www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization My True Identity??????

Robert's interpretation of canon law is not complete.

A child of a Byzantine Catholic father and a Roman Catholic mother who is baptized in a Roman Catholic Church by the common consent of his parents is technically a Byzantine Catholic and enrolled into the suri iuris Church of his father .

If the child was born prior to 1983 when the new Canons for the Latin Church were issued there is no other possibility. If he was born to this same set of parents after the new Latin Canon was promulgated then he is still automatically enrolled into the appropriate Byzantine Catholic Church suri iuris unless both parents have provided a written request that he be enrolled into the Latin Church and it is noted in the parish records and on file. Simply having the child baptized in a Roman Catholic parish and raised in the Latin Church is not sufficient for the child to be enrolled into the Latin Church.

To verify this Vladimir need only to contact the parish he was baptized in. If he was born before 1983 (when the current canons went into effect) then he is definitely a member of the suri iuris Church of his father. If he was born after the new canons went into effect and there is a notation in the record that his parents intended to specifically enroled him into the Latin Church and there is a written record on file then he is enrolled into the Latin Church. If there is no specific, written notation of the parents consent that he be enrolled into the Church suri iuris of his mother rather than his father then he is a Byzantine Catholic and a member of the Church suri iuris of his father.

�

Vladimir, please do not to go contacting the Archdiocese of Chicago about this. The first step is to contact your pastor and ask his direction on the matter. Most likely he will have you contact the parish in which you were baptized for a copy of your baptismal record along with the specific request as to whether your parents made a specific request to have you enrolled into the Latin Church. Only when you have this information can your proceed.

�

Anastasios, what your friend was told by Bishop Andrew is the correct interpretation of canon law.

�

Friends, remember the that canons exist to help provide good order in the Church. They are not the end all of everything.

Dear Robert,

I don't take things that personally but what I find strange is your writing as though you are a canon lawyer. There are canons and then there are commentaries on canons. You need to read all the canons in context. You, not being an expert, might full well not be reading all the relevant facts because you miss something that doesn't seem to apply to the case. Can our bishops not grant economia like their Orthodox bretheren? If not I'd say that's terrible to have to be "under" strict canons.

Btw, the Latin priest in Ken's case broke the rules by baptising a Byzantine in the first place; Bp Andrew merely fixed the problem.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Administrator:

I respect your interpretation on the matter.

But I have a few questions:

1. Doesn't the New Code supercede the old even in cases whether the person was born before the New Codes were released? And if so can you prove it with citations from Law or commentary on it?

2. With regard to your first Statement about common consent Canon 111, 1 (Latin Code) can you prove this with documentation or citations?

3. Can you prove that a notation, on the baptismal register stating the parents intend to have the child raised in the Latin Church is requisite for the child to be enrolled in that Church. Doesn't common consent imply just consent whether written or verbal?

And of course the assumption would be he would go to his pastor. But his post on this forum already shows that he did not. And I mentioned the documentation he needed to aquire for his case including certified copies of baptismal records et al.

Isn't the issue of sheep stealing one that should be a concern; don't you think it is grave - Speaking of the alleged action of Bishop Andrew?

And of course the canons are not ends in themselves; I am sure you would not think I would believe they were.

Anastasios:

I am not a Canon Lawyer; I do not have a STL or a JD behind my name. What I have learned I have learned by contact with friends who are canon lawyers and who work in that area. I defer to them. The Latin priest in Ken's case was wrong in baptising him in that Church - that goes along the line of sheep stealing, but on the other hand I wish the fathers in these cases would not defer to the mother's Rite, but be bold enough to preserve theirs. It is too bad and it is an abuse that needs to be squashed. And in regard to economia I am positive it is used by our bishops, but when it comes to ritual ascription cases like this I don't think they can gloss over the Law; bishops are guardians and keepers of the Law they are not to be violating it or ignoring its principles.

May the Mother of God watch over both of you!

In Christ,

Rob

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us - Amen!

Dear Friends,

For us "Orthodox in communion with Rome," "Canon Law" is more of a military handbook that presents the "How to" of safely firing and looking after artillery

In any event, Volodymyr's case is more open and shut than a "long shot."

Alex

Robert wrote:
1. Doesn't the New Code supercede the old even in cases whether the person was born before the New Codes were released? And if so can you prove it with citations from Law or commentary on it?

No, the new code does not supercede the code that was in effect at the time of one's baptism. The canons in effect at the time of one�s baptism remain enforce for that person for determining the Church membership. There are still people around who are subject to the 1919(?) Code of Canons for the Latin Church.

Robert wrote:
2. With regard to your first Statement about common consent Canon 111, 1 (Latin Code) can you prove this with documentation or citations?

I occasionally receive questions at the website regarding this issue and routinely consult the appropriate authorities within our Church. The information I provide is from priests (including canon lawyers) who deal with this question on a regular basis. With all due respect, I think that is you who need to provide the appropriate judicial references to support your position.

Robert wrote:
3. Can you prove that a notation, on the baptismal register stating the parents intend to have the child raised in the Latin Church is requisite for the child to be enrolled in that Church. Doesn't common consent imply just consent whether written or verbal?

See my answer above. The Roman Catholics are very much sticklers to the letter of the law. Do you actually think that they would not record in writing a vital piece of information like the intended Church of the person to be baptized?

