Holy Day Obligation in the Eastern Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter cleirigh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exarctly - every one was a canon lawyer, as I said all the way to the Pro-Nuncio, and not simply private opinions. I probably have nearly a dozen written opinions from these individuals to date. No canon ever mandates the binding of two sets of law concurrently, nor the maintanence of two separate sets of obligations.

This interpretation is based on some very sensible precepts that are upheld by the law. The first is the guiding maxim of Canon Law itself, that of the Angelic Doctor, that the highest law is the salvation of souls. So when looking at what should be “binding”, the soul and spiritual conditions of the individual must be taken into account. Canon Law is NOT DOGMA. As all Latins know the law can and is changed - the changes of the newer 1983 Code are very significant from the older code. It is simply ridiculous to place two separate and equally “binding” sets of spiritual obligations on any soul in light of this general principle.

Canon 19 gives the canon lawyer the ability to adjudicate such matters.
Can. 19 If a custom or an express prescript of universal or particular law is lacking in a certain matter, a case, unless it is penal, must be resolved in light of laws issued in similar matters, general principles of law applied with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons.
Click to expand...
The “general principles of law applied with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons” has been what I have previously stated, and these are certainly not penal cases. There has been no mandating of the ludicrosity of being bound to two standards when the free will of the soul has been excersized to prefer one.

Regarding “Laws issued in similar matters”, the Latin canonists are in nearly unanimous agreement that the CCEO being issued a decade later has “perfected” some of the shortcomings of the Latin Code, and will almost always defer to the CCEO when a person is impacted by the interecclesiastical issue of discernment and eventual transferral of particular ritual Churches. During the most recent case of change of particular ritual Church I personally advocated, completed less than a year ago, the Archdiocesan canon lawyer told me and the man joining the UGCC simply “You have a better code and these things are clearer”.

There are other standard principles of interpretation based on what the Latin Code itself provides. Section 2 of Canon 209 is often thrown around.
§2. With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the universal Church and the particular church to which they belong according to the prescripts of the law.
Click to expand...
However Section 1 is often ignored by the armchair canonists -
Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.
Click to expand...
No one can deny that attachment to any Eastern Catholic Church violates communion with the Church. No, repeat no obligation of particularity is specifically stated or mandated in this section. It is clear that the primary consideration is that of maintaining communion with the Church as given in the order of the law itself.

The key to the interpretation of Section 2 of this canon is “particular church to which they belong”. Since we all have free will, we are also free to choose where we “belong”. It is irrational to think anyone can fully discern where they want to belong without being there. This goes agains every sensible notion of discernment when one has to maintain a guilty, slavish attachment to another spiritual practice. It is likewise irrational to think a dual set of obligations “bind” when one is in this discernment process. Not one Canon Lawyer or Bishop will mandate any Catholic to maintain two sets of obligations.

Byzcath is exactly correct - once one is in the process of discerning or making the change of particular Churches, what one is “bound” to cannot be made to be a spiritual impediment or complication.

And the “clincher” given by the Latin Code itself, and usually completely ignored by the armchair canonists in Canon 214:
The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church **and to follow their own form of spiritual life **so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church.
Click to expand...
Again, no Catholic canonists or hierarch believes that following a form of spiritual life in another particular ritual Catholic Church is not consonant “with the doctrine of the Church”. Nor does this canon mandate any limitations on the faithful discerning what “their own rite” is or should be.

I could go on and on with other particular interpretations based on the law itself, but will refrain at this point.
 
I should also state that these are not my own opinions, nor am I a canon lawyer, but are the experiences of a deacon of the UGCC relating my own direct experience with assisting about two dozen individuals and families change particular ritual Churches from the Latin Church over the last twenty years.
 
There are some fixed rules that are established between ritual churches. One cannot completely participate in a ritual church unless they are accepted into it officially, not merely by habitual participation such as a Latin Church member regularly attending a Byzantine Church. As an example: a Latin Church member can receive the sacraments in the Byzantine Church, with the exception of holy orders, or of matrimony where neither being married are a Byzantine Church member.

Interestingly, holy days of obligation for Latin Church members are to be fulfilled on the specified day or evening before, or not at all if unable to attend, and demonstrate solidarity as members of the Latin ritual church.
 
Actually, Vico, marriage can be done; it requires the Roman Bishop’s permission for two romans to marry in an Eastern Church. The principle is that it can’t be done to avoid some particular church praxis/preparation. I know of a few couples for whom it was, in fact, done.
 
