Greetings to all,
Does a petition to change Church sui iuris has to go, all the time , to Rome for approval? Or can it be dealt with at the Eparchy- Diocesain level?

From what I can understand, it can be dealt with at the local level.

Regards
Francois

Francois,

Several years ago my wife and I were planning a petition to switch sui juris churches, from the Ruthenian to the Roman. We wrote lettters to both our Ruthenian bishop and the Roman bishop whose diocese we resided in.

After the process began we moved away from that area, and decided not to pursue the matter.

Ultimately something has to go to Rome, but that may be near the end of the process. So I really didn't answer your question, but I hope the example helps.

Peace,
James

Canon 32 of the CCEO states:


Canon 112 §1.1 of the Code of Canon Law states:

dear Francois:

if you are not yet Catholic, better to discern clearly which Catholic Church you wish to join before entering into Communion.

it is MUCH easier to wait and pick the Catholic church you really wish to join, than go through the process of asking permission to switch churches within the Catholic Communion.

it's worth the little delay to make a good decision.

plus there's no guarantee that the application for transfer will be granted. I know cases where the application has been denied.

At the moment, the permission of the Apostolic See may be presumed in a transfer from Latin to Eastern... But that could change at any point.

All,
Thanks for your answer. On one hand, some say that it needs to go to Rome while others are saying that the permission of the Apostolic See is presume. So there a little bit confusion in my mind about this.
Could it be possible that Eparchies are not interpreting the Canon law the same way i.e. one Eparchy will presume the permission of Apostolic See while another will say no to the request and sit on it for years.

Francois

Dear Herbigny,
I understand your point of view. I'm RC. It would be much easier for me if I'd come from the Protestant world... unfortunately it is not the case......
Francois

Francois, it absolutely does NOT have to go to Rome for a layman. If you are Latin wishing to transfer particular ritual Churches, you simply write to the bishop you wish to be received under copying the Latin chancery. As the canon states, the permission of Rome is implied. Generally it is a straightforward process. It was not always this way; before the CCEO everything had to go through the Pro-Nuncio.

My goodness, that sounds like it was rather top-heavy and bureaucratic.

If I may contribute my two cents. My wife and applied for change of rite from RC to UGCC in 1977. Fr. Paul Guthrie, of blessed memory, was the pastor of the St. Micheal's UGCC in Rossford, Ohio. We started the process with a letter of petition to the Holy Father requesting the change of Rite. The rationale we listed was to allow for a more complete worship and devotional experience in the UGCC versus the RC church. At the time we were not particularly avid RCs. We were contacted by the diocese of Toledo and the priest who spoke to me asked where we were registered as parishioners. Since we had not joined any church in the Toledo area, he indicated that there was no problem. The priest approved the transfer. We heard nothing concerning our request for several months. One Sunday out of the blue, Fr. Paul indicated we needed to signn the rescript forms to complete the transfer. It was a rather painless process that took several months to complete.

It is a move we have never regretted. To me personally there is no more beautiful form of worship than the Divine Liturgy. I do very much lament the fact that we live in an area where long drives are necessary to attend liturgy. We will relocate eventually, high on the list of requirements will be the availability of a UGCC, Reuthenian or Orthodox parish to settle into. Best of luck on your quest.

Diak,
Thanks very much for this post!! Actually, My RC Bishop signed the paperwork and it is the UGCC Chancellor that stopped the process and denied my request, stating that according to Canon 32 it is not request for me to change rites and further more than ONLY the Apostolic See grants change of rite....
Now as it stands: I'm in a canonical limbo, void right?
Even if I have all the minor rites of the RC, I don't fall in the category of "ordained" minister according to the 1983 RC Canon Law.
This is really puzzling me....
Francois

Cbpotel,
Thanks for your comment. I too felt drawn into the Byzantine Rite. I'm only regretting the administrative dark cloud that is seemingly hanging over my petition.
All this said, I can thank God because a UGC priest is helping me out in this journey.
Francois

dear Francois:

this is a VERY unusual situation! Usually it is the Latin bishop that stops the transfer. Does your parish priest have any insights on this matter?

Is the chancellor's response the real reason or is it an excuse to refuse you entry into the UGCC?

What does your pastor have to say about it?

As far as bureaucratic, there are two chanceries involved now instead of only the Pro-Nuncio, so that may be somewhat debatable. A greater concern is the Latin Pro-Nuncio making decisions in a vacuum from any Greek Catholic hierarchs. When mine was done many (many) moons ago, my UGCC bishop only knew when the rescript from the Pro-Nuncio showed up at my parish priest's rectory.

Hi Francois, there are Eastern Catholic bishops in the Canadian Catholic Bishops Conference. One would suggest that an agreement would have been made between the bishops for Catholics from one rite to another. As these Eparchies are outside their Patriarchal territories, they are subject immediately to the Holy Father so it is no issue dealing between bishops. In fact, some are quite systematic where they allow you to fill forms. I got my transfer in 2 weeks.

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.