www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Serious Canonical Problem!

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear brothers and sisters:

I have a serious problem. As of very recently I have found out that I was baptized in the United Methodist Church as a baby - from my grandmother who had me baptized by her Methodist pastor. The problem here is that I was not aware of this and when I was received into the Ruthenian Church I received all three forms of initiation, baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist. I have heard two opinions about my situation from a couple priests. One that canonically I am a Latin Catholic, that when the Mysteries where perfomed by virtue that I was baptized a Protestant when I was Chrismated according to law I was initiated into the Latin Church, since according to the canons the Mother Church of all Western Protestants is the Latin Church; the other that I can pastorally remain a Byzantine Catholic although this sitation would have to be somehow regularized. I wanted to know what you thought about this. Many of you are very good in these areas. It is now a canonical case. The canon lawyer who is handling it states that it was good I took care of this now, because it could affect the validity of any future marriages or place an ordination in an irregular status. Just wanted some insight from you guys.

Thanks.

Robert

I can't believe all this legalism involved (and THIS is coming from someone who may became a TradLat!)...some of these rules need to be toned down. But in the technical sense, I couldn't help you one bit, Robert. Sorry.

ChristTeen287

Thanks. But I am really seiously needing some opinions from you guys on this matter so please feel free to have at it. And yes the Canon Law is very complex, but many on this forum I know are pretty good a getting a good grasp of it and have experience with it especially Latins that have changed ritual Churches to the Byzantine.

Again I thank you all for your gracious commentary.

In the Mother of God,

Robert

Dear Brother Horvath, you crazy Hungarians know how to mix it up, don't you!!!!

Rest easy. Your church relationship is based upon the church affiliation of your father. If your Dad was Byzantine, then so are you, despite the Methodist baptism which was (in canonical terms:) "accidental", i.e., "it happened".

If there is no Catholic connection from either of your parents, and your Grammy had you baptized as a child (Bless her for her devotion to bringing a baby into the Church!!!), then I suppose technically that you would be of the "Western tradition" and you "should be" Roman Catholic. But if you're amongst us, perforce of your conversion and entrance into Catholicism, then you're a Byzantoon -- and that's that. (Westerns rarely cross Hungarians and call them to task. Let's face it: you guys [along with the Romanian Transylvanians] have gypsys that will put a curse on all their foolishness. Hey, in some ways, it's better than the Mafia. It's SOOO Mysterious!]

Blessings!!

(Now that we have that settled, have you got a good recipe for a pork goulash? I've been dreaming about this supper I had in Budapest about 25 years ago......ummmmmmm. And Bulls's Blood wine. ummmmmmm.

I am told no such canon exists and I cannot find it. Do you have a citation?

Axios

Slava Isusu Christu!

I will have to find one of my great aunt's receipe's:) And I was told by a canon lawyer that since baptized Protestants are the children of the Latin Church they necessarily become Latins when confimed or Chrismated unless by special dispensation. I will try to locate that canon for you Axios. Dr. John what if the Father was Protestant? could you further elaborate on that?

Thank you.

Robert:

From the Legal-Canonical point of view:
I base this on the article by the Canadian Canonist Michel Theriault [emeritus, who I believe taught Canon Law at the Sheptytsky Institute].

Technically, as far as I know, the only 2 document that deals with this question is

1. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, which says in {4}: that "baptised members of any non-Catholic chuch or community coming to the fullness of the catholic communion, should keep, follow and as far as possible observe their own rite everywhere in the world."

2. Canon 35 of the Eastern Code of Canon Law: "baptised non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church are to retain and cherish their own rite anywhere on earth, and to observe it to ghe best of their ability. they therefore are to be enrolled in the autonomous church of the same rite, reserving the right of recourse to the Apostolic See [sic] in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

From this statement the Opinion of some Canonists extrapolate the principle that "baptised Protestants will normally be enrolled in the Latin Church." [There is no specific canon that says this. It is only an opinion extrapolate from another Canon applied in another context.]

Dr. Theriault furthers cites a couple moments in the formation of the Code where the consultors of the Eastern Code Commission did not include a clause in our Canon Law to specifically "limit its provisions to Eastern non-Catholics only; ...[exempting] baptized Protestants from the provision of the canon and they would have been free to join the Church of their choice.

However, despite his TECHNICAL opinioin, Dr. Theriault concludes his treatment of this section in drawing a very different [pastoral?] conclusion, thusly:

[writing this article for Latin Canonists, he says:]

"We must realize, however, that the situation is more sensitive than one would believe at first. This norm tries to respect a general principle that most agree on but it goes against actual practice: the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholic Churches in the United States and Canada have enrolled around 15,000 baptised Protestants in the last 10 years. For these Churches, IT IS A MATTER OF SURVIVAL. ROME KNOWS THESE FACTS AND STATISTICS BUT CHOOSES TO TURN A BLIND EYE." {emphasis mine}

So he is saying: Eastern Catholics are enrolling Protestants and the Vatican is Ok with it.

