Eastern Orthodox to be received in the Catholic Church

[runningdude]

(Re-posted due to coding errors in the first one)

…You should need only confession, including the history of your participation in other churches, to return to communion. The chrismation I am not sure about, I believe only a profession of faith is necessary but since it has never come up here, your diocese will have the answer. The only reason the profession of faith would be necessary, if it would be your participation in the Episcopal and Orthodox churches.

Yes a civil marriage must also be convalidated, and you will need baptismal certificates or other documentation of that. Affidavits from witnesses to your baptism who know the facts is also acceptable. Assuming no previous marriages for either of you this should go smoothly, and most delays will be of the paperwork variety.

Since the OP was never a Catholic, it is not a sin for him to participate in other religions. As his participation seems to be leading him to the true and complete Christian Church (the Catholic Church), it means he kept his heart open to the true the whole time, and he need not “confess” his previous affiliations. He need only make a profession of the faith, pledging himself the Catholic Church, and only confess his sins since his last confession with an Orthodox priest.

Complicating the situation, the Orthodox would likely consider reception into the Orthodox church as correcting any defect in his marriage, so the OP may subjectively not guilty of any sin here. He and his wife, though, must correct the marriage from a Catholic standpoint, and live as brother and sister until then. As I said before, it would be best to correct the marriage before reception into the Catholic Church to simplify the process.

 

[Vico]

I’m not sure if this has actually been mentioned

IF you become Catholic - coming from an Orthodox Parish , even though you have been attending an RC Church for some of the time , canonically you will be Eastern Catholic - in this case a Russian Catholic .

For adult baptism, Church membership (their “rite”) is based upon baptism not parish or any later church that one joins. So one first validly baptised as Assembly of God that later is received into the Catholic Church is ascribed by law to the Latin Church.

CCEO Canon 35
Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

You can see that even by extension of the Catholic law to the Orthodox would not change the enrollment. This preserves the tradition of baptism marking the entry to a Church and establishing the rite.

CIC Can. 112 §2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

 

[The_Idiot]

Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

From the above

He was baptised prior to conversion to the OCA , his baptism was accepted by them as valid , he was Chrismated which so-to-speak fills in for anything that was ‘missing’ therefore he became Orthodox.

Now following from

they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite

on his Reception to Catholicism he becomes Eastern Catholic - I can’t see your problem with understanding this.

 

[Diakonia]

Vico, I note a fascinating Latin outlook to how you choose to interpret the Eastern Canons - which are Latin enough on their own merits, without any encouragement.

Canon 897

A member of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church is to be received into the Catholic Church with only the profession of the Catholic faith, after doctrinal and spiritual
preparation according to each one’s condition.

Note that the above speaks of the reception of non-Catholic Eastern Christians (EO, OO, Assyrian, ACOE, and the Indian counterparts of the two latter Churches). It does not say that they will not be received into the corresponding Eastern Church if they first worshipped with a non-Eastern Church. It speaks of these persons in terms of their present religious affiliation - as members of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church.

Canon 35

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same
rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Canon 35 does not speak of the rite of such persons at time of baptism. It speaks of it in the present tense [retain - keep what one has].

Baptized non-Catholics distinguishes from non-Baptized persons and the inherent sense of ‘coming into full communion’ speaks, in an Eastern perspective, directly to those coming from the Churches of the Orthodox and Assyrian Communions.

Those who do not wish to be enrolled in the corresponding Ritual Church may seek approval to be received elsewise. And, that approval need not be sought of the Apostolic See, despite the terminology used - except in the instance of clergy, it may be obtained from the relevant hierarchs.

 

[ciero]

Vico, I note a fascinating Latin outlook to how you choose to interpret the Eastern Canons - which are Latin enough on their own merits, without any encouragement.

Note that the above speaks of the reception of non-Catholic Eastern Christians (EO, OO, Assyrian, ACOE, and the Indian counterparts of the two latter Churches). It does not say that they will not be received into the corresponding Eastern Church if they first worshipped with a non-Eastern Church. It speaks of these persons in terms of their present religious affiliation - as members of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church.

Canon 35 does not speak of the rite of such persons at time of baptism. It speaks of it in the present tense [retain - keep what one has].

