Baby receiving Eucharist in Latin Rite

[Byzman]

I am trying to find where it states that a Byzantine Rite Catholic baby or children can receive the Eucharist at a Latin Rite parish if they and their parents are visiting that parish.
Something along the lines that they cant be denied if they request for their children to receive. Was it Canon Law?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byzman,

My first instinct was to suggest going to the Apologetics Section because this is a question under the purview of the Latin Church, but since you’re already here , I took the time to read over the Latin Code (it wasn’t hard - I’m more familiar with the Latin Code because I studied the Latin Code long before I even knew an Eastern Code existed).

Here’s what I found:

Canon 383-1:
In exercising his pastoral office, the diocesan Bishop is to be solicitous for all Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care, whatever their age, condition or nationality, whether they live in the territory or are visiting there.

Canon 383-2:
If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the sma erite, or by an episcopal vicar.

I was visiting a Latin parish once, where a visiting Eastern couple wished to have their child commune. They approached the priest about it before Mass, and the priest made a formal announcement of the matter to the congregation to make sure no one would be scandalized.

My suggestion is just to arrive there well before Mass time to discuss the matter with the pastor.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[elizaveta]

§2. If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either through priests or parishes of the same rite or through an episcopal vicar.

It means that the bishop is supposed to make provisions for people from a different rite to receive the sacraments through priests or parishes of their own rite (not the Latin rite). Or that he needs to appoint someone to take care of this for him. It doesn’t mean that the bishop is required to let them (or their children) commune in the Latin rite. Especially if he feels that it would cause scandal or spiritual harm to his own parishioners (who are after all his first concern).

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in Canon law that would force a Bishop to allow this.

And even if it was explained to the members of the parish, I can easily imagine the outrage of parents over seeing a child from a different rite communed in their own church while their own children are denied. Plus how do you explain this to the children present?

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister elizaveta,

§2. If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either through priests or parishes of the same rite or through an episcopal vicar.

It means that the bishop is supposed to make provisions for people from a different rite to receive the sacraments through priests or parishes of their own rite (not the Latin rite). Or that he needs to appoint someone to take care of this for him. It doesn’t mean that the bishop is required to let them (or their children) commune in the Latin rite. Especially if he feels that it would cause scandal or spiritual harm to his own parishioners (who are after all his first concern).

The second part of the canon refers to permanent parishioners. The more relevant canon is the first one which assigns a moral obligation on the bishop to provide for the needs of visitors.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in Canon law that would force a Bishop to allow this.

I just quoted the canon (you did, too ).

And even if it was explained to the members of the parish, I can easily imagine the outrage of parents over seeing a child from a different rite communed in their own church while their own children are denied. Plus how do you explain this to the children present?

No time like the present to teach your children the value of respecting unity in diversity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Deacon_Lance]

The USCCB publishes: eastern actholics in The United States of America
usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=163

It reaffirms that which is in Canon Law, namely that bishops and priests of the Latin Church are under grave obligation to provide for the spiritual needs of Eastern Catholics. Most priests if approached before hand will not have a problem with communing Eastern Catholic infants. Granted in isolated one time incident you are at the mercy of the priest and his knowledge or ignorance of his duties in the matter. In stable situations however, if the priest persists in denying Communion, I have found that a letter to the Latin bishop corrects the situation quite quickly. I remember one such incident prompted the Latin bishop to write a pastoral instruction to his priests so that no further incident s occured.

 

[Byzman]

The USCCB publishes: eastern actholics in The United States of America
usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=163

It reaffirms that which is in Canon Law, namely that bishops and priests of the Latin Church are under grave obligation to provide for the spiritual needs of Eastern Catholics. Most priests if approached before hand will not have a problem with communing Eastern Catholic infants. Granted in isolated one time incident you are at the mercy of the priest and his knowledge or ignorance of his duties in the matter. In stable situations however, if the priest persists in denying Communion, I have found that a letter to the Latin bishop corrects the situation quite quickly. I remember one such incident prompted the Latin bishop to write a pastoral instruction to his priests so that no further incident s occured.