Aramis, do you know if the Latin Church couple used the Byzantine Crowning ritual?
 
Thank you Aramis, I know somebody in the Latin Church that will like to know about this.

There are some agreements that can exist between the churches regarding the sacraments (mysteries); see CCEO 696 below. I do not know, but suspect, that two Latin Catholics, married and attending a Byzantine Catholic parish, must have their children follow the Latin rule for baptism, eucharist, and chrismation at three different ages, vs the Byzantine practice of infant baptism, eucharist, and chrismation. And their children will certainly be in the Latin Church (because their parents are) regardless of which church it is received from.

CCEO Canon 696
  1. All presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer this sacrament either along with baptism or separately to all the Christian faithful of any Church sui iuris including the Latin Church.
  2. The Christian faithful of Eastern Churches validly receive this sacrament also from presbyters of the Latin Church, according to the faculties with which these are endowed.
  3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.
 
Thank you Sadeer.

I see that that for 2010 the Chaldean Catholic Days of Observance are all Sundays and:

Jan 6 - Feast of Dinha / Epiphany
Apr 1 - Passover Thursday
Apr 5 - Memorial of Emmaus Geyyasa
May 13 - Feast of the Ascension of the Lord
Aug 6 - Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord
Sep 14 - Feast of the Holy Cross / Mem. of Mar Bishoy, Mar Odisho, Mar Sawa
Dec 8 - Memorial of Mary the Immaculate
Dec 25 - Christmas
 
I do not know, but suspect, that two Latin Catholics, married and attending a Byzantine Catholic parish, must have their children follow the Latin rule for baptism, eucharist, and chrismation at three different ages, vs the Byzantine practice of infant baptism, eucharist, and chrismation. And their children will certainly be in the Latin Church (because their parents are) regardless of which church it is received from.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If the Byzantine parish is their primary parish home, they can certainly partake of the economy given by Canon 214 of the Latin canon law, namely:
The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church **and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church. **
Click to expand...
 
Diak said:
Not necessarily. If the Byzantine parish is their primary parish home, they can certainly partake of the economy given by Canon 214 of the Latin canon law, namely:
Click to expand...
I think you are correct here but the Children will still be of the Latin Church until their parents’ make an official change of Churches as it does not matter where the Sacraments are received.
 
ByzCath said:
I think you are correct here but the Children will still be of the Latin Church until their parents’ make an official change of Churches as it does not matter where the Sacraments are received.
Click to expand...
Thanks Diak and ByzCath. It seems that the canons (and actual practice) do make reception of the mysteries across all sui juris churches possible, and for the faithful to follow their own form of spiritual life. As a practical matter the Churches sui juris need a way to do their accounting and to be responsible for their subjects.

I see in CCEO Canon 696 section 3: “…when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.”

The wording shows that the faithful are subjects, I assume to the hierarchy of the offical sui juris Church, but can receive in virtue or when in danger of death from others. So there are practical agreements between the Churches sui juris.
 
Some of the interecclesial agreements between the Eastern Catholic and Latin Church in the USA can put limits on how one can experience the sacraments. For example if one is an Eastern Catholic in the USA - where there is a jurisdiction for several of the Eastern Churches - there are limitations on Eastern Catholics receiving mysteries in the Latin Church:

Note that the correct reception of the mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist in the Eastern Churches is to receive them as an infant, one the same day, even though some of the Eastern Churches have not restored that practice. But that is not the Latin Church practice.

Chrismation
If, at the time of confirmation children of an Eastern Church have not yet received the holy mystery of Chrismation, they must then be chrismated in their proper autonomous ritual Church.

Eucharist
Eastern Catholic children that have not received the Eucharist at the time of their Christian initiation should receive it in their proper autonomous ritual Church.

Marriage
A deacon in the Eastern Catholic Churches cannot validly assist at a marriage between a man belonging to the Latin Church and a woman belonging to an Eastern Church.

In the Eastern Churches, the impediment of affinity extends in the collateral line to the second degree, (no marriage with one’s sister or brother-in-Iaw). Also the impediment of spiritual relation*ship is applies in the Eastern Churches so a marriage between a sponsor and the baptized person and the parents of the same is invalid.

Basic information from ***Eastern Catholics in the ***United States of America published by American Conference of Catholic Bishops. See:

knanayaregion.us/eastern_churches.htm
 
The children retain the particular ritual tradition of the parents until they are 14, when they can choose. If a parent has changed ritual Churches, it is assumed automatic for the children.

