Considering Eastern Catholicism

[Elizium23]

It seems like a giant loophole for avoiding canonical transfer of Churches. All I have to do to “transfer” is go be Orthodox for a while, then say “just kidding” and enter a Byzantine Catholic Church? And the Latin bishop and the Byzantine bishop have no say in this? How long do I have to be Orthodox? Is one Divine Liturgy long enough?

 

[Hesychios]

I think we are seeing the clash between the church as community and the church as institution.

 

[5Loaves]

My child was baptized and confirmed by a Roman Catholic priest
He was admitted to communion in our Ukrainian parish just this past Easter. Although we are all canonically Latin. My next child will be baptized, chrismated and given first Communion in the Ukrainian-Byzantine Rite. My bishop is already helping me out with the details

Apparently I already have your next child born, baptized, chrismated and receiving Holy Eucharist.

 

[Formosus]

It seems like a giant loophole for avoiding canonical transfer of Churches. All I have to do to “transfer” is go be Orthodox for a while, then say “just kidding” and enter a Byzantine Catholic Church? And the Latin bishop and the Byzantine bishop have no say in this? How long do I have to be Orthodox? Is one Divine Liturgy long enough?

Its definitely not a “loop hole”.

No Orthodox church is going to receive someone immediately. Often times it can take a year or more as a catechumen in the Orthodox Church before one is received into the church.

The effort it would take to become Orthodox would easily out do the effort it would take for a Latin Catholic to write two letters to transfer churches.

 

[5Loaves]

Our local Latin Archbishop generally runs about two to three weeks on his letter of release for practicing Latins wishing to become UGCC, and about the same response time for our UGCC bishop (unless he is in Ukraine, Brazil, etc. for a Synod).

Excellent.

The Russian Greek Catholic situation is unique even amongst Eastern Catholics since the Russian Greek Catholic Church has no hierarchy and no clergy in the US; all of the clergy in the US are under the omophorion of Melkite, Latin, or in one case Romanian hierarchs. ** The release is essentially from one Latin bishop to another **(or the same if the Russian Greek Catholic parish being transferred into is within his diocese).

We are unique not having our own hierarchs, however these Latin bishops do understand it is actually a transfer not only from one diocese to another but from one autonomous ritual Church to another autonomous ritual Church.

You are also somewhat fortunate in that not all Latin bishops even understand the RGCC situation; one fellow I tried to help finally gave up and went to another Eastern Catholic Church when after a year the chancery still couldn’t figure out what he wanted. When he decided to go to an EC church with a hierarchy, it was done in about a month. Sad.

Once I’d made my decision I went first to my canon law teacher who happens to work in the tribunal of the Latin Diocese I was then in as a Latin Catholic. He contacted two canonists of ECC and then got back to me about the procedure they recommended, which I then followed. When I went to talk (this being a second time, one year after the first time) to my ECC priest he said he didn’t know what the procedure would be. I told him what the canonist had told me and he said “OK, if you need anything from me let me know, I’ll be happy to provide it.”

It’s true that the bishop of the Diocese whose Church I was leaving was very familiar with ECCs from his years in San Diego and his ties with the HRM monks, and having developed a close friendship with a Ruthenian priest, Fr. Tom Loya, during their time together as students in Rome.

Even so, I suspect the Bishop merely signed a letter that was prepared for him by the tribunal. Ditto for the Archbishop. I don’t think most Latin bishops/archbishops have time to deal with this kind of thing. They rely on those who serve them in the tribunal to make sure things are in order.

 

[5Loaves]

Unlike some others on this Forum who speak of these things I have actually done this in a number of cases for Orthodox wishing to join my particular Church. Not once has there been a dispute from the Latin diocese or a contradiction to the interpretation of the relation of Canon 96 to 112 in the case of an Orthodox originally baptized Latin wishing to return to the Catholic Church through my own particular ritual Church (UGCC). The Church should be welcoming and foster such a case rather than burden with additional “obligations”. That is clearly what is best for the soul, which is the highest law. Feel free to contact me off-list if you need more specific information or assistance.

