S
schlaps
Guest
What is a Juvenile Profession of Faith and how much does it entail?
- Status
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
I for one am totally unfamiliar with this term.
Are you asking about how a baptized person under 18 years of age enters into full communion with the Catholic Church, or about something else, such as a statement of Church belief adapted to children?
Perhaps you could elaborate a little.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
We have one of these in our extended family!!!
A Juvenline Profession of Faith is when a very young child (under 7) was previously baptized in a Protestant denomination, and has at least one parent who is raising said child Catholic (preferably both parents agree). The child is received into the Church via all the rites included in the sacrment of Baptism EXCEPT for the pouring of water (actual baptism).
According to what little I know, this generally happens when a Catholic parent reverts back to the Church, or when two parents become Catholic and have a little one who has been previously baptized. In the case of our extended family, the father and his sister took it upon themselves to baptize the child when Mom wasn’t looking. Rather than invalidate the Epsicopal baptism, the priest just did the rest of the Rite and now adult’s certificate reads “Juveline Profession of Faith”.
A Juvenline Profession of Faith is when a very young child (under 7) was previously baptized in a Protestant denomination, and has at least one parent who is raising said child Catholic (preferably both parents agree). The child is received into the Church via all the rites included in the sacrment of Baptism EXCEPT for the pouring of water (actual baptism).
According to what little I know, this generally happens when a Catholic parent reverts back to the Church, or when two parents become Catholic and have a little one who has been previously baptized. In the case of our extended family, the father and his sister took it upon themselves to baptize the child when Mom wasn’t looking. Rather than invalidate the Epsicopal baptism, the priest just did the rest of the Rite and now adult’s certificate reads “Juveline Profession of Faith”.
D
deb1
Guest
Will this have any bearing on my seven year old daughter? SHe is going to be baptised this spring and will receive her first communion then.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
no, this is specifically about children under the age of reason (usually about 7) who have already been baptized and are completing the rite when their parents join the Catholic Church, as previous poster has described. Such a child would then go on to make first communion and be confirmed at the usual time for other in her age group in that diocese.
If your 7 yr old has gone through the Children’s Catechumenate she will be baptized, including profession of faith, confirmed and receive first communion at the same time.
If your 7 yr old has gone through the Children’s Catechumenate she will be baptized, including profession of faith, confirmed and receive first communion at the same time.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
OutinChgoburbs,
As you explain it, the title “juvenile profession of faith” sounds like something other than Roman Ritual in force today. This might be confirmed by your statement that “The child is received into the Church via all the rites included in the sacrament of Baptism EXCEPT for the pouring of water (actual baptism)” and your mention of “now adult’s certificate.” This sounds like what we used to call “supplying the solemnities” before the revision of the liturgical books following the Second Vatican Council. But thinking back to that time, I do not believe it was a term in general or approved usage. I certainly could be wrong on that point though.
Still, here is what I would understand is done under the present code and the present liturgical laws.
If someone has already been baptized, the person becomes Catholic by being received into full communion with the Church (c. 11). Those who have the use of reason are received according to the “Rite of Reception into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church.”
This liturgical rite has a legal effect and requires the use of reason. It implies a free, personal choice to become Catholic, and requires an explicit profession of faith on that basis. (Looking at that liturgical rite, I can see no distinction in either the reception or the profession of faith for a minor who has the use of reason and for an adult [The Rites: Vol. I A, Initiation, Peublo study version, 1988]. Someone else may know of this though. The term “juvenile profession of faith” does not appear in that liturgical rite. )
Generally in Church law, a child under 7 would be considered incapable of making a profession of faith. True, it would be possible to judge that a child under 7 did have the use of reason, overturn the presumption and use that rite. (See below at * for a brief discussion of age.)
But another way of accomplishing full communion of such a child is suggested by Fr. John Huels, generally recognized as an expert in liturgical and canon law. Since a minor is subject to his or her parents in such a matter, the proper intention of at least one parent would be necessary for the act of reception (by analogy to the requirement for the lawful baptism of an infant in c. 868). This intention is communicated orally or in writing to the pastor (or his representative). Note of the baptism, with names of parents and godparents or witnesses, the minister, place and date, etc. should be entered with mention of the parental intention and date into a special parish register, or even the baptismal register. This sounds like what was titled as a “juvenile profession of faith,” but an actual profession would not be done.
After seven completed years though, a baptized child with the use of reason must freely choose to become Catholic through the rite of reception with suitable catechesis (c. 889 §2 and RCIA 478). The child would be confirmed by the priest and receive Communion (cc. 885 §2; 883, 2º).
As to “rather than invalidate the Epsicopal baptism,” this was puzzling at first. The priest would not have the power per se to invalidate a baptism. He could have examined it carefully if it seemed doubtfully valid and administered conditional baptism in a case of doubt. There was some historical suspicion about Episcopal intentions and lack of care in the administration of baptism, and certainly every case had to be examined, as it does today. Perhaps, that was the case, and the priest resolved any reasonable doubt in favor of the conclusion that the first baptism was validly conferred.
*The law distinguishes between minors and adults. Minors are those who have not completed 18 years of age. Once a person have completed 18 years of age, he or she is considered an adult.
- Minors* are further distinguished between those who have not completed seven years of age and those who have completed seven years. Before the completion of the seventh year a minor is called an infant. The law presumes that a person who has completed seven years has the use of reason. Those of any age who habitually lack the use of reason are equated with infants. The former code had a subcategory for minors called “pubens” when a boy had completed 14 or a girl 12 years, but the term “juvens” was not in the old code.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
The person in question was 2 years old when the matter was resolved- in 1978, when her sheepish father decided he and his sister had done a wrong, and in the bargain became a Catholic. The mother was Catholic, in arguments with the father before he took it upon himself to baptize the child Catholic. She then related to me that she was embarassed that this had happened to her baby, and waited until she met a nice priest who understood her situation and assisted her.
I said it was not my personal experience, and only related WHAT LITTLE I KNEW. So, why jump on my back as if I am spreading some sort of gossip or worse?
I said it was not my personal experience, and only related WHAT LITTLE I KNEW. So, why jump on my back as if I am spreading some sort of gossip or worse?
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
I am so terribly and utterly sorry. It was not my intention to to do this in any manner whatsoever. You certainly gave no impression of spreading gossip or anything like that. I was trying to understand the situation. Asking your forgiveness, I am going to sit down and reread what I said because I didn’t intend to come across as I apparently did. So again, my apology.The person in question was 2 years old when the matter was resolved- in 1978, when her sheepish father decided he and his sister had done a wrong, and in the bargain became a Catholic. The mother was Catholic, in arguments with the father before he took it upon himself to baptize the child Catholic. She then related to me that she was embarassed that this had happened to her baby, and waited until she met a nice priest who understood her situation and assisted her.
I said it was not my personal experience, and only related WHAT LITTLE I KNEW. So, why jump on my back as if I am spreading some sort of gossip or worse?
A
Angels_Watchin
Guest
Dear schlaps,
Under similar circumstances, our pastor (currently ailing and retired) would have performed a 'conditional baptism" just in case the protestant didn’t perform it as prescribed in the Catholic Ritual Romanum (which means it may not have been performed properly.)
They do a normal baptism, just in case…
Personally, I’d select that option.
Blessings,
Angel
Under similar circumstances, our pastor (currently ailing and retired) would have performed a 'conditional baptism" just in case the protestant didn’t perform it as prescribed in the Catholic Ritual Romanum (which means it may not have been performed properly.)
They do a normal baptism, just in case…
Personally, I’d select that option.
Blessings,
Angel
- Status