The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
OrbisNonSufficit, SergLts, RusFrog, JanSorman, Icons
5654 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (Charitina, 1 invisible), 166 guests, and 185 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,865
Posts412,713
Members5,654
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #386931 10/06/12 09:38 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,433
G
griego catolico Offline
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,433
Originally Posted by Wheelbarrow
vocation? I think that for anyone to change ritual churches just so they could be a priest would be a huge mistake in my opinion. And I am sure there are canons set up to prevent that from happening. I would hope so, because someone changing ritual rite just to be a priest would not be a vocation but someone usurping a vocation that was never there to begin with.


Wheelbarrow,

Well then, it may surprise you to know there are a number of Byzantine Catholic priests who were originally Roman Catholic. I recall reading an article in a Catholic newspaper years ago which stated that 60% of Melkite priests in the USA were canonically Roman Catholic.

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #386932 10/06/12 11:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
8IronBob Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
I can understand this. Especially in countries where you have just as many Latin Rite Catholics as there are Eastern Rite Catholics, it is fully possible that a good percentage of those in the Eastern Rite were not native to that Rite. I'm not entirely sure what the ratio to native Eastern Catholics are to those that converted over from the Latin Church, but I'm pretty sure it's a pretty good ratio percentage.

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: griego catolico] #386951 10/07/12 03:11 PM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Wheelbarrow Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by griego catolico
Originally Posted by Wheelbarrow
vocation? I think that for anyone to change ritual churches just so they could be a priest would be a huge mistake in my opinion. And I am sure there are canons set up to prevent that from happening. I would hope so, because someone changing ritual rite just to be a priest would not be a vocation but someone usurping a vocation that was never there to begin with.


Wheelbarrow,

Well then, it may surprise you to know there are a number of Byzantine Catholic priests who were originally Roman Catholic. I recall reading an article in a Catholic newspaper years ago which stated that 60% of Melkite priests in the USA were canonically Roman Catholic.


You mean canonically Roman before they were ordained? or after?

What I am saying is it would be a grave mistake to change rites just so one can pursue being ordained into the priesthood. Its obvious a vocation isn't there because they don't care too much for the Eastern rite at all, they just wanna be a priest.


Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #386952 10/07/12 03:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
8IronBob Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Same's true with the Diaconate, too, my friend. I'm sure that this vocation requires you to become canonically Eastern before even considering that. However, I found out that you don't need to be canonically Eastern to be an altar boy in the Byzantine Church, which was a surprise to me a long time ago. Maybe those rules have changed in the last couple of decades, but I was allowed in, and was trained as a Byzantine Altar Server, although if I would have been Confirmed and became more dedicated, I probably could have pursued at least the Diaconate after time.

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: 8IronBob] #386953 10/07/12 03:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Wheelbarrow Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by 8IronBob
Same's true with the Diaconate, too, my friend. I'm sure that this vocation requires you to become canonically Eastern before even considering that. However, I found out that you don't need to be canonically Eastern to be an altar boy in the Byzantine Church, which was a surprise to me a long time ago. Maybe those rules have changed in the last couple of decades, but I was allowed in, and was trained as a Byzantine Altar Server, although if I would have been Confirmed and became more dedicated, I probably could have pursued at least the Diaconate after time.


Well no. In the Roman Rite changes to Diaconate wouldn't be viewed as suspicious I don't think. . . because in the Roman Rite you can be a married deacon but ( at least here in Ireland and wales ) you must be 5 years married and the age of 35 before you are allowed to enter the Diaconate or at least be even considered.

I don't know about Ugcc though.

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: 8IronBob] #386956 10/07/12 05:51 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by 8IronBob
Same's true with the Diaconate, too, my friend. I'm sure that this vocation requires you to become canonically Eastern before even considering that. However, I found out that you don't need to be canonically Eastern to be an altar boy in the Byzantine Church, which was a surprise to me a long time ago.


I think to me it would be surprisingly if they did have a rule forbidding altar servers who aren't canonically of the rite.

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #386957 10/07/12 06:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
8IronBob Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Let me clarify on that "Confirmed" part, I did receive Confirmation when I was 14/15 in the Latin Rite. However, had I been Confirmed in the Byzantine Rite, and remained an altar server, and then taken more and more Theological training in that Rite, then I probably would have been more qualified for higher vocations/Ordination.

Last edited by 8IronBob; 10/07/12 06:27 PM.
Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: 8IronBob] #387049 10/10/12 06:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
I
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I'm very concerned that, of late, there is much of a sense of informality being bandied about as regards the distinctions and differences that exist between and among the Rites and Churches.

The intent of this particular forum - The Christian East & West is not to minimize the differences in praxis, liturgics, spirituality, and theological understanding. And, while we also don't intend to suggest that there is no common ground between East and West, there is an increasing emphasis on blurring the distinctions.

So, let's clarify a few things, lest we breed confusion among persons visiting this site who might not dig any deeper than to read a single post and hang their hat on it as gospel.

