Baptism question about mixing rites

[Aussie_ukie]

hi eveyone, I’m new to the forum.
thought id say hi and ask a question.

My Family is a mixture of Eastern and Roman Catholic, my Father is a Byzantine and my mother a Latin.

My Sister and I were bought up predomiantly in the Roman Church cause from the age of 7 (myself) and 3 (my sister) we moved interstate where there were no Byzantine churches, thus my sister is more Roman than Byzantine.
we however now live in a city where we have Byzantine catholic churches, I myself have returned to the Byzantine Church but my sister (when she bothers to go) goes to a Roman Church.

My sister has recently fallen pregnant, out of wedlock regrettably, and the Father is not Catholic at all.

My sister is wondering if she has to get the baby baptized in a Eastern Catholic Church or if she can get the baby baptized in the Roman Church, and if she does get the baby baptized in the roman church will it change the child’s Rite or will he/she still be an Eastern Catholic cause she is?

Thanks all

 

[Alfonsus]

I believe the baby will canonically Byzantine Catholic, since your sister is canonically a Byzantine Catholic and the baby’s father is not a Catholic.
Although the baptism can be done in a Latin parish, but canonically speaking still a Byzantine Catholic from which church your father come.

 

[martininthefiel]

Why wouldn’t you simply ask a priest at your Roman Rite parish?

Baptism is valid, regardless, so long as it is done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the child is Baptized in the Eastern Rite, he would not need to be Confirmed, later when he becomes of age.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

Why wouldn’t you simply ask a priest at your Roman Rite parish?

Baptism is valid, regardless, so long as it is done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the child is Baptized in the Eastern Rite, he would not need to be Confirmed, later when he becomes of age.

I wouldn’t know a Roman Priest to ask these days as I attend a Byzantine Church exclusively and my sister goes only so rarely to a Roman Church and wouldn’t ask a priest herself anyway.

besides I’ve found when it comes to Eastern Catholics Ive found most Latin Clergy and Laity have either never heard of us or if they have their knowledge of us is so limited that they wouldn’t know the answers.

one other question if my sisters child was to get baptized, chrisimed and Commumed in the Bzyantine church would the child be eligible to communion in the latin church prior to the age of 8 or 9 when most Latin rite Catholics make their first holy communion. (I never had to worry about this stuff cause at the time I was Baptized the ukranian church in this country was so latinized that Baptism , Eucharist and confirmation were separated much the same as the Latin Church, but now they have returned to the Eastern model)

 

[joshua_b]

I am fairly certain that an individual is canonically a member of whatever Church they are confirmed (chrismated) into. In your case, because your father was Byzantine, both you and your sister would be Byzantine as well. I would conclude (with absolutely NO shred of authority or specific knowledge in this area) that your sister’s baby would be Byzantine as well, although as other posters have pointed out, baptism in the Latin Church would still be valid. Normatively speaking, the child should be initiated into the Church of which the parents are a member.

If initiated into one of the eastern Churches, then one is not bound by the disciplines of Rome. They are bound to the disciplines of whatever Church they are a member of. In practical terms, if a baby is initiated into the Byzantine Church, and is eligible to receive the sacraments under Byzantine law, then they are free to receive the sacraments in any other Church as well, including the Latin Church. Of course, presenting an infant for communion in a Roman Catholic parish is not normative, and may require discussing it with the priest before hand so he is aware of the dynamic, but it is in no way improper or not allowed.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I believe the baby will canonically Byzantine Catholic, since your sister is canonically a Byzantine Catholic and the baby’s father is not a Catholic.
Although the baptism can be done in a Latin parish, but canonically speaking still a Byzantine Catholic from which church your father come.

That is my understanding of the matter also. A child is the rite of the father if the father is Catholic regardless of where the sacraments are received. If the father is not Catholic, then the child is the rite of the mother.

This becomes important for the sacraments of marriage and Holy Orders. While Latin rite Catholics may be married by a deacon, Eastern rite Catholics must be married by a priest and receive the proper blessing from him. A man must receive Holy Orders in his own rite unless special permission is granted.

We had a case a few years back of two Maronite ladies who had always attended Latin churches and had never received First Communion or Confirmation. One had a marriage planned. Since the local Maronite parish did not have a program for adult confirmation. the Maronite pastor agreed that we should prepare them for Communion and Confirmation. The Maronite bishop delegated our pastor authority to Confirm them. However, the wedding had to be in the Maronite church. [It would have required permission from the pope for them to marry in our parish. However, our pastor was invited to concelerate at the wedding.]

 

[Vico]

hi eveyone, I’m new to the forum.
thought id say hi and ask a question.

