B
babochka
Guest
Our priest’s daughter was apparently baptized before she was born.
- Status
S
smad0142
Guest
MrPip provided it above!
V
Vico
Guest
Perhaps because it is a matter regarding one’s status. So what is the status of that person in Indonesia? Is that person worshiping in a Melkite Catholic Church?
J
JJRfan
Guest
The wording of that canon from CCEO seems to be the case for transfer from one Eastern Catholic Church to another one. It doesn’t touch upon the norms to be observed if a Latin wants to transfer to an Eastern Catholic Church.MrPip provided it above!
V
Vico
Guest
Latin Canon Law 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.”
D
davinpa
Guest
There is no melkite church so far in Indonesia. There are RCs who love the Byzantine tradition but wish to remain in communion with the Pope in Rome. We would like to get a Melkite mission started in Indonesia, but there are no Melkites they say… Ah, it’s …
J
JJRfan
Guest
I do not understand the purpose for your post. It re-states what is known in the case in question. CIC 1983 Canon 112 §1 1° says that to transfer canonical enrolment from one sui iuris church to another requires the consent of the Apostolic See. It is being argued in this discussion that such change in canonical affiliation may be changed with the consent of the proper bishop/hierarch of the person wishing to leave one sui iuris church and the proper bishop/hierarch of the receiving church. What I am trying to discover is why or how this can be done without the involvement of the Apostolic See as required by law.
V
Vico
Guest
I provided the norms for the Latin Catholic. I suppose I misunderstood your question when you asked: “It doesn’t touch upon the norms to be observed if a Latin wants to transfer to an Eastern Catholic Church.”
But now that you clarify, there was a modification made to the Latin canons that allowed the bishops involved to make the decision. Here it is:
SECRETARIA STATUS*
**Fit facultas licentiam de qua in can. 112, § 1, 1° C.I.C. legitime, in casu, praesumendi. **
RESCRIPTUM EX AUDIENTIA SS.MI
Code:
Ad normam can. 112, § 1, 1° 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 Interpretandis, Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II statuit eiusmodi licentiam praesumi posse, quoties transitum ad aliam Ecclesiam ritualem sui iuris sibi petierit Christifidelis Ecclesiae Latinae, quae Eparchiam suam intra eosdem fines habet, dummodo Episcopi dioecesani utriusque dioecesis in id secum ipsi scripto consentiant.ANGELUS card. SODANO
Secretarius Status
Secretarius Status
Synopsis:
To canonical norm CIC 112, §1, 1/
CCEO Canon 32 section 2 presumes consent of the Apostolic See (consensus praesumitur) for transfer of a Catholic of one Church sui iuris to another with overlapping territories. This rescript extends the consent to the faithful of the Latin Church.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I think this is an area where we leave it to the bishops. Might not the Apostolic See have granted a blanket approval and allows for the bishop to make the final decision?
[edit]Vico confirmed this thought of mine as I was posting it.[/edit]
Why must we know all the particulars of cases that do not involve us?
J
JJRfan
Guest
The law affects all of us in various ways. We are obliged to follow the law. We should have a knowledge of the law. It sets out our rights and our obligations. The law is important. We have a right to know the law. It is disingenuous to suggest that it some secret code that whose knowledge should only belong to a few. We are all entitled to know the law of the Church.
J
JJRfan
Guest
Thank you for the information.
I inferred that when people post they have been following the discussion in the thread. Following the discussion and putting my post into that context would have made it clear what I was asking. We had already discussed who was transferring and from which church to where. It had come down to looking for a source that shows the Apostolic See doesn’t need to be directly involved in a transfer.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes, you are correct. But when one’s bishop says this is how it is and there is an understanding that he holds and that Rome has conferred to him, then it is not our place to tell him he is wrong.
We might ‘know’ the law but we do not know all the nuances of the law and it is not our place to instruct our bishop or canon lawyers on the law. It is not even our place to instruct our pastors or other priests on the law.
While we may read it in a book or on the internet they have classes in it and are taught the very nuances that we do not get.
It has nothing to do with a ‘secret code’, it is a fact that we can not hope to know as much as those who have had classes taught by the Church in what it is and how to apply it.
It is important to know the law so that you can live it, it is a wholly different thing to know the law so that you can try to apply it to someone else’s life.
V
Vico
Guest
Please forgive me the error. I do not understand everything I read.
J
JJRfan
Guest
No one has suggested telling a bishop that he was wrong. At no point in this discussion have I criticised or question the decision of any competent ecclesiastical authority. All my questions have been to discover further generic information about the Church’s laws and not about the actual particulars of the case in question. Nevertheless, bishops can make mistakes. That is one of the reasons why the law provides administrative and judicial recourse against the decisions of ecclesiastical authorities.
We might know the nuances of the law. Lay persons are able to study and acquire qualifications in canon law. Sacred ministers receive some education in canon law. It does not make them experts in canon law. It is possible for some lay persons to have a more advanced knowledge of canon law than some sacred ministers. In fact the number of lay persons entering canon law faculties is increasing. We may need to instruct clerics on the law because we are canon lawyers and our professional advice is sought.
As I said above their classes in canon law of of an introductory and elementary nature. Not all sacred ministers take more in-depth studies of canon law to obtain higher degrees in it. There can be lay persons who are better qualified in canon law than some bishops.
I used the phrase “secret code” as a euphemism for the fact that canon law is not a subject in which only clerics can be well-trained and qualified. Lay people, too, are trained, qualified in, practise, and teach canon law. Not every cleric is a canon law expert. Lay people can hope to know as much and more than some clerics.
No one is this thread as far as I have been cognizant, and certainly not me, has tried to apply the law to someone else’s life. All my questions have been to learn more about the application of the law. In doing so I have learned that there is a decision of the Holy See’s Secretariat of State that rules that the Apostolic See does not need to be involved in the manner legislated in the 1983 Johanno-Pauline Code of Canon Law.
D
dochawk
Guest
My credit report used to show a Mervyn’s card at age 4 . . .
Anyway, transfer used to be only allowed from eat to west. Now, however, the rules are in place to protect the eatern churches from assimilation, and it’s easier to move east than west.
When my time comes, I give it to my priest, who will see it again in his capacity at the RC chancery office
Even if it weren’t for that, Bishop Pepe is quick to sign them.
hawk
D
Diak
Guest
smad0142 has done it correctly. You write to the bishop whose omophorion you wish to be under, copying the Latin bishop from whose omophorion you are leaving. The last one I personally assisted with, which was completed last spring, only took about 8 weeks for letters from both bishops. Our UGCC eparch’s letter would have been sooner but he was at a Synod of our bishops. Welcome to the UGCC and may God grant you many blessed years.
Deacon Randolph
Deacon Randolph
- Status