The only appropriate advice that can be given to Vladimir is to refer him to his pastor.

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, be merciful unto me a sinner!

Dear Administrator,

That's what I told Volodymyr! And I never studied canon law (happily).

Although I know canon law is a "necessary evil," I often regard it with things like motorcycle mechanics - I don't see what it has to do with the Spirit of the Gospel.

Plus the fact that I had a bad experience with a canon lawyer who was my former pastor.

Ahh! I shouldn't have said that! Amado will now think I don't like canon law because of that personal experience, as he has said elsewhere!

Canons, Shmanons - Vladimir won't be a UC until he's a "Volodymyr"

God bless, Mentor!

Alex

Maybe he can join the OCA and not have to change his name?????

Brian

(I HAD to get that plug in!!!!!)

Dear Alex:

I heard you, loud and clear, Alex!

But as a proper (canon) lawyer should, I'll keep my mouth shut for the moment.

A lawyer's opinion (including that of a canonist's) is worth nothing unless paid for!

AmdG

Dear Amado,

In that case, Brian got his "two cents'" in!

Alex

Dear Alex:

Sorry, Brian's 2 cents just don't cut it!

We, (canon) lawyers, do not come that cheap.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

If I had my way, I would "put pay" to canon lawyers altogether!

If I had a choice between playing the game or making the rules, I'd rather play . . .

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

It seems this is like a story my godmother once told me about a Byzantine Catholic Monk who visited an Orthodox Monastery; who when he was accosted about his "Uniate status" he quickly changed the subject and asked, "So you know any good Lenten reciepes?"

It seems it is better just to change the subject then to deal with old burned out former Latins and paranoid more Orthodox than the Orthodox in Communion with Rome types.

Please forgive me, but if you don't like being Catholic, with all its complexities then why not jump ship; there is nothing wrong with Canon Law; it has nothing to do with quenching the Spirit; it is not about me being right. This was a simple discussion about a person's ritual ascription which quickly became a witch hunt. It was insinuated that one must have a degree in Canon Law to simply discuss issues of law in this Forum; this of course is a fallacy because many other complex theological issues are discussed here and I do not believe everyone has a Theology degree. And is the Eastern mentality constructed on the aquisition of theology degrees to have a Voice or is it based upon the lived life of prayer: "a theologian is one who prays."

So often the Latin Church and her "evil ways" are mentioned on this Forum, but it must be remembered that we are ONE Church; we are in communion with those Latins and have submitted to the Pope and Curia not to mention their ecclesiology and structures.

Maybe the witch hunt is really more geared towards those Eastern Catholics who appreciate being Catholic and who don't want to be Orthodox and do everything like the Orthodox. I don't know, but I am sure you will tell me.

At any rate I am going to leave this Forum. I have been on here since 1998. I have enjoyed our journey together. Bye.

Shlomo Robert Horvath and Administrator,
In this case Robert the Administator is correct. I received my Baptism, Communion, and Chrismation in the Roman Church. But when I asked my family about our religious background, I found out that we were Maronites and when to the nearest Maronite parish and registered. That was all that I had to do, since neither my grandmother nor mother canonically switched sui juris Churches (both were married to protestants).

One of the best people to consult on this is Chorbishop John Faris, who is one of the premier Canon Lawyers in the Eastern Churches.

Actually, this whole issue is one that the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches in the Americas have not delt with. If every Eastern Catholic was registered in their proper sui juris Church we would have between a five to ten fold increase in Eastern Catholics. For example Ecuador has nearly 100000 people of Lebanese descent, most of whom are Maronite, but there is not one Maronite Parish, let alone Eparch, for the country. In Brazil at least 10 of the Roman Churches Bishops are Maronite by heritage. One of the things that I have advocated is for our Eparchs to sit down with the different Bishops Conferences and develop a plan to have "our lost sheep" returned to their proper Churches. Not everyone will want to come "home", but at least many who did not realize that they are part of the great Eastern Traditions will beable to make an informed decission on it.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us - Amen!

Dear Robert,

Come back here, Robert, NOW!!

Permission to leave is denied!

(And you thought I couldn't behave like a Latin!)

Don't be so sensitive!

(Who do you think you are, me? ).

What you said is like "Slipyj in reverse."

When Ukie Catholics told him that he couldn't move ahead with the Patriarchate without Rome saying "boo" first, he simply told them, "If you don't like belonging to a Particular Eastern Catholic Church with its rights and privileges, then go over to the Latin Church - I'm sure they will appreciate having you."

But I don't think the Latins are quite ready for you just yet

Canon Law is important, but we have our own canonical traditions and we don't need the lawyers of the Particular Latin Church imposing their own laws on us.

They have no idea about our Particular canonical traditions and no idea about the spirituality of our Church.

That's O.K., they don't have to - we don't have a good understanding of them, no matter how many rosaries et al. we have.

It's all a part of being a Particular Catholic Church in accordance with Vatican II.

If you don't like that, then you might want to join a Basilian parish.

Feel free to anathematize me at will . . .

Alex

Dear Robert,

If you leave this forum who will I have to discuss complex issues like the Orthodox Bishop who left for the CMRI group by later recanted.

There are more groups like this out there. I find them fascinating and need someone to discuss them with. Preferably you.

You bring a good balanced view. We need you here.

Steven