My Family is a mixture of Eastern and Roman Catholic, my Father is a Byzantine and my mother a Latin.

My Sister and I were bought up predomiantly in the Roman Church cause from the age of 7 (myself) and 3 (my sister) we moved interstate where there were no Byzantine churches, thus my sister is more Roman than Byzantine.
we however now live in a city where we have Byzantine catholic churches, I myself have returned to the Byzantine Church but my sister (when she bothers to go) goes to a Roman Church.

My sister has recently fallen pregnant, out of wedlock regrettably, and the Father is not Catholic at all.

My sister is wondering if she has to get the baby baptized in a Eastern Catholic Church or if she can get the baby baptized in the Roman Church, and if she does get the baby baptized in the roman church will it change the child’s Rite or will he/she still be an Eastern Catholic cause she is?

Thanks all

If both your parents are Catholic and did not agree and specify that the children would be Latin when baptized, then they are enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the father, so would be Byzantine. Also assuming they did not change Church sui iuris at or after marriage. If Latin was specified or they changed, then the children under 14 also change with them. All this should be noted on the baptismal records where the baptism occurred, if the records were properly updated.

So assuming that she is Byzantine, and unmarried, then the infant is baptised in the Byzantine Church sui iuris and receives Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Eucharist all at the same time. This should be done by a Byzantine Catholic priest or bishop, or one with faculties from the Byzantine Catholic Church sui iuris. The ritual itself should be of the Byzantine Catholic Church not the Latin Catholic Church.

So you have some research to do before answering this question.

Do you need the canon laws on this?

 

[BusterMartin]

If Latin was specified or they changed, then the children under 14 also change with them. All this should be noted on the baptismal records where the baptism occurred, if the records were properly updated.

Do you need the canon laws on this?

So, are you saying the parents can choose what their kids are baptized into? I thought it was automatically based on the father of the child, no exceptions. Is there canon law you can reference on that? Thanks!

 

[Vico]

So, are you saying the parents can choose what their kids are baptized into? I thought it was automatically based on the father of the child, no exceptions. Is there canon law you can reference on that? Thanks!

It the spouses are of mixed Catholic enrollment it is lawful to choose at the time of baptism.

CCEO 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.
2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
   (1) born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
   (2) born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied;
   (3) born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.

CCEO Canon 32

1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.
2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

CCEO Canon 33
A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

CIC Can. 111 §1 Through the reception of baptism a child becomes a member of the Latin Church if the parents belong to that Church or, should one of them not belong to it, if they have both by common consent chosen that the child be baptized in the Latin Church: if that common consent is lacking, the child becomes a member of the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
§2 Any candidate for baptism who has completed the fourteenth year of age may freely choose to be baptized either in the Latin Church or in another autonomous ritual Church; in which case the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

CIC Can. 112 §1 After the reception of baptism, the following become members of another autonomous ritual Church:
1° those who have obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2° a spouse who, on entering marriage or during its course, has declared that he or she is transferring to the autonomous ritual
Church of the other spouse; on the dissolution of the marriage, however, that person may freely return to the latin Church;
3° the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 who have not completed their fourteenth year, and likewise in a mixed marriage the children of a catholic party who has lawfully transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they may return to the latin Church.
§2 The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church.

Canon 112 (NCCCL, Beal, Coriden, Green)
“… because ascription to a ritual church is definitive, it belongs to the status of persons.”
“In effect, the canon distinguishes membership from liturgical practice. This means that change of ritual church membership occurs in one of the three ways provided for in paragraph one.”

 

[Aussie_ukie]

It the spouses are of mixed Catholic enrollment it is lawful to choose at the time of baptism.

CCEO 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.
2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
   (1) born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
   (2) born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied;
   (3) born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.

CCEO Canon 32

1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.
2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

CCEO Canon 33
A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

CIC Can. 111 §1 Through the reception of baptism a child becomes a member of the Latin Church if the parents belong to that Church or, should one of them not belong to it, if they have both by common consent chosen that the child be baptized in the Latin Church: if that common consent is lacking, the child becomes a member of the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
§2 Any candidate for baptism who has completed the fourteenth year of age may freely choose to be baptized either in the Latin Church or in another autonomous ritual Church; in which case the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

CIC Can. 112 §1 After the reception of baptism, the following become members of another autonomous ritual Church:
1° those who have obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2° a spouse who, on entering marriage or during its course, has declared that he or she is transferring to the autonomous ritual
Church of the other spouse; on the dissolution of the marriage, however, that person may freely return to the latin Church;
3° the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 who have not completed their fourteenth year, and likewise in a mixed marriage the children of a catholic party who has lawfully transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they may return to the latin Church.
§2 The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church.

