Eastern Catholicism for Dummies?

[UniversalistGuy]

There are many reasons why Eastern Catholics don’t just become Orthodox. Some who were born Eastern Catholic remain so simply because they were raised as such, their family is Eastern Catholic, and they just never really think about being anything else. Some who became Eastern Catholic, having been raised Roman, become Eastern Catholic instead of Orthodox because, while they completely adopt an Orthodox mindset, they look at the Patristic sources and see that the Pope of Rome does have a certain central role and authority within the universal Church. This is also true of many Orthodox who become Eastern Catholic. In short, the reasons for become or remaining Eastern Catholic instead of becoming Orthodox are about as numerous as the individuals who think about and make such choices.

I personally have two reasons for wanting to be Eastern Catholic instead of Orthodox (perhaps it’d be better to say “in communion with Rome” instead of “not in communion with Rome”). 1) I do believe that the Pope of Rome does have a certain central authority in the Church which is both Biblical and Patristic. This central authority is perhaps more exaggerated today than is ideal, but it is what it is for now. The Church, being a human as well as divine institution, is not perfect. 2) It is only in the Catholic Church that I see at least an attempt to look upon all ritual traditions as equal. In the Catholic Church there is a communion of Roman Churches, Byzantine Churches, Coptic Churches, Ethiopian Churches, Armenian Churches, etc. I haven’t seen this as much in Orthodoxy. The Orthodox are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and whoever else is out there. So it seems to me that the Catholic Church is the only Church that not only takes the restoration of the communion of all Churches seriously, but it is the only Church that actually struggles to live that communion day in and day out. These are just my opinions. I’m sorry if they offend anyone.

I don’t see how anybody could be offended. I feel enlightened rather than offended.

I’ve been reading some of the other threads and I’m getting the impression that the questions that are occurring to me have probably all been asked before by other people. But it’s easier to ask questions than to plough through post after post after post just to dig out what you want. Kinda fun, though, and quite interesting, too.

Thanks for being so forthright.

 

[Vico]

So I read portions of that page from EWTN about the Treaty of Brest, and I found number 15 very interesting. It said, “15.—If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope.”

Does that mean then that once you’re a part of the Ukrainian Catholic Church you won’t be able to become Roman Catholic if that’s where your heart leads you?

If you formally transfer (ascription) to an Eastern Catholic Church it is not likely that you would be allowed to formally transfer a second time, except for the case of marriage to someone ascribed in another ritual Church. But you can join an Eastern Catholic parish as a Latin Catholic without formal transfer. Ascription effects reception of sacraments and rights and obligations and who your bishop is.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you formally transfer (ascription) to an Eastern Catholic Church it is not likely that you would be allowed to formally transfer a second time, except for the case of marriage to someone ascribed in another ritual Church. But you can join an Eastern Catholic parish as a Latin Catholic without formal transfer. Ascription effects reception of sacraments and rights and obligations and who your bishop is.

Yup. To add, while we can easily follow customs and laws of any ritual Church, having a formal transfer also canonically binds you to that Church. Like today if I do not like say the Byzantine way of fasting, I can always say I’m still canonically Roman and don’t have to fast as much. Its a cop out, but a legit one.

If one really wants to be attached to an Eastern Church and everything that goes with it, canonical transfer should remove any loopholes that would tempt you to take in matters of discipline.

Case in point last Sunday our Bishop had to substitute for our priest who was sick for Divine Liturgy. At Communion after I received I started pulling away but he called me back to ask me if my son would receive, whom I am carrying. I said not yet, he’s 9 months old. I know that Roman Catholic disciplines says he must be at least at the age of discretion before receiving. I can probably say I can disregard that, but I guess knowing what the canon laws are I know I shouldn’t be circumventing disciplines unless I am officially attached to the UGCC.

 

[BusterMartin]

I just wanted to say thank you to Constantine and Vico for your replies to my question. I always was under the impression it wasn’t impossible, just improbable. The item I quoted from that website led me to believe it was just plain old impossible which prompted my question in the first place.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I just wanted to say thank you to Constantine and Vico for your replies to my question. I always was under the impression it wasn’t impossible, just improbable. The item I quoted from that website led me to believe it was just plain old impossible which prompted my question in the first place.

