Changing Churches (AKA Changing Rites) - Dialog and Debate

[Woodstock]

A couple threads have been steered of course with discussion of the merits, regulations, reasons, and rules involved in changing between Catholic ritual churches. I’m opening this thread to allow the theoretical discourse to happen outside of the practical application threads.

What are the questions or concerns about changing ritual churches?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Which brings up a question: is it OK to change rites because you don’t like NO, and want to get away from unorthodox Latins?

Which brings up a question: if you are changing rites, are you bound to the old one until the old bishop releases you, or can you start in the meantime in the new one? I ask honestly, because besides being in good standing, I don’t get the requirements on switching rites

 

[Woodstock]

Which brings up a question: is it OK to change rites because you don’t like NO, and want to get away from unorthodox Latins?

This would be up to the priest and bishops to decide.

In my opinion, being neither of the above, it would not be a sufficient reason to request a change of Church. I could understand how someone who felt he had no other viable options would attend an Eastern Catholic parish despite it not being a perfect fit for him, but in that circumstance I would expect him to accept it for what it is and not to use it as a substitute. It could be that after spending time there he would come to love it for what it is, independent of his feelings toward the Novus Ordo, in which case it would be a different issue. Overall, it is best left to the person, priest, and bishops to decide.

Which brings up a question: if you are changing rites, are you bound to the old one until the old bishop releases you, or can you start in the meantime in the new one? I ask honestly, because besides being in good standing, I don’t get the requirements on switching rites

Under the letter of the law, a person is bound to a particular Church and all of its canons. That person would be bound by those canons unless and until he was released from them. For a Latin going eastward, there is very little the west requires that the east doesn’t already do. For an easterner going westward, there is more required that fellow Latin parishioners would not be bound to.

The practice of this can be vary from the letter of the law under economia. It is best guided by one’s priest and/or confessor.

Examples of some differences include:

Regulations regarding weddings
-In the west, the theology of the couple being the ministers, the allowance of deacons to preside, and the allowance of having a wedding outside the church by a non-Catholic with a dispensation. In the east, the requirements for a church wedding presided by a priest.

Regulations regarding ordination
-First, one must seek permission to be ordained through the rightful authority. So an easterner can’t be ordained by a Latin bishop or religious order without his Eastern bishop’s approval. Second, eastern married men may be ordained in the eastern churches while western married men may not be ordained without recourse to the Holy See.

Regulations regarding fasting
-The required days and times of fasting are different, and correspond with the different liturgical calendars. It can be difficult to maintain fasts when disconnected from the liturgical life that sustains them.

Regulations regarding the initiation of one’s children
By the letter of the law (which is not always followed), Roman Catholic babies are only to be baptized in infancy. If one is still a canonical RC, his child is baptized into the Latin Church. If one is living the Eastern faith and expecting, one might desire a change of enrollment before the baby’s baptism so that the baby is also chrismated and communed.

Regulations regarding one’s children’s enrollment
-If a change of Church is processed after a child’s baptism, that child may return to his original Church at the age of 14. If done before a baptism, there is no “original” and “subsequent” Church, but one Church the child has always belonged to.

Unity with one’s fellow believers
-When a way of life becomes so ingrained that it does not make sense to keep up obligations and papers for another Church, one wants to have the fullness of unity and expression of faith that comes with a formal transfer. One no longer feels as if he has a foot in two camps, but knows he is fully based in one theology, spirituality, and parish home.

 

[wynd]

It was posted in another thread:

While you are free to attend the Maronite parish, you remain bound to the Roman Catholic canons and days of obligation.

My question is, how “official” is this? I’ve seen people tell others that there is no need to change canonical enrollment unless one desires to be ordained in the new church. If one takes this advice, attends a Maronite parish for years, and becomes “functionally Maronite,” but never officially switches, is he sinning by not following the Latin calendar? Would it need to be confessed or would it just be overlooked? (I am assuming the sin, if any, would be that he is not attending a Catholic liturgy on a Latin holy day or fasting on a Latin fast day, and not the simple fact that he is paying attention to the Maronite calendar rather than the Latin one.)

 

[Woodstock]

It was posted in another thread:

My question is, how “official” is this? I’ve seen people tell others that there is no need to change canonical enrollment unless one desires to be ordained in the new church. If one takes this advice, attends a Maronite parish for years, and becomes “functionally Maronite,” but never officially switches, is he sinning by not following the Latin calendar? Would it need to be confessed or would it just be overlooked? (I am assuming the sin, if any, would be that he is not attending a Catholic liturgy on a Latin holy day or fasting on a Latin fast day, and not the simple fact that he is paying attention to the Maronite calendar rather than the Latin one.)

