Holy Day Obligation in the Eastern Rite

[Vico]

“Does not allow”? Show again where it is PROHIBITED.
Are you aware of the disctinction between canon and commentary? Commentary is NOT canon law, but merely a personal interpretation of application. …

Who are “his subjects”? They clearly do not have to belong only to that Church sui iuris if they are members of his parish since that possibility is specifically allowed in this canon - check it again - “of other Churches sui iuris”…

695 further reiterates this with “Chrismation with holy myron must be administered in conjunction with baptism, except in a case of true necessity, in which case, however, it is to be seen that it is administered as soon as possible”. Again, “must” is a strong and definitive word and I see no explicit clarification here exempting certain persons sui iuris. …

If any person regularly attends another sui iuris Church and is registered at that other sui iuris church, he is considered to be “his subjects” and thus by canon 696 can be “validly” and “licitly” ministered to by the Priest, even if from another church sui iuris.

This is fundamentally understood to be the case by canonists, and the canon itself allows this.

Regarding the last statement, nowhere in Canon Law is two years a stated requirement. My “official letter” (albeit several decades ago) was sent after less than a year in my Greek Catholic parish at the time with the blessing of the pastor.

…

Yes I am aware of the difference between commentary vs canon, however you said canon lawyers do not agree with what I was communicating, yet it is in the book that is a landmark publication of the Canon Law Association of America. That’s all.

The members of a sui iuris Church are its legal subjects. If a presbyter is placed in charge of Catholics of another sui iuris Church then they become his subjects also.

It is prohibited by not being licit 696 section 3 as quoted before.

It is necessary to chrismate after baptism, but not immediately:

CCEO Canon 694
According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, chrismation with holy myron is administered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism or separately.
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.

I am relaying to this forum what my pastor told be about two years and a letter to transfer, as this is the process they use in my parish, I make no claim about it being a canon.

 

[Vico]

Some may be interested in reading a publication from the Canon Law Society entitled:

“Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics, A Canonical-Pastoral Handbook” - Rev. Dimitir Salachas and Rev. Krzysxtof Nitkiewicz (2007), English Edition (2009) by George Dmitry Gallaro of the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Pittsburgh, PA. It includes a short forward by HE Metropolitan Archbishop Basil Myron Schott. (It details the Latin and Eastern canons and how they are practiced.)

Topics are:
Sacraments of Initiation and Ascription
Matrimonial Issues
Ordination
Other Sacramental Issues (Reserved Sins, Annointing of the Sick, Commuication in Sacris, Faculty to Administer the Sacament of Penance, Holy Oils, Minister of Holy Communion, Mixed Marriages, Participation in the Sacraments, Sacred Ordination)
Monastics and Other Religious
Liturgical Issues
Hierarchs
Canonical Issues
Eastern Churches
Other (Adoption of Minors, Alienation of Goods Reserved to the Holy See, Causes for Canonization, Catholic Universities and Faculties, Ecclesial Assemblies, Ecclesiastical Communion, Ecclesiastical Dignities, Ecumenical Councils, Care of Gypsies, Indulgences, Migration to Non-Christians to the West, Non-Catholics, Observance of Proper Rite, Pastoral Care of Eastern Christians in Latin Dioceses, Pastors/Parish Priests, Patriarchal Procurator at the Holy See, Pious Unions, Protosyncellus and Syncelli/Vicar General and Episcopal Vicars, Quinquennial Report, Territorial or Personal Parish, Visitator for Eastern Faithful)

 

[ciero]

I would assume so. Our parish is about half Latin, half Byzantine. Frankly, our priest just sees us as members of his parish and does not differentiate.

As far as the priest who made a few phone calls to get permission to baptize… he was fairly newly ordained and had just been assigned as temporary administrator of the parish. I would guess that his calls were more about determining if there were a proper procedure than securing permission. I probably could have phrased it better before, but I was trying to fire off a quick e-mail while the kids were relatively calm.

When I called the Latin chancery to get an answer to this question a few years ago, I was told that there were no permissions needed, any catholic priest (of any ritual church) can validly and licitly baptize and chrismate anyone. The person baptized was officialy enrolled in the church they belonged too, but the rites of initiation could be done anywhere.

