2 weeks? Wow! Mine took a year, almost to the day. Of course, that includes the 5 months it got lost in limbo at the Latin bishop's office. (They apologized)

My transfer was to Byzantine Ruthenian, a few years ago. The process started with a letter from me to the Ruthenian bishop in the eparchy where I live. This letter had to state my reasons for requesting the change, and also a whole list of things I had to declare to be true, such as that I had never been excommunicated, things like that. It also had to be accompanied by a letter from my Ruthenian pastor, stating the same things, and supporting my petition/reasons. They also required that I include an official copy of my baptismal certificate. The Ruthenian bishop then sent my packet to the eparchial "tribunal." After the tribunal processed it, they sent it on to the local Latin bishop in the diocese where I live (even though I'd never been a practicing RC in this diocese) and after he signed it, it went back to the eparchial tribunal. Then the tribunal sent my Ruthenian pastor a document in 5 copies, all of which had to be signed at a liturgy by myself, the pastor, and 2 witnesses from the parish. The parish got a copy, I got a copy, and the other 3 went back to the tribunal. They kept one copy, sent one to the church where I was baptized, and I can't remember who got the other copy, but it wasn't Rome (maybe the Latin bishop?). Then, after a bit of time, I received my amended baptismal certificate from the church where I was baptized, showing my transfer to the Ruthenian Church on the reverse side where marriage, ordination, all that stuff is indicated. It was a bit involved, but worth every bit of time and energy I put into it. For me, I am so at home in the Eastern Church, and have so much love for it, (plus I had never been RC as an adult, and felt no spiritual connection to it) that I just couldn't imagine NOT doing it, even though it's not required in order to be a parishioner in an Eastern Catholic Church. It's a bureaucratic process, but I found it was important to me spiritually, and I'm so glad I did it.

I forgot to mention the $50 "administrative fee" to the Byzantine Tribunal.

Francois,

As Deacon Randy has said, the process is much simplified from the days when the request for transfer of canonical Church involved the Pro-Nuncio, acting on behalf of Rome. Or, at least, it should be.

The permission of the Apostolic See is absolutely presumed by the favorable action of the two hierarchs - despite any comments to the contrary above. Neither Rome nor the Pro-Nuncios have any desire to be routinely involved in this process and will ordinarily only step into it if the matter cannot be resolved between the two hierarchs and one of the hierarchs (the receiving one ordinarily) seeks intervention because the losing hierarch declines approval without any sound basis - even then, it's a rare occurrence.

A letter to the Latin hierarch and a corresponding letter to the Eastern Catholic hierarch are all that is formally required to seek transfer. The letter should express the reasons why one seeks transfer and indicate the period of time that one has worshipped in the tradition to which one seeks to transfer. A supporting letter from the priest of the parish in which one is involved is a definite advantage.

The response you describe by the UGCC chancellor is odd to say the least and most unexpected. I'd definitely seek the assistance of the UGCC priest whom you mentioned as helping you in dealing with the chancellor - who, frankly, sounds as if he is clueless about the process (and has seemingly never read Canon 32, para.2, which makes clear that the permission of the Apostolic See required by para. 1 is delegated to the 2 hierarchs involved).

Many years,

Neil

I hate to tell my story, but I will. I was lazy and didn't want to go through the process with all of the bishops, so I took the easy road. At the time of marriage I submitted a letter asking that I be received into the Ruthenian Church and that's all the Chancery told me that I needed to do.

Despite the intricacies of the process I went through (and I left some things out for brevity - the tribunal in my eparchy imposed additional requirements to those I described above), I was also told that Rome's permission was presumed if the 2 hierarchs agreed. (I applied in 2007, and received the transfer in 2008)

What about the numerous Byzantine and Ukrainian Greek Catholics who over the years were disgruntled over the length of our Liturgies and Services and simply joined one of their local Roman Rite churches? What regulations were followed, or better still, what regulations were ignored by the Roman Rite pastors who accepted them as new parishioners?

