Directive to faithful to maintain attachment to the Church sui iuris of baptism

[Vico]

We are called to support our particular Church sui iuris.

“56. In towns, the faithful of the various Churches sui iuris often frequent a Catholic Church different from their own, because it is nearest to them or one in which they feel most at ease. Such people are asked to maintain their attachment to their original community, i.e., the one in which they were baptized. At the same time, Christians should see themselves as members of the Catholic Church in the Middle East and not simply as members of a particular Church.”

Instrumentum laboris
The Catholic Church in the Middle East: Communion and Witness

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100606_instr-laboris_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20100606_instrumentum-mo_en.pdf

 

[dcointin]

I have a question related to this issue. I’m a convert from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy, so I was baptized in a western church, but coverted to an eastern one. Hypothetically, if I were to become Catholic, would I be required to become a member of an eastern rite parish, or would I have the choice of Roman or eastern?

 

[Aramis]

You most likely would be canonically in the church of most close ethnic identity to that in which you were chrismated, tho’ it’s common for convert Russian Orthodox to convert to the Roman Rite because of the Ritual difference, and so they become canonically Roman. If you’re a cleric, even a minor cleric, you’d be EC no matter what.

If you’re OCA, that’s Russian (which means Roman bishops in the US, so no big deal)
If you’re ACROD, you’re Ruthenian- Metropolia of Pittsburgh
If you’re Greek Orthodox, then you’re go Greek CC… but under the care of (IIRC) the Melkites, since the Greek Catholic Church is pretty small and has no hierarchical presence in the US.
If you’re Antiochian Orthodox, you become Melkite
If you’re UOCA, UAOC, UOC-MP or UOC-KP, you become UGCC.

But in any case, as a convert, you could practice in any Ritual Church of your choice in reach.

Likewise for the Syrians and Orientals:
Syrian Orthodox - Syrian Catholic
Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East* → Chaldean
Coptic Orthodox → Coptic Catholic
Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox → Ethiopian Catholic

 

[dcointin]

I’m Antiochian Orthodox, which would mean I would ordinarily become Melkite based on what you said, but the only eastern Catholic churches in my area, St. Louis, are Maronite and a small Ruthenian mission. Any ideas how that might be handled?

 

[malphono]

I’m Antiochian Orthodox, which would mean I would ordinarily become Melkite based on what you said, but the only eastern Catholic churches in my area, St. Louis, are Maronite and a small Ruthenian mission. Any ideas how that might be handled?

Unless you petitioned for a transfer of Church, you would be canonically Melkite, but free to attend whichever church (Ruthenian, Maronite, Latin, etc) you prefer. In the case of a wedding or ordination, you would have to contact the Melkite Eparchy. In the case of a baptism, the celebrant would have to make the appropriate notation in the baptismal record.

 

[dcointin]

Very interesting, thank you! I didn’t realize that I could be canonically one rite yet a member of a parish of another rite, but this makes sense based on oeconomia.

 

[Vico]

The general rule for conversion is to follow the ritual patrimony (heritage of the father), but exceptions are made for the spiritual good of the faithful.

So normally those baptised in the Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, or Radical Reformation, etc., become Latin Catholics. For those not yet baptised, their heritage is significant. One person on this forum was from Turkey and was looking for the best Catholic Church for him, and felt most comfortable with Arabic language (he disliked Latin) which suggested Melkite, (but also Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, Coptic, and Ethiopian).

 

[5Loaves]

I’m Antiochian Orthodox, which would mean I would ordinarily become Melkite based on what you said, but the only eastern Catholic churches in my area, St. Louis, are Maronite and a small Ruthenian mission. Any ideas how that might be handled?

Just to digress some (I think that question was answered for you already), you visited the Maronite parish as I recall and not surprisingly found it very different from your Antiochian liturgy. Looking at the Ruthenian mission’s website, for a mission they’ve been around for quite a while. It looks like they’ve got a Parish Picnic August 15th in the back yard of one of the priests. That might be a good time to visit. (Weekly Calendar->This Week’s Bulletin)

If you were to come into the Catholic Church you could maintain some of your Antiochian liturgical/spiritual life by going to an Antiochian Orthodox church for vespers etc. Of course if you’d be leaving that same Antiochian parish then that would probably be awkward, but maybe not. There are certainly great differences in how people handle these things.

Further a field (you’ve posted on several threads about your situation so pardon me gleaning from elsewhere) you mentioned also worshiping in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. If there are any monastic communities near you, you might check out the Mass as well as the Divine Office there. I go once every week or two to daily Mass at the Dominican Priory here (Oakland, CA). Were it a little closer I’d go there more often. Their Mass is simple, dignified, devout while very down to earth. Lovely simple chant done antiphonally, and being OPs (Order of Preachers) they have very good homilies. Being a priory the Mass is con-celebrated, which is something we so often have in the Eastern/Orthodox liturgy. You’d probably have that in any monastic community as there would be multiple priests there. It doesn’t hurt that they also have a very lovely chapel complete with old choir stall seating almost as lovely as these. Were they closer to my home I’d be there for Daily Office. I see you have a St. Dominic Priory in St Louis, I guess a brother priory to ours here in Oakland. I can’t seems to make much headway on their website, but anyway… just a suggestion to look into Liturgy including the Daily Office with a monastic group of the Latin Church as far as what you might do together with your Catholic girlfriend.

Sorry if that went too far afield for this thread.

 

[Hesychios]

Very interesting, thank you! I didn’t realize that I could be canonically one rite yet a member of a parish of another rite, but this makes sense based on oeconomia.

The expression ‘canonical ascription to a rite’ is not correct. It is ascription to a church Sui Iuris (according to it’s own law), the rite is actually incidental.

