What about calling yourself a Greek Catholic vs Roman Catholic. Since you are now a member of a Greek Catholic parish and practice the Greek Catholic liturgical traditions. Just curious, since someone I knew asked.
Yes they can. That is what my Bishop tells me. Switching Rites is a more complicated process and usually you’d do that so you can receive the Sacraments that is normally delivered in the Rite of your membership. Like Ordination or Marriage, or if you have kids, the Sacraments of Initiation. Although the Sacraments of Initiation and Marriage can still be carried out in the Byzantine Rite, but you’d have to ask permission from the Roman parish you should belong to, etc.
You can call yourself whatever you want but that does not change who you are and your status in the Catholic Church. Under the conditions that you describe you are a Latin Catholic and not a Byzantine Catholic. First you cannot be member of a Byzantine parish because you are member of your geographical Latin rite parish. Second you still are under the pastoral care of the pastor of the geographical parish and under the care of the Bishop in whose diocese the parish is. I think that seeking a title of sorts is not good because you are first and foremost a Catholic, is there really a need to show a title for something that you are or are not? I am a member of the Latin Church and I love to attend the Maronite Church and the Byzantine Church but that does not make me a Maronite or a Byzantine, it just makes me a better Catholic (or at least I hope so). Remember what St. Paul (1 Corinthians 1: 12-15) said to the people that wanted to identify themselves with a specific church.
Its not about the title but about the spirituality you live by. Being a Byzantine Catholic means you live the Byzantine spirituality, the Eastern expression of the faith. While the faith is the same, the expression of it is different, so being able to identify which spirituality you live is important.
He is the one that mentioned the title and he did not talk about spirituality. Titles that make sense are the ones defined by Canon Law. I still go by what the pope said about trying to distinguish yourself from other Catholics. He was talking in reference to the “traditional” Catholics vs. the “others”, but the comment applies to everybody. I guess that given my present situation I should be called a “bastardized” Catholic, does that sound good? I think that while possibly true it is very insulting to the Churches that welcome me.
Just because you say so that does not make it true. I think that Code of Canon Law is quite clear that Latin Rite Catholics are members of their geographical parish. I would appreciate if you were to show me a document where your Bishop issued a dispensation from the CCL requirement.
One can be “enrolled” in any parish, but that doesn’t mean one is canonically considered a member of that parish. Someone who is a canonical Latin cannot canonically be a member of a parish of another Church, although the person may be “enrolled” in such a parish and fully participate in parish life.
Unless, of course, one totally disengages from a geographical parish by becoming a member of a personal parish.
A good example of what I meant above.
Can. 515 §1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop.
You are required to obtain permission from the pastor of your geographical parish in order to receive Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony and Holy Orders (yes, I think that too from a formal point of view) in a different parish. However, I think that most dioceses are not picky about it and they do not really ask for details. You are also supposed to support your geographical parish.
You can make your own definition for whatever word you want, that does not make for a meaningful discussion. I think that in order to make your point you are not willing to accept what the CCL says. You use the false assumption that membership into the parish is defined by registration.My only point is that membership on any practical level is based on registration and not territory. Since there is no canonical definition for registration, its not a canonical issue. A parish may be defined geographically, but actual religious practice is not (aside from the aforementioned Sacraments).
This really boils down to semantics, since there is no Canonical definition for “parish membership”, only for territorial jurisdiction of parishes, which also includes non-Catholic Christians in the area. Obviously they would never be considered “members” of the local Catholic parish.
Peace and God bless!
