Our Son refused by the priest.

[LilyM]

The Apostles were in Communion with Christ physically the moment His voice entered their eardrum… He was their Sacrament… Like our Eucharist.

This is unsupported by any scripture or magisterial teaching that I am aware of.

What need for them to receive at the Last Supper if they were already ‘in communion’?

Why no hint from Jesus that they had already eaten the flesh and drunk the blood in or after John 6?

And what of the many who heard His voice in their eardrums and were clearly NOT in communion having done so? Pilate heard His voice - so did Herod. So did the scribes and Pharisees. So did the very people who walked away in John 6. By your logic all these were in communion with Him too. What a preposterous notion.

 

[FAB]

I

You have it wrong deacon. The law requires that ministers give the sacraments only to those who are properly disposed to receive them. Hence priests don’t marry someone who already has a valid existing marriage, nor offer absolution to the manifestly unrepentant. Because such are not properly disposed to receive them.

If you read my post, I did say with proper preperation. You are speaking of specifics which I was not.

Now a young child has no disposition one way or the other, hence the parents request the sacrament for it and make the profession of faith on its behalf, as well as making promises of their own.

So baptism requires proper disposition on the part of the parents. As well as, as has previously been said, at least one Catholic legal guardian making the request. None of which is present in the OP’s case. The laws that require these things are every bit as important and binding as the one that says sacraments are not to be denied to those who ask for them and are properly disposed to receive them.

So the mother and the partner make the profession of faith on behalf of the child.
The canon does not specifically state that the leagal guardian has to be Catholc, only that there is a well founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic. Given the circumtance described there is that hope.

 

[Lapey]

You’re wrong on this point as well.

Can. 852 §1. The prescripts of the canons on adult baptism are to be applied to all those who, no longer infants, have attained the use of reason.

§2. A person who is not responsible for oneself (non sui compos) is also regarded as an infant with respect to baptism.

Up to completed 14th year they can be baptized as an infant if they are not responsible for their self. I have baptized several little ones between 7 and 12 or so by direction of my Pastor. One other key point, all of theses kids had at least one Catholic parent to legitimately speak for them, unlike the OP’s son unfortunately.

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

The key word is “legitimately”.

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Section 2 does not even come into play as the mother nor the father of this young boy can legitimately ask for baptism, nor can a deacon licitly choose by his own super level of love baptize him, sorry FAB.

I believe you are getting confused by the difference between fact and opinion, your opinion may sound sweet and nice, but that doesn’t make it fact. Jesus gave us many examples of teaching truth. As others have pointed out, none are more blatant than John 6 with the bread of life discourse.

You call me a traditionalist; I guess I will wear that title with pride, if the opposite means that I am ok with my brothers and sister whom I love living in the pit of sin, contrary to what you think of me.

I would back and look at the canon and the falcalties of the deacon. The age of reason by the canon is age 7, at that point only a preist by permission can do so since the canon states that they are to be baptised and confirmed, and it to be done by the same celbrant at the same time. Since a deacon cannot confirm under any circumstances he cannot baptize over the age of 7. If you have been doing so, the baptisms are valid but illicit even with the direction of your pastor.

Perhaps things are different were you are, I don’t think so, but if I did what you are doing I could loose my falcalties.

Read the entire post, and the entire section of canon law before you comment please. I highlighted for you.

And by the way, the pastor can and most often does choose to put these little ones who fall in this category in RCIA and recieve all the sacraments of initiation, but it not the only way to do it. My pastor Chooses to baptize them then place them in their respective age groups for catechism, which makes perfect sense to me and many.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So the mother and the partner make the profession of faith on behalf of the child.
The canon does not specifically state that the leagal guardian has to be Catholc, only that there is a well founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic. Given the circumtance described there is that hope.

Can you point to where that hope is?

This couple is not married nor do they plan to marry. The Catholic partner, who has no legal relationship with the child, is stated as saying that marriage is “nothing more than a piece of paper”.

Where is the hope that the child will be raised Catholic?

 

[Lapey]

I

If you read my post, I did say with proper preperation. You are speaking of specifics which I was not.

