No

If I understand Fr. Michael correctly, I think my view would be closer to his.

It seems that one effect of the canons, particularly those dealing with "ecclesiae sui juris" and Transfers of Canonical Jurisdiction, is to 'balkanize' the Eastern Catholic Churches, even within their 'traditional' territories. However open and welcoming a particular parish community may be, or try to be, and however much an individual or a family may feel 'integrated' (spiritually and socially) into that community, the fact will remain that, for canonical purposes, people remain members of the Particular Church into which they were incorporated by their parentage, by the Mysteries of Initiation they received, and/or by the 'form' of their canonical transfer. These 'niceties' seem to be observed more carefully among some of the Eastern Churches than among the Latins.

One can only wonder what to make of a situation, such as that in the Eparchy of Uzhhorod, which is located within the teritory of Ukraine, enjoys cordial relaitons with the UGC Patriarch and participates in many activities with its UGC co-religionists, but remains canonically separate. It seems unlikely that neat canonical lines can be drawn between two 'Greek Catholic' Churches whose members, however distinct their ethnic heritage, now share a common political life, increasingly speak the same language, and are likely to intermingle socially and also inter-marry. Hopefully, they will arrive at a more practical approach to crossing ecclesiastical boundaries than their BCC and UGCC counterparts have found in this country.

I couldn't agree more, Fr. Michael. Really everything should be remanded to the local bishops involved as was the case in the universal Church until well into the second millenium. I am also attempting to assist a man with a transfer at the present; the Latin chancery involved wants to send his case to Rome for adjudication even though he is a layman, never made any religious vows or was a Latin seminarian. All he did was ask for a transfer to the UGCC.

That is patently absurd and a blatant disregard by the Latin hierarch of his implicit responsibilities under the Canons to determine whether or not the spiritual well-being of the person presently under his pastoral care would be best served by a transfer of canonical enrollment and, if so, to grant approval to the transfer.

Many years,

Neil

Hello Neil:

Could you please tell me which canons? I am starting to have a feeling I am going to need them.

In Christ:
Converted Viking

Converted Viking

Get all your ammunition together

Suggest you try Fr Deacon Randy as well

Prayers for your success

well, from what I see, there is a need for better cooperation between Latins and Easterns. when an EC seeks to join a Latin parish out of necessity (believe me, as an EC in a Latin parish, I understand), the Priest should know of the closest possible EC parish appropriate to the person. in other words, it should be the responsibility of all sui generis churches to provide Latin Priests with websites, whatever, for the EC person. the person can then stay in touch with their tradition, and at the same time, benefit from Sacraments offered in the Latin parish until such a time (if ever) an EC presence is established in the Latin diocese where the isolated EC person resides. I wonder just how many ECs of whatever sui generis church reside in the Latin Diocese of Knoxville who have moved here from where ever who do not have a clue that there is a Ruthenian/Byzantine mission near Knoxville. not everyone is going to run to the computer and log in Byzantine parishes in Tennessee via Yahoo. for some reason or another, many just won't do it. while Father Serge does touch on the problem of inaccurate and outdated figures, we still have the problem as ECs one and all to look out for isolated and "stray" brothers and sisters. this may explain in part as to why the figures look so catastrophic.
Much Love,
Jonn
P.S. it is hoped that the Latin Priest will act in such a way as to be helpful to the EC he comes across. I don't think that the average Latin Priest or Bishop, for that matter, is a sheep stealer, but given the benefit of a doubt, he just doesn't know.

JonnNightwatcher - your last comment

is I suspect very very accurate .

Regarding the canonical question:
From my reading, most often Canons 35 and 901 (from the Eastern Code) are cited regarding the issue of whether Protestants may enter the Eastern Church directly or if they have to seek change of church sui iuris.
Can. 35, Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own ritte and should observe it everywhere in the world as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be ascribed to the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

