Change of Sui Iurus Church: A Modern Phenomenon?

[Madaglan]

Nowadays it’s rather easy for a Latin Catholic to switch to one of the sui iurus Churches. Has this always been the case? Before the late 20th century, were there Latin Catholics who requested this change for reasons spiritual–e.g. personally best fitted to Eastern spirituality and praxis? Do we have any examples of persons who went from Latin Catholic to Eastern Catholic? What became of them after the change?

Would the reasons given today for making a sui iurus Church change (or whatever it’s called now) have made sense in, say, the 1940’s and prior to then?

 

[Aramis]

From what I’ve read, the council at florence forbade latins to migrate to eastern churches except women by marriage. That was lifted by V. II.

It was permitted to go from one ECC to another… or from an ECC to the Latin.

 

[Madaglan]

From what I’ve read, the council at florence forbade latins to migrate to eastern churches except women by marriage. That was lifted by V. II.

It was permitted to go from one ECC to another… or from an ECC to the Latin.

Would you happen to know where in Vatican II this proscription is raised?

 

[Cluny]

As Aramis pointed out, going from East to West was permitted, but not vice versa.

This is one of the things that lead Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians to say that the whole purpose of the “Uniate” Churches was simply to provide a vehicle for their eventual suppression.

And I saw a book publishedin the 50’s (with Imprimatur, no less) that said that if Rome had ever managed to impose the Latin Rite in Orthodox countries, 1054 would never have happened.

Of course, this totally ignores the Reformation, doesn’t it?

Fortunately, this attitude has, for the most part, gone by the wayside.

 

[guanophore]

As Aramis pointed out, going from East to West was permitted, but not vice versa.

This is one of the things that lead Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians to say that the whole purpose of the “Uniate” Churches was simply to provide a vehicle for their eventual suppression.

And I saw a book publishedin the 50’s (with Imprimatur, no less) that said that if Rome had ever managed to impose the Latin Rite in Orthodox countries, 1054 would never have happened.

Of course, this totally ignores the Reformation, doesn’t it?

Fortunately, this attitude has, for the most part, gone by the wayside.

Human beings appear to have a limitless capacity for small mindedness, prejudice, and intolerance.

 

[Aramis]

Would you happen to know where in Vatican II this proscription is raised?

Vol II Vatican II Post Conciliar Documents, Daughters of St. Paul Press. Documents of the Committee on the Eastern Rites. (Cite from memory.)

 

[The_Prodigal]

Would the reasons given today for making a sui iurus Church change (or whatever it’s called now) have made sense in, say, the 1940’s and prior to then?

In my opinion no, it wouldn’t have made much sense. I think there was a stronger sense of continuity with one’s heritage in past generations.

Past generations were less mobile. Past generations were less urban, and people in different churches necessarily mingled less with each other - with the exception of limited parts of Eastern and Southern Europe, where the Latin and Byzantine traditions were in close contact. But (it seems to me) if modern history is any indication of the past - I think especially of the 20th century Balkans - loyalty to one’s patrimony would have been most cherished in those areas of closest contact.