Why is it that the Church seems to want to slap down those who are most on fire for her?? Why does it seem that the Church embraces the most mediocre of things dumbing liturgy down to the lowest common denominator because they are afraid to expect more of those of us in the pews?

Here is what I want simply and straight forward. I want to worship God in plain non-homogenized english, give my wife credit for knowing that male pronouns include her. She is one smart cookie you know. Quit treating women as if the are STUPID, which is what you do when you start playing with gender inclusive language.

I want a liturgy that shows that there is a God and we worship HIM in our Churches.

I want a liturgy that isn't dumbed down and massaged because we are afraid of going over 45 minutes.

I want a liturgy that displays dignity and beauty.

I want a church that isn't afraid of its own shadow or afraid to embrace its heritage.

I want a Church where the children know what they have and won't settle for the RC Church five minutes away because it seems there is really no difference.

I want a Church that is truly ORTHODOXY IN COMMUNION WITH ROME. Is this too much to ask?

Dear John,

Not too much to ask at all!

You are talking about the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church!

Cheers,

Alex

So come to Dublin and be welcome! Our only major problem is that we don't have our own building, so we are sharing and must serve Divine Liturgy on Sunday afternoon instead of Sunday morning.

Maybe I should advertise:

Blessed Nicholas Greek-Catholic Church, Dublin, Ireland: the Difference is Worth the Flight!

Fr Serge

Beware of Greek Ukrainians bearing gifts!!

And NEVER trust an Irishman.

:p

Eli "the Mic" O'Neal

We could learn Aramaic and become Melkites. I don't know what is going to happen with our little Church. I will continue to work diligently to see it grow until I'm relieved of duty.

CDL

If you show up with a bottle of Tullamore Dew in hand, I daresay your welcome will be treble what it might otherwise be.......

Staro

I shall surely drink to that! Or anthing else that pleases ya!!

Mic O'Neal

Hey.... My family is Irish and Scottish...

So Ireland wouldn't be so bad

John

It's not too much to ask, and it's not rude to cry out from the rooftops that we want what we have a right to. We're Byzantine Catholics and we have a right to be who we are!

ni hecal ria n-gním n-garb n-glé
ra fetar mas e side!

Gordo

As a novus ordo Latin for 15 years, who didn't know what he was missing till he stumbled into an indult traditional Latin Mass, I can honestly say--I feel your pain.

Just a quick topic detour--since the UGCC revised their translation of the Divine Liturgy in 1988(?) I can assume I won't have to worry about any helpful bishops toying with the liturgy there for hopefully a long while--yes?

FYI:

In traditional usage, Maronites use Aramaic in their liturgies. Melkites use Arabic or Greek. Of course, their respective liturgies have also been translated into English.

Tullamore Dew? Well . . . I suppose we could use it for cooking. I recommend Bushmill's single malt. Or there's always poitin.

Fr Serge

There is so much to learn and so much fun in learning it. Thanks.

CDL

It is my understanding that one belongs to the rite in the east, so any Ruthenian is also canonically able to be Melkite without anything other than a change in attendance. I know it isn't the case with clergy (who belong to a particular eparchy and therefore sui juris) but am I incorrect in my understanding for laity?

Ahhh the water of life. It warms the cockles of my heart just thinking about it.

I would also put the aforementioned brand fairly low in the pecking order (Kilbeggan is better for the price). Bushmills Single Malt is certainly nice, although I must say I'm partial to the blended Black Bush. A pure pot still can't be beat though.

Andrew

Deacon John,

Do they use feminized inclusive language in their English translations or do they have enough sense to not do this?

Are the they as obsessed as we are about getting in and out of church in under 50 minutes?

Monomakh

That is what I had heard as well...

Gordo

One, laity or clergy, ALWAYS needs the permission of two bishops to transfer jurisdiction. The originating bishop's permission and the receiving bishop's permission. The process, the paperwork, for rite transfer has changed over the decades BUT any canonical change of jurisdiction requires both a release and an acceptance.

You can, of course, attend any liturgy in Catholic communion without anyone's permission at all. But that does not confer any particular canonical status. There is no common-law privilege for membership.

Eli

Eli,
I understand that a change of rite requires such permission, but the Melkites and the Ruthenians both adhere to the Byzantine Rite. If changing between bishops require that paperwork, then moving from one state to another would necessitate it. Are you saying for an average lay person who is canonically a Byzantine Catholic to stop affiliating with the Ruthenian church and officially affiliate with the Melkite church that the permission of both bishops would be required?