So the mother and the partner make the profession of faith on behalf of the child.
The canon does not specifically state that the leagal guardian has to be Catholc, only that there is a well founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic. Given the circumtance described there is that hope.

The first law in the code of canon law states that it is only binding for Catholics of the Latin Rite Church. The mother is not a LRC. nor is the father. The boyfriend is, but has no legal right to speak for him. Circles…

I’m getting dizzy!!!

Later folks!

 

[TEPO]

This is unsupported by any scripture or magisterial teaching that I am aware of.

What need for them to receive at the Last Supper if they were already ‘in communion’?

Why no hint from Jesus that they had already eaten the flesh and drunk the blood in or after John 6?

And what of the many who heard His voice in their eardrums and were clearly NOT in communion having done so? Pilate heard His voice - so did Herod. So did the scribes and Pharisees. So did the very people who walked away in John 6. By your logic all these were in communion with Him too. What a preposterous notion.

Jesus told them to do it in rememberence of Him. He was telling them that He was leaving… His words were instructions on building His Church.

…but you’re right, it’s not a magisterial teaching, but that doesn’t mean I can’t believe it. I also believe that when Jesus told those whom He saved to “go, and sin no more” He had Graced them with some special grace.

I am allowed to believe this with my conciounce, as long as it doesn’t contradict Church teachings.

I believe it actually enhances Church teachings.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

StressedMummy82,
Forgive me if this has been covered in previous posts as I didn’t read the whole thread. (Lots of people arguing about things among themselves.) I read what you said about how your boyfriend feels about marriage. If I might make a suggestion…

I would like to suggest that both you and your boyfriend talk to your parish’s priest about both of you going through RCIA together. I say this because his opinion of marriage, if what you have written is accurate, suggests that he may not understand what a wonderful sacrament it is. RCIA, if you wish to convert, would be a wonderful way not only for you to learn about the Faith, but also for your boyfriend to learn more in depth. Perhaps with a little more catechesis your prince might have his eyes opened to the wonderful calling of Matrimony.

If you were to convert, and especially if you were married, baptism for your other child would naturally follow. Actually, you would probably be brought into the Church together at the next Easter Vigil.

†God Bless.

 

[FAB]

Can you point to where that hope is?

This couple is not married nor do they plan to marry. The Catholic partner, who has no legal relationship with the child, is stated as saying that marriage is “nothing more than a piece of paper”.

Where is the hope that the child will be raised Catholic?

The hope is the fact that she is bringing her child into the church to be baptised. There is no more or less reason to believe that this woman would not raise the child Catholic than I have with many Catholic parents. Every year in RCIA I have serval adults who were baptised Catholic, but not raise in the faith and have Catholic parents.

I still go back that there is a hang up with the idea that the only reason to baptise the child is that the child will be raised Catholic. The tradition is to baptise, washing away original sin, making the person new in the body of Christ and saving them from eternal damnation. Is now the only criteria is to ensure we have another Catholic?

 

[FAB]

My pastor Chooses to baptize them then place them in their respective age groups for catechism, which makes perfect sense to me and many.

But this is not the canon.

 

[Lapey]

But this is not the canon.

Yes, it is. Read the whole section on those to be baptized. You may have been told that it is not there but read it for yourself. This is one of the pastoral accomodations which does in fact appear in the canon law. The one you site does not, it only implied.

 

[TEPO]

It’s the problem with Baptising babies as opposed to adults. The Baptism of children is more of a declaration Being made by parents.

Again, my hope is that the mother accepts Christs Church. That should be the main focus of this thread. I hope everyone agrees that a childs Baptism of water is actually a parental agreement.

 

[Lapey]

I still go back that there is a hang up with the idea that the only reason to baptise the child is that the child will be raised Catholic. The tradition is to baptise, washing away original sin, making the person new in the body of Christ and saving them from eternal damnation. Is now the only criteria is to ensure we have another Catholic?

I think this says it all. Is baptism all that is required for salvation? To baptize a child into the Catholic faith makes his or her reaching heaven harder, not easier. It does bring them grace through the baptism and the Holy Spirit, but to whom is given much, much more is expected.