Yeah…but you see I thought that there was something explicitly stating this. I just cant seem to find it…but I may have been wrong.

 

[elizaveta]

Dear sister elizaveta,

The second part of the canon refers to permanent parishioners. The more relevant canon is the first one which assigns a moral obligation on the bishop to provide for the needs of visitors.

I just quoted the canon (you did, too ).

No time like the present to teach your children the value of respecting unity in diversity.

Blessings,
Marduk

Canon 383-1:
In exercising his pastoral office, the diocesan Bishop is to be solicitous for all Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care, whatever their age, condition or nationality, whether they live in the territory or are visiting there.

Canon 383-2:
If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal vicar.

Actually there is nothing in the canon quoted that states that a Bishop must allow visitors or permanent parishioners of another rite to take communion in the latin rite. And nothing that could force his hand.

The first part of the canon does not say that the Bishop has a “moral obligation to provide for the needs of visitors” It says he is to be solicitous. To be solicitous is to be careful and concerned. There are no specifics about how he is to accomplish this.

The only definite instruction in the code quoted is for him to provide his own parishoners with their “spiritual needs” in their own rite.

Since the Bishops obligation to his permanent parishoners has been clearly stated and there are no definite instructions on the care of visitors, then it follows that the Bishops obligation to any visitor would also be to sacraments in their own rite. Permitting them to commune in the Latin rite would be his choice, not his obligation.

Also, since there is no moral, or Ecclesiastical, law that requires the taking of communion at each mass attended, even on Sundays, the case could be made that the spiritual health of his own parishoners would take precedent over the desires of a visitor. Especially if that visitor was able to have the sacraments regularly in their own rite.

Finally, forcing parents into the position of having to unexpectedly try and teach a young child about “respecting unity in diversity” during Communion is inappropriate to say the least.

 

[mardukm]

Canon 383-1:
In exercising his pastoral office, the diocesan Bishop is to be solicitous for all Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care, whatever their age, condition or nationality, whether they live in the territory or are visiting there.

Canon 383-2:
If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal vicar.

Actually there is nothing in the canon quoted that states that a Bishop must allow visitors or permanent parishioners of another rite to take communion in the latin rite. And nothing that could force his hand.

The first part of the canon does not say that the Bishop has a “moral obligation to provide for the needs of visitors” It says he is to be solicitous. To be solicitous is to be careful and concerned. There are no specifics about how he is to accomplish this.

The only definite instruction in the code quoted is for him to provide his own parishoners with their “spiritual needs” in their own rite.

Since the Bishops obligation to his permanent parishoners has been clearly stated and there are no definite instructions on the care of visitors, then it follows that the Bishops obligation to any visitor would also be to sacraments in their own rite. Permitting them to commune in the Latin rite would be his choice, not his obligation.

Also, since there is no moral, or Ecclesiastical, law that requires the taking of communion at each mass attended, even on Sundays, the case could be made that the spiritual health of his own parishoners would take precedent over the desires of a visitor. Especially if that visitor was able to have the sacraments regularly in their own rite.

Finally, forcing parents into the position of having to unexpectedly try and teach a young child about “respecting unity in diversity” during Communion is inappropriate to say the least.

I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Your comments have nothing to do with the OP, nor are they responding to what I stated.

Blessings

 

[Ghosty]

There was indeed a statement issued by the USCCB on the matter, but for the life of me I can’t find the text online. I used to have it bookmarked on my old computer, too.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Brendan]

There is also this canon

Can. 843 ß1 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

The last part is the key, an Eastern Catholic falls under the Eastern Code of Canon Law, even within a latin parish.

A latin priest may no more deny the Eucharist to an Eastern Infant than a Eastern Priest may deny such to a Latin who presents himself after having followed the Latin canons on fasting before the recieving the Eucharist, but not the Eastern ones.