I have heard that one belongs to the rite, and the rite belongs to the church, in the east. Your understanding (if I understand you correctly) would counter that, wouldn't it?

No. What you are describing, using Ruthenians and Melkites as examples, is a change in jurisdiction between particular Churches. That requires permission.

Eli

The general principle (or "common law") is that a layman comes and goes as he pleases. So, for example, a cleric who moves house from the territory of the Eparchy of Pleasant Gap to the Eparchy of Gotham City needs some sort of formal agreement between the two hierarchs, but a layman does not need anything of the sort.

However, there is ecclesiastical positive law in force which applies if, for example, a layman wishes to leave the Ethiopian Catholic Church and join the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. This does require an agreement between the two hierarchs (and in that particular case would also require a ratification from Rome).

That raises the question which seems to have started this discussion: what about the layman who is currently a parishioner of Saint Swithun's in the Swamp Bielorussian Greek-Catholic Church and wishes to join Saint Fiddle-Faddle's Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church? Just for fun we shall add that the layman is originally from Spitsbergen and has not the slightest ethnic derivation from either Belarus or Bulgaria.

He needs nobody's permission. The existing ethnic jurisdictions in the USA and some other places are concessions, not something that exist by divine law. A Greek-Catholic may join whatever Greek-Catholic parish suits him.

As the various parishes and eparchies in the USA become increasingly English-speaking, this phenomenon (parishioners going from a parish of one ethnic jurisdiction to a parish of another ethnic jurisdiction, and not caring because both the Liturgy and the language are the same, even though the music and the parish dinner menus may not be) will increase, strengthened also by the well-known incessant moving house which characterizes contemporary American society. Already the canonists will readily agree that if a Ruthenian parishioner moves to someplace that has only one Greek-Catholic parish and that parish happens to be Melkite or Romanian, the Ruthenian is properly expected to join that parish.

The eventual upshot of it all will necessarily be a restructuring of the Greek-Catholic hierarchy in the USA from an ethnic basis to a territorial basis. Such is life.

[None of this, of course, applies to Irish Greek-Catholics, who are automatically parishioners of our parish in Dublin, even if they live in Antarctica, Baffin Land, or Christmas Island.]

Fr. Serge

Excluded of course are the 2x Australian claims & the NZ one as well (we not greedy) which are of course undispute Eparchy of Melbourne and all Oceania (or at least the nice bits) .Oh and Christmas Island (indian ocean) is also Eparchy of Melbourne (Latin wise Archdiocese of Perth, West Aust.). I think the Eparch in Argentina will probably lay clain to the his nations claim. So if there are any Irish Greek Catholics elsewhere around the South Pole they could be recorded as Fr Serge's parishoners.

I saw a program on some villages near Damascus that still use Aramic as the first language and how their days may be numbered. The clergy were quiet clery Byanintines and by the way of giving out communion with their fingers I guess they were Melchites. They still use Aramaic in Church but there would be very few Churches to do that in Syria today. The problem was that Moslem Arabs were moving into the villages and they insisted on speaking Arabic.

-----------------

So my 1/4 Irish ancestry makes me an Irish Greek-Catholic and a parishoner of the Dublin parish?

Why naturally! How could you have thought otherwise!

According to our super-Orthodox doctrine of Praestantia Hiberniae Ecclesiae Greco-Catholicae, the Irish factor prevails over everything else - so yes, John, I am pleased to inform you that you are welcome to our flock of Wild Irish Reason-Endowed Sheep.

We are, of course, in full communion with the Bishop of Melbourne and fully recognize his rights to Australia, New Zealand, Oceania and Singapore. There is a proposal to give him also the titular Eparchy of Kilfenora. His Grace has visited us here in Dublin and served Pontifical Liturgy, and I've twice had the joy and honour of visiting His Grace in Melbourne and Sydney. Lovely places - and full of Irish.

Considering the present situation in the world, all this is not entirely a mere pleasant fantasy. The Irish government recognizes as Irish citizens anyone with one Irish grandparent. Those fortunate people who are so unfortunate as to be living in the Washington-Philadelphia-New York- Boston corridor would be well advised to come to Ireland with all deliberate speed before the bombs start falling.