In this case the old principle is Legal Interpretation obtains: Custom is the best interpreter of the Law. In other words, how do we understand the law? Buy how it is legitimately practiced. As the Vatican is aware of the practice and tolerates it, that is the Custom and that is the interpretation of the law.

While not being a canonist, I would have a few comments to make to help your discernment:

1. I think that Orientalium Eccl and the Eastern Code of Canon Law specifically intends to have Orthodox not enter the Latin Church, but retain the fullness of the spiritual-ecclesial heritage. These 2 documents intend specifically to protect the Eastern Churches. To extrapolate the principle to the Latin Church is one Big and I think illegitimate step. To put it in a way you Americans would understand, these 2 document are measures of Affirmative Action. It would I think be illegitimate to apply it more broadly.

Notice: the Latin Code says NOTHING about this.

Only the Eastern Code deals with it. And you can bet there was no intention to keep Protestants out of our Churchees.

The Latin Code applies only to Latins [canon 1]. [so nothing about retaining 'rites'.]
And the Eastern Code only to Eastern Catholics [canon 1]. [Can. 35: retain rites.]
The implication is clear.
[I think Dr. Theriault, with all due respect, still shows some residual Latin paramountcy symptons - at least in part of his thinking. But I remind you, his conclusion is Clear and favours Us.

2. There is another legal principle where laws which limit people's rights are to be applied restrictively, i.e. held strictly to the letter of the law and not extended further. I think it applies here.

Bottom line: Orthodox become OrthodoxInCommunionWithRome [because we need the Affirmative Action]; but Prot's do not necessarily become RC [because they do not need the Affirmative Action].

3. And for me the most outrageous assumption of all and sign of a "dominant majority culture having its blinkers on", is to say that all Protestants are of the Latin rite!!! Ok, Anglicans yes. Lutherans, yes.

But Calvinists? Let's get real. Look at their liturgy and their theology. Quakers? Mennonites and Hutterites? Salvation Army? Here's where their theological opinion crashes.

Clearly they [Latin Canonists] still retain this idea that Northern Europe and British [or ex-Brit] North America is their ecclesial turf and are still trying to exert hegemony. Plus they naively assume All Protestants are the same!

So what I am saying is that most Protestants are not "Latin Rite". Indeed, Anglicans could argue that they follow the Sarum rite! [Is that a Latin rite? I don't know]. For sure the Old Catholics, the Ambrosians, the Dominicans, etc. follow "a" Latin rite, but not the Seventh Day Adventists!

If you were infant-baptised by your grandmother in a Methodist Church [by now pretty distant from the Anglican Church it left, no?]; AND never grew up even in the Methodist Church, I think the assumption that you had been Latin rite - [what's the expression? {it's late}] "defies credulity" [you know what I mean].

Bottom Line: You were not Latin rite, and thus have no obligation to enter the RC.

4. I fail to see how even a "properly irregular" situation of this type could possibly affect the VALIDITY of your future marriage....

5. At this point, your Baptism is recorded in the Byzantine Catholic parish. There is therein no reference to any Methodist congregation, right? Why mess up a perfectly clear canonical situation with some Uncertain canonical interpretation. Let us beware of falling prey to Scruples [not that I saying you are. You are not.].

6. Finally how many Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are enrolled in the Latin Church, married therein, Ordained therein with nary a flutter in the Latin Church's collective conscience. When they are more scrupulous, and the playing field becomes far more level, then we may take this Opinion more seriously.

7. Finally I am not being cavalier about this. Because Utimately, we are not talking about the Gospel or the Salvation of your soul, or love, forgiveness of enemies, etc. important stuff here. Let us not sweat the small stuff. Canon law exists to serve the Gospel. And when properly applied, it does. The ultimate question is, where is the Holy Spirit who visits and heals, who divinizes and glorifies calling us. What is the mind of the Church on this? Not to strain the gnat I suspect.

Sorry, to have gone on so, but I hope this was helpful.

Glory to Jesus Christ.

herb.

ps: If you need the reference to Dr. Theriault's article, email me. It was written in 1991. If further treatments have dealt with this in the meantime. I would bet money they would be more supportive of my position. [not that ultimately Dr. Theriault isn't] "We've come a long way baby."

Slava Isusu Christu!

Your commentary was fabulous and well appreciated!
I am going to go ahead and get it resolved though.
Since the fact remains I was baptized before my baptism in the Ruthenian Church I need to get it straightened out canonically. This is a highly irregular situation, but my conscience could not leave it alone. Since the Church teaches there is only one baptism for the remission of sins and my baptism in the Methodist Church was valid that makes my baptism in the Ruthenian Church null and void, although my Chrismation was valid. So I have to get this worked out accordingly. The priest that is working on this is bi-ritual, but he even states that it will probably be judged that I am a Latin Catholic; he says later I may have the option of changing ritual Churches to the Byzantine Church. The factors involved in his decision are:

I was already baptized and since the United Methodist Church is a western Church that means that I would fall under the jurisdiction of the Latin Church.

