www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ritual Church confusion

Nice to see everything is still going; it has been a while since I have been on the Forum.

I have a question.

I have a friend who, was baptized in the Ruthenian Church ( at 22) but later found out he was baptized in a Protestant Church ( as a baby). He went through the Latin Tribunal and they determined that his ritual Church was in fact Latin and gave him a notized document from the Tribunal stating he was Latin Catholic through His Protestant Baptism. He started attending Mass for a couple years, but now wants to return to the Byzantine Church. Will they just reverse the Tribunal Statement or will he have to change Rites. This case is interesting because he was Baptized and Chrismated in the Ruthenian Church. Could he just resume his Byzantine status by just attending a Ruthenian parish or does he have to go through another tribunal thing?

Thank for your help.

Okay, here's the deal. If he was not Orthodox by background and was a "western" individual then a Protestant baptism would make him a "Western Christian" -- and when he became Catholic he would be affiliated with the Latin Church. His "baptism" as a Ruthenian was irrelevant because one cannot be baptized twice. His chrismation would amount to Latin confirmation administered by the Ruthenians.

If he wishes to actually be Ruthenian, then he would need to submit the paperwork to change Ritual Churches. On the other hand, he could simply attend the Ruthenian Church without all the paperwork. This would be fine until he decides to marry and have children -- then he would need to decide what patrimony he wished to pass on. Children follow the ritual church of the father...

Edward, deacon and sinner

But that doesn't sound fair, so every Protestant is a Latin in his origin and when he converts to Catholicism he must be Latin? This sounds very much like "praestentia ritus latini".
There are many Protestants who are directly baptized in an Eastern Church. What if a Roumanian pentecostal or an Armenian Protestant approaches to Catholicism and wants to convert? Must he be a Latin?

In my opinion it would have been better for your friend to leave thisg as they were before without teling them that of the Protestant baptism, what was the purpose of that?
The Latin Church used to practice the conditional bapstism of converts from protestantism because it was hard for them to determine if it was valid or confered grace. So maybe he should have left himself as a baptized Ruthenian.

Then I suppose that if he had been baptized an Orthodox instead of a protestant he could be considered Ruthenian? Would the Tribunal pick his jurisdiction too?

What if he had passed through both Orthodoxy and protestantism, would it matter what order? Or what his name is?

With the great mass of unchurched people in North America today rules like that are an encumbrance to evangelization.

Michael, sinner

Shlomo Fr. Deacon Ed,
Actually, it is the Latin Church was incorrect that he is Latin by virtue of his Protestant Baptism. He is actually Ruthenian-Byzantine since that is the Church he decided to belong to. Here are the relavant sections of Latin Code that cover this.

Can. 111 �1 Through the reception of baptism a child becomes a member of the Latin Church if the parents belong to that Church or, should one of them not belong to it, if they have both by common consent chosen that the child be baptized in the Latin Church: if that common consent is lacking, the child becomes a member of the ritual Church to which the father belongs.

�2 Any candidate for baptism who has completed the fourteenth year of age may freely choose to be baptized either in the Latin Church or in another autonomous ritual Church; in which case the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Since in no way was Canon 111 fulfilled, he is free to join any autonomous ritual Church that he chooses as a convert. His re-baptism is not valid, but any and all other sacrements would be for him.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

The canon law of the Church is never meant to impede the spiritual good of a soul. As St. Thomas Aquinas so eloquently pointed out in his Treatise on Law, "The highest law is the salvation of souls".

If anyone reaps genuine spiritual benefit from worship at a parish of a particular Church sui iuris, and spirtually feels at home there, by all means the person should be free to attend regularly and become a part of that parish community.

Don't worry about paperwork, as the Byzantine pastor, deacon, etc. can help your friend take care of the details later. If the Byzantine parish feels like home, your friend should go there.

Yuhannon,

You would be correct if he were a candidate for baptism. However, he was already baptized and, therefore, this canon does not apply.

Edward, deacon and sinner

I'm with Diak on this one. (What is this Hungarian-Greek axis?!?!?)

I wish to point out that during the baptismal ceremony, the voice of the child is the godparent who speaks and renounces evil and expresses the "desire" of the child to become a part of the Christian/baptized community. And if this occurs in a Western community, then the child is incorporated into the Church, albeit of the Western variety.

So, once the child is "of age" and is able to speak for her/himself, then it should be up to the "child" to decide where his/her spiritual needs are best met. And if this is in an Eastern community, then let him/her go there. Period. It's not like the child is going to the Satanic Church of the Demon. She/He is moving to another "koinotis" of the baptized.

I am (unfortunately) reminded of Caesar Augustus and his desire to have the census of where folks are situated in order to collect taxes and to swell the rolls of "citizens".

I'm not sure that the Lord Christ would be happy with this paradigm.

Leave people to what is going to help them come closer to God. I.E. Butt out, and leave them alone (with the advice of a good and honest Spiritual Father or Mother or good pastor).

Blessings to all who seek!

Thank you all for your timely responses.

I like what Dr. John had to say, but I can also see from Father Deacon's perspective as well.

