F
FrDavid96
Guest
I included an explanatory note so that people understand that a rescript from the Holy See is not strictly necessary to change churches, that’s now easier.
Why are you trying to make such an issue about that?
Why?
- Status
Why are you trying to make such an issue about that?
Why?
V
Vico
Guest
That people not be mislead about it.
Transfer occurs several ways, and marriage is only one of them. The one I am referring to is not by marriage.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I am not misleading anyone. Not by a long shot.
I said that it does not have to be done by rescript from the Holy See, there are now easier ways. You are trying to turn a simple, and completely accurate comment into an argument.
Obviously, you are trying to make something out of what is a big nothing.
You’re being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
I’m not going to play that game with you. You can play that game with yourself all you want. I’m finished attempting to dialogue with you because you make it very clear that dialogue is not what you’re seeking.
If, in the future, you want to behave like an adult and have an adult conversation, I’ll be here. If you want to continue to play childish word games, have at it–but you’ll be doing it alone from now on.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Sorry if I was repeating and sorry too for your rather vexing conversation with the other poster - we all get that some times and I too stop the discussion.
Thanks for the clarification, it does make sense in that a baptism by anyone is valid even by a non-Christian. OK, I can imagine the local Catholic parish would not be too pleased that their rules were circumvented.
Sorry if I were to push the question further. What if the rules being circumvented were not procedural as in this case? What (say the priest or even the bishop know the father) if the rules placed by the priest/bishop being circumvented were doctrinal or Catholic practice in nature? And as a result of the defect in the father’s understanding of doctrine, the bishop had doubts that the child will be brought up in the Catholic faith as is taught and the father had a child baptised elsewhere? Would the bishop still be required to take the child in as a Latin Catholic - even if the canons require him to, it would obviously be an abuse of the canons? I guess it probably is no difference as with the father - the bishop has to accept him as Catholic.
V
Vico
Guest
I noticed that the date I used is incorrectly given as 1983. The text states November 26, 1992. (die xxvi mensis Novembris, anno MCMXCII) The publication issue and page is:
AAS 85 (1993) 81
This corresponds in the Latin CIC to the eastern CCEO
Can. 32 §2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.
V
Vico
Guest
I do not believe you are intentionally misleading anyone. I will explain that I posted in response to a misunderstanding. There are three cases:
CIC
Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:
1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;
3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.
2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;
3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.
So in the case I am referring to is Can. 112 §1 along with the 1993 rescript for it. This is not the marriage clause (2/) nor children clause (3/) but for the first clause (1/).
In all three of these cases in 112 §1 the new canon applies:
Can. 112 §3. All those transfers to another Church sui iuris have force from the moment of the declaration of the fact before the local Ordinary of the Church or the proper pastor or priest by delegation and two witnesses, unless a rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise; and [this is to be] noted in the baptismal register.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The bishop is not required to accept the child as a member of the Church. If that were the case, then I would have to accept every Protestant baptism which occurs in my parish territory as admitting those persons as Catholic. This becomes relevant when the parent (or the child later, as an adult) wishes the person to be accepted into the Church.
So, the answer is “yes” if the other conditions are met (whereby one who is either baptized privately or by a non-Catholic minister) to receive the child into the Church. At that point, the child takes the Church sui iuris of the father by default.
I keep posting this: a child takes the ritual Church of the father (unless one of the other canonical methods of changing Churches is specifically invoked).
It won’t matter how many times the question gets asked. The answer will not change.
What I don’t understand is this: what part of “it doesn’t matter how many times the question gets asked, the answer won’t change” is not clear?
J
jimkhong
Guest
Please accept my apologies as my faculties of articulation seem to have failed me in my attempts to convey the sincerity of my questions. In that sense, I do appreciate any failure to differentiate my questioning from one who lacks command of basic language comprehension or one who argued only to advance one’s own point of view, both of which would have instigated impatience even in Job. So, I would understand if if I get no reply to my further questions.
However (correct me if I am wrong), Canon Law is normally not understood merely by a reading of a single canon in isolation: otherwise, anyone with rudimentary elementary school language capability would be a canon lawyer. Canons can only be actionable when read in conjunction with other canons elsewhere as Canon Law need to be consistent as a whole.
Also, my understanding of Canon Law is that it is the Church’s way of codifying its beliefs and principles of Catholic living into actionable practice in everyday circumstances. However, Canon Law is neither perfect nor omni-temporal. In the extremely rare circumstance that a bishop comes across a circumstance not considered by Canon Law when that canon was framed and realising that to allow the letter of the canon to be applied it stands would have led to abuse/misuse, the bishop may choose to apply the principle underlying the canon in a slightly different manner to avoid the imminent abuse/misuse, often with prior consultation with Rome. To repeat, this is again very rare.
In this situation, my earlier understanding of the canon seem to create conditions for abuse. However, it seems from our discussion, the canon to be applied FIRST would not be the canon on the child taking on the ritual church of the father but rather the reception of someone baptised outside the communion.
Correct me if I am wrong: the child has to be accepted into the Catholic communion first. I believe this is what you meant by ‘other conditions are met’. In this case, the bishop/priest will be inquiring of the father whether his practices and beliefs are consistent with the Catholic faith. If so satisfied and as this is clearly an administrative defect, I hope the priest/bishop would have the discretion of dispensing with the full RCIC process for a simple reception into the Catholic communion. For practical purposes, the Polish dad should do this in a parish (or even diocese) different from the parish he was seemingly rejected in the first place.