If a parent of their own free will regularly attends an Eastern Catholic parish, and follows that particular tradition, it is sensible that the children do the same until they are free to choose.
 
Diak said:
The children retain the particular ritual tradition of the parents until they are 14, when they can choose. If a parent has changed ritual Churches, it is assumed automatic for the children.

If a parent of their own free will regularly attends an Eastern Catholic parish, and follows that particular tradition, it is sensible that the children do the same until they are free to choose.
Click to expand...
Yes, that makes sense, and understanding that receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris (than the one enrolled in) does not enroll one in that Church. (CLD canon 112 and CCEO canon 38).
 
Also, one is bound to follow the canons that pertain to their particular Church sui iuris. That is why one has to get approvals for certain sacraments received in a different Church sui iuris. Because of this it may not be possible to follow the tradition of a different Church sui iuris one hundred percent as those that are enrolled in it. In the book “New commentary on the Code of Canon Law” by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, the commentary on (Latin) Canon 1 explains that the Latin canons do not bind on members of the Eastern Churches. So we have canons in both Latin and Eastern codes that address enrollment, divine worship, reception of the sacraments, holy days of obligation, and penitential periods of fasting and abstinance, etc. There is specific canon (713) that Eastern Catholics should obey the norms (holy days and fasts, etc.) of their Church sui iuris in which they are enrolled.

Binding on Eastern Catholics:

CCEO Canon 713
  1. The Divine Eucharist is to be distributed in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, unless a just cause suggests otherwise.
  2. Concerning the preparation for participation in the Divine Eucharist through fast, prayers and other works, the Christian faithful are to observe faithfully the norms of the Church sui iuris in which they are enrolled, not only within the territorial boundaries of the same Church, but, inasmuch as it is possible, everywhere.
Canon 719
Anyone who is aware of serious sin is to receive the sacrament of penance as soon as possible; it is strongly recommended to all the Christian faithful that they receive this sacrament frequently especially during the times of fasts and penance observed in their own Church sui iuris.

So there are some differences between Eastern Churches in the holy days of precept (obligation) such as March 25 which is a day of precept in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, but not the Ruthenian Catholic Church.
 
I wrote: “I do not know, but suspect, that two Latin Catholics, married and attending a Byzantine Catholic parish, must have their children follow the Latin rule for baptism, eucharist, and chrismation at three different ages, vs the Byzantine practice of infant baptism, eucharist, and chrismation. And their children will certainly be in the Latin Church (because their parents are) regardless of which church it is received from.”
Diak said:
Not necessarily. If the Byzantine parish is their primary parish home, they can certainly partake of the economy given by Canon 214 of the Latin canon law, namely:
Click to expand...
I talked to my pastor at my Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church a few weeks ago about this. He said he cannot administer the mysteries to Latin Church members according to the Byzantine rules for Baptism/Chrismation/Eucharist, and Matrimony.

He cannot administer Holy Eucharist to Latin Church babies. He cannot give Holy Chrismation to Latin Church babies. Marriage is permissible between two Latin Church members only with prior approval of the Latin Church Bishop.

Note: some exceptions exist for dire circumstances for some Mysteries.
 
My past three Ruthenian pastors have administered the combined baptism-chrismation-1st eucharist to Latins’ children who were part of the parish. On the other hand, the local Roman archbishop has no objection to this. So has the Roman Canon Lawyer with biritual faculties who was the in between the last two Ruthenians. Fr James has implied that he will do likewise, but hasn’t explicitly done so; he has, however, continued to commune latin children chrismated in the parish by prior pastors. So that seems to be 5-for-5 ruthenians, and a latin canon lawyer.

So, Vico, your pastor’s opinion is not congruent with the approach used by the majority of priests I’ve encountered.
 
Aramis said:
My past three Ruthenian pastors have administered the combined baptism-chrismation-1st eucharist to Latins’ children who were part of the parish. On the other hand, the local Roman archbishop has no objection to this. So has the Roman Canon Lawyer with biritual faculties who was the in between the last two Ruthenians. Fr James has implied that he will do likewise, but hasn’t explicitly done so; he has, however, continued to commune latin children chrismated in the parish by prior pastors. So that seems to be 5-for-5 ruthenians, and a latin canon lawyer.

So, Vico, your pastor’s opinion is not congruent with the approach used by the majority of priests I’ve encountered.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is different, but he has to follow the local rules. I can only suppose the Latin Archbishop wants it this way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top