Under Latin theology and rubrics, he is sinning if he knows he is obligated to keep the Latin fasts and days of obligation and refuses to. There is a lot more gray area in its application. I know people who have been functioning Byzantines for decades and wouldn’t believe me if I told them. The case of women is easier because they can switch churches to their husbands’ church without formality, putting them under the other church’s rubrics.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Under Latin theology and rubrics, he is sinning if he knows he is obligated to keep the Latin fasts and days of obligation and refuses to. There is a lot more gray area in its application. I know people who have been functioning Byzantines for decades and wouldn’t believe me if I told them. The case of women is easier because they can switch churches to their husbands’ church without formality, putting them under the other church’s rubrics.

Woodstock,

Any Latin who wish to change rites with the express permission from the Latin Rite Bishop and the Eastern Rite Bishop. Someone who wish to explore our Eastern Rite Catholics can.

As for the claim that a Catholic is sinning if he refuses to keep Latin fasts day, well. I think it make sense. If he is still Latin Rite, he has a duty to follow Latin Rite rules. However, once the Eastern Bishop approves the change of rite. That Latin Rite Catholic turn Byzantine Rite is no longer required to observe them. He falls under the Bishop and Canonical Laws concerning the Oriental Churches. ((Correct me if I’m wrong on this one, E. Catholics).

The E. Catholics will be required to follow Eastern Catholic Church calendar feast days… etc…

 

[Woodstock]

right

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Regulations regarding ordination
-First, one must seek permission to be ordained through the rightful authority. So an easterner can’t be ordained by a Latin bishop or religious order without his Eastern bishop’s approval.

I believe that you are off on this one.

According to Canon 517 of the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches, one needs the approval of the Holy See before one can enter the novitiate of a Latin Order with no Eastern Foundations.

Here is the Canon.

**Canon 517

1.** One is admitted validly to the novitiate of an order or congregation who has completed the seventeenth year of age. In respect to other requirements for admission to the novitiate cann. 448, 450, 452, and 454 shall be observed.

2. No one is admitted lawfully to the novitiate of a religious institute of another Church sui iuris without the permission of the Apostolic See, unless it is a candidate who is destined for a province or house, mentioned in can. 432, of the same Church.

I know this for a fact because my province received the permission from the Oriental Congregation just over a month ago.

For a man not joining a religious order to be ordained in a Church that he does not belong to he would have to canonically switch before ordination.

 

[Hesychios]

As for the claim that a Catholic is sinning if he refuses to keep Latin fasts day, well. I think it make sense. If he is still Latin Rite, he has a duty to follow Latin Rite rules.

strange sin

 

[Woodstock]

I believe that you are off on this one.

Thank you for correcting me. I knew it needed to go higher up but I didn’t realize it went that high.

 

[Woodstock]

strange sin

Is it really? If a Serbian Orthodox priest somehow ended up in the US, would you expect him to automatically start following OCA guidelines and rubrics or would you expect him to consult with his spiritual father and bishop first?

There is an issue around here of Latin Catholics wanting to have their young children fully initiated (baptism, chrismation, communion) while they do not enter the Eastern Church. They petition the Latin bishop and then get mad that they are denied. The bishop said there is a sure way they can do it–he’d be happy to process a change of Church. If they really feel that is the place for their family, he’s happy to help them facilitate it. Until then, they should follow the guidelines of the Church they belong to. It sounds reasonable to me.

 

[wynd]

Is it really? If a Serbian Orthodox priest somehow ended up in the US, would you expect him to automatically start following OCA guidelines and rubrics or would you expect him to consult with his spiritual father and bishop first?

Isn’t this where the saying “When in Rome” comes from?

 

[Woodstock]

Isn’t this where the saying “When in Rome” comes from?

That was St. Ambrose’s advice to St. Monica, if I remember correctly. Note that she asked for guidance and followed it and did not take it upon herself to determine what to do.

 

[Woodstock]

I just ran across these. It appears the Orthodox have the same process of canonical transfer and take it quite seriously.