Baptized non-Catholics distinguishes from non-Baptized persons and the inherent sense of ‘coming into full communion’ speaks, in an Eastern perspective, directly to those coming from the Churches of the Orthodox and Assyrian Communions.

Those who do not wish to be enrolled in the corresponding Ritual Church may seek approval to be received elsewise. And, that approval need not be sought of the Apostolic See, despite the terminology used - except in the instance of clergy, it may be obtained from the relevant hierarchs.

I’ve said that about a million times!

 

[ciero]

Vico, I note a fascinating Latin outlook to how you choose to interpret the Eastern Canons - which are Latin enough on their own merits, without any encouragement.

Note that the above speaks of the reception of non-Catholic Eastern Christians (EO, OO, Assyrian, ACOE, and the Indian counterparts of the two latter Churches). It does not say that they will not be received into the corresponding Eastern Church if they first worshipped with a non-Eastern Church. It speaks of these persons in terms of their present religious affiliation - as members of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church.

Canon 35 does not speak of the rite of such persons at time of baptism. It speaks of it in the present tense [retain - keep what one has].

Baptized non-Catholics distinguishes from non-Baptized persons and the inherent sense of ‘coming into full communion’ speaks, in an Eastern perspective, directly to those coming from the Churches of the Orthodox and Assyrian Communions.

Those who do not wish to be enrolled in the corresponding Ritual Church may seek approval to be received elsewise. And, that approval need not be sought of the Apostolic See, despite the terminology used - except in the instance of clergy, it may be obtained from the relevant hierarchs.

I’ve said that about a million times!

 

[Cristiano]

I’ve said that about a million times!

You will be assimilated, you cannot resist! :hypno::hypno::hypno:

 

[Monica4316]

I have an interesting pilgrimage to the Roman Catholic Church. In 1980 I was baptized at a Protestant Assembly of God church with full emersion in Trinitarian form (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) when I was an adult at the age of 18. Later in 1995 I converted to the Episcopal church and at this point I did not have a certificate of baptism and could not obtain one as the church was not longer in existence. The Episcopal church did not have issue with not having a baptism certificate. Move to 2010 I was chrismated in the Orthodox Church of America which did not require a baptism certificate.
I have attended catholic mass on and off for the past 10 years during this process of coming home to the Catholic Church. I continue to be attracted to the church of Rome.
In visiting with my local priest and expressing my interest he indicated that after I was morally certain of my interest in being received into the church that a simple proclamation of faith at the end of mass and I would be received. The subject of baptism certificate came up and doubt about baptism without certificate came up.
My pilgrimage also includes my wife who is a Greek-Catholic or Uniate from Romania.
Adding complication we were married 10 years ago in a civil ceremony not a church. I need to get this convalidated if I am not mistaken.
My question is should I have to have a conditional baptism to be received in the church? If so when would this be performed? If I can participate in the Eucharist today how does conditional baptism resolve anything? Fairly convoluted and I am certain it will be worked out.
Any qualified comments are welcome.

Best,

Anthony

Hi Anthony, welcome! I am also a convert. If I’ve understood correctly, you were baptized in the Protestant church, but chrismated in the Orthodox church? If so, you’d only need Confession, profession of faith, and Communion to be Catholic however like you said you don’t have a baptism certificate… since you were 18 when you were baptized, I’m sure you remember it, so is there any way for you to get the signatures of two witnesses from your baptism? I was baptized Orthodox and I didn’t have a certificate either, and the priest said this would be okay. However, I think it might depend on the priest… who knows! If your priest told you to get a conditional baptism, and wouldn’t accept the signatures, then sure get that done… you’ll have to go to Confession though, I think, since it’s conditional. I guess then you would wait until after the baptism (and Confession, and profession of faith) in order to receive the Eucharist.

Since I was baptized and chrismated Eastern Orthodox as a child, when I became Catholic I actually automatically became Eastern rite Catholic… since you were baptized Protestant, I am not sure if you would be Eastern rite, or Latin rite. Talk to a priest about that. But in any case, you can go to either Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic liturgies and receive Communion at both and either would count for your Sunday obligation. The only difference if you’re Eastern Catholic, you should follow the fasts, feast days, and I think it would effect things like where you marry, etc (other Sacraments). I wouldn’t be able to tell you which rite you are, East or West, so if this concerns you, talk to your priest or maybe someone else here would know

In any case… you’ll be Catholic! and you’ll be able to receive Communion at Mass.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

I see it’s kind of confusing regarding rites… I suggest really speaking to a priest about this, maybe an Eastern Catholic priest because they would know their rite the best. If you were OCA, I’m not sure which is the equivalent Catholic rite…

If you would be Latin rite because of your baptism, then you still need to contact an Eastern rite priest regarding the marriage convalidation with your wife.