My heritage is primarily Roman Catholic(Most of my relatives on my dad's side, he is my step-father, were Hungarians who belonged to the Latin Church very few were actually Byzantine) My real dad, he has not been in my life since I was very young, was Episcopalian and my mother was Methodist and her family is of English/Scottish origen: non-Catholic.

I was in the RCIA when I went to the Byzantine Church and was received by the priest without any classes or special instruction; he admitted me sacramentally, within 2 months, according to my knowledge of general Catholic beliefs and at the time these were explicated according to the Latin tradition. Although I find the priest at the Byzantine parish at no fault for this the judicial vicar said this is a grave matter.

So I will abide by his decisions in this matter. If I am Latin I will let God's will be done in this matter. I am still Catholic that is all I am concerned with. It would not be unfamiliar to me and there are many more Latin Churches and even now I am attending a Latin Church because there is no Byzantine parish here.

We will see what happens. Again thank you for your wonderful comments.

In Christ,

Robert

How is that the protestants who become Catholics are automatically members of the Latin Church? Aren't they totally outside the Church when they are Protestants?

This shows that the RC still believes that the Western Rite is superior and that the other Churches-Rites are a kind of ethnic indult for some people. People cannot baptize their children in the Eastern Rite when the parents are Latin, but in Russia, people who become Catholics become part of the Western Rite, not the Eastern.

Slava Isusu Christu!

I believe it goes that Protestants of the western tradition are supposed to be Latin, but at the age of 14, if they are not baptized, may choose to be a member of any ritual Church with their parents permission. Again my case is special. I was already baptized and that makes my situation a difficult one canonically and it places me in a sort of canonical limbo until it is judged where I belong ritually; so far it looks like I will be judged Latin Catholic, but the Eparchy of Van Nuys has not gotten involved yet with this case; they may have a different opinion regarding this matter or it may just be a pastoral matter.

Dear Robert,

You are 100% Byzantine Catholic, Robert, do not believe what they told you. According to the Code of canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches a Latin priest can baptise a member of a Eastern catholic church if neccesary and that does not make the baby a Latin. A Byzantine priest can baptise a Latin baby according to the Byzantine rite if neccesary and does not make the baby a Byzantine Catholic. You were iniciated in the Byzantine Catholic Church (Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist) and that makes you a Byzantine Catholic. Well, now you have learn that that baptism was unnecesarry because you were already baptised, but the fact is that you were received in the Byzantine catholic Church. A friend of mine was baptised by an Orthodox priest because there was not any Catholic priest abaible and his parents thought that he could die. He was baptised by the Orthodox priest and some week later his father went to the Catholic parish to inscrive the baby in the Catholic parish. Is anything wrong about it? The baptism you received from the Methodist pastor made you a Christian not a Latin rite Catholic.
Yours in Christ,
Francisco

Shlomo Robert,
What also must be noted is that Protestantism now goes beyond the Canonial Territory of the Roman Patriarchate. Since there are now Protestants that have come from the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as the Church of the East, it would be near impossible to sort out where each person is to go.

Since you have received your initiation into the Catholic Church through the Byzantine Tradition you are Byzantine. If you wish to cover yourself, contact your local Roman Bishop, explain to him your situation, and get a letter releasing you into Byzantine custody

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Robert

Do you think it matters to God that you were baptized by a Methodist minister? And maybe you should be following the Latin tradition but you are following a Byzantine tradition? What matters is that you were baptised and are leading a good life that follows our Lord Jesus. Don't make an obstacle out of a mole hill. So what? Remember what is troubling you is a man-made issue.

Robert,

The Baptism wasn't necessary. Let' leave that aside. The result is that you were received into the Ruthenian Church through Chrismation - a practice common to an awful lot of Orthodox churches too - no matter where your initial Baptism took place.

I really don't see any problem here - of course if YOU have a problem then I have a problem too - as I was Baptized in a campus ministry associated with the United Church of Christ - and received into the Ruthenian Church by Chrismation. (Of course, I can't prove it on paper - I have to depend on my own memory & the word of my former pastor - there seems to be NO extant paper record of my reception - we looked once. No worries - I figure God keeps track of these things better than we do.)

Cheers,

Sharon

Robert,

An adult convert can choose to become a member of any sui iuris Church he wants regardless of his previous baptism or membership.

As already related, only the Eastern Code takes the matter up and this is directed at having Orthodox converts join their counterpart Catholic Church. But even this is not observed all that carefully and I would guess the majority of Orthodox converts join the Latin Church. I know of several lay persons and one priest who have.

All this nonsense about Protestant converts being required to join the Latin Church is just that. There is no Canon Law that requires this. An adult Protestant is free to join whatever Catholic Curch he desires.

It is interesting to note that the majority of Magyars (not Magyarized Rusyns) in the Byzantine Church are descendents of Hungarian Reformed Christians who converted in mass and chose the Byzantine Church.

In Christ,
Lance