Fr. Serge

Singapore!! Oh you bin chatting to Edward the Eparch's Exarch for nice places in SE Asia. So when next you are in the Cocus-Keeling and Christmas Island territories or Norfolk island remember it is "Peter the bishop that God loves" (is that the right translation). As for the Irish we are just everywhere. The main publican in Kalgoolie in the Goldfields is an Indian guy born in Ireland, Ashok Parekh . Must be a good lad as he turned one of his pubs into a Paddy's Bar and it serves some of his homelands ales.

As I said last night. One may attend any parish they choose of ANY rite and if one is a Catholic in good standing participate in the liturgical and sacramental life of that parish, and be listed on those parish roles as "member".

One may or may not be a "voting" member depending upon the rules within that parish or jurisdiction, but for all other practical purposes, one is a member. For example, I am listed on the membership rolls of an Orthodox parish so that I may most fully, as fully as I may at this time, participate in the life of that parish. On occasion I have been granted special voting privileges, not to sway a vote, but so that I might participate in the ratification of a decision of the parish that is important to all as a parish family.

HOWEVER the authority and responsibility for granting any dispensation, sacramentally, for example, or exacting any other judicial authority, belongs to the sui iuris authority where one is enrolled.

There are laws governing enrollment that I am not listing here but that are enumerated in the Canons, but IF one is legitimately enrolled in one jurisdiction then that is the ONLY jurisdictional authority to which that member can legitimately appeal. That assertion is governed essentially through the following Oriental Canon:


Canon 32
1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See. 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.

There is no "common law" which says that if I spend the next seven years of my life in a parish that is part of the UGCC that I am thereby "enrolled" canonically as a member of that sui iuris jurisdiction, as long as I am already a legitimately enrolled member in ANY other sui iuris jurisdiction.

Do not confuse membership in a parish with some kind of canonical membership status. They are not equivalent at all...by law.

Eli

One does assume that the dicasteries of the Holy See act in accordance with law. It is not unheard of for the Oriental Congregation to grant permission to a Latin Catholic to transfer to "the Byzantine Rite", with no specification as to which sub-group the Holy See has in mind. Res ipsa loquitur.

Fr Serge

That is an exception granted by the lawgivers, not presumed, or arrogated to themselves, by those under the law.

Eli

My own documents simply say I am "Byzantium Slavorum". Hence I flit all over the joint like a butterfly.

Dear Brother Eli,

Just a note to say that if we are going to have a contest of the Gaels here between yourself and Fr. Serge Keleher on canon law . . .

my money is on Father Keleher!

(it's the safest there . . .)

Alex

My bets are on the Canons themselves and the canonists, east and west, who taught me to read them.

Eli

Dear Eli,

Whatever you say - I agree in advance!

With you too, Father Archimandrite!

Alex

Now you all got me scared, folks.

Assuming I spend the next couple of years at a UGCC parish, fit-in and become a model parishioner, can I expect to have my request to change jurisdiction from the Latin Church approved without a bunch of flak?

Speaking in terms of the spiritual life and the idea of the laity being called to an active life in Christ, which for all should include life in a parish family, that is the worst possibile way to approach any idea of a spiritual call to an eastern Catholic way of life!!

There are NO guarantees in the life of the spirit.

Eli

I'd say given all other things being equal, you should expect no flak. Some things that wouldn't be equal would include: you expressing a desire to circumvent the Latin tradition of a celibate priesthood, you having made a change of enrollment before, you being under a bishop who for some reason has a bee in his bonnet about such changes (rare, but it could technically cause problems), you expressing a desire to return to the Latin church in the future (for example, if a TLM was approved for your area, if liturgical abuse stopped happening, etc). As you can see, much of this is in your hands. Those things that are not in your hands (such as which bishop you are dealing with) are not worth worrying over since you can't do anything about it now anyway. And if it were to be a serious impediment (which I think has almost no chance of happening), then you do have the ability to move geographically if you so wish.

In other words, just accept where you are now and where the Lord will lead you for the future. If he wants you to be in the UGCC, then you will be there.

Do you think it is prudent to tell someone how to 'work' the system in these cases?

The reason that I responded to Chance the way that I did is because Chance has indicated experience with and formation in Carmel or contemplating formation in Carmel.

