Chrismation and first Holy Eucharist of Roman Catholic children by Eastern Catholic Priest?

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,
I am realizing that it is not worth continuing to post on this thread. I’m annoyed, and I’m guessing you are experiencing a similar feelings.

No, I’m not annoyed. But I am troubled. I am troubled by what I see; that people think that a question that essentially asks “what does canon law say about…” is answered not by what the law says, but by what people think the law ought to say, or by anecdotal experiences (which might even be examples of someone disregarding the law).

This could continue until hell froze over, and there will be no agreement because we seem to be simply talking past one another. Continued discord on these matters is unhealthy - especially during Lent. I apologize for anything I have written to offend you or anyone else.

“Agreement” isn’t my goal here. The law says what it says.

Whether I agree with the law or not makes no difference. It says what it says.

Whether anyone posting here agrees with the law or not, it still says what it says.

My goal here is to answer the OPs question and explain what the law says.

Agreement is irrelevant. More to the point, disagreement with the law is irrelevant.

In reference to the original query, and as I wrote in my initial post, the poster needs to contact the bishops for an authoritative answer and then do what his bishop says. I hope that anyone would agree that it is a reasonable course of action and a better approach than making decisions based on forum discussions.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

This is an extremely basic and straightforward question. It is so basic that it is answered by both Codes (Eastern and Western) by canon number one of each code.

Canon #1. It’s no accident that the Church decided to make this matter canon 1 in both codes. It was done because every other canon depends on that.

Are there other canons? Of course yes. Other canons apply. But still, before looking at other canons, one must (yes must) first comply with canon 1.

Opinions, anecdotal stories, and personal preferences do not answer the OPs question. The answer is in the Codes.

 

[Omaestre]

Ask your Latin Bishop for permission, in the end it is his call as you belong to his flock.

A friend of mine had his then 5 year old son, confirmed by a Latin bishop after he asked him.

Your bishop can either help you change rites, confirm the Child himself or give permission for you to do it at an ECC.

Bottom line is get in contact with your Latin bishop.

 

[FrDcnJohn]

For the life of me, as an Orthodox Christian, I do not understand how the Latin church considers the Mystery of Chrismation the final Mystery/Sacrament of Initiation. How could one who has received the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord as anything less than fully “initiated”?

No sarcasm intended, I truly do not understand.

I hope and pray for the restoration of the proper order of the sacraments of initiation in the Latin church. I imagine the above question causes much confusion for the Latin faithful as well as those of us in other jurisdictions.

 

[Hospodi_pomilui]

For the life of me, as an Orthodox Christian, I do not understand how the Latin church considers the Mystery of Chrismation the final Mystery/Sacrament of Initiation. How could one who has received the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord as anything less than fully “initiated”?

No sarcasm intended, I truly do not understand.

I hope and pray for the restoration of the proper order of the sacraments of initiation in the Latin church. I imagine the above question causes much confusion for the Latin faithful as well as those of us in other jurisdictions.

The Latin Church does not officially consider the Mystery of Chrismation to be the final Sacrament of Initiation and you will find that stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation.” The reality that it is often administered last, a relatively recent occurrence, and in part I think that part of the cause, though it is much more complex of course, can be traced back to actions taken by St. Pope Pius X to increase the reception of communion by the laity in the early twentieth century - a good thing in of itself. I have heard of some Latin bishops who have restored the ancient order in their dioceses.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fr. David or any clergyman,

How do some Eastern Catholic Churches justify violating the spirit of the Eastern Code by having odd practices such as Initiation for a child with all 3 Mysteries, then subsequently withholding Eucharist until the “age of reason” (a clear Latinization, and an odd practice at best, theologically heretical at worst)? Especially considering that other Eastern Churches do not do this, nor do corresponding Orthodox sister Churches? Are we to ignore the Patristic teaching/practices in order to conform to the current interpretation of law even if flawed?

 

[Casilda]

Fr. David or any clergyman,

How do some Eastern Catholic Churches justify violating the spirit of the Eastern Code by having odd practices such as Initiation for a child with all 3 Mysteries, then subsequently withholding Eucharist until the “age of reason” (a clear Latinization, and an odd practice at best, theologically heretical at worst)? Especially considering that other Eastern Churches do not do this, nor do corresponding Orthodox sister Churches? Are we to ignore the Patristic teaching/practices in order to conform to the current interpretation of law even if flawed?

