www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Convert's Choice of Church?

Actually believe it or not the 1983 Code of Canon Law speaks of this matter!
Canon 111 cf section 2 Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui juris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

The commentary makes this note * Baptized non-catholics who wish to convert to Catholicism enjoy this same freedom.

Also note Canon 112 1. After the reception of baptism the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui juris
1. a person who has obtained permission fromt the Apostolic See;
2. a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui juris of the other spouse;when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church.
3. before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in no. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has lefitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year; however, they can return to the Latin Church.

So it seem by all means we should introduce them to the other sui juris Churches and let them decide since it is their right.
Wonder if that canon applied when I converted?

Peace and Blessings,
Stephanos I

"...this allows them to enter the Catholic Church without the fears, but it also allows them to grow in understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as they grow in understanding of the Eastern Churches. Just a thought."

Amen! I am the only living Catholic in my family, immediate and extended. My mother is so frightened about having to have anything to do with anything "Roman" in nature (she's Lutheran), that she will not attend Mass with me, out of fear that she'll somehow be struck dead or will be damned for entering a "Roman Church." I wish, with all my heart, that an Eastern Catholic Liturgy was available in our area... afterall, the Lutheran liturgies sorta resemble the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. At least the one that my mother's church uses.

I'm tempted to take her to the Orthodox mission if indeed it's acceptable for me to worship there on a regular basis this summer... I think that if she were to explore the truths of the Catholic faith from an Eastern perspective, she would be very comfortable with them and could learn to love the Latin Church expression of these truths.

Back to the issue at hand... When I went to sign up for RCIA classes last fall, I brought up the idea of being chrismated and given first communion in an Eastern Catholic church. The catechist I spoke to informed me that "since your Lutheran tradition is much closer to the Latin church, you must be catechized as a Latin. The Eastern churches are for Orthodox converts." My girlfriend strongly pressured me to be catechized as a Latin as well. I was never able to find any canon regarding the status of those converts who have a valid baptism from a protestant church and I felt it best to trust the judgement of those who were to be instructing me. Eventually I transfered parishes due to some rather unorthodox theology that was being taught (nah, the Church won't keep infant baptism around forever... the Eucharist is just a community meal, etc), and found that I could have approached an Eastern parish without fear. Frankly, I think it's a real shame that I was initially led to believe that it was not advisable or licit to be catechized as an Eastern. By the time I had learned otherwise, it was much too late to do anything about it.

I'd really like to see a greater amount of cooperation between my Latin diocese and the Eparchy of Van Nuys... it's interesting to note that at the Cathedral, other parishes are prayed for both when we offer the general intentions and during the Canon... every Latin parish has been mentioned but not once have I heard prayers offered for the Byzantine Parish, which is not under the care of Bishop Skylstad but worthy of our prayers all the same. It's sad, really. I wish there could be some sort of material that Latin parishes could give to prospective converts (and maybe even their parishioners) telling them about the Eastern churches, and vice versa. It seems to me that there's a major communications breakdown between East and West right now.

Next year I plan to give an class in RCIA about the various sui juris Churches. I wonder if they are baptized in the Latin Church if they will have to be Latin or could they still choose one of the Eastern Churches.
Stephanos I

[/b]
This applies to individuals who have not been baptised yet. This is more likely to be people from agnostic or atheist backgrounds, or from Baptist families who delayed their own reception into adulthood.

I believe a JW baptism is not Trinitarian in form so that might not be considered valid either.

Quote

The commentary makes this note * Baptized non-catholics who wish to convert to Catholicism enjoy this same freedom.

Also note [b]Canon 112 1. After the reception of baptism the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui juris
1. a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2. a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui juris of the other spouse;when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church.
3. before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in no. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has lefitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year; however, they can return to the Latin Church.

So it seem by all means we should introduce them to the other sui juris Churches and let them decide since it is their right.
Wonder if that canon applied when I converted?

Peace and Blessings,
Stephanos I [/b]

I think this describes the exceptions only if a convert is received who has already been baptised.

Canon 35 of the CCEO says this:

Baptised non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic church should retain and practice their own rite and should observe it everywhere in the world as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be ascribed to the church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

+++

A commentary in the Comparative Sacramental Discipline In The CCEO and CIC from the Canon Law Society says this about receiving baptised converts.

Baptized converts from all mainstream Protestant Churches (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.) and any sects which are derivative therefrom, become members of the Latin Church Sui Iuris because there is now only one Western rite in the strict sense. This only applies if they are validly baptized (CCEO c.901), otherwise, they are unbaptized converts and not subject to ipso iuris ascription

This is in appendix V page 255, paragraph 3

I don't know that this is the last word, I believe it is an opinion. I would guess exceptions are made all of the time when the convert is catechized through an eastern parish, I wonder if the usual practice is to write Rome in that case (as in item #1 of Canon 112 CIC above as well as the last line of Canon 35 CCEO).