I know all this probably sounds really complicated and stressful, - when I found out about all these rites, and started wondering which rite I am, it was very difficult to figure out. But don’t get discouraged because it’s really not as difficult as it seems, just speak to a priest and he would tell you more.

God bless

EDIT: I did read something that in the case of marriage (and I suppose, convalidation), an Eastern Catholic spouse can transfer rites to the Latin rite, if they marry a Latin rite Catholic. I don’t know if this is true but maybe this is an option, if your wife wants to be Latin rite too. If this is not an option or if she does not wish to transfer rites, then you just have to contact her priest about the convalidation.

 

[Vico]

Vico, I note a fascinating Latin outlook to how you choose to interpret the Eastern Canons - which are Latin enough on their own merits, without any encouragement.

Note that the above speaks of the reception of non-Catholic Eastern Christians (EO, OO, Assyrian, ACOE, and the Indian counterparts of the two latter Churches). It does not say that they will not be received into the corresponding Eastern Church if they first worshipped with a non-Eastern Church. It speaks of these persons in terms of their present religious affiliation - as members of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church.

Canon 35 does not speak of the rite of such persons at time of baptism. It speaks of it in the present tense [retain - keep what one has].

Baptized non-Catholics distinguishes from non-Baptized persons and the inherent sense of ‘coming into full communion’ speaks, in an Eastern perspective, directly to those coming from the Churches of the Orthodox and Assyrian Communions.

Those who do not wish to be enrolled in the corresponding Ritual Church may seek approval to be received elsewise. And, that approval need not be sought of the Apostolic See, despite the terminology used - except in the instance of clergy, it may be obtained from the relevant hierarchs.

We enter the Church, and thus establish our rite, when validly baptised, and per Catholic canons it is by the Church we are to be ascribed to according to the Father (or Mother in agreement) when an infant, or by free choice when an baptised as an adult.
“The general principle is that membership in a Church or ecclesial community is determined by the membership of the minister of baptism”.
– p. 17, Comparative Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC, (this chapter by V. Rev. Richard Whetstone JCL and RObert Flummerfelt JCL)

Also see this link:

Vico is right. I have a friend who entered an Eastern Catholic Church from Orthodoxy. But, because he had been baptized a Protestant in infancy, it was ruled that he was canonically Latin Rite – even though he’d never been in a Latin parish.

Peter

 

[Digitonomy]

It is a new marriage, and being with an eastern Catholic allows you both or only one to change ascription to the others Church if desired.

So he could become Romanian, and she could become Latin, all at once?

 

[Digitonomy]

"Boxy:

I will not identify myself with any ethnicity. I am an American

I sense you have little interest or patience with this question. I hope you are not too turned off by the lengthy debate we are all having. Nobody is claiming this issue is as important as the Gospel or the Sacraments. The rule was established by the Church, so we think it’s important - but I think mainly we love digging into the nitty-gritty technicalities of canon law. Don’t worry if you don’t share this interest - just try to get it addressed by the right people in real life, and you can concentrate on the bigger issues.

If you were OCA, I’m not sure which is the equivalent Catholic rite…

Historically the OCA was Russian, though it was granted autocephalous status after the Russian Revolution, to preserve the diaspora from meddling by Soviet authorities. Despite becoming somewhat multi-ethnic and breaking from the ethnic-centered tradition of many Orthodox churches, I suspect the OCA would still be considered Russian for this purpose by the Catholic Church.

Here’s a little more from Wikipedia:

Currently, the Russian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Polish, and Czech and Slovak Churches recognize the autocephaly of the OCA, though the Bulgarian and Russian patriarchates continue to maintain parishes inside the OCA’s claimed jurisdiction. Among the Churches that do not recognize it is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which argues that the Russian Church did not have the authority to grant autocephaly. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which asserted the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constantinople in dioceses located “among the barbarians” (i.e. outside the Roman Empire), is cited as the source of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s authority in the matter.