**I too have helped a number of folks who were RC then Orthodox then wanted to become Eastern Catholic. **None were required to have the permission of Rome, and none of the cases were disputed by the Roman diocese.

I suggest these two, Diak and ciero, are the best people to contact, probably via PM, if someone like OP is considering this change (baptized Latin Catholic, practicing Eastern Orthodox for some time, then wanting to be received back into the Catholic Church in an ECC).

The Russian Greek Catholic situation is unique even amongst Eastern Catholics …

You are also somewhat fortunate in that not all Latin bishops even understand the RGCC situation;** one fellow I tried to help finally gave up** and went to another Eastern Catholic Church when after a year the chancery still couldn’t figure out what he wanted. When he decided to go to an EC church with a hierarchy, it was done in about a month. Sad.

That was very unfortunate.

And I would be very happy to put anyone interested in making a formal transfer from the Latin Church* sui iuris* to the Russian Greek/Byzantine/Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris, or their clergy, in touch with the canon lawyers in the tribunals here (one for the Latin Church, one for the Russian Church) who assisted me. They were both wonderful to work with.

 

[Vico]

In Canon 96 "insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion" is absolutely clear. An exception is explictly given to someone who has willingly left ecclesiastical communion by all conventions of canonical interpretation.

This does not contradict Canon 96 which clearly provides for someone has willfully left ecclesiastical communion to be excepted. No one is held against their free will to belong to a Church they wish to leave nor to the legislation of that Church. While we hope to eventually be in full ecclesial and Eucharistic communion with the Orthodox, the fact remains that we are still ecclesiastically separated. The renunciation of the anathemas of 1054 is a start, but we are most certainly not yet in* full ecclesiastical communion.* Canon 11 is never interpreted as binding or contradicting someone who has left ecclesiastical communion consistent with Canon 96.

I’m not sure what the obsession is with the catechumenate, but it is irrelelvant for someone who has left ecclesiastical communion consistent with Canon 96.

The law does expressly provide otherwise, namely in Canon 96, and that is very clearly stated. I see nothing compelling in what you’ve stated to change any of the normal conventions of interpretation of the relation between Canons 96 and 112, but rather to confirm the norms of interpretation. When a Catholic wilfully leaves the Church of their own free will to become Orthodox, they have left ecclesiastical communion and Canon 96 most definitely applies. Law is only applicable when there is a person to be a subject of the law. The law clearly does not bind one who wishes to be no longer bound by leaving ecclesiastical communion.

The commentary clearly states “those baptised in the separated and reformed churches”. Catholics are not in that class, even if they commit heresy, schism, or apostacy. One can not formally leave the Catholic Church after baptism, not spiritually as the mark of baptism (faith and hope) remains, even without charity.

But that person without charity is not saved:

CCC 837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and those who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but “in body” not “in heart.”

 

[Diak]

The commentary clearly states “those baptised in the separated and reformed churches”. Catholics are not in that class, even if they commit heresy, schism, or apostacy. One can not formally leave the Catholic Church after baptism, not spiritually as the mark of baptism (faith and hope) remains, even without charity.

But that person without charity is not saved:

CCC 837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and those who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but “in body” not “in heart.”

Again, my previous comments regarding Canon 96 stand. The Commentary first of all is not the law, nor has any relevancy in this case since as I stated previously, “separated” is a very broad description.

The citing of the CCEO is not helpful in this instance, since what we are discussing is obviously NOT the efficacy nor permanence of baptism, but incorporation into a particular Church by baptism. Canon 96 clearly states an exception for the “duties and rights” of baptism which most definitely addresses any and all potential dimensions of incorporation with “**insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion **”. If you can demonstrate with a statement of the hierarchs involved that the Orthodox and a particular Catholic Church are truly and fully in ecclesiastical communion I might begin to take you seriously that Canon 96 can be mitigated and that “separated” can no longer be applied. Good luck with that one.