Once our traditions are fully restored we will no longer operate through the Latin tribunal system; it will just be up to the Bishop or he will delegate things like this to the Pastor. This is only a guess on my part.

I think the real problem and why we still have the tribunals is to solve inter-ritual marriage cases between Byzantines and Latins. There may have to be a consession on the part of the Latins that "they" don't do it like "us" and that is ok.
The clincher I think in the case of my friend or others like him is that they fully consented to be initiated in the Byzantine Church. In spite of the Protestant Baptism his Chrismation was valid and he knew about becoming a member of the Ruthenian Church. Most interpreters of the Latin Code assume that a Protestant Baptism makes one by Law a Latin irrespective of an adult decision to become Eastern later if one was unaware of the Protestant baptism as a baby. But, I think a Byzantine Bishop would probably take my friends tribunal paperwork and toss it in his circular file, and say "You wanted to be Byzantine at your Chrismation right? Ok, I'll take care of the rest" Again just a guess?

Most interpreters of the Latin Code assume that a Protestant Baptism makes one by Law a Latin irrespective of an adult decision to become Eastern

This is just a personal opinion but this is quite absurds to me, so they say that Protestant baptism makes a person "Latin" because Protestantism appeared in the West? So what about Armenian Protestants, and Romanian Pentecostals or Russian anabaptists who convert to Catholicism (if the criteria used doesn't relate to the baptism itself, then the converts from Islam must be enroled in the Eastern Rite because Islam appeared in the East and many of its first followers had been baptized, so it's absurd).

This idea sounds very supremacist to me, and unfair because many Eastern christians who convert to Catholicism are enroled in the Roman Western-Rite Church and the part of the Catholic Law that states that they must remain Eastern is a dead letter, as it's hapening in Russia, and many other countries.

Just to clarify a point. If a person was baptized as a Protestant in a country where an Eastern tradition was dominant, then that individual, upon converting to the Catholic Church, would follow the dominant tradition of that area. In the United States this is the Latin tradition and, therefore, the individual became a Latin Catholic.

And, yes, if the person wanted to be Byzantine of whatever Chruch he has that right -- and may go through the process of changing ritual Churches and, thereby, meet his or her spiritual needs.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Just wonder:
a. does Canon 112(1) apply in this case here? (After the reception of baptism, the following become members of another autonomous ritual Church:(1) those who have obtained permission from the Apostolic See; ..);
b. how is the "permission from the Apostolic See" processed?

The permission of the Apostolic See is requested by the bishop. Usually, Rome will acquiesce to the request of a bishop unless there is an objection raised by some other bishop who feels his ox has been gored. Generally, this does not happen.

Brother Diak is right: GO where you are growing spiritually. Be a full participant. If, at some time, there is some canonical paperwork that needs to be done, then let the pastor and/or the bishop handle it. (stupid lawyers.)

Have a spiritual father, either one's pastor or another holy religious, who will help the person grow in the Gospel. And live the Gospel of loving God and one's neighbor.

The Kingdom of Heaven does NOT require visas. It's the citizenship of baptism that is the valid passport.

Much love and support to all those who put up with the baloney; your reward in Heaven, I'm sure, will be great. Just pray your tush off; and serve the poor and the disenfranchised; the Lord will be waiting at the gate to welcome you because you are doing exactly what He modeled to us.

CHRIST IS RISEN!!!

Beneficium:

Dr. John is correct about seeking Rome's permission. Note, however, that canon 112 deals with the post-baptismal desire to change ritual Churches.

Finally, I apparently was in error. The 1917 code of canon law for the Latin Church required that one follow one's heritage into a particular Church. Thus, a Western Christian (such as a Protestant) would automatically become a Latin Catholic). Under the 1983 Code, however, this enforcement is not present. The person being baptized can freely choose a ritual church. However, in the case being discussed here, Robert's friend was baptized as a baby. Therefore, the Ruthenian baptism at age 22 was null -- you can only be baptized once. However, this indicates a choice of Church sui iuris -- and therefore he was, indeed, Ruthenian following his chrismation (the baptism would then be seen as conditional and functioning as a reception into the Ruthenian Church).

I thank one of my canon lawyer friends for helping to correct my statement.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dr. John, I am offended. (Unless you are only dissing the CANON lawyers?) ;-)

Seriously, as some of you know from my many prior posts, I'm officially a Roman Catholic. That's what the rules say. My dad was a devout, old school Irish Catholic, although he was the one who first introduced me in any meaningful way to Eastern churches. (My mom was baptized Russian Orthodox, and he wanted us to know all about her church's spirituality and traditions, too.)

I've belonged to a Byzantine parish for quite awhile now. I've never done any paperwork and I don't know if I ever will. I don't think it matters. My husband is a Roman Catholic - in any event, our child would be a Catholic. What type of Catholic doesn't really matter, since we really seem to gravitate to a specific Catholic spirituality over time. Am I seeing this wrong? If I am, dear friends, please correct me.

I wish they'd make a new category in the Canon Law called "omniCatholic." Y'know, like "omnivore." ;-) I for one, prefer the Eastern traditions, but I do switch back and forth between Eastern and Latin offices. (Franciscans say the daily offices.) I find both traditions spiritually fulfilling.