If one desires a transfer, one is actually asking a specific bishop to accept responsibility for the person. Historically, there have been dioceses that have switched rites in the past, and all the followers of these bishops have had to deal with the changes whether they liked it or not.

Because of the situation today of overlapping multiple jurisdictions, the concept of canonical ascription is looking outmoded. People go where they want to go, many Byzantine rite Catholics are attending Roman rite parishes by choice and many Roman rite Catholics are attending Byzantine rite parishes. There is no good reason for a person who attends one church to continue to be regarded as a member of the other church (especially if they don’t understand it, or don’t care about it), it is just a memo on paper that has lost it’s relevance. Many of these people have no hope of becoming regular attendees of the church their fathers once belonged to, or perhaps actually no desire, and by the third generation away from it the only experience many might have of the old paternal church is to witness the funeral rites. It will be something they can tell the grandkids when they get old, if they don’t forget all about it.

 

[Aramis]

Actually, canon law says one may only be ordained in one’s Rite, not explicitly Church Sui Iuris… But Hesyschios is correct that the ritual affiliation flows from the Church Sui Iuris.

 

[Vico]

…There is no good reason for a person who attends one church to continue to be regarded as a member of the other church (especially if they don’t understand it, or don’t care about it), it is just a memo on paper that has lost it’s relevance. …

But there is a good reason! The Church has a responsibility to preserve the rites (which means ensuring sacramental discipline which varies by Church sui iuris), even though the faithful do not cooperate. And the practical way to ensure sacramental discipline is to require approvals for the mysteries/sacraments and changes of church sui iuris.

 

[Modelsim]

You most likely would be canonically in the church of most close ethnic identity to that in which you were chrismated, tho’ it’s common for convert Russian Orthodox to convert to the Roman Rite because of the Ritual difference, and so they become canonically Roman. If you’re a cleric, even a minor cleric, you’d be EC no matter what.

If you’re OCA, that’s Russian (which means Roman bishops in the US, so no big deal)
If you’re ACROD, you’re Ruthenian- Metropolia of Pittsburgh
If you’re Greek Orthodox, then you’re go Greek CC… but under the care of (IIRC) the Melkites, since the Greek Catholic Church is pretty small and has no hierarchical presence in the US.
If you’re Antiochian Orthodox, you become Melkite
If you’re UOCA, UAOC, UOC-MP or UOC-KP, you become UGCC.

But in any case, as a convert, you could practice in any Ritual Church of your choice in reach.

Likewise for the Syrians and Orientals:
Syrian Orthodox - Syrian Catholic
Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East* → Chaldean
Coptic Orthodox → Coptic Catholic
Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox → Ethiopian Catholic

In order for the Russian Orthodox to become Roman Rite, he would have to verbalize that desire. Otherwise, the default is to enter into the Russian Catholic Rite.

 

[DL82]

So the quote in the original post, does it apply only to the Middle East, or is it binding on all the faithful?

I am a Latin Rite Catholic, and currently attend a Latin Rite parish, because that is the only sui iuris Church represented in my area. Whenever I find myself in a place with a Byzantine rite parish, however, I tend to go there instead. Is this permitted?

I’d be interested to hear what people on this board think of people like me, Latin Catholics who prefer the Byzantine liturgical tradition - honestly, do I seem like a selfish liturgical tourist? I do want to understand the Eastern tradition, and believe it has a great richness in theology and liturgy, which is a gift to the whole Church. All the same, I can see how it might seem like I’m only looking for something exotic or to stand out from a crowd.

 

[Vico]

So the quote in the original post, does it apply only to the Middle East, or is it binding on all the faithful?

I am a Latin Rite Catholic, and currently attend a Latin Rite parish, because that is the only sui iuris Church represented in my area. Whenever I find myself in a place with a Byzantine rite parish, however, I tend to go there instead. Is this permitted?

I’d be interested to hear what people on this board think of people like me, Latin Catholics who prefer the Byzantine liturgical tradition - honestly, do I seem like a selfish liturgical tourist? I do want to understand the Eastern tradition, and believe it has a great richness in theology and liturgy, which is a gift to the whole Church. All the same, I can see how it might seem like I’m only looking for something exotic or to stand out from a crowd.

That quote was made to those faithful in the Middle East, however the principle is the same everywhere, and reflected even in the canons pertaining to the ritual Churches, of which the Latin Church is one. The Catholic Church faithful have membership in the universal Catholic Church by being baptised in a ritual Church (sui iuris) each of which is composed of particular churches (diocese or eparchy or equivalent) containing parishes (territorial or personal). The comment refers to community of baptism, meaning Church sui iuris. It is for preservation of their own rite (in the broad sense: patrimony), which includes the spirituality, theology, liturgy, and discipline. And support is given through participation, service, and monetary contributions. The canons show that faithful have the right to participate in the liturgy of any ritual Church as long as they do not neglect the obligation to their own. So if a preference for a different ritual Church causes neglect of a persons own ritual Church, then one should either request a change of ritual Church or stop neglecting their own. (Yet, it seems that since the Eastern Churches make up only about 1.5% of the Catholic Church, that the Latin Church is not in need of preservation, but it is not just about preservation, but the spiritual good of the person.)

Q: “do I seem like a selfish liturgical tourist?” Not to me, yet to fully participate means living the faith in that patrimony (and the discipline is different for penitential seasons, fasting/abstinance, and holy days), not just participating in the liturgy. People have commented before that is causes some difficulties for mixed ritual Church couples. (I think for the reason, the canons say mixed couples can adopt the holy days and fasting/abstinance rules of either ritual church.)

CCEO Canon 403

1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite, lay persons have the right to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.

CCEO Canon 40.3
Other Christian faithful are also to foster an understanding and appreciation of their own rite, and are held to observe it everywhere unless something is excused by the law.