It seems like a giant loophole for avoiding canonical transfer of Churches. All I have to do to “transfer” is go be Orthodox for a while, then say “just kidding” and enter a Byzantine Catholic Church? And the Latin bishop and the Byzantine bishop have no say in this? How long do I have to be Orthodox? Is one Divine Liturgy long enough?

You have obviously no experience of nor respect for the catechumenate in most Orthodox churches. As has been stated, the length of time to do this would not at all be “convenient” for anyone who was baptized Latin that simply wants to become “officially” Eastern Catholic (which can be handled with some letters after simply belonging to the Eastern Catholic parish for a while).

The point is very simple, namely that when one baptized Latin is formally accepted into the Orthodox Church, they are no longer Latin, neither by their own reckoning (they are doing this of their own free will), nor that of the Orthodox Church, nor that of the Latin Church (c.f. Canon 96).

 

[Diak]

That was very unfortunate.

And I would be very happy to put anyone interested in making a formal transfer from the Latin Church sui iuris to the Russian Greek/Byzantine/Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris, or their clergy, in touch with the canon lawyers in the tribunals here (one for the Latin Church, one for the Russian Church) who assisted me. They were both wonderful to work with.

Unfortunately in very few places outside of L.A. (with Fr. Alexei’s able assistance), S.F. and possibly Denver, there is little if no understanding of the unique Russian Catholic situation. Even in NYC there have been some difficulties with some of the St. Michael’s faithful and the Latin Archdiocese.

In the case I mentioned, the Latin tribunal for about two years could not get its head wrapped around the fact that they were releasing on one hand from their own Latin church to a church which had no hierarchy, in essence releasing from a left Latin hand to a right one in the same diocese that has jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics without their own hierarchy. The judicial vicar seemed puzzled why his Latin diocese would want to release this fellow to themselves, or how he could be released to a particular Church with no hierarchy nor clergy in North America (there was no Russian Catholic parish within this particular Latin diocese). I only became involved when the fellow came to me wanting to become UGCC instead. I did try to put the judicial vicar in touch with Fr. Alexei but the fellow had already resigned himself to become UGCC, and after that everything was done within a month.

 

[Diak]

The Church also considers you bound by its laws; whether someone observes them is another matter. Can you please show where the Church says you can freely leave, become Orthodox, and then come back to Catholicism in a different church.

The Catholic Church never recommends anyone “freely leave”. It is likewise absolutely a matter of faith that the exercise of free will is never hindered to any soul, that is a freedom that comes solely from God.

If you read the canon law of your own Latin Church that I have cited, the “duties and rights” of Latin Catholic baptism only apply to those persons **insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion **.

If you wish to consider everyone who has ever been baptized Latin Catholic remains Latin Catholic forever with shackles on their soul to hold them to the Latin Church, that is your affair. It is not the teaching of the Church. The Catechism states "**by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion **. It is not an automaton. We have to profess faith, cleave to the sacramental life of the Church, obey the ecclesiastical government, and remain in communion. The Church certainly allows practicing Catholics to change enrollment from the Latin Church if they so desire and provides for this.

Instead of arguing about legalisms, why not rejoice that a soul has returned to worshipping in whatever particular Catholic Church?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Again, my previous comments regarding Canon 96 stand. The Commentary first of all is not the law, nor has any relevancy in this case since as I stated previously, “separated” is a very broad description.

The citing of the CCEO is not helpful in this instance, since what we are discussing is obviously NOT the efficacy nor permanence of baptism, but incorporation into a particular Church by baptism. Canon 96 clearly states an exception for the “duties and rights” of baptism which most definitely addresses any and all potential dimensions of incorporation with “**insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion **”. If you can demonstrate with a statement of the hierarchs involved that the Orthodox and a particular Catholic Church are truly and fully in ecclesiastical communion I might begin to take you seriously that Canon 96 can be mitigated and that “separated” can no longer be applied. Good luck with that one.

