a Latin priest does not mean that the child is enrolled in the Latin Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

Wait, so just to be clear:

If a Chaldean rite Catholic male marries a woman who is Roman Catholic of the Latin rite, and they baptize their children in the Roman rite, the child really is a member of the Chaldean particular church?

Yes, exactly.

Membership in a particular Church sui iuris is determined by the paternal line.

Again, the answer doesn’t change.

 

[Vico]

No.

That is not true.

The child does not become Latin Rite by virtue of the place or rite of Baptism. The Codes are very clear on this point.

Even if the parents decide to have the child baptised in the Latin rite, they must still declare (at the time) that they want the child to actually be enrolled in the Latin Church—absent such a declaration, the child is still Chaldean.

As posted before, CCEO Can. 29. “if both parents by agreement freely request it” [the baptism]. It is in enrollment not a transfer so does not use CIC Can. 112 §3 or CCEO Can. 36. Other canons detail the recording of the baptism, CIC Can. 535 §2. and CCEO Can. 296 §2.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14619418&postcount=30

 

[FrDavid96]

As posted before, CCEO Can. 29. “if both parents by agreement freely request it” [the baptism]. It is in enrollment not a transfer so does not use CIC Can. 112 §3 or CCEO Can. 36. Other canons detail the recording of the baptism, CIC Can. 535 §2. and CCEO Can. 296 §2.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14619418&postcount=30

No.

You do not understand the canon.

The words “freely request it” do NOT refer to the baptism (as you just posted). Those words refer to the enrollment of the child in a Church other-than that of the father.

Again, I keep repeating this, the Church or rite of baptism does not confer membership into that Church sui iuris. What you posted is simply wrong and that’s what causes confusion about this topic.

The parents must decide and declare that the child is enrolled into a Church other than that of the father. Deciding to have the child baptised in a specific rite does not (as you wrongly posted) confer membership.

 

[Vico]

No.

You do not understand the canon.

The words “freely request it” do NOT refer to the baptism (as you just posted). Those words refer to the enrollment of the child in a Church other-than that of the father.

Again, I keep repeating this, the Church or rite of baptism does not confer membership into that Church sui iuris. What you posted is simply wrong and that’s what causes confusion about this topic.

The parents must decide and declare that the child is enrolled into a Church other than that of the father. Deciding to have the child baptised in a specific rite does not (as you wrongly posted) confer membership.

The two Catholic parents that agree to baptize their child in the mother’s sui iuris church rather than the fathers, in the case where they are different, by mutual agreement, do so by requesting baptism from the priest (or deacon) in that church sui iuris, at the time of baptism. The clergy then records the baptism properly as in that sui iuris church.

 

[FrDavid96]

The two Catholic parents that agree to baptize their child in the mother’s sui iuris church rather than the fathers, but mutual agreement, do so by requesting baptism from the priest (or deacon) in that church sui iuris, at the time of baptism. The clergy then records the baptism properly as in that sui iuris church.

No.

That is absolutely wrong.

That is exactly what the canons do not say!

You do not understand what you are posting about.

The rite or location or priest of the baptism do not determine membership. The fact that the parents have the child baptised according to a particular rite absolutely does not result in membership in that rite.

Your posts are a typical example of what happens when people do not understand what canon law says, but insist on interpreting it for others.

This particular issue has been addressed by the Holy See from the very first days of the Eastern Code. It was one of the questions most asked when the Code was promulgated. It is also one of the most clearly addressed questions.

The act of having a child baptised according to a particular rite or by a particular priest very specifically does not constitute enrolling the child into that Church sui iuris. The parents must make that decision and must actively (not passively) declare their intent to have the child enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the mother. Absent that clear declaration, the child is enrolled in the Church of the father.

Again, your posts are a prime example of someone who does not have any understanding of what the Codes say and how they are applied.

 

[Vico]

No.

That is absolutely wrong.

That is exactly what the canons do not say!

You do not understand what you are posting about.

The rite or location or priest of the baptism do not determine membership. The fact that the parents have the child baptised according to a particular rite absolutely does not result in membership in that rite.

Your posts are a typical example of what happens when people do not understand what canon law says, but insist on interpreting it for others.

This particular issue has been addressed by the Holy See from the very first days of the Eastern Code. It was one of the questions most asked when the Code was promulgated. It is also one of the most clearly addressed questions.