I was ordained a Priest in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in the United States. When I requested a canonical release to transfer to the ROCOR in 1983, it was granted by Metropolitan Philip…

Controversy continues to surround Bishop Basil’s reception into the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and consequently his headship of the new Vicariate formed later by the Exarchate’s council, as he had left the Moscow Patriarchate’s Diocese of Sourozh without having first obtained permission for canonical transfer from the Moscow Patriarchate.[5] The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate regards his departure as uncanonical and illegal (and reaffirmed this position in March 2007[6]), and in the months following did not recognize the validity of his reception into the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[7] From 19 July 2006 it placed him under temporary suspension, forbidding him ‘from celebrating divine services until his repentance or until the decision of the matter by a court of bishops’.[8] Accordingly, no communicant of the Moscow Patriarchate who wished to remain faithful to the decisions of his hierarchy could knowingly participate in a liturgy at which Basil celebrated as a bishop, nor could they receive Holy Communion from him. Similarly, after these resolutions, no Moscow Patriarchate priest could concelebrate with him.[9]

Very well, let us suppose that a bishop receives such a letter, addressed not to him personally, but ‘to whom it may concern’. In the letter it says that such and such a cleric is released from his duties in his diocese and has the right to celebrate services, ‘with the permission and agreement of the local Orthodox bishop.’ In other words, this type of letter gives the clergyman only an opportunity to seek a place where he may continue his service, either with another bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. or in another jurisdiction.

It is therefore perfectly clear that the so-called ‘letters of dismissal’ of Bishop Basil are, in principle, nothing of the sort. What then, in and of themselves, do they represent? They are an ordinary episcopal letter for the bearer, which, were it lawful, would give a certain freedom and a certain right to a clergyman who wished to change dioceses or jurisdictions. However, once more I underline the fact that the letters of Bishop Basil were, as you well understand, made by him unlawfully.

Let us turn to further considerations. In normal circumstances and without reference to concrete situation or persons, how would a bishop proceed on receiving a similar, but lawful, letter? Could he permit such a cleric to celebrate in his diocese? Yes, of course, but only temporarily; afterwards, having taken a final decision, the bishop would initiate the procedure for canonical transfer of the cleric to his diocese. You know, Vladyka, in what that procedure consists. About that, forgive me, I reminded you above. Therefore, even if today you permit clergy of the Sourozh diocese to serve under your omoforion, canonically they do not belong to your Exarchate. That is an incontrovertible and evident fact.

The above relates only to clergy. In respect of individuals and parishes the situation is quite different. As far as individual lay people are concerned, here everything is quite clear … Concerning parishes, there should be a definite procedure. The Nottingham parish started out on the right path, but as yet has not followed it through to the end. Parish Meetings and meetings of the Parish Council were called and, on the 12th August the minutes were sent to me. I received them on the 14th August. This is an example, Vladyka, of how we should proceed in similar cases in future, for not all do this. In accordance with the statutes of the Diocese of Sourozh ‘All decisions of a parish meeting shall be communicated by its chairman to the Bishop and shall be valid unless he expresses formal disapproval within thirty days of receipt’ (Article VI.6.d). There is thus still time for me to take a definitive decision and lawful measures. Until then, I emphasise, the Nottingham parish, and likewise its Rector, remain a lawful part of the Diocese of Sourozh.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is it really? If a Serbian Orthodox priest somehow ended up in the US, would you expect him to automatically start following OCA guidelines and rubrics or would you expect him to consult with his spiritual father and bishop first?

There is an issue around here of Latin Catholics wanting to have their young children fully initiated (baptism, chrismation, communion) while they do not enter the Eastern Church. They petition the Latin bishop and then get mad that they are denied. The bishop said there is a sure way they can do it–he’d be happy to process a change of Church. If they really feel that is the place for their family, he’s happy to help them facilitate it. Until then, they should follow the guidelines of the Church they belong to. It sounds reasonable to me.

Actually, among the Orthodox all is involved is a letter stating you are in good standing to the Church who is receiving you. For priests it would be only a little more formal, with a release from his former parish (a priest has to be attached to a parish) by his bishop.

And in most cases even this is not usually involved for layman. I attended an Antiochean parish although my wife and children were enrolled at the parish, I was not, but was still enrolled at my old parish. I switched only when the priest asked me to, to deal with what he (and I) saw (correctly) as my impending divorce, and the priest wanted no question as to his authority to deal with the situation (as it turned out, he told my ex-wife not to come back).

The only thing I have ever heard as something like this change of right thing is if your father confessor is not your parish priest, you should notify the parish priest, with the idea your pastor knows your confessing somewhere.

 

[Hesychios]

strange sin

Is it really?

Yes.

Especially when one thinks about the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people who innocently violated this principle.

I had a friend at my old Byz Catholic parish that spent his entire adulthood in the Ruthenian church and was completely unaware that he was not Byzantine.