Canon 112 (NCCCL, Beal, Coriden, Green)
“… because ascription to a ritual church is definitive, it belongs to the status of persons.”
“In effect, the canon distinguishes membership from liturgical practice. This means that change of ritual church membership occurs in one of the three ways provided for in paragraph one.”

well my mother is no lover of the Eastern Rites and would have preferred us all Latin Catholics (no-doubt that is part of the reason I won’t step foot in a Roman Church these days) but she was married in the Byzantine Church, my Sister however was baptized in the Latin Church but under the understanding that it didn’t change her rite. so I’m going to assume she’s a byzantine like myself.

and of that is the cannon law regarding mixed Rite marriages then the Vatican is even more anti-byzantine than I already think she is.

Im a proud Byzantine, but have no time for the Latin Church or it’s influence in the Eastern Rites, and I don’t actually appreciate Rome deciding who is a Byzantine and who is not. The Vatican caused enuff problems in Ukraine and the frankly the East-west divide is also present in my family, and has torn my family apart since b4 I was born…and all cause of inter-rite marriages and the smug superiority of the Latin Rite Family members.

 

[malphono]

well my mother is no lover of the Eastern Rites and would have preferred us all Latin Catholics (no-doubt that is part of the reason I won’t step foot in a Roman Church these days) but she was married in the Byzantine Church, my Sister however was baptized in the Latin Church but under the understanding that it didn’t change her rite. so I’m going to assume she’s a byzantine like myself.

and of that is the cannon law regarding mixed Rite marriages then the Vatican is even more anti-byzantine than I already think she is.

Im a proud Byzantine, but have no time for the Latin Church or it’s influence in the Eastern Rites, and I don’t actually appreciate Rome deciding who is a Byzantine and who is not. The Vatican caused enuff problems in Ukraine and the frankly the East-west divide is also present in my family, and has torn my family apart since b4 I was born…and all cause of inter-rite marriages and the smug superiority of the Latin Rite Family members.

It seems to me that you might be interpreting Canon Law in reverse. The intent behind the Canons cited by Vico is to protect the Eastern and Oriental Churches from what I’ll call “desertion to” (or “encroachment by”) the Latins. IOW, those Canons are meant to rectify past abuses.

Just my :twocents:

 

[BusterMartin]

Thanks for the info, Vico!

 

[Vico]

well my mother is no lover of the Eastern Rites and would have preferred us all Latin Catholics (no-doubt that is part of the reason I won’t step foot in a Roman Church these days) but she was married in the Byzantine Church, my Sister however was baptized in the Latin Church but under the understanding that it didn’t change her rite. so I’m going to assume she’s a byzantine like myself.

and of that is the cannon law regarding mixed Rite marriages then the Vatican is even more anti-byzantine than I already think she is.

Im a proud Byzantine, but have no time for the Latin Church or it’s influence in the Eastern Rites, and I don’t actually appreciate Rome deciding who is a Byzantine and who is not. The Vatican caused enuff problems in Ukraine and the frankly the East-west divide is also present in my family, and has torn my family apart since b4 I was born…and all cause of inter-rite marriages and the smug superiority of the Latin Rite Family members.

Hmmm. I would not say that the canons are anti-byzantine. They follow the norm of enrollment in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic Father, at infant baptism (infant is birth through age 13 in the canons). Howevrer the spouse and entire family can switch in a mixed Catholic Church situation, and even then, the children can revert at age 14 or later. So say one is baptised Byzantine as in infant (Father is Byzantine) and and then the family switches to the Latin Church later. Well that infant at 14 can go back to the Byzantine by a declaration.

Do you mean that your sister was Baptised as an infant and our parents understood that she would be Byzantine? Was she Chrismated then also?

Or was she 14 or older? If 14 or older then she picks her own church:

CCEO Canon 30
Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

Hmmm. I would not say that the canons are anti-byzantine. They follow the norm of enrollment in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic Father, at infant baptism (infant is birth through age 13 in the canons). Howevrer the spouse and entire family can switch in a mixed Catholic Church situation, and even then, the children can revert at age 14 or later. So say one is baptised Byzantine as in infant (Father is Byzantine) and and then the family switches to the Latin Church later. Well that infant at 14 can go back to the Byzantine by a declaration.

Do you mean that your sister was Baptised as an infant and our parents understood that she would be Byzantine? Was she Chrismated then also?