To give you a real life scenario, here in our archdiocese, many RC parishes have attached Catholic schools and would give discounts to registered parishioners. One problem of the parishes of the Ukrainian Eparchy is many Catholic families want Catholic education for their children. Since Ukrainian parishes do not get the same discounts, the parents then move to RC parishes. The kids grow up in a RC school going to an RC parish, and all their other Catholic friends are Roman Catholics. What are the chances you’ll see these people back in a Ukrainian parish?

Now if you give these people a chance to change canonical enrollment into the Roman Church, how many do you think will still be Ukrainian Catholics today? I’m sure most people wouldn’t bother with canoncial enrollments, most aren’t even aware of it. But if they are, for reasons such as I have stated, they could switch because of convenience and maybe finances. The faith is the same, true. Maybe they’re not just attached to their traditions, or maybe because they’re in North America now which is very Roman Catholic as far as Catholics are concerned, they’re adopting the traditions of the RC Church here.

 

[Vico]

I just wanted to say thank you to Constantine and Vico for your replies to my question. I always was under the impression it wasn’t impossible, just improbable. The item I quoted from that website led me to believe it was just plain old impossible which prompted my question in the first place.

I am glad it was helpful.

An additional thought: The Holy See decided to allow the local bishops to decide about transfers between any of the 23 Catholic Churches, in any combination, when they have eparchies (dioceses) in the same area, which in the USA means the following Churches, at least.

CCEO Canon 32—1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.
2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

Armenian
Byzantine
Chaldean
Latin
Maronite
Melkite
Romanian
Syrian
Syro-Malabar
Syro-Malankara (an exarchy, so I am not sure about transfer via bishops)
Ukrainian

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am glad it was helpful.

An additional thought: The Holy See decided to allow the local bishops to decide about transfers between any of the 23 Catholic Churches, in any combination, when they have eparchies (dioceses) in the same area, which in the USA means the following Churches, at least.

CCEO Canon 32—1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.
2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

Armenian
Byzantine
Chaldean
Latin
Maronite
Melkite
Romanian
Syrian
Syro-Malabar
Syro-Malankara (an exarchy, so I am not sure about transfer via bishops)
Ukrainian

Would a Roman Bishop block one’s transfer? I know the Ukrainian Bishop and I would talk to him before applying for a transfer so I would know if he has any reservations about it. But I don’t have any personal contact with the RC Bishop and I wonder if there’s any reason they would not want me to transfer to the UGCC?

 

[Vico]

Would a Roman Bishop block one’s transfer? I know the Ukrainian Bishop and I would talk to him before applying for a transfer so I would know if he has any reservations about it. But I don’t have any personal contact with the RC Bishop and I wonder if there’s any reason they would not want me to transfer to the UGCC?

It could happen. The easy transfer is for reason of a spouse being in the ritual Church that one wants to transfer to, or it is one’s heritage, perhaps lost. Otherwise one should be able to give a reason for one’s spiritual benefit, keeping in mind that all the ritual Churches are Holy so one is not inherintly better than the next, yet they differ in theology, discipline, liturgy, and inculturation. This is usually done with letters to the bishops, and the UGCC pastor should know how to proceed (but they cannot try to get you to change churches).

 

[5Loaves]

Yup. To add, while we can easily follow customs and laws of any ritual Church, having a formal transfer also canonically binds you to that Church. Like today if I do not like say the Byzantine way of fasting, I can always say I’m still canonically Roman and don’t have to fast as much. Its a cop out, but a legit one.

If one really wants to be attached to an Eastern Church and everything that goes with it, canonical transfer should remove any loopholes that would tempt you to take in matters of discipline.

What you describe and the concept of loop holes is I think from a Latin Church juridical and disciplinary understanding of our praxis. This is not Eastern thought.

Case in point last Sunday our Bishop had to substitute for our priest who was sick for Divine Liturgy. At Communion after I received I started pulling away but he called me back to ask me if my son would receive, whom I am carrying. I said not yet, he’s 9 months old. I know that Roman Catholic disciplines says he must be at least at the age of discretion before receiving. I can probably say I can disregard that, but I guess knowing what the canon laws are I know I shouldn’t be circumventing disciplines unless I am officially attached to the UGCC.

I encourage you to review this confusion with your clergy.

 

[5Loaves]

Why do you give your religion as Eastern Catholic and not “Orthodox in communion with Rome?” Earlier 5Loaves referred me to a two-part video on youtube. In the second part Fr. Maximos said he was “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and although he knew the term was offensive to Orthodox (because he’d been chastised for using it) he still used it. I notice that Phillip Rolfes is “Orthodox in communion with Rome” as well. So how come you don’t use the same words as they do? Is there some hidden idea in the wording that makes people choose one or the other?

