M
Mikaele
Guest
What’s the process of changing rites in the Church?
- Status
V
VetA
Guest
i am ignorant of the process, but i am curious now (and i think the question implies that you want to switch) why do you want to switch
M
Mikaele
Guest
No, not really. I have no reason. I just like to know things.
V
VetA
Guest
me too
i just thought i was crazy and not many people thought like that
i just thought i was crazy and not many people thought like that
A
Aramis
Guest
West to East: Get the pastor’s endorsement, then write a letter to the bishops (both the Roman Ordinary and the EC ordinary), make the profession of the change before the parish witnessed by the pastor, and wait for the paperwork to get rubber stamped.
East to West: supposedly the same, but apparently one can expect to be denied unless one cites solid reasons why. VII really did make clear that the flow from east to west needed to stop.
In either case, expect to need several years of the receiving praxis.
Bishop George liked to inquire; Bishop Gerald said, “I just rubber stamp them.” Both of Van Nuys, neé, Protection of the Mother of God Eparchy of Phoenix.
East to West: supposedly the same, but apparently one can expect to be denied unless one cites solid reasons why. VII really did make clear that the flow from east to west needed to stop.
In either case, expect to need several years of the receiving praxis.
Bishop George liked to inquire; Bishop Gerald said, “I just rubber stamp them.” Both of Van Nuys, neé, Protection of the Mother of God Eparchy of Phoenix.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Since sometime during the reign of Pope John Paul II it the term changing ‘rites’ is not quite appropriate.
When it was just one church with different rites that made sense, but today the various patricular ritual churches are regarded as Sui Iuris, or with it’s own law, and they are theoretically all equal before the Pope. Also, some of these Autonomous Ritual (Particular) Churches share the same liturgical tradition so one has to be specific as to which church a person is changing to. (For instance, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church and the Romanian Greek Catholic church use the same liturgical tradition/ritual tradition, one does not join the liturgical tradition, one joins the church.)
Therefore, one does not change ‘rites’ as such, one changes churches. This is referred to as canonical enrollment, and although there are exceptions the simple answer is one is normally automatically enrolled in the church of one’s father at baptism.
Changing canonical enrollment requires the agreement of one’s present bishop as well as the receiving bishop (they will usually be different dioceses with overlapping territory). If both bishops agree, the approval of the Holy See at Rome (which reserves the right to rule on this) can be assumed.
To do this one should have the pastor of the new parish (one can join a parish of another autonomous church without actually changing canonical enrollment) help in writing the letter or letters. The pastor can help one know of the particular requirements the new bishop will place on the candidate. One should not wait for the pastor or missioner to suggest one transfer, he might never do so, for to suggest such a thing could be construed as poaching members from a sister church. He will probably be satisfied if the person enrolls in the parish and makes regular contributions.
Some receiving bishops will allow one to transfer into their care in less than a year, some will require an indefinite wait and I knew of one who required a three year period of participation and life on the new calendar. One’s former (or as it actually is, the present …) bishop may not approve if he thinks one is not a good Catholic (no prior parish registration or recorded contributions for instance), or that the reason one is leaving is to skirt canon law.
In some odd cases the church one wishes to transfer into does not actually have a bishop, because the Pope has not erected a diocese. One example could be the Russian Catholic church, which has no bishops (not even in Russia). In that case the local mission will probably be under the local Latin ordinary and if one is already a Latin Catholic living close enough it is conceivable that one’s new bishop will be the same as the old bishop!
M
Metamorphoo
Guest
I don’t mean any disrespect by this question … but why would you need to get something like this approved? And why would a change be denied? I don’t understand what the problem would be; after all, all the various rites are approved by the Catholic Church. Why couldn’t a Catholic simply go to the church with the rite that he prefers? I would think that allowing the individual Catholic the freedom of choice in the matter would be a very reasonable thing to do.
H
Hesychios
Guest
One would think so, but these rules were set in place because the Latin church had a history of eating the eastern churches up. It came to be seen as a gradual process of “Catholicizing” (my term, for the moment) eastern Christians, Latinizations were introduced until the population was fully converted and absorbed.
It is usually overlooked that the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Hungarian plain (before the Magyars), southern Italy and southern Poland were originally of the ‘Methodian rite’. Brought to them through the missions of Cyril and Methodios. These regions are now overwhelmingly Latin Catholic today. Later history had similar activities of Latin missioners in places like India and Ethiopia moving eastern Christians into the Latin rite after communion was firmly established.
To be fair, many Popes have seen it as an abusive practice, perhaps because it really alienates some of the people affected, and also potential converts.
Nowadays, the church wants to demonstrate it’s universality through it’s diversity, but all the eastern churches put together amount to about 1-1/2% of the total Catholic population, and some of these are in danger of going under. So the Holy See would like to see this aspect of Catholicism preserved in some way.