Apologists for the OCA’s autocephaly claim that the decree did not need the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as it was an internal matter for the Russian Orthodox Church to decide. Many autocephalous Churches, the Russian Church included, were not recognized as such for many years, albeit their autocephaly was granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

 

[Vico]

So he could become Romanian, and she could become Latin, all at once?

No, only one can change through marriage because one will be first, and then the two will be the same, but the one can revert. But through other changes in the canon laws the Holy See took a lot of the motivitation for change away. Married couples,. and their children, can follow the penitential practice (fast/abstinance) and holy days of one or the other’s Catholic Church, and also, with agreement, baptise their children in either Catholic Church, without any transfer. But without transfer they each have different sacramental discipline, rights, and obligations.

Her:

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.

CCEO Canon 33
A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

Him:

Can. 112

§1 After the reception of baptism, the following become members of another autonomous ritual Church:

1° those who have obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

2° a spouse who, on entering marriage or during its course, has declared that he or she is transferring to the autonomous ritual Church of the other spouse; on the dissolution of the marriage, however, that person may freely return to the latin Church;

3° the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 who have not completed their fourteenth year, and likewise in a mixed marriage the children of a catholic party who has lawfully transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they may return to the latin Church.

§2 The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church.

 

[Vico]

I sense you have little interest or patience with this question. I hope you are not too turned off by the lengthy debate we are all having. Nobody is claiming this issue is as important as the Gospel or the Sacraments. The rule was established by the Church, so we think it’s important - but I think mainly we love digging into the nitty-gritty technicalities of canon law. Don’t worry if you don’t share this interest - just try to get it addressed by the right people in real life, and you can concentrate on the bigger issues.Historically the OCA was Russian, though it was granted autocephalous status after the Russian Revolution, to preserve the diaspora from meddling by Soviet authorities. Despite becoming somewhat multi-ethnic and breaking from the ethnic-centered tradition of many Orthodox churches, I suspect the OCA would still be considered Russian for this purpose by the Catholic Church.

Here’s a little more from Wikipedia:

Orthodox Church of America is a blend of Russian Orthodox and Ruthenian Orthodox, so Catholic ascription of one first baptized in OCA, could be to one of three Church sui iuris: Byzantine/Ruthenian, Ukrainian, or Russian.

Page 257, Comparative Sacramental Discipline In The CCEO and CIC, CLSA, 2003.

 

[Diakonia]

Orthodox Church of America is a blend of Russian Orthodox and Ruthenian Orthodox, so Catholic ascription of one first baptized in OCA, could be to one of three Church sui iuris: Byzantine/Ruthenian, Ukrainian, or Russian.

Page 257, Comparative Sacramental Discipline In The CCEO and CIC, CLSA, 2003.

The OCA derived from what was the Russian Metropolia and to understand its composition one has to consider that the Metropolia was indeed originally composed of Russian Orthodox. That make-up was supplemented by Carpatho-Rusyns (Ruthenians) and Ukrainians as a consequence of the divisions that arose in the the Eastern Catholic parishes in the wake of the conflict between Archbishop John Ireland.and Father Canon Alexis Toth (later St Alexis of Wilkes-Barre). However, it also came to embrace Hungarians, Croats, and Slovaks who were among those being served by some of the Rusyn (and to a lesser extent, Ukrainian) parishes that joined the Metropolia in whole or part.

As well as those, the OCA counts Albanians, Bulgarians, and Romanians among its ethnic dioceses - so, the range of Churches to which one coming into the Catholic Communion from the OCA could be ascribed is actually broader than just the Russians, Ruthenians, and Orthodox.

However, one seeking ascription to any of those other than the Romanians, would be faced with limited options as to a community with which to worship (except in Canada, where the Slovaks have an eparchy). That does not mean that they couldn’t be ascribed to the other Churches, just that the opportunity to worship with one’s co-religionists would not necessarily exist (Slovaks and Hungarians are spiritually served by the Ruthenians in the US, as are the Croats - by a single parish; the Hungarians are served by the Ukrainians in Canada, where Ruthenians are under the care of the Slovaks).

There are no Albanian or Bulgarian Catholic parishes anywhere except in their own countries and in Rome (and maybe not in Rome for the Albanians).