He was married there, and his children were baptized there. He was very involved, a model parishioner! Only a few years ago he learned that he was not ‘canonical’, and boy was he hurt! I suppose that means his kids were not canonical too!

He never knew that he was supposed to have honored the Latin calendar all his life.

Now before you tell me that his ignorance mitigates his culpability, I will tell you right now that the whole concept is unnecessary. Canonical enrollment is nothing more than a form of church bookkeeping. As soon as it becomes a cause of sin, it is a practice that has lost it’s purpose.

I am reminded of something we have all read:
“The law entered in so that transgression might increase”

But unlike God’s Law forbidding the fruit of that certain tree, this is a law made by bureaucrats in brocade. The divisions between rite are artificial in an institutional way.

This would not have happened in the early church, one would travel to a new area and deal with the change in liturgy and the change in calendar. No sin incurred, that’s just how it is.

As one who has lived as a Roman Catholic in a Byzantine parish, I can say with certainty that it is so difficult as to be detrimental to ones spiritual growth, one must actually cultivate an obsession to comply, and Byzantine parishes don’t distribute Latin calendars as a convenience!

Nor do Latin parishes distribute Byzantine calendars. Not only that, it is fairly certain that most (actual) Ruthenians in the United States are worshipping in latin parishes (if they still worship at all) some for generations (again an artificial construct) and might not even realize that the are not Latins themselves. This means that they (or their parents/grandparents/predecessors) started to live as latins without regard to their own church’s canonical requirements. Most going to their graves unaware that some kind of “sin” has occured!

The church exists as a means of salvation, not as an excuse for condemnation. This is especially egregious in light of eastern spirituality, splitting hairs over Holy Days is a foreign concept, what room for economy?

It is all well and good to boast of being able to partake of sacraments in any Catholic church of any rite. But the dark side is that if one begins to live that life in another church, they are likely to be ‘technically’ considered sinners.

It’s just plain ridiculous.

 

[mardukm]

Especially when one thinks about the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people who innocently violated this principle.

It’s just plain ridiculous.

If it’s innocently violated, it NOT A SIN. You were a Catholic so long yet do not realize this?!!

And BTW, the Ecumenical Councils and the Apostolic Canons enjoin excommunication on those who did not keep the prescribed fasts.

Blessings

 

[Kielbasi]

Nor do Latin parishes distribute Byzantine calendars. Not only that, it is fairly certain that most (actual) Ruthenians in the United States are worshipping in latin parishes (if they still worship at all) some for generations (again an artificial construct) and might not even realize that the are not Latins themselves. This means that they (or their parents/grandparents/predecessors) started to live as latins without regard to their own church’s canonical requirements.

Let me get this straight, if someone has Ruthenian heritage and their ancestors came to the US in the 19th century, and because their ancestor got married to a Latin rite Catholic woman or they moved to an area where a Ruthenian church wasn’t available, they (4 generations afterwards) are still considered canonically Ruthenian? Does it make a difference if one of the intervening generations worshipped as methodists or not at all?

It seems like a real quirk, which really doesn’t make sense.

 

[Woodstock]

It is a real quirk. Let’s go through a few scenarios to understand its quirkiness.

A male Ruthenian marries a female Ruthenian and they raise their 6 children in the Latin Church because no Ruthenian church is nearby. The first two at least are baptized, chrismated, and communed by a Melkite priest, but the other 4 all follow standard Latin unbringings. They are all Ruthenian because both parents are.

Son 1 marries a Latin woman and they have a boy and a girl, both of whom are baptized in the Latin Church. The parents didn’t think anything about canonical enrollment, so the children are automatically Ruthenian because their dad is. One could argue that they intended to baptize the children into the Latin Church and assumed they were. Since it was not made known, the paperwork would still have to go through the formal approval process, though it would be easier to get it approved. The kids are presumed Ruthenian.

Son 2 marries a Methodist woman. They have 2 children who are baptized in the Ruthenian Church and raised Ruthenian. Mom converts to the Latin Church and all start attending there when a child is adopted from Russia who is already baptized, chrismated and communed Russian Orthodox. They say they want the child to be brought into the Latin Church with the adoption. They can choose this since Mom is a Latin. Dad puts in for a change of Church. The 16 yr old decides to remain Ruthenian while the 13 year old automatically becomes a Latin with dad. Now mom and dad are Latin, and the two youngest are Latin, while the oldest child remains Ruthenian. All three children later desire to worship in the Ruthenian Church. The oldest is Ruthenian and just goes, the middle child announces his intent to return to the Ruthenian Church and has it documented some time after his 14th birthday and he is Ruthenian again. The Latin child must go through the formal approval process to change Churches.