 

[dans0622]

Fr. David or any clergyman,

How do some Eastern Catholic Churches justify violating the spirit of the Eastern Code by having odd practices such as Initiation for a child with all 3 Mysteries, then subsequently withholding Eucharist until the “age of reason” (a clear Latinization, and an odd practice at best, theologically heretical at worst)? Especially considering that other Eastern Churches do not do this, nor do corresponding Orthodox sister Churches? Are we to ignore the Patristic teaching/practices in order to conform to the current interpretation of law even if flawed?

I’m not Fr. David nor a clergyman nor all that well-versed in Eastern Law but will respond anyway. Such things can be called “odd” but I don’t think they “violate the spirit of the Eastern Code.” That Code is written in a way that allows a wide variety of practice in this regard (see, e.g., cc. 694, 697) so I would say that the “spirit” of the Code is to maintain the right of each Church to determine when these Sacraments are administered.

For those Churches that have separated the Sacraments of initiation, they have their own law and do not merely “interpret” the law. For instance, the Maronites, if I’m not mistaken, have had such law since the mid 1700s… As to why they have this law, I suppose it is a long story with various justifications.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David or any clergyman,

How do some Eastern Catholic Churches justify violating the spirit of the Eastern Code by having odd practices such as Initiation for a child with all 3 Mysteries, then subsequently withholding Eucharist until the “age of reason” (a clear Latinization, and an odd practice at best, theologically heretical at worst)? Especially considering that other Eastern Churches do not do this, nor do corresponding Orthodox sister Churches? Are we to ignore the Patristic teaching/practices in order to conform to the current interpretation of law even if flawed?

As I’m sure you already know (as a Syro Malankara), that’s a very complicated issue.

I’m not going to get into that; at least not in this thread.

 

[FrDavid96]

… Father said that this has changed and that now he can do this with no permission required. He said he thought there was some change to cannon law …

Do any of you on the Catholic Answers forums here know if what Father said is correct? …

Obviously, I edited the original post to emphasize the actual question that is being asked here.

The answer to your question is the same as it was March 27 when I first responded:

No. There was no such change to canon law.

The answer is no. Regardless of what anyone posts here, regardless of what sort of stories someone might share, or what peoples’ opinions might be, the answer to the question remains “no.”

As I expanded on the answer a few days ago, there were some changes made to the law to make it easier for Catholics to change churches sui iuris. Given that, it’s quite possible that someone (with whom you spoke in person) misunderstood either a question or an answer about this topic.

Still, the answer to your question, as you wrote it, remains: No.

There are options available to you in this situation, but since you have not asked, I haven’t addressed those potential options.

 

[FrDavid96]

The question is found in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCOE)

Canon 696 [on Chrismation]
§3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.

Unofficial translation here jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

So there are 4 possibilities here:

1. The person transfers to the applicable Church sui iuris. That’s not what the OP is asking, so it doesn’t apply.

If that’s not done, and the person remains a member of the Latin Church then:

1. “if they are his subjects” does not apply. That might need further explanation but suffice to say that it just does not apply to this situation.
2. “those whom he lawfully baptizes…” does not apply (the person is already baptised).
3. “danger of death” does not apply

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m not Fr. David nor a clergyman nor all that well-versed in Eastern Law but will respond anyway. Such things can be called “odd” but I don’t think they “violate the spirit of the Eastern Code.” That Code is written in a way that allows a wide variety of practice in this regard (see, e.g., cc. 694, 697) so I would say that the “spirit” of the Code is to maintain the right of each Church to determine when these Sacraments are administered.

For those Churches that have separated the Sacraments of initiation, they have their own law and do not merely “interpret” the law. For instance, the Maronites, if I’m not mistaken, have had such law since the mid 1700s… As to why they have this law, I suppose it is a long story with various justifications.

Dan

those laws, while in their canon, clearly violates the spirit of the East and the Patristric Fathers of the East, no doubt

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I reiterate the advice I gave in post # 16.

If the original poster wishes to verify what is the path ahead for their children in this particular set of circumstances, then they need to consult the officials of the eparchy to which the priest and the parish in question belongs. Those are the priests to be consulted…and not here. The solution, to be crystal clear, lies there and with them…and with the arrangements that the epachy has established or will arrange with the corresponding Latin Rite bishop/curia concerned.

That – and that alone – is what matters.

On the other hand, I would advise you, on my experience as a priest, that the last place to consult for these issues of great import for your children is an internet forum.