Once accepted in the Catholic communion, the child would then be treated as Latin rite, notwithstanding he was baptised in the Coptic rite. That canon would then apply, not across different communions but only within the Catholic communion.
This all makes a lot more sense unless there is something I missed out. If so, I would be happy for it to be pointed out.
Yes, I do believe I understand the idea of the child taking the ritual Church of the father.
However (correct me if I am wrong), Canon Law is normally not understood merely by a reading of a single canon in isolation: otherwise, anyone with rudimentary elementary school language capability would be a canon lawyer. Canons can only be actionable when read in conjunction with other canons elsewhere as Canon Law need to be consistent as a whole.
Also, my understanding of Canon Law is that it is the Church’s way of codifying its beliefs and principles of Catholic living into actionable practice in everyday circumstances. However, Canon Law is neither perfect nor omni-temporal. In the extremely rare circumstance that a bishop comes across a circumstance not considered by Canon Law when that canon was framed and realising that to allow the letter of the canon to be applied it stands would have led to abuse/misuse, the bishop may choose to apply the principle underlying the canon in a slightly different manner to avoid the imminent abuse/misuse, often with prior consultation with Rome. To repeat, this is again very rare.
In this situation, my earlier understanding of the canon seem to create conditions for abuse. However, it seems from our discussion, the canon to be applied FIRST would not be the canon on the child taking on the ritual church of the father but rather the reception of someone baptised outside the communion.
Correct me if I am wrong: the child has to be accepted into the Catholic communion first. I believe this is what you meant by ‘other conditions are met’. In this case, the bishop/priest will be inquiring of the father whether his practices and beliefs are consistent with the Catholic faith. If so satisfied and as this is clearly an administrative defect, I hope the priest/bishop would have the discretion of dispensing with the full RCIC process for a simple reception into the Catholic communion. For practical purposes, the Polish dad should do this in a parish (or even diocese) different from the parish he was seemingly rejected in the first place.
Once accepted in the Catholic communion, the child would then be treated as Latin rite, notwithstanding he was baptised in the Coptic rite. That canon would then apply, not across different communions but only within the Catholic communion.
This all makes a lot more sense unless there is something I missed out. If so, I would be happy for it to be pointed out.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Once again. One…more…time…
The answer does not change.
It won’t matter how you ask the question.
The answer…does…not…change.
It is the exact same answer I gave in post 33 a while back.
Here it is.
Nothing has changed.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Thank you. I think you identified it right. The child does not automatically become a Latin Rite Catholic just because his father was one. He still had to be be received into the Catholic communion.
Sorry, if I had laid it out in too comprehensive manner. I had someone arguing with me that the child is automatically Latin Rite Catholic (i.e., without requiring reception) just because his father was one.
I wasn’t asking to change the answer - just that reception is still required before the canon can apply. I think it was just that the question I was asking was slightly different from the question you thought you were answering.
M
malphono
Guest
J
jimkhong
Guest
Should have charged tickets?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
What does “reception” mean in this case?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Post # 33. Last paragraph. And followup note in #36.
B
babochka
Guest
I know someone who is a somewhat similar situation. She is the daughter of an Anglican father and a Byzantine Catholic mother. She was baptized Anglican, but raised Catholic. She received her First Communion and Confirmation in a Latin Rite parish… She has consulted with canon lawyers, both Latin and Byzantine. Interestingly, the Latin Rite lawyers tell her that she is Latin Rite. The Byzantine canon lawyers say that she belongs to the Ruthenian Church since her only Catholic parent is Byzantine.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
In a situation like this, there are just too many questions; that makes giving an internet response near impossible.
Some questions would be:
–When was she born? Under what codes of canon law (1917 Latin, 1983 Latin, Eastern?) Timing is everything in a situation like this. Step 1 would be to make a list of events to know which canons would apply to the time.
–What was the reason for the Anglican baptism?
–What was the parents’ intention in having her initiated in the Latin Rite, or was she an adult at the time? Did they intend for her to be enrolled as a Latin? Was she ever formally received into the Catholic Church (that’s not the same thing as First Communion or Confirmation).
–What is the father’s history? Simply saying “he’s Anglican” isn’t quite enough. He might be a former Catholic (I doubt, or you would have said so). Was his own father Catholic? How did he become Anglican? (since Anglican does not necessarily mean British descent or Christian family history).
I’m not suggesting you answer these (in fact, please don’t).
Those are just a few of the most basic questions I would ask, merely to form a foundation. After that, there would be considerably more.
I can see how two canonists might arrive at two different conclusions. On the surface, it seems she would be Eastern, however, there could very well be something to change that.
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
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?
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?
K
Kielbasi
Guest
That is my understanding, exactly.
And this circumstance has probably happened several times.
Chaldean man lives in the west, gets married, finds a great job in Pittsburgh, and settles there with his family far from any Chaldean church.
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
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…)
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The Chaldean Church has two eparchies in the US, the best bet would be to ask his bishop, since he may still be required to follow Chaldean practices, or allowed to follow Roman ones with his bishop’s approval.
- Status