A Bit Confused

[Upgrade25]

I have been reading up on my baptismal heritage as a Maronite, as I was baptized and confirmed in a Maronite church(infant confirmation). However, I trace it back through my mother(my father is Roman Rite), and it seems that there is some sort of stipulation where it has to be through the father to be considered a Maronite. Am I considered a Roman or Maronite Catholic?

 

[malphono]

It depends. From the CCEO (emphasis added):

Canon 29 - §1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

If a Latin is baptized by a Maronite priest, the baptismal should have an annotation to that effect. Normally in such circumstances, the child is simply baptized.

 

[Casilda]

There are many families in my parish where it is the mother who is ethnic Maronite married to a Latin yet they have raised the children in the Maronite traditions.

 

[MorEphrem]

Normally in such circumstances, the child is simply baptized.

Really? That’s actually in violation of the CCEO to separate Chrismation from Baptism without true necessity (cf. Canon 695 - §1).

There are many families in my parish where it is the mother who is ethnic Maronite married to a Latin yet they have raised the children in the Maronite traditions.

Ethnic Maronite You mean Syrian or ?

 

[edward_george]

Really? That’s actually in violation of the CCEO to separate Chrismation from Baptism without true necessity (cf. Canon 695 - §1).

Ethnic Maronite You mean Syrian or ?

A Latin priest would not be bound by the CCEO.

 

[Upgrade25]

A Latin priest would not be bound by the CCEO.

I was Baptized and Chrismated by a Maronite priest.

 

[runningdude]

Really? That’s actually in violation of the CCEO to separate Chrismation from Baptism without true necessity (cf. Canon 695 - §1).

You do not know if those canons were in place at the time of the OP’s sacraments.

 

[Upgrade25]

You do not know if those canons were in place at the time of the OP’s sacraments.

When were they implemented?

 

[Vico]

I was Baptized and Chrismated by a Maronite priest.

Seems that you received per the sacramental discipline of the Maronites. I recommend requesting the baptismal certificate to see if church enrollment was noted.

 

[MorEphrem]

A Latin priest would not be bound by the CCEO.

The OP explicitly said in the first post they were baptized and confirmed in a Maronite Church.

You do not know if those canons were in place at the time of the OP’s sacraments.

I was responding to malphono’s general statement, not specifically to the OP’s circumstances. The OP stated they were confirmed.

To the OP’s question, the CCEO was made in 1990 I believe.

 

[malphono]

Really? That’s actually in violation of the CCEO to separate Chrismation from Baptism without true necessity (cf. Canon 695 - §1).

Title XVI of the CCEO implies administration of Sacraments within a Church, in which case, yes, Chrismation is not to be separated from Baptism. In the case at hand, present the agreement of both parents as stipulated in Canon 29, it was done correctly. However, absent that agreement, I believe the the following prescriptions would come into play:

Canon 683 - Baptism must be be celebrated according the liturgical prescriptions of the Church sui iuris in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.

in which case, separation would not be a violation.

Seems that you received per the sacramental discipline of the Maronites. I recommend requesting the baptismal certificate to see if church enrollment was noted.

Yes, that’s what I suggested earlier.

To the OP’s question, the CCEO was made in 1990 I believe.

Yes, it was promulgated in 1990, but I’m not sure if it came into effect that year or the next.

 

[Upgrade25]

Title XVI of the CCEO implies administration of Sacraments within a Church, in which case, yes, Chrismation is not to be separated from Baptism. In the case at hand, present the agreement of both parents as stipulated in Canon 29, it was done correctly. However, absent that agreement, I believe the the following prescriptions would come into play:

Canon 683 - Baptism must be be celebrated according the liturgical prescriptions of the Church sui iuris in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.

in which case, separation would not be a violation.

Yes, that’s what I suggested earlier.

Yes, it was promulgated in 1990, but I’m not sure if it came into effect that year or the next.

I was after '90:thumbsup:. I’ll ask to see my certificate.

 

[malphono]

I was after '90:thumbsup:. I’ll ask to see my certificate.

Plus you could, if possible, ask your parents since it is they who would have had to give the required consent. Godparents may also have been present (they certainly were for the baptism) and may know as well.

 

[runningdude]

The OP explicitly said in the first post they were baptized and confirmed in a Maronite Church.

I was responding to malphono’s general statement, not specifically to the OP’s circumstances. The OP stated they were confirmed.

Yes, I see where I got lost now.

 

[Thomas48]

I have been reading up on my baptismal heritage as a Maronite, as I was baptized and confirmed in a Maronite church(infant confirmation). However, I trace it back through my mother(my father is Roman Rite), and it seems that there is some sort of stipulation where it has to be through the father to be considered a Maronite. Am I considered a Roman or Maronite Catholic?

I think in reality whatever your official status may be, it truly depends on where your interests reside, whether you are more inclined to the East or West .