Originally Posted by 8IronBob
This is much like that there are some that are dual-Rite Catholic, like myself, meaning that they worship on and off between both Latin and Byzantine traditions, and alternate between both Churches.


There is no such thing as a 'dual-Rite Catholic'.

First off,
Persons are not "members" of a "Rite";
Persons are "members" of Churches sui iuris; and,
Churches sui iuris (i.e., self-governing Churches) "belong to" or use a "Rite".

That said, there is also no such thing as being a member of two Churches sui iuris

A Catholic is ascribed to a Church sui iuris, be it Latin, Eastern (Byzantine Rite), or Oriental (Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Assyro-Chaldean Rite) by birth, by transfer of canonical enrollment, or by reception.

Ascription at birth is conferred by law as a consequence of the father's ritual Church enrollment or, if the father is not Catholic or the parents agree, is a consequence of the mother's ritual Church enrollment.

Ascription by transfer of canonical enrollment is: (1) granted by permission of the appropriate hierarchical authorities; or, (2) conferred by law if a wife makes the choice at marriage or during the marriage to transfer to the ritual Church of her husband; or, (3) conferred by law if a wife who so transferred, on termination of the marriage, chooses to revert to the ritual Church in which she was previously enrolled; or, (4) conferred by law on a child of less than 15 years by reason of the canonical transfer of his or her parent(s) from one ritual Church to another - provided that both parents agree, if only one of them has so transferred; or (5) conferred by a choice made by a child so transferred, upon attaining his or her 15th year, to revert to the ritual Church in which he or she was previously enrolled.

Ascription by reception when a non-Catholic aged 15 years or older elects to be received into the Catholic faith via a particular ritual Church.

Regarding the effect of regularly participating in the worship services of different Churches sui iuris, the Latin Code at Canon 112 §2 reads:

Quote
The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church.


That there is no parallel canon within the Eastern Code doesn't negate that. In effect, one can worship in any Catholic church, according to whatever Rite is served in that particular parish - but one is, ultimately, a Latin or an Eastern or Oriental Catholic.

There are Latin Catholics who are long-standing members of this forum but who have a deep-seated and profound love of the East. Some of them worship occasionally at Eastern parishes, others frequently, some not at all either because they do not have the physical proximity to do so or because personal considerations don't allow them to do so.

Likewise, there are Eastern and Oriental Catholics who are long-standing members who, for various reasons, most often related to geographic proximity, worship regularly at Latin parishes.

It's not my intent to denigrate either group - both are Catholic - but each individual is, ultimately, of a particular ritual Church.

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I mean, I had my daughter recently initiated in the UGCC Rite even though we are all canonically Roman.


While Constantine's daughter may have received the Mysteries of Initiation in a UGCC parish, she remains, canonically, a Latin Catholic. Chrismation is validly, but not licitly, administered by a presbyter of an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church to a person who is canonically enrolled in a different Church sui iuris:

Quote
Canon 696 (CCEO)

1. All presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer this sacrament either along with baptism or separately to all the Christian faithful of any Church sui iuris including the Latin Church.

3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the
Churches sui iuris in this matter.


Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #387064 10/10/12 12:44 PM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Wheelbarrow Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
I spoke with Fr.Serge about this prior to my sons intitiation into the Eastern Rite last year. He said '' I am aware of the codes, don't listen to the self styled experts on the internet, I know what I am talking about. Your son can grow and receive communion in the Eastern rite and will be byzantine.''

It confuses me. But until Fr.Vasyl gets back to me about canonical transfer for meself, I guess I don't know who or what to believe and wont rest much.

Are there any reasons for not accepting a canonical transfer neil?

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #387066 10/10/12 01:09 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Wheelbarrow
I spoke with Fr.Serge about this prior to my sons intitiation into the Eastern Rite last year. He said '' I am aware of the codes, don't listen to the self styled experts on the internet, I know what I am talking about. Your son can grow and receive communion in the Eastern rite and will be byzantine.''


I notice he didn't add the word "canonically". Canonically (which may or may not be very important to you) your son will be in the Latin Church.

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #387068 10/10/12 01:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
It really only matters if you plan to marry or have children. Otherwise, what's the point of making canon lawyers think they have a useful function?

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Irish Melkite] #387076 10/10/12 06:01 PM
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 426
Lester S Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
I'm very concerned that, of late, there is much of a sense of informality being bandied about as regards the distinctions and differences that exist between and among the Rites and Churches.

The intent of this particular forum - The Christian East & West is not to minimize the differences in praxis, liturgics, spirituality, and theological understanding. And, while we also don't intend to suggest that there is no common ground between East and West, there is an increasing emphasis on blurring the distinctions.

So, let's clarify a few things, lest we breed confusion among persons visiting this site who might not dig any deeper than to read a single post and hang their hat on it as gospel.

Originally Posted by 8IronBob
This is much like that there are some that are dual-Rite Catholic, like myself, meaning that they worship on and off between both Latin and Byzantine traditions, and alternate between both Churches.