I wish that a person could take RCIA anywhere and elect to be enrolled into an eastern church at baptism, but that doesn't sound practical or desirable because we shouldn't expect the candidate to get a good eastern formation in a western parish.

If a person was drawn to Catholicism through exposure and attraction to the spirituality and theology of the eastern churches, I personally feel that some effort on the part of the local RCIA director should be made to assist them in securing proper training and affiliation with an eastern church. Just telling the candidate that it is not an option is unfair and runs the risk of driving the aspirant out the door.

Michael

According to the 2000 revision the commetary states that ANY non Catholic who wish to convert to Catholicism enjoy this same freedom.
(That is to choose their sui juris Church in which they wish to be received.)

Stephaons I

That is good to know. The trouble is, how does the word get around?

M

Michael,

Yes, such exceptions were the rule even before the more favorable commentary existed. And no one writes Rome any more, as the authority to grant permission is de facto, if not de jure, delegated to the Ordinary into whose jurisdiction the convert would be received.

Many years,

Neil

Nerd,

It is a shame ... but, it's never too late to do something about it. You can legitimately seek canonical transfer to an Eastern Church under Canon 112.1.a. and I doubt you would have any trouble being granted it, given that you had expressed that interest before your reception into the Church and misinformed as to the fact that you could have been so received.

I'm curious, given your comment about the liturgical similarities between your mother's church and that of St John Chrysostom; if you don't mind my asking, to which (obviously 'High Church') branch of the Lutheran Church does your mother belong?

Many years,

Neil

An interesting discussion. When I was received into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church I was received as a convert. There was some discussion about this, as I had originally been baptized Roman Catholic, but later left to become Old Catholic. My pastor discussed it with the bishop and they both said I could be received with a Profession of Faith, but without going through the local Roman ordinary requesting a change of rite. Personally, from what I've read about this issue I had a few doubts, but trusted my priest and bishop enough to follow their advice.

Something else that was kind of strange. Before this was decided I wrote the Vicar General of the Roman Archdiocese where I live, explaining my situation...former Roman Catholic who had spent 9 years as an Old Catholic priest, who wished to be reconciled with the Church as a Ukrainian Greek Catholic layman, but I never heard a word from him. Not even a polite, "I received your letter". I thought that was kind of strange. Oh well, I'm a Ukie Catholic now and that's all that matters.

Don

Don, the Archdiocese should have responded as a courtesy to acknowledge your letter. But since you had already decided to become Ukrainian Catholic sui iuris, and at that time were not attached to the Archdiocese, there was really nothing required of them as far as an official response is concerned.

But technically your rite would have been Roman coming from the Old Catholic Church. The Ukrainian bishop or pastor should have notified the Roman Archdiocese that they were accepting you as a courtesy, but this sort of "quiet reception" I think occurs frequently.

It is interesting that when I received my "official" letter of ritual change from Rome (it had to be obtained from the Pro-Nuncio way back then)it was stated as a change of "rite". My letter with the seal of the Pro-Nuncio does not indicate any specific ritual church sui iuris but only the "Byzantine Rite".

Another interesting thing. As I was returning from a stint with the SSPX when I received the letter from the Pro-Nuncio, the letter stated I was "returning to the practice of my faith in the Byzantine Rite".

But of course if one is Russian, Greek, Bulgarian, etc. Greek Catholic or other Church without a territorial eparch/exarch in the USA, they would technically be subject to the local Roman hierarch anyway.

Diak,

You and the SSPX? My, how times do change us!!

Glad to know you're safely canonical again (well, I don't have a huge problem with the SSPXers, but still...).

Logos Teen

Interestingly enough, some years ago Metropolitan Judson of Pittsburgh came to East Tennessee for chrismations. He chrismated several people who had been baptized in the Latin Rite and maintained that he had the authority to do it. Now what arrangements he may or may not have made with the local Latin Rite bishop is unknown to me.

TN,

Just a guess, but these may have been ECs who had been baptized in the Latin Church for lack of a local EC priest (when that happens, they sometimes aren't communed and even more rarely chrismated).

Many years,

Neil

Yes, a past life. :rolleyes: They always thought I was kind of wierd, this Old Believer bearded dude hanging around, talking about married priests, carrying my lestovka, etc. I can proudly say that several of my students later became priests (it certainly wasn't likely because of me).