Going the other way (from ‘west’ to ‘east’) is apparently easier to get approved, partly because the eastern churches could use some shoring up. But there is always also a danger that some married man will want to be a priest and is doing this for that reason alone, so such moves are scrutinized to prevent that.
I have no doubt that this has contributed a little bit to vocations in the Orthodox church.
5
5Loaves
Guest
One can. Any Catholic can freely go to any Catholic Church and, if properly disposed, receive the Mysteries/Sacraments of Holy Eucharist, Confession, and Anointing of the Sick. It’s quite frequently the case in many parts of the US at least that a number of the active members of one of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches are Catholics who are canonically members of the Latin Church. There is no need to change one’s status canonically to a different Church *sui iuris * in order to participate in the life of any Catholic Church.
Changing canonically from an Eastern/Oriental Church to the Latin Church is very much discouraged, if not impossible, due to the emphasis begun at the Second Vatican Council that the ECC/OCC be preserved and raised up. It’s taken time for that emphasis to be realized. In the diaspora where EC/OC may not have the access to their clergy that they had in their country of origin and may be surrounded by more prevalent Latin parishes, whose understanding of the EC/OCs was typically limited or nonexistent, the erosion of practicing their patrimony has taken place. The Popes at least since Orientalium Ecclesiarum promulgated by Pope Paul VI have made various attempts to bring the value of the ECC/OCC to the Latin Church clergy and faithful. The resistance to allowing a change in Church *sui iuris * East to West is one aspect of this effort.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
I’ve noticed in some of these threads that it’s suggested that it’s frowned on to change rites in order for a married man to later go to the seminary. In other words, if a Roman Rite Catholic has it in mind to join an Eastern Rite, so he can become a priest, because he’s married and couldn’t otherwise become a priest, the change in rites is unlikely to be allowed.
I’m curious if that’s correct. I can see where that would be a tempting reason for some to switch rites, and I’d probably be inclined to ponder that myself except that I wouldn’t be eligible otherwise, as there’s no Eastern rite church here, and my wife is not a Catholic (but attends with me, and participates in raising my kids as Catholics).
I’m curious if that’s correct. I can see where that would be a tempting reason for some to switch rites, and I’d probably be inclined to ponder that myself except that I wouldn’t be eligible otherwise, as there’s no Eastern rite church here, and my wife is not a Catholic (but attends with me, and participates in raising my kids as Catholics).
P
PJM
Guest
It has to b approved by the reigning Pope. This is usually done but not required with the Magisterium.
M
malphono
Guest
In cases where the applicant makes this intent known, yes, that’s essentially correct. Now, in cases where the applicant does not make this desire known, and has gone through the appropriate steps and discernment, the transfer of Church sui juris would likely be granted, just as it would in cases where the applicant has no such intent. But if a person expresses his intent to enter the priesthood after such a transfer, it is very likely (almost inevitable) that he will either be denied outright, or else made to wait a period of years. The reasons for this are obvious.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Aramis,
Going from East to West requires the approval of both the Eastern/Oriental and Western ordinaries.
Blessings
I recall reading in the Commentary on the New Code that going from West to East only requires the approval of the Eastern or Oriental ordinary, and at best the knowledge of the Western Ordinary.
Going from East to West requires the approval of both the Eastern/Oriental and Western ordinaries.
Blessings
A
Aramis
Guest
The transfer might be approved, but ordination is unlikely to be.
It depends upon how long and which ordination; The pope might approve deaconal ordination, and forbid presbyteral, and only conditionally approve he transfer pending agreement to terms.
In other cases, one or the other bishop might forbid. If both, however, recommend for ordination and base this upon years of praxis in the eastern church, exceptions are sometimes granted.
In the 1960’s, the Ukrainians were noted for a bunch of priests who were married and former Romans, but the actual number is not readily found, and it’s more a pre-internet mid-west rumor. I’ve met a couple Roman church priests who have met one, but that’s still anecdotal.
V
Vico
Guest
CIC 1983 can. 112.1 states the permission from the Apostolic See is required (for Catholics).
CCEO 1990 Can. 32.2 states that consent of the Holy See is presumed if the bishops consent (for Catholics).
But, there was a change made to this practice after the CCEO was promulgated. The 1992 General Rescript of the Secretary of State extended the consent to the Christian faithful of the Latin Church (AAS 85 [1993] 81) which makes CIC like CCEO.
So now the consent of the Holy See is presumed between any two Churches sui iuris, if the bishops agree.
But the Holy See congregation that approves transfers is the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, and since the rescript, they have denied transfer requests, especially in eastern regions. This includes baptized non-Catholics converting, such as Anglican to an Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris, Orthodox to the Latin Church. A transfer request is more likely to be approved in the diaspora when there are other family members in different Churches sui iuris.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That sounds like a contradiction, but I guess in the case of conversions it’s actually not
The thing is, it is not arbitrary, they have their reasons. My thinking on this whole thing is the whole concept of canonical enrollment is misplaced if the person -1- does not worship in that church, -2- does not follow the spirituality or praxis of that church and -3- does not seem to care.