 

[Diak]

It is prohibited by not being licit 696 section 3 as quoted before.

You have not yet demonstrated a prohibition.

“Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics, A Canonical-Pastoral Handbook” - Rev. Dimitir Salachas and Rev. Krzysxtof Nitkiewicz (2007), English Edition (2009) by George Dmitry Gallaro of the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Pittsburgh, PA. It includes a short forward by HE Metropolitan Archbishop Basil Myron Schott. (It details the Latin and Eastern canons and how they are practiced.)

Interesting, but not canon law nor universal praxis amongst Eastern Catholics.

 

[Diak]

Would this apply to parents who wish their children (baptized in the Latin Church) to be Chrismated as well as to receive their First Holy Communion in a particular Eastern Church?

Absolutely. If you are a member of the Eastern Catholic parish or mission, talk to the priest. He will take care of everything else.

 

[Diak]

But what about your respect for the traditions and freedoms of the Latin Rite Bishops to decide the proper form and age that those who are still technically members of their sea.
I would think that saying it is okay for an Eastern priest to administer the Sacraments (Confirmation/Communion to a Latin Rite families children, is akin to saying that it is okay for that family to disregard the tradition that they are still formally a part of.

Family? These people of their own free will have become members of their respective Eastern Catholic parishes. I’m not sure where any disrespect comes through from a Greek Catholic priest responding to the pastoral care of his flock. If these persons are legitimately members of his parish, why should he refuse them?

It seems nonsensical - if they truly prefer the Latin form and style, they would have pursued confirmation with a Latin parochial community. What I see, rather, is a continued implicit suppression of the ability of Eastern Catholic priests to provide full pastoral care of their parishoners and rather burden them with continued legal prescriptions that in the end do not serve either the parish or the parishoner, if the parishoner truly wishes to receive those Mysteries of Initiation in a Greek Catholic parish. So we are again waiting on the call of the Latin chancery in order to conduct basic sacramental care of the faithful.

I know that we already disagreed about fasting requirements, but their must be a reason why there is such a thing as an official change of Rite. Otherwise all a person would have to do is register at an Eastern Parish and then fully belong to that tradition. There must be a reason why such a formal recognition takes place and is not necessarily granted without approval, if all a person needed to do was tell a Bishop or parish that they are now switching rites.

Generally that is what happens - in my experience not everyone actually goes through with the “paperwork” but considers themselves fully members of the Eastern Catholic parish. I generally recommend they consider the change of Church if they intend to stay and make the Eastern Catholic parish their home, but do not (and cannot) require them to do so if they stay members of the Eastern Catholic parish.

So I think that your responses are showing a lack of respect for the Latin Bishops’ (who are interested in the salvation of as well) authority to say when and how their members are free to receive those specific sacraments in accordance with their respective traditions. After all, salvation of souls and the guidance to salvation is largely a responsibility of the Bishop to oversee among those he is the leader.

Again, it is up to the soul to discern and decide where the parish home is to be. Once that decision is made, there is nothing sensible to prevent the full living out of the sacramental tradition of the place where the person has decided to belong. That is showing disrespect to noone, but rather fully respects the free will of the person to choose what particular liturgical church they wish to dwell in.

 

[omeliok2010]

When I called the Latin chancery to get an answer to this question a few years ago, I was told that there were no permissions needed, any catholic priest (of any ritual church) can validly and licitly baptize and chrismate anyone. The person baptized was officialy enrolled in the church they belonged too, but the rites of initiation could be done anywhere.

Ok,so new info o me . Thanks for sharing!

---

Print koozies | Koozie printing

 

[5Loaves]

Some may be interested in reading a publication from the Canon Law Society entitled:

“Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics, A Canonical-Pastoral Handbook” - Rev. Dimitir Salachas and Rev. Krzysxtof Nitkiewicz (2007), English Edition (2009) by George Dmitry Gallaro of the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Pittsburgh, PA. It includes a short forward by HE Metropolitan Archbishop Basil Myron Schott. (It details the Latin and Eastern canons and how they are practiced.)