There was recently a thread exploring the issue of “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” where you can also see some extended discussion of this.

(I also thought Fr. Maximos’s comments on this were a bit more nuanced than what you describe him saying. It’s been a while since I’ve watched that video. FYI that is C_Alexander doing those interviews. )

 

[ConstantineTG]

What you describe and the concept of loop holes is I think from a Latin Church juridical and disciplinary understanding of our praxis. This is not Eastern thought.

I encourage you to review this confusion with your clergy.

Well if I canonically Latin, then I’m bound to the Latin Canons which includes the juridical and disciplinary perspectives of the Latin Rite.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It could happen. The easy transfer is for reason of a spouse being in the ritual Church that one wants to transfer to, or it is one’s heritage, perhaps lost. Otherwise one should be able to give a reason for one’s spiritual benefit, keeping in mind that all the ritual Churches are Holy so one is not inherintly better than the next, yet they differ in theology, discipline, liturgy, and inculturation. This is usually done with letters to the bishops, and the UGCC pastor should know how to proceed (but they cannot try to get you to change churches).

I think I already know what to say
I’ll share it here once written and sent. I does come from the heart

 

[kitkatty]

My answer to the question of why I remain Eastern Catholic is very simple. I believe that Christ established a Church and appointed St Peter as the head, so being in communion with the pope is necessary for me. I think the biggest reasons for being afraid of becomiing absorbed in the Latin Church are more from things like Constantine stated, convenience,etc.than what would come from Rome. Rome has been encouraging us to go back to our traditions,so why not have the best of everything by practising Orthodox spirituality in communion with Peter? It might not realistically be all that perfect but things never are.

As for calling myself Orthodox in Communion with Rome, it is a good description but I dont use it because it often requires lots of explanation of the term, especially when youre talking to people who have no clue about Apostolic Christianity. I will usually say Byzantine Catholic because it `s easier and means about the same thing. Actually when I was a kid we just called ourselves Greek Catholics for the most part.

Enjoy exploring Eastern Catholicism!

 

[5Loaves]

Well if I canonically Latin, then I’m bound to the Latin Canons which includes the juridical and disciplinary perspectives of the Latin Rite.
5Loaves;7450007:

What you describe and the concept of loop holes is I think from a Latin Church juridical and disciplinary understanding of our praxis. **This is not Eastern thought. **

I encourage you to review this confusion with your clergy.

Like today ** if I do not like say the Byzantine way of fasting, I can always say I’m still canonically Roman and don’t have to fast as much.**

Its a cop out, but a legit one.

If one really wants to be attached to an Eastern Church and everything that goes with it, canonical transfer should remove any loopholes that would tempt you to take in matters of discipline.

I disagree that being canonically Latin binds one to think in juridical terms while living one’s life in an Eastern Church (“I can always say I’m still canonically Roman and don’t have to fast as much.”) This whole approach is a different world view. You don’t have to follow a strict fast if with the guidance of your spiritual father you find that you are called to something different. These topics are ones that are all the more important for you to be under the guidance of a spiritual father if you truly wish to eventually request a change in canonical status, but especially now as you are attempting to live in two worlds-- " I’m bound to the Latin Canons which includes the juridical and disciplinary perspectives" while you say you are living in an Eastern parish. I submit, again, as have others in the past, that you need a spiritual father in the process you describe.

Plenty of canonically Latin Catholics live in the East with an Eastern world view, not thinking they can “bend the rules” because on the books they’re members of the Latin Church even though living fully as Eastern Catholics… that world view is unrelated to which set of canon laws one is under technically…

 

[Vico]

A faithful Catholic has no obligation to persue a form of spiritual life of only one Church sui iuris, rather as the Holy See describes:

CCEO Canon 12

1. The Christian faithful are bound by an obligation in their own patterns of activity always to maintain communion with the Church.
2. They are to fulfill with great diligence the duties which they owe to the universal Church and to their own Church sui iuris.

