Author Topic: Does the Novus Ordo forbid to baptize the children of concubines (Read 1720 times)

Disputaciones · « **on:** October 01, 2014, 10:20:51 AM »

I know this is the traditional teaching, that it is forbidden to baptize the children of concubines -those who are not married yet are living together- but is this the rule in the Novus Ordo too, even though of course no one follows it?

I know that many things in the NO are still how they have always been -in paper- but everybody just ignores them, so I was wondering if this was one of them.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2014, 10:55:35 AM »

Nope. Me and my sister were baptized and my parents were not married in the Church.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2014, 11:11:50 AM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

Nope. Me and my sister were baptized and my parents were not married in the Church.

I know that de facto they ignore it, but my question was that if in paper they still say it somewhere.

For instance, they didn't eliminate completely not eating meat on Fridays; what they did was allow you to do some other penance of your choosing instead.

But of course 99% of Novus Ordites don't even know this and don't even care; what they know is that everyone can eat meat on Fridays now even though in paper it's not quite like that.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2014, 12:00:15 PM »

Bergoglio has specifically taught that a child being raised by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs should be baptized. So, I would say that the Novus Ordo sect does not forbid the baptism of children of cohabiting parents.

On paper, the Novus Ordo sect claims to be the Catholic Church, so...on paper, one can find all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. But the sect doesn't believe, teach, or practice what is on paper from Catholicism. So what is your fascination with what they say "on paper"?

Disputaciones · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2014, 12:44:22 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

On paper, the Novus Ordo sect claims to be the Catholic Church, so...on paper, one can find all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. But the sect doesn't believe, teach, or practice what is on paper from Catholicism. So what is your fascination with what they say "on paper"?

Because l have found that one of the best -if not the best- tactic to use against a Novus Ordo anti-SV is to show him/her that they don't even believe in what they think is the Catholic Church, so they are supposedly defending something they don't even believe in.

A family member of mine is a Novus Ordo who is a rabid anti-SV but he's also a member of a lay NO group called "Defenders of Catholicism", and yet, he has a son who is living in concubinage right in front of his house, and now they are going to baptize his grandchild.

He has no problem with any of this of course, so if the Novus Ordo still teaches what I asked on paper, I will show it to him.

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2014, 05:36:48 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: TKGS
On paper, the Novus Ordo sect claims to be the Catholic Church, so...on paper, one can find all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. But the sect doesn't believe, teach, or practice what is on paper from Catholicism. So what is your fascination with what they say "on paper"?

Because l have found that one of the best -if not the best- tactic to use against a Novus Ordo anti-SV is to show him/her that they don't even believe in what they think is the Catholic Church, so they are supposedly defending something they don't even believe in.

A family member of mine is a Novus Ordo who is a rabid anti-SV but he's also a member of a lay NO group called "Defenders of Catholicism", and yet, he has a son who is living in concubinage right in front of his house, and now they are going to baptize his grandchild.

He has no problem with any of this of course, so if the Novus Ordo still teaches what I asked on paper, I will show it to him.

It's selective enforcement.
Technically they shouldn't but I have seen them turn their policy "on" for poor parishioners and "off" for the wealthier more "established" members of the parish. But that is most probably just the case for the NO parish in our neighborhood.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2014, 06:07:11 PM »

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

Quote from: Disputaciones
Quote from: TKGS
On paper, the Novus Ordo sect claims to be the Catholic Church, so...on paper, one can find all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. But the sect doesn't believe, teach, or practice what is on paper from Catholicism. So what is your fascination with what they say "on paper"?

Because l have found that one of the best -if not the best- tactic to use against a Novus Ordo anti-SV is to show him/her that they don't even believe in what they think is the Catholic Church, so they are supposedly defending something they don't even believe in.

A family member of mine is a Novus Ordo who is a rabid anti-SV but he's also a member of a lay NO group called "Defenders of Catholicism", and yet, he has a son who is living in concubinage right in front of his house, and now they are going to baptize his grandchild.