The act of having a child baptised according to a particular rite or by a particular priest very specifically does not constitute enrolling the child into that Church sui iuris. The parents must make that decision and must actively (not passively) declare their intent to have the child enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the mother. Absent that clear declaration, the child is enrolled in the Church of the father.

Again, your posts are a prime example of someone who does not have any understanding of what the Codes say and how they are applied.

I have never posted what you accuse me of saying, i.e., I have never stated against the canons that it is the rite of baptism, not the mutual decision of the parents, that determine which church sui juris that there infant is ascribed to in the case mentioned (per the canons). Ascription is not about where or who performs the baptism rite.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have never posted what you accuse me of saying, i.e., I have never stated against the canons that it is the rite of baptism, not the mutual decision of the parents, that determine which church sui juris that there infant is ascribed to in the case mentioned (per the canons). Ascription is not about where or who performs the baptism rite.

What you say you never posted, you posted right here in #61

Read your own posts before you deny having written something. The text is there for anyone to read:

Yes, the canon laws permit that if the father is Chaldean and the mother is Latin, and they both agree to baptize the infant in the Latin Church that the infant will be Latin sui iuris.

Which is exactly wrong.

Even if they baptize the child in the Latin Rite, the child is still Chaldean, the Church of the father. If, and only if, they declare that it is their intention that the child be enrolled in the Latin Church would that happen. That applies regardless of which rite the baptism is performed.

 

[Vico]

What you say you never posted, you posted right here in #61

Read your own posts before you deny having written something. The text is there for anyone to read:

Which is exactly wrong.

Even if they baptize the child in the Latin Rite, the child is still Chaldean, the Church of the father. If, and only if, they declare that it is their intention that the child be enrolled in the Latin Church would that happen. That applies regardless of which rite the baptism is performed.

I read every one (15) of my posts and they are all correct. I have never stated anything about a rite of baptism, including post #61. It says “in the Latin Church” which is a sui iuris church.

 

[FrDavid96]

I read every one (15) of my posts and they are all correct. I have never stated anything about a rite of baptism, including post #61. It says “in the Latin Church” which is a sui iuris church.

Deny it all you want. It won’t change the fact that you posted it.

Yes, the canon laws permit that if the father is Chaldean and the mother is Latin, and they both agree to baptize the infant in the Latin Church that the infant will be Latin sui iuris.

I don’t know why you are trying to claim that you didn’t write it. Post 61 is there for anyone to read. Denying that you wrote it only further diminishes your credibility.

 

[Vico]

Deny it all you want. It won’t change the fact that you posted it.

I don’t know why you are trying to claim that you didn’t write it. Post 61 is there for anyone to read. Denying that you wrote it only further diminishes your credibility.

I did make that post and it is not about the baptismal rite. The post says “in the Latin Church”. That is not a baptismal rite but a sui iuris church.

 

[FrDavid96]

I did make that post and it is not about the baptismal rite. The post says “in the Latin Church”. That is not a baptismal rite but a sui iuris church.

The post says “baptize the infant in the Latin Church” no matter how many times you deny it.

Yes, the canon laws permit that if the father is Chaldean and the mother is Latin, and they both agree to baptize the infant in the Latin Church that the infant will be Latin sui iuris.

Each time you deny it, all you’re accomplishing is to diminish your own credibility.

The only reason I’ve gone this far is to allow you enough room to prove that you simply do know know what you’re writing about. You’ve done that quite well. I see no point in further assisting you in making that clear.

 

[Vico]

The post says “baptize the infant in the Latin Church” no matter how many times you deny it.

Each time you deny it, all you’re accomplishing is to diminish your own credibility.

The only reason I’ve gone this far is to allow you enough room to prove that you simply do know know what you’re writing about. You’ve done that quite well. I see no point in further assisting you in making that clear.

I do not deny “baptize the infant in the Latin Church” and have never done so as you assert.

The question answered was from the Advocate asks about children being ascribed to the Chaldean sui iuris church even though baptized in “the Roman rite”, even though not capitalizing rite as would be normal to indicate the manner of baptizing:
If a Chaldean rite Catholic male marries a woman who is Roman Catholic of the Latin rite, and they baptize their children in the Roman rite, the child really is a member of the Chaldean particular church?

and I replied “Yes, the canon laws permit that if the father is Chaldean and the mother is Latin, and they both agree to baptize the infant in the Latin Church that the infant will be Latin sui iuris.”

I did not mention the manner of baptism in my post. It is normally used by clergy of the Latin Church sui iuris (although one could be bi-ritual) but is irrelevant to ascription.