[Related note: A Byzantine Rite person was overheard saying she attended a neighborhood Roman Rite church on a particular Holy Day of Obligation because:"We were out of there in 25 minutes."]

How sad!

Those UGCC and others who simply joined a Latin parish, will have problems when it comes to marriage and ordination. An ordination in Melbourne (Australia) was put on hold when a casual comment to a lecturer in a discussion on the subject of juristiction and rites etc etc, alerted the seminary that one of the seminarians was not a Latin and he would need to change over ASAP. It happened and all was quickly sorted.

Sometimes the bishop, from whose rite the ordinand is about to leave, gets hopeful, sticky fingers.

Much prayer, discernment, and good shortbread are often required before said bishop becomes a happy about a new worker in the vineyard next door.

Pavloosh,

You are absolutely correct, my brother. They were ignored in many instances; but, they were also absolutely unknown in others. It's really only since the days of VII (and, often, later - since the net made the Codes readily available) that awareness of these requirements has been commonplace among the Latin clergy.

I'm also aware of a situation such as that which Paul describes. In the case with which I'm familiar, it came to light that a seminarian - close to ordination as a Melkite priest - was actually a canonical Maronite, by reason of his father's Maronite heritage - though the family had worshipped as Melkites (his mother's Church) for his entire life. So, it isn't always Latins who have been unaware of or failed to inquire into the canonical circumstances. (Yes, he was canonically transferred and serves today as a Melkite priest, albeit I believe that he has biritual faculties for the Maronites).

There are also at least 2 - possibly 3 - Melkite presbyters in the US whose paternal family origins are in the Syriac Church and were never canonically transfered. The circumstances date back to the many years in which there was almost no Syriac presence in the US and Syriac faithful migrated to Melkite parishes in the areas in which they lived. There was really no awareness of this, as far as I know, until Bishop (now Patriarch) Joseph (Younan) was named as the Syriac hierarch for the US & Canada. In the course of his early travels to visit his parishes, he was also hosted at several Melkite parishes in the US and pointed out several uniquely Syriac surnames to be found at such. The list (names historically unknown outside historic Syriac tribal areas) included those of a couple of Melkite priests.

There are also persons of historic Syriac ethnicity found among the Maronites from that same period and, until at least the '70s, some Maronite parishes were parenthetically listed in directories and so forth as "Syro-Maronite". When I inquired of a Maronite chorbishop about the phrasing, years back, he explained that it reflected significant numbers of former Syriacs among those congregations at the time they were founded. (IIRC, St Theresa in Brockton MA was one such parish.)

Many years,

Neil

This has nothing to do with Ukrainians, but came to my attention.

There is a "Maronite" parish in suburban Buffalo which had (and probably has) not used the Maronite Liturgy for decades. The faithful had just about forgotten that they were still, in theory, Maronites.

Then a young man from the parish developed a vocation to the priesthood. He went through the seminary in Buffalo and at the last minute it was "discovered" that he was, in "canon law,", a Maronite. Some fast paperwork was done to enable the ordination to go forward. But the parishioners were seriously provoked, not because they had been deprived of their own Maronite tradition, but because nobody had put all their liturgical affiliation in order (to make them all Latins, willy-nilly).

Unfortunately, this example is not unique!

Fr. Serge

Large areas of rural and outback Australia have people whose ancestors were described as being "Syrian" and were more than likely Maronites. However, due to their distance from Maronite churches when they did get set up in the coastal state capitals they blended into the local RC population. Very very few would have known enough to make any formal change of rite/church applications. I think a dose of no canon law on this side of the ocean/mountain or desert prevailed over the years and it is only now that surnames (good indicator) are being questioned in case there is a canonical problem with ordinataions.

Fr. Bless. Do you have anymore information on this parish? I know of the Maronite Church in the suburbs, but not much else. I have only lived in Buffalo for a year now, so I am still learning.

St. John Maron, Werhle Dr., Williamsville, NY just recently recieved anew Pastor. Fr. George was wonderful, and advocated the return of The Anaphora of St, John Maron. The Church still appreciates many previous Latinizations, but is Maronite at heart.