Son 3 converts to Lutheranism and then marries a Lutheran. They have two sons who are baptized Lutheran. Both children convert to Catholicism in their adulthood, one to the Chaldean Church and one to the Ruthenian Church. Their father’s Church affiliation past or present does not matter since they convert over the age of 14 and each chooses the Church he wishes to enter.

Daughter 1 marries a Latin man. At first, she maintains her Ruthenian heritage. They have a daughter who is baptized in the Latin Church but they make it known at the baptism that they desire the daughter be Ruthenian, and so she is. Over time, they’ve moved and it is harder for mom to keep up the Byzantine life without a church nearby. She still identifies as Byzantine, but attends the Latin church. They have a son and her childhood Melkite priest offers to baptize, chrismate, and commune the child when she comes back home. They do not make it known that they desire the child to be Ruthenian. The child follows his dad’s affiliation and is Latin. Some more years pass and they haven’t stepped foot in a Byzantine temple in ages. Mom decides that she no longer identifies as a Byzantine and makes it known that she identifies as a Latin. Mom is now Latin and since dad is as well, all children under the age of 14 become Latin. They have another daughter and it doesn’t matter where the baby is baptized as both her parents are Latin and so she is as well.

Daughter 2 marries a Russian Orthodox man. She’s never been in a Ruthenian temple. They go to the Roman Catholic Mass on Saturday night and the Orthodox Liturgy on Sunday morning for years. The first child is baptized in the Orthodox Church. He is Orthodox. The second is baptized in the Latin Church. He is Ruthenian since he follows his only Catholic parent’s affiliation. Then dad converts to Catholicism and starts attending the Roman Catholic Church with mom. They don’t say anything about which Church he intends to enter. Dad is now Russian Catholic. Baby 1 becomes Russian Catholic with dad’s conversion and Baby 2 remains Ruthenian with mom. Baby #3 is baptized in the family’s Latin parish. No one says anything about Church affiliation. The baby is Russian Catholic, following dad. Not one of them is Latin.

Daughter 3 also has never been in an Ruthenian temple. She becomes pregnant by a Latin Catholic man outside wedlock. They become engaged and start working toward their wedding. The priest counsels them to wait until after the baby arrives so they are not pressured by fear. The baby is baptized in their Latin parish. The baby follows his unmarried mother’s affiliation and is Ruthenian. Her priest points out to her that she is canonically Ruthenian and asks if she would like to change to the Latin Church with her wedding. She says she would. They marry and the priest notes her change. She and the baby now become Latin and all subsequent children are Latin as well.

 

[Woodstock]

It has been too long to edit, but I thought of another quirk to add. Please disregard the Daughter 3 paragraph above and replace it with this.

Daughter 3 also has never been in an Ruthenian temple. She becomes pregnant by a Latin Catholic man outside wedlock. They become engaged and start working toward their wedding. The priest counsels them to wait until after the baby arrives so they are not pressured by fear. The baby is baptized in their Latin parish. The baby follows her unmarried mother’s affiliation and is Ruthenian. Her priest points out to the woman that she is canonically Ruthenian and asks if she would like to change to the Latin Church with her wedding. She says she would. They marry and the priest notes her change. She and the baby now become Latin and all subsequent children are Latin as well. Dad later dies and mom moves in with Grandma to get some help. Mom starts going to the Ruthenian Church with Grandma and decides she likes it and she announces her return to her original Church (that she’s never been to before now). The priest notes it and she now is Ruthenian again. The 13 yr old firstborn becomes Ruthenian again automatically while adopted older siblings who are 14 and 16 yr olds choose to remain Latin. The 13 yr old doesn’t like the Ruthenian Church and at 14 announces her return to her dad’s Latin Church. She has her older brother take her. It is noted and she is Latin again.

Later, that same 13 yr old (now 22) falls in love with an ACROD young man. They decide to marry and their middle ground is the Byzantine Catholic Church. He converts to Catholicism and automatically becomes Ruthenian as that is the corresponding Catholic Church. They marry and she changes Churches with the wedding to her husband’s affiliation and has it noted that she’s now Ruthenian (again). Their children are all baptized Ruthenian. Years pass, the children are raised, her husband has died, and she’s now living with her niece–the one who is a Ruthenian married to a Russian Catholic and all think they are Latin and attend the Latin Church. The woman decides to re-enter the Latin Church now that her husband is gone, has it noted, and is Latin yet again. She’s now been through a total of 5 changes and 6 Church affiliations, though she never had one formal change of Church request.