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.
[quote="FrDavid96, post:47, topic:441447"]
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?
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.