Or was she 14 or older? If 14 or older then she picks her own church:

CCEO Canon 30
Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

she was baptised and confirmed in the Latin Church but in order to be Baptised in the Latin Church they needed a dispensation, which they got but they were told it would not change her Rite, it just gave permission to have the baptism done by a latin priest.
so she was not confirmed at baptism.
when it was time to have her conformation we were living thousands of Km’s away from the nearest Byzantine church so it was done by a Latin Bishop.

does this make her a latin?

 

[Vico]

she was baptised and confirmed in the Latin Church but in order to be Baptised in the Latin Church they needed a dispensation, which they got but they were told it would not change her Rite, it just gave permission to have the baptism done by a latin priest.
so she was not confirmed at baptism.
when it was time to have her conformation we were living thousands of Km’s away from the nearest Byzantine church so it was done by a Latin Bishop.

does this make her a latin?

No, it seems that the necessity for a dispensation is because she was not being enrolled in the Latin Church. And confirmation does not change enrollment. You can see why a dispensation is required from these canons.

CCEO 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.

CCEO Canon 677

1. Baptism is administered ordinarily by a priest; but, with due regard for particular law, the proper pastor of the person to be baptized, or another priest with the permission of the same pastor or the local hierarch, is competent for its administration, which permission, for a serious reason is lawfully presumed.
2. In case of necessity, baptism can be administered by a deacon or, in his absence or if he is impeded, by another cleric, a member of an institute of consecrated life, or by any other Christian faithful; even by the mother or father, if another person is not available who knows how to baptize.

CCEO Canon 678

1. In the territory of another it is not licit for anyone to administer baptism without the required permission; this permission cannot be denied by a pastor of a different Church sui iuris to a priest of a Church sui iuris in which the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.
2. In places where there are not a few Christian faithful lacking a pastor of the Church sui iuris in which they are enrolled, the eparchial bishop should designate a priest of that Church, if it is possible, who should administer baptism.

 

[couponfit]

hi eveyone, I’m new to the forum.
thought id say hi and ask a question.

My Family is a mixture of Eastern and Roman Catholic, my Father is a Byzantine and my mother a Latin.

My Sister and I were bought up predomiantly in the Roman Church cause from the age of 7 (myself) and 3 (my sister) we moved interstate where there were no Byzantine churches, thus my sister is more Roman than Byzantine.
we however now live in a city where we have Byzantine catholic churches, I myself have returned to the Byzantine Church but my sister (when she bothers to go) goes to a Roman Church.

My sister has recently fallen pregnant, out of wedlock regrettably, and the Father is not Catholic at all.

My sister is wondering if she has to get the baby baptized in a Eastern Catholic Church or if she can get the baby baptized in the Roman Church, and if she does get the baby baptized in the roman church will it change the child’s Rite or will he/she still be an Eastern Catholic cause she is?

Thanks all

No aurthority on the subject, but the child would be Byzantine regardless of whether he / she is baptized in a RC or EC church. But I’m not sure if a deacon can baptise a baby. But there’s a dispensation required through the Byzantine Eparchy you would be affiliated with and I think your Byzanatine church like confers rights of initiation during the baptism, so it’s best to travel for this baptism I believe.

But I think this whole topic is the least to talk about. Baptism, whether east or west theology is used, places it’s affect on the faith of christ, the faith of the church, and the faith of the Christian. Meaning that the parents accept the responsibility of raising the child, or having the child raised, as a catholic. To this point the parents have an obligation to provide testimony to the child through their words and actions. Without dicussing your sisters sin, it’s important that the child has real close and strong role models to use to follow his or her faith. Further, baptism is a blessing for parents as well, and it’s important that they are unified on this decision.

What you don’t want is for the Dad to be saying stuff like, “yeah, she went ahead with all that catholic bru haha, and baptised the kid or something or whatever, but that’s just nonesene.” Dad and Mom need to be in agreement to some point on this. Then there’s the whole out of wedlock issue which places the mother in mortal sin. That also needs to be addressed at some point.

 

[Vico]

couponfit,

The eastern deacon can baptize, not not normally, but the infant also needs to receive Chrismation which the deacon cannot give.

CCEO 677.2
In case of necessity, baptism can be administered by a deacon or, in his absence or if he is impeded, by another cleric, a member of an institute of consecrated life, or by any other Christian faithful; even by the mother or father, if another person is not available who knows how to baptize.

CCEO Canon 695

1. Chrismation with holy myron must be administered in conjunction with baptism, except in a case of true necessity, in which case, however, it is to be seen that it is administered as soon as possible.
2. If the celebration of chrismation with holy myron is not done together with baptism, the minister is obliged to notify the pastor of the place where the baptism was administered.