He has no problem with any of this of course, so if the Novus Ordo still teaches what I asked on paper, I will show it to him.

It's selective enforcement.
Technically they shouldn't but I have seen them turn their policy "on" for poor parishioners and "off" for the wealthier more "established" members of the parish. But that is most probably just the case for the NO parish in our neighborhood.

But do you know if it can be found anywhere.

Marlelar · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2014, 07:34:05 PM »

I think there is an online copy of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, do some research and see if you can find it. The NO would be following that one, not the 1917 CCL. Might also be in their revised catechism book.

Marsha

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2014, 08:46:46 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: TKGS
On paper, the Novus Ordo sect claims to be the Catholic Church, so...on paper, one can find all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. But the sect doesn't believe, teach, or practice what is on paper from Catholicism. So what is your fascination with what they say "on paper"?

Because l have found that one of the best -if not the best- tactic to use against a Novus Ordo anti-SV is to show him/her that they don't even believe in what they think is the Catholic Church, so they are supposedly defending something they don't even believe in.

A family member of mine is a Novus Ordo who is a rabid anti-SV but he's also a member of a lay NO group called "Defenders of Catholicism", and yet, he has a son who is living in concubinage right in front of his house, and now they are going to baptize his grandchild.

He has no problem with any of this of course, so if the Novus Ordo still teaches what I asked on paper, I will show it to him.

Really? I'm serious. I have discussed the Catholic Faith with people in the Novus Ordo and, unless there is something that is really bothering them about their parish, they could care less about anything the Catholic Church has ever said about faith, doctrine, dogma, or liturgy. I've noted to people that even the General Instructions of the Roman Missal--for the Novus Ordo--specifically prohibits the priest from deviating from the actual word of the Mass except, of course, in the locations that specifically authorize it. They don't care. They've seen papal Masses where all manner of strange antics are done.

I've discussed the problems of the Novus Ordo and changes to unchangeable doctrines at and after Vatican II and am rebuffed because all those holy popes did was to "make the Mass more relatable to the average person." That, by the way, is a direct quote. THEY SIMPLY DON'T CARE.

If you have someone in mind in which reason will actually work, I am impressed and hope you can find something.

On the matter of baptizing the children of co-habitating couples, I'm afraid you will not find what you're looking for. The "on paper" criteria for baptism in the Novus Ordo can be found in the New Code of Canon Law:

Quote

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

Of course, any sentient human being knows that there is not truly a "well-founded hope that the child [of couples living in sin] will [really] be brought up in the catholic [sic] religion," but there are very few sentient Novus Ordo priests, deacons, or bishops (if any) out there, so this rule doesn't apply. After all, they "hope" that hell is empty; and if you can believe there is a credible hope of this, you can credibly hope in anything!

Miseremini · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2014, 09:37:44 PM »

Just slightly off topic; back in the late 1940's and 1950's in school on the teachers desk was a little cardboard money box where we put our little sacrifices (pennies).
On the box was printed "Baptise the pagan babies" Now of course this money went to the missions. Were priests in fact baptising the children of pagans?

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2014, 10:01:05 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

Just slightly off topic; back in the late 1940's and 1950's in school on the teachers desk was a little cardboard money box where we put our little sacrifices (pennies).
On the box was printed "Baptise the pagan babies" Now of course this money went to the missions. Were priests in fact baptising the children of pagans?

There is evidence that in North America that was the case in the 1700s

poche · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2014, 10:37:42 PM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

Nope. Me and my sister were baptized and my parents were not married in the Church.

How did the two of you turn out?

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2014, 10:38:56 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

I know this is the traditional teaching, that it is forbidden to baptize the children of concubines -those who are not married yet are living together- but is this the rule in the Novus Ordo too, even though of course no one follows it?

I know that many things in the NO are still how they have always been -in paper- but everybody just ignores them, so I was wondering if this was one of them.