You have obviously no experience of nor respect for the catechumenate in most Orthodox churches. As has been stated, the length of time to do this would not at all be “convenient” for anyone who was baptized Latin that simply wants to become “officially” Eastern Catholic (which can be handled with some letters after simply belonging to the Eastern Catholic parish for a while).

The point is very simple, namely that when one baptized Latin is formally accepted into the Orthodox Church, they are no longer Latin, neither by their own reckoning (they are doing this of their own free will), nor that of the Orthodox Church, nor that of the Latin Church (c.f. Canon 96).

You correctly point out that commentaries on Canon Law are not themselves the law. Even so, they are not the single opinion of one canon lawyer. They are often based on previous commentaries and on decisions made by the legislator and Church tribunals. Just as their interpretation of Canon 96 is not law neither is your interpretation of it. You seem to be implying that your reading of that canon is more correct.

I have asked you in a previous post and I will ask you again: can you show where the Catholic Church teaches that it is permitted for a Latin Catholic to stop practising as a Latin Catholic, to be come active in an Eastern Orthodox church, and then say I want to become Catholic so I should be received into an Eastern Catholic church? The person never stopped being a Latin Catholic canonically even if they stopped practising the faith and practised Orthodoxy.

I am not being disrespectul to the Orthodox. I hold them in high regard. I also accept that they would not lightly accept a Catholic. However, what I am saying is that the Catholic Church teaches that once you are a Catholic canonically you always remain so. What is the Orthodox churches’ view of one who leaves an Orthodox Church to become Catholic?

 

[Diak]

You correctly point out that commentaries on Canon Law are not themselves the law. Even so, they are not the single opinion of one canon lawyer. They are often based on previous commentaries and on decisions made by the legislator and Church tribunals. Just as their interpretation of Canon 96 is not law neither is your interpretation of it. You seem to be implying that your reading of that canon is more correct.

I am not interpreting it, I am STATING IT. If you can give a document showing that Canon 96 does not apply for someone who has left ecclesiastical communion that would be more helpful, and even better a consensus document from the Catholic hierarchy stating specifically that it does not apply. Likewise what has already been stated about the Catechism also clearly states that there are obligations for us to continue being faithful Catholics.

I have asked you in a previous post and I will ask you again: can you show where the Catholic Church teaches that it is permitted for a Latin Catholic to stop practising as a Latin Catholic, to be come active in an Eastern Orthodox church, and then say I want to become Catholic so I should be received into an Eastern Catholic church? The person never stopped being a Latin Catholic canonically even if they stopped practising the faith and practised Orthodoxy.

Please refer to my previous response; it is clear from your inneundo that you will likely not respect my answer, nor that contained within Canon Law, nor the Catechism. Communion can most definitely be broken between a person and the Catholic Church. It is rather on you to state where these magic shackles on the soul always bind regardless of the free will of the soul.

The person never stopped being a Latin Catholic canonically even if they stopped practising the faith and practised Orthodoxy

This is wrong, (c.f. Canon 96 and the Catechism), and a complete lack of respect for the efficacy of Orthodox sacraments and ecclesiology. The Catechism and Canon 96 are both clear and in agreement on this; again as we read in the Cathecism "“by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion”. The limits of the “bonds” are clearly spelled out.

I suppose my earlier and more pertinent question also has not been answered, namely why are you arguing legalisms rather than rejoicing that a soul has returned to practicing the Catholic faith in whatever particular Catholic Church?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am not interpreting it, I am STATING IT. If you can give a document showing that Canon 96 does not apply for someone who has left ecclesiastical communion that would be more helpful, and even better a consensus document from the Catholic hierarchy stating specifically that it does not apply. Likewise what has already been stated about the Catechism also clearly states that there are obligations for us to continue being faithful Catholics.