This canon may be interpreted as meaning that baptized Protestants are ascribed to the Latin Church once they enter the Catholic Communion. However, there are assumptions behind this that could be taken into consideration. Are Protestants "Latin rite" Christians? This question may go doubly for Protestants who have evolved far from the Latin patrimony (many evangelicals, independent church folk, etc.). Even if you do grant (for the sake of argument) that Protestants are "Latin" rite - how about Protestants who have been baptized as children, but have not been raised to any significant degree in thier church community (this previous point may not be relevant at Canon Law) - however, I would believe that it is a significant pastoral issue - which becomes a legal issue considering that salvation of souls is the primary purpose of the Canons. Further, some Protestants do have a directly corresponding rite or use within the Catholic Church, Anglicans for example. Most, Protestants, it could be argued, do not in fact have a corresponding 'rite' or patrimony within the Catholic Church. If these points are granted - many, if not most, baptized Protestants would be free to approach the Eastern Churches without ramifications at (Canon)Law.

Canon 901 makes the issue even more interesting:
If non-Catholics, who do not belong to an Eastern Church, are recieved into the Catholic Church, the norms given above are to be observed with the neccessary adaptations, provided they have been validly baptized.

the canons prior (896-900) to this one affirm that baptized Christians are free to approach the Eastern Church for reception into communion. The right to recieve being excercised by the Bishop or the local pastor as the case may require. The text of these canons may also include language that may refer to more "complex" cases of recieving people into the Eastern Church. However, When one says that Protestants desiring to become Eastern Catholics must apply for change of rite - that (at least in my humble and imperfect reading) is in fact an interpritation of the canons that can be questioned and isn't what the canons in fact say.

At any rate, I would appreciate other perspectives that may balance out, correct, amend my own.
Just my 2 cents.

Converted Viking-





I guess it may depend upon whether the Latin Church will allow Canon 32 to apply to its members when those members petition to change ritual Churches. I know this happened in my case, so there may exist an interpretive ruling by the competent authority.

Does anyone know what the canons state with respect to someone who was baptized in a Protestant community, chrismated in an Orthododox Church, and subsequently received in the Catholic Church. Would such a person be considered canonically Eastern Catholic on the basis of his Orthodox chrismation or Roman Catholic on the basis of the Protestant baptism?

Ryan

Technically the canons mention protestants as our "separated brethren" in "faith communities" who are joined to us "imperfectly" through baptism. Many Latin canonists have argued that mainline protestants "belong" to the Latin church, should they convert. This is further complicated by some mainline protestants now having invalid "baptism" - which means many of these people are sacramentally not Christian at all.
I say, let the canonists speculate, meanwhile encourage any protestant who wishes to join any of the Eastern Churches do so freely.

In regard to your question, Athanasius, of a protestant who may or may not have received proper baptism in Protestant community, chrismated in the Orthodox Church (which is always accepted as valid by all Catholic Churches), I'd say to err on the side of caution and regard the individual as Eastern - especially in a case where he or she wishes to join an Eastern Catholic Church.

Michael:

Thank you for your response. My interest is very personal, and perhaps I should speak with my pastor to clarify. I was born to Protestant parents. My father was raised Pentecostal, and my mother was raised Southern Baptist. When I was about six, I was immersed in a Pentecostal congregation. I say "immersed" because I am not certain as to the formula used. My guess is that the Trinitarian formula was used, but it may have been simply "in the name of Jesus." When I was about 13-14, we started attending the Southern Baptist congregation in which my mother was raised. Like many Southern Baptists, this congregation tends to recognize as baptism only baptism administered by Baptists, so I was immersed again. In this case, I am certain that the Trinitarian formula was used--I can remember. In 2005, I was chrismated in a mission of the OCA. Subsequently, after my engagement to my wife, I was received in a parish of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh. I would think that I am canonically considered to be a member of the BCC since I was received from an Orthodox Church, but I do not presume to know.

Ryan

Amen!!!

FDD

Dear FDD:

The thing that bothers me about this though is that they would still be technically under the authority of a Latin Rite bishop while being members of an Eastern Rite Church. For me it is a problem of place. An analogy would be that I live in another country that I am totally invested in every way and yet I am still the citizen of another. I would never feel complete.

I understand that the Byzantine Rite Churches are in fact in Union with Rome so the analogy above is not a good one but I am looking at it terms of the local level if you would allow it as that is where most of us operate from a day to day bases. It could be that I have a head problem but part of my identity is very much wrapped up in the Church.

In Christ:
Converted Viking