Baptism is the gateway to the sacremental life of a Catholic, not the gate to heaven. It is merely the beginning.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The hope is the fact that she is bringing her child into the church to be baptised.

So just showing up and asking for the baptism is all that you need?

There is no more or less reason to believe that this woman would not raise the child Catholic than I have with many Catholic parents. Every year in RCIA I have serval adults who were baptised Catholic, but not raise in the faith and have Catholic parents.

This has nothing to do with this case and even if it is true you can not claim that when they were baptized that the one doing so for the Church did not have a hope that they would be raised Catholic.

But at least they had at least one parent who was Catholic.

I think the issue here is how one defines the word “hope”.

 

[ggunders82]

I’d ask the priest why he is willing to baptize the daughter but not your son, since they will be raised in the same household.

 

[LilyM]

I’d ask the priest why he is willing to baptize the daughter but not your son, since they will be raised in the same household.

It’s nothing to do with where they will be raised. That is not the only consideration.

A child also needs at least one person with legal responsibility for them who is Catholic. The daughter has that (her father, the ex, is Catholic), the son does not (neither of his parents is Catholic).

 

[maryjk]

I’d ask the priest why he is willing to baptize the daughter but not your son, since they will be raised in the same household.

To begin with, we have no indication that the children will be raised together.

And, as Lily has stated, “a child also needs at least one person with legal responsibility for them who is Catholic” The boy does not have that person.

 

[vsedriver]

That is very true but he won’t, he’s not interested in marriage… sees it as just a piece of paper that isn’t going to keep a couple together if they don’t want to be!

Tell him that that piece of paper is the difference between you being his wife and you being his shack up honey. Ask him how valued you feel by his lack of interest in making you his legitimate spouse before God and your families and friends.

 

[tjfitz]

Any Christian can baptize, and if the poster wishes, she can administer the Sacrament. Simply pour water over the child’s head while saying the worst of baptism: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

I believe that even a non-Chpristian, with the right intention can administer baptism.

That being done, now you have the job ahead of you of insuring that the child is reared in the Faith - a much more difficult thing than administering baptism,

 

[muffindell]

Here we go again, the RC doctrine! When Jesus was baptised was he a RC, no! You are being baptised into the Christian community, I see nowhere in the rites that state you need to be a RC just to bring them up in the Christian faith. An innocent child is at the centre of this doctrine, Christ would not of wanted this. I really think that the RC church needs to get back in touch with their flock of the time, not a time of 2000 years ago. I see a movement of change in the future, but unfortunately not while this Pope is in charge; he’s too conservative for a church that needs to progess for the sake of it’s flock and the times we live in.

 

[Lapey]

Here we go again, the RC doctrine! When Jesus was baptised was he a RC, no! You are being baptised into the Christian community, I see nowhere in the rites that state you need to be a RC just to bring them up in the Christian faith. An innocent child is at the centre of this doctrine, Christ would not of wanted this. I really think that the RC church needs to get back in touch with their flock of the time, not a time of 2000 years ago. I see a movement of change in the future, but unfortunately not while this Pope is in charge; he’s too conservative for a church that needs to progess for the sake of it’s flock and the times we live in.

You’re so right, its time to modernize. We should have no more marriage, except same sex marriage of course, anyone who feels they should be able to receive communion should be able to; after all, Jesus refused no one. And the big lie, only men??? We should know by now that women would make much better priests and spiritual fathers, I mean mothers. Also, there is no biblical support to force a man to not marry, we need married priests, oh wait we just did away with marriage. We also need to council women on how to get a safe abortion, and provide ABC, after all most Catholics are using it anyway.

I believe this thread has over stayed its welcome, it has run the race, it has fought the good fight, it is done. What have we learned? That we have a poorly catechized flock. It’s time for the Church Militant to stand up and fight for the one truth, the Catholic truth; the truth that is Jesus Christ!!! I am ready, who is with me?
PS. Just for my information, if a person was already a RC, why would they need baptism?