CCEO Canon 17
The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own Church sui iuris, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the 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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I disagree that being canonically Latin binds one to think in juridical terms while living one’s life in an Eastern Church (“I can always say I’m still canonically Roman and don’t have to fast as much.”) This whole approach is a different world view. You don’t have to follow a strict fast if with the guidance of your spiritual father you find that you are called to something different. These topics are ones that are all the more important for you to be under the guidance of a spiritual father if you truly wish to eventually request a change in canonical status, but especially now as you are attempting to live in two worlds-- " I’m bound to the Latin Canons which includes the juridical and disciplinary perspectives" while you say you are living in an Eastern parish. I submit, again, as have others in the past, that you need a spiritual father in the process you describe.

Plenty of canonically Latin Catholics live in the East with an Eastern world view, not thinking they can “bend the rules” because on the books they’re members of the Latin Church even though living fully as Eastern Catholics… that world view is unrelated to which set of canon laws one is under technically…

A faithful Catholic has no obligation to persue a form of spiritual life of only one Church sui iuris, rather as the Holy See describes:

CCEO Canon 12

1. The Christian faithful are bound by an obligation in their own patterns of activity always to maintain communion with the Church.
2. They are to fulfill with great diligence the duties which they owe to the universal Church and to their own Church sui iuris.

CCEO Canon 17
The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own Church sui iuris, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the 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.

But wouldn’t canonical enrollment tell you who your Bishop is? And thus you should follow that Bishop. How can you be Eastern if you are following a Roman Bishop?

I’ll post this question in the ask an apologist and see what they say.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;7447926:

Why do you give your religion as Eastern Catholic and not “Orthodox in communion with Rome?” Earlier 5Loaves referred me to a two-part video on youtube. In the second part Fr. Maximos said he was “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and although he knew the term was offensive to Orthodox (because he’d been chastised for using it) he still used it. I notice that Phillip Rolfes is “Orthodox in communion with Rome” as well. So how come you don’t use the same words as they do? Is there some hidden idea in the wording that makes people choose one or the other?

There was recently a thread exploring the issue of “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” where you can also see some extended discussion of this.

Yes its very interesting. I like marduk.

(I also thought Fr. Maximos’s comments on this were a bit more nuanced than what you describe him saying. It’s been a while since I’ve watched that video.

You’re right. I’ve given the impression that he was using the term just to be awkward. I’m sorry I didn’t take more care. But anybody who watches the video would immediately see he isn’t that sort of person. He seems thoughtful and gentle and conciliatory.

FYI that is C_Alexander doing those interviews. )

Oh. Well, she don’t hurt the camera none.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

My answer to the question of why I remain Eastern Catholic is very simple. I believe that Christ established a Church and appointed St Peter as the head, so being in communion with the pope is necessary for me. I think the biggest reasons for being afraid of becomiing absorbed in the Latin Church are more from things like Constantine stated, convenience,etc.than what would come from Rome. Rome has been encouraging us to go back to our traditions,so why not have the best of everything by practising Orthodox spirituality in communion with Peter? It might not realistically be all that perfect but things never are.

As for calling myself Orthodox in Communion with Rome, it is a good description but I dont use it because it often requires lots of explanation of the term, especially when youre talking to people who have no clue about Apostolic Christianity. I will usually say Byzantine Catholic because it `s easier and means about the same thing. Actually when I was a kid we just called ourselves Greek Catholics for the most part.

Enjoy exploring Eastern Catholicism!

Thank you very much.

 

[Vico]

But wouldn’t canonical enrollment tell you who your Bishop is? And thus you should follow that Bishop. How can you be Eastern if you are following a Roman Bishop?

I’ll post this question in the ask an apologist and see what they say.

“Canonical enrollment” or ascription tells what ritual Church (Church sui iuris) one belongs to. The territory one lives in, in addition to ascription, generally determines who one is in the care of. Sometimes a hierarch of a different ritual Church cares for those of a different ritual Church. (There are other situations for people on the move and personal parishes.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Canonical enrollment” or ascription tells what ritual Church (Church sui iuris) one belongs to. The territory one lives in, in addition to ascription, generally determines who one is in the care of. Sometimes a hierarch of a different ritual Church cares for those of a different ritual Church. (There are other situations for people on the move and personal parishes.)

But where I live, I belong to the Archdiocese of Vancouver and the Eparchy of New Westminster. So if not fo canonical enrollment, can I just switch between the two on a whim? Maybe next week I don’t feel like being an Eastern Christian anymore, what then? I mean, I have no problems following Eastern rules and practices, but what I’m afraid of is I feel I might be violating RC rules and practices. And of course the approach to that is the Western legalistic approach because its the Western canons and laws I might be violating.