Actually the 1983 Code of Canon Law says the following;

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.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

poche · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2014, 10:51:31 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

I know this is the traditional teaching, that it is forbidden to baptize the children of concubines -those who are not married yet are living together- but is this the rule in the Novus Ordo too, even though of course no one follows it?

I know that many things in the NO are still how they have always been -in paper- but everybody just ignores them, so I was wondering if this was one of them.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law did not stricly forbid the baptism of the children of those who were living in sin. Here it is from the Code of 1917;

Can 750 §1. Infans infidelium, etiam invitis parentibus, licite baptizatur, cuм in eo versatur vitae discrimine, ut prudenter praevideatur moriturus, antequam usum rationis attingat.
§2. Extra mortis periculum, dummodo catholicae eius educationi cautum sit, licite baptizatur:
1º Si parentes vel tutores, aut saltem unus eorum, consentiant;
2º Si parentes, idest pater, mater, avus, avia, vel tutores desint, aut ius in eum amiserint, vel illud exercere nullo pacto queant.

Can 751. Circa baptismum infantium duorum haereticorum aut schismaticorum, aut duorum catholicorum qui in apostasiam vel haeresim vel schisma prolapsi sint, generatim serventur normae in superiore canone constitutae.

A rough translation says

Canon 750 § 1. An infant can not be trusted, even against their parents, is licitly baptized when he is in a critical situation wherein, in order that it is prudently foreseen die, before the use of reason fails to attain to.
§ 2. Apart from the danger of death, so long as his Catholic education provision has been made, is licitly baptized:
1 º If the parents or guardians, or at least one of them must consent;
2 º If the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or guardians are not available, nor the right of him they have lost, or that they may be able to exercise in any way.

Canon 751. Concerning the baptism of the infants of the two of heretics or schismatics, or apostasy, or heresy, or schism of two fallen away Catholic who is in the they may be, in general, to observe the norms in the former the canon established as follows.

Apparently if the Catholic upbringing is provided for then the child can be licitly baptized.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2014, 10:53:20 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Really? I'm serious. I have discussed the Catholic Faith with people in the Novus Ordo and, unless there is something that is really bothering them about their parish, they could care less about anything the Catholic Church has ever said about faith, doctrine, dogma, or liturgy. I've noted to people that even the General Instructions of the Roman Missal--for the Novus Ordo--specifically prohibits the priest from deviating from the actual word of the Mass except, of course, in the locations that specifically authorize it. They don't care. They've seen papal Masses where all manner of strange antics are done.

I've discussed the problems of the Novus Ordo and changes to unchangeable doctrines at and after Vatican II and am rebuffed because all those holy popes did was to "make the Mass more relatable to the average person." That, by the way, is a direct quote. THEY SIMPLY DON'T CARE.

If you have someone in mind in which reason will actually work, I am impressed and hope you can find something.

On the matter of baptizing the children of co-habitating couples, I'm afraid you will not find what you're looking for. The "on paper" criteria for baptism in the Novus Ordo can be found in the New Code of Canon Law:

Quote
Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

Of course, any sentient human being knows that there is not truly a "well-founded hope that the child [of couples living in sin] will [really] be brought up in the catholic [sic] religion," but there are very few sentient Novus Ordo priests, deacons, or bishops (if any) out there, so this rule doesn't apply. After all, they "hope" that hell is empty; and if you can believe there is a credible hope of this, you can credibly hope in anything!

I know what you mean, and it has happened to me a lot of times too, but with these specific ones, there may be some hope. Maybe they won't convert, but at least maybe they will shut up and stop pretending to be the great Defenders of Catholicism.

I read the section on the subject of baptism in the 1917 Code and it didn't say anything about unwed parents.

Was there actually such a law before V-2?

I was told by a traditional Priest this was the case but I never actually saw where the Church taught this, so now I'm wondering where it is.