 

[Byzman]

There was indeed a statement issued by the USCCB on the matter, but for the life of me I can’t find the text online. I used to have it bookmarked on my old computer, too.

Peace and God bless!

I know I am thinking the same thing too. I just cant figure out where I found it.

 

[elizaveta]

There is also this canon

The last part is the key, an Eastern Catholic falls under the Eastern Code of Canon Law, even within a latin parish.

A latin priest may no more deny the Eucharist to an Eastern Infant than a Eastern Priest may deny such to a Latin who presents himself after having followed the Latin canons on fasting before the recieving the Eucharist, but not the Eastern ones.

Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 838 §§3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.
Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

Canon 841 - “it is for the same (the supreme authority of the Church) or another competent authority (the Bishop) to decide what pertains to their (the sacraments) licit (lawful) celebration, administration, and reception.”

It is the Bishop who is given the power of the Church to decide who can lawfully receive the sacraments within his diocese.

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times

The Bishop has the authority to decide what “the appropriate time” is within his diocese.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

elizaveta,

I invite you to write Rome on the question because I can assure you what the answer will be. Latin priests have no right to deny Communion to Eastern Catholic infants. Your attitude is repugnant and smacks of the Latin first attittude the Catholic Church disowned at Vatican II.

There should never be a scandal because every Latin Catholic should have been educated about the sacramental practice of Eastern Catholics. The real scandal is the fact the Latin Church has failed to educate its members about their fellow Catholics.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[elizaveta]

I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Your comments have nothing to do with the OP, nor are they responding to what I stated.

Blessings

Sorry that you are confused, but I actually did respond to what you stated. And my comments were relevant to the OP.

 

[elizaveta]

elizaveta,

I invite you to write Rome on the question because I can assure you what the answer will be. Latin priests have no right to deny Communion to Eastern Catholic infants. Your attitude is repugnant and smacks of the Latin first attittude the Catholic Church disowned at Vatican II.

There should never be a scandal because every Latin Catholic should have been educated about the sacramental practice of Eastern Catholics. The real scandal is the fact the Latin Church has failed to educate its members about their fellow Catholics.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

I have no need to write Rome. I was participating in an intellectual discussion about certain points of Canon Law with other adults. Your response to reading something you personally don’t agree with is to call me names and launch into a tirade based on your own prejudices and unfounded assumptions.

For your information, I am Orthodox, not Catholic. Trust me when I say that I do not have a “Latin first attitude”. I do however have an interest in Canon Law and it’s application in Roman Catholic life.

Since I attended an Eastern rite Catholic parish before my conversion to Orthodoxy, I am also better able to understand and address issues in the Eastern rite then you might be.

Perhaps if Vatican II had not been so insistent on removing it’s “latin first attitude” you might not be facing many of the problems in your Church including the lack of priestly and monastic vocations, the closing of churches, empty pews and coffers, and other sundry problems that your Church is now contending with. All of which began in the years following Vatican II.

Also, it is true that “every Latin Catholic should have been educated about the sacramental practice of Eastern Catholics”, but the fact is they are not. Many, probably most, Catholics are not even aware of the existence of the Eastern rites, much less what they teach. This problem certainly needs to be addressed. But the way to fix it is through a concerted educational effort by the hierarchy of the Church, not by scandalizing uninformed but faithful Catholics during communion. This is especially true if it negatively affects the newly forming faith of their children.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Elizaveta,

The problem with your interpretation of the canons is that it is inconsistent. You claim that the bishop is only oligated to practice solicitude for his own flock. But the canon I quoted states that the SAME solicitude he practices towards his flock should be given to visitors in his diocese.