You are saying that Canon 96 means …. That is putting your interpretation on what the canon means. Of course, there is nothing that can force us to remain faithful Catholics. I did not say one cannot stop practising as a Catholic.

Please refer to my previous response

It wasn’t there when I was typing mine.

it is clear from your inneundo

What innuendo are you talking about?

that you will likely not respect my answer

Why won’t I respect it?

It is rather on you to state where these magic shackles on the soul always bind regardless of the free will of the soul.

I am not saying and have not said that one cannot stop practising as Catholic. A Catholic can become Orthodox, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, humanist, agnostic, atheist, etc. We are not discussing magical shackles on the soul; we are discussing a person’s canonical status.

a complete lack of respect for the efficacy of Orthodox sacraments and ecclesiology.

You are wrong. You also infer too much about what I say or believe. I have no disrespect whatsoever for the Orthodox churches. If you read my previous response properly you would see that I asked how they would deal with a Catholic wishing to be received into an Orthodox church. I also asked how they view someone who chooses to leave Orthodoxy to become a Catholic.

I suppose my earlier and more pertinent question also has not been answered, namely why are you arguing legalisms rather than rejoicing that a soul has returned to practicing the Catholic faith in whatever particular Catholic Church?

I do not regard the question as pertinent. This discussion is about a person’s canonical status within the Church. It is not about the joy of one returning to the Catholic faith, which I do share.

You have not shown with anything from the Magisterium support for your POV. All you have presented is your interpretation of a canon and the CCC.

 

[Vico]

Again, my previous comments regarding Canon 96 stand. The Commentary first of all is not the law, nor has any relevancy in this case since as I stated previously, “separated” is a very broad description.

The citing of the CCEO is not helpful in this instance, since what we are discussing is obviously NOT the efficacy nor permanence of baptism, but incorporation into a particular Church by baptism. Canon 96 clearly states an exception for the “duties and rights” of baptism which most definitely addresses any and all potential dimensions of incorporation with “**insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion **”. If you can demonstrate with a statement of the hierarchs involved that the Orthodox and a particular Catholic Church are truly and fully in ecclesiastical communion I might begin to take you seriously that Canon 96 can be mitigated and that “separated” can no longer be applied. Good luck with that one.

You have obviously no experience of nor respect for the catechumenate in most Orthodox churches. As has been stated, the length of time to do this would not at all be “convenient” for anyone who was baptized Latin that simply wants to become “officially” Eastern Catholic (which can be handled with some letters after simply belonging to the Eastern Catholic parish for a while).

The point is very simple, namely that when one baptized Latin is formally accepted into the Orthodox Church, they are no longer Latin, neither by their own reckoning (they are doing this of their own free will), nor that of the Orthodox Church, nor that of the Latin Church (c.f. Canon 96).

Once one is baptised into the Latin Church (which is what we started with) they reamin in that Church canonically. It is not a matter of Divine law, but of ecclastical law and has varied. Currently there is no canonical effect of defection removal of any obligations.

“What this really is, is an affirmation of our theology. Theologically we understand that what makes us Catholic is our Baptism or our reception in to the Church. Whether we want to be Catholic is not germane to the question of whether we are Catholic. Whether we follow the teachings of the Church or not is not germane to the question of whether or not we are Catholic. The thing that the church says is that all Catholics are bound to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
Thus, at the theological level, the document establishes “that the Church does not participate in a congregational ecclesiology,” said Flynn. “Our ecclesiology is sacramental.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_papal_decree_clarifies_role_of_deacons_and_result_of_defections_on_marriage/

technomancy.org/catholic-defection/

 

[Frank_J]

Hello,

It took me more than a year to convert to the faith, so there is no loop hole to convert to the Orthodox faith from Latin Catholic. The person has to learn the faith in the time it takes to convert in that year or more.

So I had my time to make a choice whether I wanted to convert or not…

If I was asked to wait be for converting to EC I would be very upset with this add wait. I see the waiting time has come to and end at some point.