In either case there's more than a little awareness on Chance's part of the call to vocation and what that entails, and it entails no guarantees.

In fact to seek that kind of guarantee can cripple one spiritually.

Which is more loving? The soft voice that quietly recommends how to circumvent the system or the seemingly harsh voice who warns against a serious spiritual peril to one who has made their inner desires known.

I have walked Chance's walk. Carmel and all.

I love to see a soul learn to fly.

Eli

Eli,

You raise a good point, and I ask the moderator to remove my post if he deems it out of line. I am sure that anyone who wished to circumvent the system could figure out how. Without the blessings of God, though, he has many other greater things to worry about than a canonical change of enrollment. A call to the priesthood is not validated by the person but by the church, and if that is his purpose of changing rites then you are correct to warn him that he has much to worry about. I believe this board has several people who had strong desires to serve the Lord and were denied entrance to seminary, presumably because they were not cradle easterners. I answered only if he would be accepted into the church after several years of faithful adherence to it. Whether he would be accepted into the priesthood is an entirely different matter, which you rightly point out.

You raise a good point, and I ask the moderator to remove my post if he deems it out of line. I am sure that anyone who wished to circumvent the system could figure out how. Without the blessings of God, though, he has many other greater things to worry about than a canonical change of enrollment. A call to the priesthood is not validated by the person but by the church, and if that is his purpose of changing rites then you are correct to warn him that he has much to worry about. I believe this board has several people who had strong desires to serve the Lord and were denied entrance to seminary, presumably because they were not cradle easterners. I answered only if he would be accepted into the church after several years of faithful adherence to it. Whether he would be accepted into the priesthood is an entirely different matter, which you rightly point out.
______________________

I wouldn't for the world deny that some have been denied entrance to the seminary... But, looking at how many of the priests who serve in our Metropolia already are "not cradle easterners", and how many bi-ritual Romans who serve, and are not even technically "easterners", it would be difficult to substantiate the claim that those who were denied were denied out of that motive.

How someone would know what that motive is is somewhat problematical in itself. I doubt a bishop would casually discuss that in open conversation with anyone and blurt out something as idiotic as that.

On second thought.........<hmmmm>

Maybe there *are* some who would have so done...

Is a puzzlement.
_____________

I asked a question. I did not suggest that you should withdraw what was already said.

Excuse me, I meant to say ask to have it withdrawn.

But you do get my point about prudential judgment here, no?

Also, when I spoke of a vocation I was speaking of Chance and a lay vocation in particular in Carmel. So he would know something about a vocational call even as a lay person in progress.

Also, I see a call to change jurisdictions as part of or a particular kind of a vocational call whether it be for laity or clergy. Seems to me that it should not be some self-willed act.

If it isn't a call then it's best to stay home, I think.

Sorry I confused you with talk of vocations. I just assume that people assume there's more than one kind of vocational call and women get them too, oddly enough.

Eli

Rely upon the law? Well . . .

Here's a case that I had to deal with. After supper one Friday evening a Latin priest whom I knew slightly came to my rectory in Ontario lamenting "Father, you have to help me! I can't marry them!" Since I was unaware of any wedding scheduled in the next few days, I asked my visitor just whom he could not marry, and why not, and what I could do about it in his opinion.

The good Father named two people (one young man, one young woman) whom I had never heard of. So I asked what was the problem, and how I could be of help.

Well! The priest explained that he had done the usual prenuptial preparation, including the inquiry (to determine freedom to marry), obtained the Baptismal certificates - and both parties had been baptized in Latin parishes - but, suspecting that something was Not Right, at the last minute he inquired further, discovered that the groom's father was originally from Winnipeg, telephoned Winnipeg, had the Chancery there telephone all the Ukrainian parishes - and, lo and behold, the groom's grandfather had been baptized in a Ukrainian parish!

Therefore, under the letter of the law, the groom was a member of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (of which he knew absolutely nothing - in fact he was unaware of the existence of any such form of religion) and the priest could not marry them! I offered to delegate him - no, that would not do; in his view I had no authority to delegate him. It was already Friday evening and therefore too late to reach Bishop Isidore or the Latin Bishop of Thunder Bay (whose name escapes me at the moment - and this was a few years ago). He was adamant; either I would do the wedding (of these people whom I had never heard of and who had never heard of me) or they would not be able to get married, and the wedding was set to take place in less than 24 hours.