As far as scandalizing children, that’s a big stretch. In the example I gave, the priest made the announcement before Mass started. The most that could possibly happen is that a child will ask their parents about the matter afterwards, which would be a wonderful opportunity to educate people about the Eastern or Oriental Traditions. I can’t imagine a child is going to have a fit for not being able to commune. Your caution is more fearmongering than anything else.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byzman]

Dear Deacon Lance,

I have no need to write Rome. I was participating in an intellectual discussion about certain points of Canon Law with other adults. Your response to reading something you personally don’t agree with is to call me names and launch into a tirade based on your own prejudices and unfounded assumptions.

For your information, I am Orthodox, not Catholic. Trust me when I say that I do not have a “Latin first attitude”. I do however have an interest in Canon Law and it’s application in Roman Catholic life.

Since I attended an Eastern rite Catholic parish before my conversion to Orthodoxy, I am also better able to understand and address issues in the Eastern rite then you might be.

Perhaps if Vatican II had not been so insistent on removing it’s “latin first attitude” you might not be facing many of the problems in your Church including the lack of priestly and monastic vocations, the closing of churches, empty pews and coffers, and other sundry problems that your Church is now contending with. All of which began in the years following Vatican II.

Also, it is true that “every Latin Catholic should have been educated about the sacramental practice of Eastern Catholics”, but the fact is they are not. Many, probably most, Catholics are not even aware of the existence of the Eastern rites, much less what they teach. This problem certainly needs to be addressed. But the way to fix it is through a concerted educational effort by the hierarchy of the Church, not by scandalizing uninformed but faithful Catholics during communion. This is especially true if it negatively affects the newly forming faith of their children.

Ok first of all…the reason why I started this thread is because I am pretty sure that I read somewhere a document of some sort from the Church stating that Latin Rite churches in no way can deny the right of a Eastern Catholic reception of any of the sacraments…including not being able to deny Holy Communion to an infant if the parents approach to receive…permitting the Priest knows ahead of time. Now I also disagree with the Canon Law you bring up because I honestly think it is talking about something totally different…for instance…, obviously in the Mass there would be no inappropiate time to not allow it. Catholic is Catholic, so therefore there would no denial even to a baby if the people at the parish are not used to seeing it at all. In fact it is a statement to the Church’s catholicity.

 

[elizaveta]

Ok first of all…the reason why I started this thread is because I am pretty sure that I read somewhere a document of some sort from the Church stating that Latin Rite churches in no way can deny the right of a Eastern Catholic reception of any of the sacraments…including not being able to deny Holy Communion to an infant if the parents approach to receive…permitting the Priest knows ahead of time. Now I also disagree with the Canon Law you bring up because I honestly think it is talking about something totally different…for instance…, obviously in the Mass there would be no inappropiate time to not allow it. Catholic is Catholic, so therefore there would no denial even to a baby if the people at the parish are not used to seeing it at all. In fact it is a statement to the Church’s catholicity.

I am glad that you posted. I know that disagreement is part of the process of learning and I welcome that, provided it’s done respectfully like you did. I really just can’t understand the need for attacking someone’s character for having a opposing opinion.

 

[elizaveta]

Dear sister Elizaveta,

The problem with your interpretation of the canons is that it is inconsistent. You claim that the bishop is only oligated to practice solicitude for his own flock. But the canon I quoted states that the SAME solicitude he practices towards his flock should be given to visitors in his diocese.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t every remember saying that, and I never intended to so I re-read my old posts to be sure and I can’t find where I did. Can you please quote it so I can find it.

Thanks

 

[mardukm]

I don’t every remember saying that, and I never intended to so I re-read my old posts to be sure and I can’t find where I did. Can you please quote it so I can find it.

"**The first part of the canon does not say that the Bishop has a “moral obligation to provide for the needs of visitors” It says he is to be solicitous. To be solicitous is to be careful and concerned. There are no specifics about how he is to accomplish this.

The only definite instruction in the code quoted is for him to provide his own parishoners with their “spiritual needs” in their own rite.**"

Blessings