For example, there are a whole bunch of people in North America who would technically be Ruthenian (due strictly to their own patrilineal descent), but haven’t been there at all for generations. Most of these, if queried, will tell us they are Roman (meaning: Latin) Catholics. It makes no sense to record these people as members of a church they have never taken any interest in (and as in the case of Ruthenians the church is near the verge of extinction in North America anyway, these people are just not coming back).
I knew a family many years ago whose grandfather was thought to have been ‘Russian’ and Orthodox. He wasn’t, he was a Ruthenian and Catholic and even members of his own family didn’t know the difference.
I knew another man, my age (we sung together in the choir), who attended the Ruthenian parish all his life, got married in the church and had all of his children baptised and Chrismated. Only to discover that he and his children were actually not Byzantine Catholics, they were Latin Catholics. This was after fifty years of attending and supporting the parish. At the time he told me about it he was extremely disturbed, and even offended I’d say, to learn this.
Sometimes the church shows a crazy side to it’s people and it shocks them.
By formally preventing people from transferring churches, they aren’t doing anything but fudging the books, numbers that only wind up as records which do not reflect the reality. That’s because these people are not going to worship where they are ‘supposed’ to, they will worship where they want to.
I know that this sounds like a rant, but honestly I am just looking at it and calling it as I see it.
V
Vico
Guest
There are many canons adressing membership in a Catholic Church sui iuris. The basic rule for a baptized infant (<14) is that they are of the Church sui iuris of the Catholic parent or guardian, or of the Catholic father, or of the Catholic mother (if both Catholic parents agree or there is not a Catholic father), regardless of the particular initiation ritual used. There are some other rules related to change at marriage and also of children of parents who change.That sounds like a contradiction, but I guess in the case of conversions it’s actually not
The thing is, it is not arbitrary, they have their reasons. My thinking on this whole thing is the whole concept of canonical enrollment is misplaced if the person -1- does not worship in that church, -2- does not follow the spirituality or praxis of that church and -3- does not seem to care.
For example, there are a whole bunch of people in North America who would technically be Ruthenian (due strictly to their own patrilineal descent), but haven’t been there at all for generations. Most of these, if queried, will tell us they are Roman (meaning: Latin) Catholics. It makes no sense to record these people as members of a church they have never taken any interest in (and as in the case of Ruthenians the church is near the verge of extinction in North America anyway, these people are just not coming back).
I knew a family many years ago whose grandfather was thought to have been ‘Russian’ and Orthodox. He wasn’t, he was a Ruthenian and Catholic and even members of his own family didn’t know the difference.
I knew another man, my age (we sung together in the choir), who attended the Ruthenian parish all his life, got married in the church and had all of his children baptised and Chrismated. Only to discover that he and his children were actually not Byzantine Catholics, they were Latin Catholics. This was after fifty years of attending and supporting the parish. At the time he told me about it he was extremely disturbed, and even offended I’d say, to learn this.
Sometimes the church shows a crazy side to it’s people and it shocks them.
By formally preventing people from transferring churches, they aren’t doing anything but fudging the books, numbers that only wind up as records which do not reflect the reality. That’s because these people are not going to worship where they are ‘supposed’ to, they will worship where they want to.
I know that this sounds like a rant, but honestly I am just looking at it and calling it as I see it.
So it sounds like your friend never received approval for a change of ritual church to the Ruthenian Catholic Church from the Latin Church. So the prescripts of the Latin church should have been followed. This is consistent with the CCEO eastern canons 40 and 403 quoted before, as the Latin Church is also a Church sui iuris.
Yes, conversion is addressed by a different set of canons than change of ritual church for Catholics. Since a requested change of ritual church of a Catholic may be denied by one of the two bishops, it is not guaranteed.
It is up to the individual to follow the norms of their proper ritual church. If one does not will to do that, then the hierarchs and presbyters cannot force one to. And, no one can licitly induce one to change ritual church. Legally, one is a member of a Catholic Church sui iuris only based upon the baptism or by an approved change of ritual church (which can happen by election at marriage).
The canons in the 1983 CCEO are based in part on the expressions made at Vatican II.
Sacrosanctum concilium (Vatican II, 1963):
"14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, Orientalium ecclesiarum (1964):
“6. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to on ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
H
Hesychios
Guest
The funny thing is, he is descended from Ruthenians, but his father was a Latin. He attended since he was a child and the Monsignor (who pastored the parish for decades) never said a thing.
The next pastor, Father Tom, was the one to break the news to him.
A
Aramis
Guest
Given the time frame, it would likely have been rejected anyway if he had requested transfer.
V
Vico
Guest
- Status