There is no such thing as a 'dual-Rite Catholic'.

First off,
Persons are not "members" of a "Rite";
Persons are "members" of Churches sui iuris; and,
Churches sui iuris (i.e., self-governing Churches) "belong to" or use a "Rite".

That said, there is also no such thing as being a member of two Churches sui iuris

A Catholic is ascribed to a Church sui iuris, be it Latin, Eastern (Byzantine Rite), or Oriental (Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Assyro-Chaldean Rite) by birth, by transfer of canonical enrollment, or by reception.

Ascription at birth is conferred by law as a consequence of the father's ritual Church enrollment or, if the father is not Catholic or the parents agree, is a consequence of the mother's ritual Church enrollment.

Ascription by transfer of canonical enrollment is: (1) granted by permission of the appropriate hierarchical authorities; or, (2) conferred by law if a wife makes the choice at marriage or during the marriage to transfer to the ritual Church of her husband; or, (3) conferred by law if a wife who so transferred, on termination of the marriage, chooses to revert to the ritual Church in which she was previously enrolled; or, (4) conferred by law on a child of less than 15 years by reason of the canonical transfer of his or her parent(s) from one ritual Church to another - provided that both parents agree, if only one of them has so transferred; or (5) conferred by a choice made by a child so transferred, upon attaining his or her 15th year, to revert to the ritual Church in which he or she was previously enrolled.

Ascription by reception when a non-Catholic aged 15 years or older elects to be received into the Catholic faith via a particular ritual Church.

Regarding the effect of regularly participating in the worship services of different Churches sui iuris, the Latin Code at Canon 112 §2 reads:

Quote
The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church.


That there is no parallel canon within the Eastern Code doesn't negate that. In effect, one can worship in any Catholic church, according to whatever Rite is served in that particular parish - but one is, ultimately, a Latin or an Eastern or Oriental Catholic.

There are Latin Catholics who are long-standing members of this forum but who have a deep-seated and profound love of the East. Some of them worship occasionally at Eastern parishes, others frequently, some not at all either because they do not have the physical proximity to do so or because personal considerations don't allow them to do so.

Likewise, there are Eastern and Oriental Catholics who are long-standing members who, for various reasons, most often related to geographic proximity, worship regularly at Latin parishes.

It's not my intent to denigrate either group - both are Catholic - but each individual is, ultimately, of a particular ritual Church.

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I mean, I had my daughter recently initiated in the UGCC Rite even though we are all canonically Roman.


While Constantine's daughter may have received the Mysteries of Initiation in a UGCC parish, she remains, canonically, a Latin Catholic. Chrismation is validly, but not licitly, administered by a presbyter of an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church to a person who is canonically enrolled in a different Church sui iuris:

Quote
Canon 696 (CCEO)

1. All presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer this sacrament either along with baptism or separately to all the Christian faithful of any Church sui iuris including the Latin Church.

3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the
Churches sui iuris in this matter.


Many years,

Neil


Thanks, for sharing, this Neil.

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Peter J] #387084 10/10/12 09:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Wheelbarrow Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by Wheelbarrow
I spoke with Fr.Serge about this prior to my sons intitiation into the Eastern Rite last year. He said '' I am aware of the codes, don't listen to the self styled experts on the internet, I know what I am talking about. Your son can grow and receive communion in the Eastern rite and will be byzantine.''


I notice he didn't add the word "canonically". Canonically (which may or may not be very important to you) your son will be in the Latin Church.


Well I qouted him the same canons Neil put forth and many others prior to Neil and he basically said ''horsefeathers''. If my son is not canonically Eastern then why would he tell me that he can continue to receive communion in the Eastern rite? Surely someone canonically of the Latin rite as a child cannot recieve communion in the eastern rite?




Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #387088 10/10/12 10:46 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
P
Precentrix Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Umm... any Catholic can receive the Sacraments/Mysteries in any Catholic church of any rite, no? And indeed follows the disciplines of his own church (though a modicum of respect where traditions differ significantly ought to be encouraged).

Re: Canonical change from roman to ugcc whats the point in it? [Re: Wheelbarrow] #387090 10/10/12 11:16 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
Surely someone canonically of the Latin rite as a child cannot receive communion in the eastern rite?


Actually, yes they can. I see it all the time in my parish. The only "condition" to that is they are families that regularly attend and have asked our Priest to give their children either the full sacraments of initiation or to have their children Chrismated. In both cases, these children, canonically Roman, receive the Eucharist every Sunday. Most of these family's are committed to our parish and live out Byzantine spirituality and praxis in their devotional life.

I think a Latin Catholic Child who visits our parish and has not received Chrismation/Confirmation and first Eucharist (according to the Latin Church) would not receive the Eucharist. In this case the parents would want to talk to the Eastern Catholic priest.

Last edited by Nelson Chase; 10/10/12 11:18 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3