He had me neatly boxed in. Under the letter of the law, he was right - the canons do not consider how many generations have gone by since some paternal ancestor was in truth, as well as in canonical fiction, a member of some particular Church; this fictitious membership persists at least until the Second Coming and probably even after that (do they have canon lawyers in Heaven?).

So I went to the rehearsal, apologized profusely to the poor couple and their attendants, assured them that I would make the service as simple as I possibly could - and of course in English, not in Ukrainian (a language with which they were completely unacquainted) and then held the rehearsal. The couple, of course, were not happy, to put it mildly. The groom asked me what he could do to prevent this situation from persisting to their eventual children - and before I could answer the Latin priest immediately said that I was not allowed to answer that question! So I told the groom to come and see me when they came back from the honeymoon and I would sort it out (which, of course, I did). The next day I felt like the prize elephant in the zoo holding this weird ceremony for a couple with whom I had no pastoral connection and who certainly did not desire any pastoral connection with me. I wouldn't blame them if to this day they have never attended any Church at all.

Now is there anyone on the Forum who wishes to defend this enormity, this unspeakable pastoral abuse of people who had done absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment? If so, please don't bother to tell me. But right now, try meditating on the passage "the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Meanwhile, my thanks to Alex for his compliment! I have occasionally been involved in some battles about canon law - and my success record is not bad.

Fr. Serge

I have had several such occurrences in my life. I could, however, have wished that a lot more of the Roman clergy had been as conscientious in the matter as these men and yours had been. Much strife and controversy could have been avoided with a timely early intervention, such as you have suggested.

Yes.

You offer an occasion for exception. That does not alter the law. Were you not sufficiently bound by the law to comply? And you did.

Sad state of affairs, but nobody complained but the Latins, when I used to catch eastern rite candidates for Rites of Christian Initiation and send them home.

I am in full agreement with you concerning the spirit of the law, and I am in full agreement with me concerning the letter of the law.

Eli

Elitoft wrote:
Aye. My post was poorly written in haste while I was about to head off to work. I was referring to the administrative aspects of changing jurisdictions and not to the spiritual dimensions of a true calling. Not always are the two in agreement.

Wondering wrote:
Indeed Wondering, you did not write anything that has not already been posted dozens if not hundreds of times on this forum.

For the record, I have no aspirations to the priesthood--never said I did. I'm content to be a Third Order Carmelite and revel in the majesty of the Divine Liturgy (well, and learn Ukrainian too ).

Apologies for inserting my own circumstances into this thread, perhaps further replies would be best be handled via PM.

Do not twist my words - few people take kindly to such abuse. I did that wedding, not because I felt bound to do so by some goofy legalism, but because if I did not do the wedding nobody else would and I had enough pastoral compassion for the unhappy couple not to leave them in the lurch.

Or to put it another way, I did that wedding because I recognized that I was indeed bound by a REAL law, which reads Salus Animarum Suprema Lex. The poor priest who mistakenly felt that he could not marry the couple because the groom's grandfather had been baptized in another kind of Church forgot that principle - but that principle over-rides other considerations. It cannot be used to justify sinful or immoral behavior, but it does indeed justify departing quite a distance from the alleged letter of an alleged law.

Unfortunately, in this world we live in, there are people who actively WANT to be "bound by laws" as often as possible, preferably every step of the way. I've already expressed my opinion of that position more than sufficiently.

I'll stop here, for the moment, because I really am angry at finding my words distorted as they just were. In future, refrain from such misconduct (don't do it to me and don't do it to anybody else either).

Fr. Serge

In short Fr Archimandrite saved the day, when paralysis had set in, it was he who took control. Not because he was looking for something to fill his time with but as it seems to me he could see something serious was at stake here and no one was looking after the people. The damage as Fr has said above could have lead the couple and others to be so put off by the 'Law stuff' that might never darken a Church door again. Thanks God for priests who know their stuff.

Pavlusha - please accept my thanks, and not for the first time!

Fr. Serge

*commences profound bow to the east, then realises thats not where Dublin is...its the other side of Mecca from here*

You are most welcome!

This thread has really gone off track from the topic originally posted. Many misunderstanding and perceptions have been taken to the posts as of late. Rather than having these continue, I am going to close the thread. If it is necessary, I would suggest a fresh new thread be started.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator