Baptized child takes the sui juris church of his dad?

[Adam_Cook]

Father,

So I’ve traced back 300 years of history and we’re still protestant so far. My question is more on the lines of how far does this go back? Or can a Roman Ordinary use this to his advantage just based off of geography of ancestor?

Ex. Hypothetically, a Melkite Priest has a protestant convert.The local Roman Ordinary found out about it and declared that the person should be received in the Latin church because the person’s family was from Scotland and that was roman territory and thus he was to be considered a Latin rite Canonically. Well, the person didn’t have a single Roman Catholic in his family tree in 10 generations. Does the person count as an un-evangelized person and ritually becomes Melkite-Byzantine, or is he forced to become a Roman ritually?

Another question on that is if they are from the Celtic lands, wouldn’t their original rite be Celtic so thusly they should go back to a Celtic rite? (Regardless of the fact that Rome paid mercenaries to invade Celtic lands and kill an entire ritual way of life and people.) Would this give reason for a Celtic rite to be re-established? As has already taken place within the Orthodox Church.

 

[Kielbasi]

Father David,

How far back can one go to do this? For example, my family is Malankara Syriac Catholic today, at some point historically we were Malankara and/or Syriac Orthodox, before that Syro-Malabar, before that Church of the East. Could affinity to the Chaldean-Assyrian Church or Patriarchal Syriac Catholic Church be claimed by my grandchildren?

If your Catholic ancestors are from India, it would seem perhaps more likely that they were Latin Rite, descendants of the Jesuit missions. Particularly if they were from the parts of India that were part of the Portuguese Emprie.

 

[babochka]

If your Catholic ancestors are from India, it would seem perhaps more likely that they were Latin Rite, descendants of the Jesuit missions. Particularly if they were from the parts of India that were part of the Portuguese Emprie.

St. Thomas evangelized the area long before the Jesuits arrived. It just depends on the region of India. .

 

[SyroMalankara]

Father,

So I’ve traced back 300 years of history and we’re still protestant so far. My question is more on the lines of how far does this go back? Or can a Roman Ordinary use this to his advantage just based off of geography of ancestor?

Ex. Hypothetically, a Melkite Priest has a protestant convert.The local Roman Ordinary found out about it and declared that the person should be received in the Latin church because the person’s family was from Scotland and that was roman territory and thus he was to be considered a Latin rite Canonically. Well, the person didn’t have a single Roman Catholic in his family tree in 10 generations. Does the person count as an un-evangelized person and ritually becomes Melkite-Byzantine, or is he forced to become a Roman ritually?

protestants can choose any Catholic Church, Latin rite does not claim exclusivity. The person can choose.

Another question on that is if they are from the Celtic lands, wouldn’t their original rite be Celtic so thusly they should go back to a Celtic rite? (Regardless of the fact that Rome paid mercenaries to invade Celtic lands and kill an entire ritual way of life and people.) Would this give reason for a Celtic rite to be re-established? As has already taken place within the Orthodox Church.

As far as anyone is certain there is no Celtic Rite separate from the Latin Church so the question is moot. They could choose to worship in any Latin Church rite or any Catholic Ritual Church but if from Celtic lands, probably Latin members

 

[FrDavid96]

Father David,

How far back can one go to do this? For example, my family is Malankara Syriac Catholic today, at some point historically we were Malankara and/or Syriac Orthodox, before that Syro-Malabar, before that Church of the East. Could affinity to the Chaldean-Assyrian Church or Patriarchal Syriac Catholic Church be claimed by my grandchildren?

According to both codes of canon law, there is no time-limit.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father,

So I’ve traced back 300 years of history and we’re still protestant so far. My question is more on the lines of how far does this go back? Or can a Roman Ordinary use this to his advantage just based off of geography of ancestor?

All I can say is to repeat that according to the law, there is no time limit.

Ex. Hypothetically, a Melkite Priest has a protestant convert.The local Roman Ordinary found out about it and declared that the person should be received in the Latin church because the person’s family was from Scotland and that was roman territory and thus he was to be considered a Latin rite Canonically. Well, the person didn’t have a single Roman Catholic in his family tree in 10 generations. Does the person count as an un-evangelized person and ritually becomes Melkite-Byzantine, or is he forced to become a Roman ritually?

That person is considered to be someone whose ancestors left the Latin Church. Therefore, the canonical Church of membership is the Latin.
See my followup post that I’ll add a bit later.

Another question on that is if they are from the Celtic lands, wouldn’t their original rite be Celtic so thusly they should go back to a Celtic rite? (Regardless of the fact that Rome paid mercenaries to invade Celtic lands and kill an entire ritual way of life and people.) Would this give reason for a Celtic rite to be re-established? As has already taken place within the Orthodox Church.

That’s a big hypothetical. I doubt we’ll see that happen because if a rite has fallen into disuse, the Church doesn’t revive it. I don’t think that’s ever happened, and frankly doubt that it ever will.

 

[FrDavid96]

What I need to say here is that all I can do is to quote the law and to try to explain it.

I cannot change what the law says.

I fully admit that it can sound a bit strange when one tries to apply the law to certain scenarios, imaginary or even sometimes real.

Personally, I would like to see some kind of time limit in the canons. I don’t know what that might be. Maybe 100 years? Maybe 4 generations? Maybe 200 years or 10 generations? I cannot imagine anyone expecting people to go back 1000 years into their family histories. But the simple fact is that I cannot change anything. Posting the question “how long…?” here on CAF won’t change anything–no matter who responds, the answer is still going to be “the law says that there is no time limit.”

I can say from experience, that the Catholic Church does not demand or expect that people research their ancestry centuries into the past. In practice, here in the U.S., we typically go as far back as the country of emigration, and we do not try to go back any further unless there is something a-typical about what we find. Nevertheless, if a person could show records, no matter how far back they go, that person would have a canonical claim to membership in a specific Church based on the canons (a very canonically solid one).

I also want to repeat what I’ve been saying here about the recent changes made by HH Francis because they’re very relevant to the discussion. If someone is in a position of having a desire to change from one ritual Church to another, that is now rather easy to do. Remember that the canon that says membership goes back according to the paternal line with no time limit is not to be viewed in a vacuum. Those canons (both codes) do not mean that it is impossible to change Churches. That is very much possible. Changing membership from one Church sui iuris to another is not a matter of attending or registering (which is meaningless in canon law). One may change Churches, but this must be done according to the canonical process.

Just please understand that addressing the question to me (or for that matter, anyone on CAF) of “how far does it go back?” is an exercise in futility. The answer is “there is no time limit” and that answer won’t change no matter how often the question is posted.

Also, I do not recall exactly what changes HH Francis recently made. I know he made things easier, but I don’t remember exactly what he changed, and frankly, I run the risk of confusing this with the Anglican changes because I’m dealing with that pastorally right now. I might post something too quickly because I’m thinking about something else while I’m at my desk multitasking. The point here is that I am directing people to look at the changes he made for changing membership from one Church sui iuris to another.

 

[jimkhong]

Yes. Exactly.

By default (unless some other arrangements are made) a child automatically becomes a member of the Church sui iuris of the father (unless the father is not Catholic, in which case it’s the Church of the mother).

And again, yes. No matter how far back it goes, membership is determined through the father’s line.

I realize that this can cause some confusion. Do we go back a full thousand years? Frankly, yes. That’s what the law says.

Participating in the “non-canonical” choice of Church sui iuris never changes things, no matter how many generations it has been practiced.

My question is whether this also applies if the father and child are baptised in different rites in different communions. I cannot find any provision for this in Canon Law (or has not been trying hard enough).

I once attended a Coptic mass in my country. The only other person in the congregation was a Polish man getting his baby baptised. The mother is a non-Christian local. When the Polish dad went to the local Catholic church for the baptism, he was asked to produce his baptism certificate, which he was unable to produce as it would be back in his parish church in Poland. And so according to him the local Catholic church refused to baptise his baby. Looking around town and not wanting to baptise his baby in a Protestant church, he found the Orthodox church which he figured out was closest to Catholic doctrines and went there for the baptism. Strangely the Coptic priest (who was not Egyptian but an ethnic Chinese) happily accepted but then again the Coptic priest also wanted to give me communion even though I was in Roman rite.

So, the question is how does the Polish dad regularise the situation to have the baby Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite? I raised this question in another thread and one poster used the same Canon Law provision to insist that the baby is Catholic communion Latin Rite, which doesn’t make sense to me. Can the baby go straight to RCIC when old enough as with any other child with the Polish Catholic dad guarantor of his Catholic faith? Or does he have wait until adulthood to go through the full rite transfer process? Or can he make that decision earlier before adulthood to go for a Catholic confirmation?

 

[SyroMalankara]

If the child was baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church, there is no need for Latin Rite confirmation. The child would have been Chrismated and Communed. As far as how the Catholic Church would view the child, Latin Rite child initiated validly, but illicitly by a Coptic Orthodox priest. The child COULD later in life make a case for affinity to the Coptic Catholic Church, but chances are he will remain and practice as a Latin and is recognized as one due to his father. Just as in Judaism, the mother determines Jewishness, while the father determines Tribe.

PS there is a legit Coptic Orthodox priest of Chinese descent in Melaka, Malaysia, Fr. Joseph Sim at Sts Mary & Mark: directory.nihov.org/clergy/993

 

[Vico]

That’s my understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong.

But it would indicate that a lot of people might not be the member of the church they think they belong to.

If someone’s grandparents were Byzantine Catholic, moved to America in 1900, and then moved to an area in America where they were no BC’s and raised their children Latin, or perhaps their children married Latin wives and they chose to belong to a Latin parish, these children and grandchildren might all be BC, but not even realize it.

If the married couple are both Catholic but of two different Catholic sui iuris churches, then by mutual agreement their child can be ascribed in either sui iuris Church, regardless of the father’s church sui iuris, per canons CIC111 §1 and CCEO Can. 29 §1.

Ref: Inter-ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics: A Canonical-pastoral Handbook Paperback – October, 2009 by Dimitri Salachas (Author), Krzysztof Nitkiewicz (Author) p. 11.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Yes. Exactly.

By default (unless some other arrangements are made) a child automatically becomes a member of the Church sui iuris of the father (unless the father is not Catholic, in which case it’s the Church of the mother).

And again, yes. No matter how far back it goes, membership is determined through the father’s line.

I realize that this can cause some confusion. Do we go back a full thousand years? Frankly, yes. That’s what the law says.

Participating in the “non-canonical” choice of Church sui iuris never changes things, no matter how many generations it has been practiced.

Never heard of this. Irrelevant for me anyway, since my dad’s a convert.

 

[Vico]

Here is what the Latin Code says.

The Eastern Code says the same (again, I can cite it IF necessary)

Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.

§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 iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
[n.b. this is somewhat outdated, because under the revised laws of HH Francis, obtaining such permission is extremely easy and doesn’t involve direct communication]

2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris 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 nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/15/pope_francis_issues_motu_proprio_harmonizing_canon_law_codes/1258248
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11370

Recently revised adding sui iuris into § 1, renaming § 2 to § 3 and adding a new § 2 below:

§ 2. If only one of the parents be catholic, the baptized is ascribed to the Church to which the catholic parent pertains.

The Rescript of 112 allowing transfer for the Latin Church faithful with the same rule as the eastern (agreement of both bishops) is below:

AAS 85 [1983] 81:

Acta Ioannis Pauli Pp. II

SECRETARIA STATUS

Fit facultas licentiam de qua in can. 112, 1, 1 C.I.C. legitime, in casu, praesumenda.

RESCRIPTUM EX AUDIENTIA SS.MI

Ad normam can. 112, 1, I Codicis Iuris Canonici, quisque vetatur post susceptum Baptismum alii ascribi Ecclesiae rituali sui iuris, nisi licentia ei facta ab Apostolica Sede. Hac de re, probato iudicio Pontificii Consilii de Legum Textibus Interpetandis, Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II statuit eiusmodi licentiam praesumi posse, quoties transitum ad aliam Ecclesiam ritualem sui iuris sibi petierit Christifidelis Ecclesia Latinae, quae Eparchiam suam intra eosdem fines habet, dummodo Episcopi diocesani utriusque dioecesis in id secum ipsi scripto consentiant.

Ex Audientia Sanctissimi, die xxvi mensis Novembris, anno MCMXCII.

ANGELUS card. SODANO
Secratarius Status

 

[FrDavid96]

My question is whether this also applies if the father and child are baptised in different rites in different communions. I cannot find any provision for this in Canon Law (or has not been trying hard enough).

Once again, it does not matter if one receives the sacraments in other-than-canonical Church of membership. The membership is determined through the paternal line.

I don’t know how many times to repeat it.

I once attended a Coptic mass in my country. The only other person in the congregation was a Polish man getting his baby baptised. The mother is a non-Christian local. When the Polish dad went to the local Catholic church for the baptism, he was asked to produce his baptism certificate, which he was unable to produce as it would be back in his parish church in Poland. And so according to him the local Catholic church refused to baptise his baby. Looking around town and not wanting to baptise his baby in a Protestant church, he found the Orthodox church which he figured out was closest to Catholic doctrines and went there for the baptism. Strangely the Coptic priest (who was not Egyptian but an ethnic Chinese) happily accepted but then again the Coptic priest also wanted to give me communion even though I was in Roman rite.

So, the question is how does the Polish dad regularise the situation to have the baby Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite? I raised this question in another thread and one poster used the same Canon Law provision to insist that the baby is Catholic communion Latin Rite, which doesn’t make sense to me. Can the baby go straight to RCIC when old enough as with any other child with the Polish Catholic dad guarantor of his Catholic faith? Or does he have wait until adulthood to go through the full rite transfer process? Or can he make that decision earlier before adulthood to go for a Catholic confirmation?

Still the same answer. The child takes the rite/church of the father.

Since the father is Roman Rite Catholic, the child is Latin rite Catholic.

It just happened that an Orthodox priest performed the baptism. This would be exactly the same result if the father had done the baptism at home, except that it was a priest doing it.

The father simply needs to inform the local Latin rite Catholic pastor (whoever that might be, and I cannot even guess) of the situation and have the child formally received into the Church by supplying the rites missing from baptism (though presumably not Confirmation).

 

[FrDavid96]

If the married couple are both Catholic but of two different Catholic sui iuris churches, then by mutual agreement their child can be ascribed in either sui iuris Church, regardless of the father’s church sui iuris, per canons CIC111 §1 and CCEO Can. 29 §1.

Ref: Inter-ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics: A Canonical-pastoral Handbook Paperback – October, 2009 by Dimitri Salachas (Author), Krzysztof Nitkiewicz (Author) p. 11.

That only applies if the couple actively makes such a declaration.

It also does not (it cannot) apply retroactively. It must be done at the time of baptism.

 

[FrDavid96]

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/15/pope_francis_issues_motu_proprio_harmonizing_canon_law_codes/1258248
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11370

Recently revised adding sui iuris into § 1, renaming § 2 to § 3 and adding a new § 2 below:

§ 2. If only one of the parents be catholic, the baptized is ascribed to the Church to which the catholic parent pertains.

The Rescript of 112 allowing transfer for the Latin Church faithful with the same rule as the eastern (agreement of both bishops) is below:

AAS 85 [1983] 81:

Acta Ioannis Pauli Pp. II

SECRETARIA STATUS

Fit facultas licentiam de qua in can. 112, 1, 1 C.I.C. legitime, in casu, praesumenda.

RESCRIPTUM EX AUDIENTIA SS.MI

Ad normam can. 112, 1, I Codicis Iuris Canonici, quisque vetatur post susceptum Baptismum alii ascribi Ecclesiae rituali sui iuris, nisi licentia ei facta ab Apostolica Sede. Hac de re, probato iudicio Pontificii Consilii de Legum Textibus Interpetandis, Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II statuit eiusmodi licentiam praesumi posse, quoties transitum ad aliam Ecclesiam ritualem sui iuris sibi petierit Christifidelis Ecclesia Latinae, quae Eparchiam suam intra eosdem fines habet, dummodo Episcopi diocesani utriusque dioecesis in id secum ipsi scripto consentiant.

Ex Audientia Sanctissimi, die xxvi mensis Novembris, anno MCMXCII.

ANGELUS card. SODANO
Secratarius Status

That wasn’t quite what I meant

Here is the new canon 112.3
§3. All those transfers to another Church sui iuris have force from the moment of the declaration of the fact before the local Ordinary of the Church or the proper pastor or priest by delegation and two witnesses, unless a rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise; and [this is to be] noted in the baptismal register.

What is notable here is that the declaration to change can be made before the local proper pastor (parish pastor), so even the previous standard of making the declaration to the ordinary (ie eparch) has been relaxed. While a rescript from the Holy See is still possible, it’s not necessary for most people. A change of Church can happen entirely on the parish level now.

That was my point earlier when I added the comment to the code I quoted–it’s outdated because a rescript from Rome is no longer needed (possible, but not needed).

 

[FrDavid96]

The father simply needs to inform the local Latin rite Catholic pastor (whoever that might be, and I cannot even guess) of the situation and have the child formally received into the Church by supplying the rites missing from baptism (though presumably not Confirmation).

NB I say “presumably” because I presume that Confirmation was done by the Coptic priest. I could not be sure by reading the first message. If it was done it was valid and cannot be repeated.

 

[Vico]

That wasn’t quite what I meant

Here is the new canon 112.3
§3. All those transfers to another Church sui iuris have force from the moment of the declaration of the fact before the local Ordinary of the Church or the proper pastor or priest by delegation and two witnesses, unless a rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise; and [this is to be] noted in the baptismal register.

What is notable here is that the declaration to change can be made before the local proper pastor (parish pastor), so even the previous standard of making the declaration to the ordinary (ie eparch) has been relaxed. While a rescript from the Holy See is still possible, it’s not necessary for most people. A change of Church can happen entirely on the parish level now.

That was my point earlier when I added the comment to the code I quoted–it’s outdated because a rescript from Rome is no longer needed (possible, but not needed).

What happened was that the Latin Canon law was established in 1983 and then then the eastern cannon law in 1990. The eastern code has No. 32 and 36 shown below. Then in 1993 the rescript of 112 was made (AAS 85, in 1993) to match CCEO 32, shown below. What the recent CIC change did was add the same canon as CCEO 36, but it did not change the requirement given in CCEO 32 of advanced of approval in writing by the two bishops. So this has been the canonical practice since 1993 that applies where there are both jurisdictions. Otherwise the Congregation for Eastern Churches gets involved. I have know of several of these transfers in the USA and the all required letters from the two bishops, and then the individual declaration is made as specified in CCEO 36.

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.

Canon 36
The transfer to another Church sui iuris takes effect at the moment a declaration is made before the local hierarch or the proper pastor of the same Church or a priest delegated by either of them and two witnesses, unless the rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise.

 

[FrDavid96]

What happened was that the Latin Canon law was established in 1983 and then then the eastern cannon law in 1990. The eastern code has No. 32 and 36 shown below. Then in 1993 the rescript of 112 was made (AAS 85, in 1993) to match CCEO 32, shown below. What the recent CIC change did was add the same canon as CCEO 36, but it did not change the requirement given in CCEO 32 of advanced of approval in writing by the two bishops. So this has been the canonical practice since 1993 that applies where there are both jurisdictions. Otherwise the Congregation for Eastern Churches gets involved. I have know of several of these transfers in the USA and the all required letters from the two bishops, and then the individual declaration is made as specified in CCEO 36.

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.

Canon 36
The transfer to another Church sui iuris takes effect at the moment a declaration is made before the local hierarch or the proper pastor of the same Church or a priest delegated by either of them and two witnesses, unless the rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise.

The law has been recently changed to make a change of Church easier.

I don’t understand what point you keep trying to make.

**What I typed earlier is exactly correct. ** Indeed, what I typed the very first time was completely correct.

The law was changed. As of May, 2016 it is now easier to transfer Churches because this can be done in the presence of the local pastor and need not be by way of a rescript by the Holy See, or even the more strict standard (before May 2016) the required it to be done in the presence of the ordinaries (bishops, eparchs).

 

[Vico]

That only applies if the couple actively makes such a declaration.

It also does not (it cannot) apply retroactively. It must be done at the time of baptism.

Yes, thank you.

 

[Vico]

The law has been recently changed to make a change of Church easier.

I don’t understand what point you keep trying to make.

**What I typed earlier is exactly correct. ** Indeed, what I typed the very first time was completely correct.

The law was changed. As of May, 2016 it is now easier to transfer Churches because this can be done in the presence of the local pastor and need not be by way of a rescript by the Holy See, or even the more strict standard (before May 2016) the required it to be done in the presence of the ordinaries (bishops, eparchs).

An Eastern Catholic must follow CCEO and the Latin must follow CIC. CCEO 32 and 36 were not changed so bishop approval is needed first before the transfer occurs, if it is not due to marriage as shown in the canons.