Hello everyone! New to the Eastern Catholicism forum here.
I often hear that the Catholic communities in the east are ‘in union with Rome’ without overt attempts at Latinization of their respective rites.
I would like to know in more explicit terms what this means. I assumed it meant their liturgy and other ‘disciplinary’ practices would be their own to guide, but regarding the uniting faith and doctrine, they would hold to the dogmas promulgated by the Roman See. But I have been a bit confused by a poster’s recent comments that one of the Eastern Catholic churches (I think it was Greek Melkite…?) doesn’t actually affirm a few of the dogmas declared by the Vatican (e.g. the Immaculate Conception).
Does ‘in union with Rome’ not mean what I assumed it to?
My apologies if I’ve misrepresented any viewpoints and do correct me swiftly.
It literally means that, at the level of the primatial bishop & the governing synod, there is submission to the authority of the pope and to the validity of all other Catholic Churches also in union, as well as acceptance of the orthodoxy of the Dogmatic declarations. Each such church has its own synod of bishops (except for the very smallest few, which have only one bishop, and the Russian Catholic Church, which has no bishops, only priests), and each has its own rules for liturgical praxis, and for obligation. The 8 Byzantine Catholic Churches share the vast majority of their praxis, with only trivial differences; these derive from the Byzantine praxis (Constantinoplean praxis), and hence are of the Byzantine Rite.
In practice, it also means being able to validly receive any sacraments from the appropriate ministers of the other churches. The partial exception is ordination; one must be ordained to serve within one’s own rite, tho technically that ordination need not be by a bishop of the same rite as to which one is being ordained.
Example: A dominican brother is to be ordained a deacon; it is discovered he is Ukrainian Church by canonical enrollment, and thus Byzantine Rite. He can either be ordained a Byzantine Rite deacon, and encouraged to serve as a Byzantine deacon in one of the 8 Byzantine Churches in Union with Rome, or he can change his canonical enrollment. In at least one case I know of, he was ordained as a Byzantine. He served in a Roman parish after having been assigned there, with permission of the Roman Archbishop of the place… but he wore only the byzantine stole, not the roman.
There is also the matter of Canonical Enrollment. One is technically a member of only one of the 23 churches in union. One is said to be canonically enrolled in that specific church. One can change that enrollment, but so doing is not to be taken lightly, and it is considered a life-long change, unless done when getting married, or by one’s parents. Certain very rare circumstances can justify a second change; for example a wife may return to her original canonical enrollment upon being widowed, or a child under 8 may return to the Rite and Church of their baptism at their coming of age.
Further confusion occurs since certain non-Catholic churches have more limited forms of permission to share the reception of sacraments with Catholics. But those churches are not properly in union with rome.
Further, most of the Churches in Union with rome have counterparts that are not in union, but share the same liturgical traditions and Rite.