Thank you! I wasn’t aware of this. Here’s a link for it for anyone else who’s interested.

 

[Diak]

Thank you! I wasn’t aware of this. Here’s a link for it for anyone else who’s interested.

Thank you for that link; I have the original 2007 and am happy there is now an English version.

Although more expensive, another helpful resource is Marini’s book on comparative sacramental discipline also from the CLSA which is more exhaustive in its canonical analysis:
clsa.site-ym.com/store/view_product.asp?id=315555

One should certainly take care not to be indifferent in matters of canonical discipline; especially in cases of Holy Orders and marriages there are contingent conditions that must be taken into account regarding membership in a particular ritual Church and the necessary delegations from the respective hierarchies.

Even in the case of Chrismation/Confirmation to someone who is Latin I want to clarify that I would not do so without a call to the local judicial vicar as a courtesy. Having done so I would certainly not refuse him the Mysteries simply based on the particular Church of origin. I have yet to have been required to do anything other than make sure the baptismal records were in order for such occurrances. In the case of a person who comes of their own free will to approach the Mysteries of Initiation, is and has been a member of the Eastern parish for some time, it does not seem sensible to recommend sending them to a parish they may not belong to, or care to belong to, and enroll in a program they do not wish to be involved with when I can make a call to the local judicial vicar and take care of this in less than ten minutes.

 

[Diak]

Originally Posted by ciero
When I called the Latin chancery to get an answer to this question a few years ago, I was told that there were no permissions needed, any catholic priest (of any ritual church) can validly and licitly baptize and chrismate anyone. The person baptized was officialy enrolled in the church they belonged too, but the rites of initiation could be done anywhere.

This is how it goes for me as well; since our clergy sometimes do not have completely fluent English I am almost always the intermediary with the local chanceries in mine and the surrounding Latin dioceses/archdioceses.

I have also seen frustration and surprise from Latins who after experiencing our parishes, liturgies, spirituality, etc. were not even told about the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches through their RCIA and never realized that was an “option”.

In the case of any Mysteries of Initiation, I have never been asked once by the local judicial vicar if the person in question has completed a formal change of particular ritual Church simply for Initiation. One judicial vicar who actually had a licensate in Canon Law (now retired) actually asked me not to call him unless it specifically dealt with marriages or Holy Orders assuming we would take care of the necessary baptismal registry notations.

I do believe enrollment in a particular ritual Church to be a very important thing, and as I mentioned I encourage every Latin who has elected to become a member of one of our parishes to discern the change of enrollment after being in the parish for some time (usually a year or two). But I cannot force them to do so, and will not allow them to be refused the Mysteries of Initiation simply because they are missing one piece of paper when a five or ten minute phone call (or not depending on the local judicial vicar) takes care of everything.

It should be noted that Kyr +Dmitri is the Exarch of the Greek Catholic Church (in Greece) and is one of the few hierarchs that was formed in the study of the development of canon law as it applies to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[Vico]

The canon laws codify rights and obligations of the lay members (and also hierarchs and clerics) of a Church sui iuris. (Note that the Latin Church is a Church sui iuris.) Even though lay members have the right to actively participate in the liturgy of any Church sui iuris, their membership in a Church sui iuris is not changed through regular attendence or reception of the mysteries at a different Church sui iuris. The canons show both a right and an obligation of its members to preserve their rite of the Church sui iuris that they are a member of. Members do not obtain the right and obligation to preserve by regular attendance or reception of mysteries at a parish. Sometimes a members hierarch/bishop may of a different Church sui iuris, in accordance with canon laws, and this can be because there is no eparchy/diocese or exarchy/vicarate for their Church sui iuris where they are living. There can be an assignment of hierarch by the Apostolic see or by the patriarch with the assent of the Apostolic See where there are multiple Churches sui iuris. (See CCEO Canons 147, 916 section 5, and Canon 101 for some interesting details on jurisdiction.)

Some enrollment, rights and obligation canons, indicating we should participate with due regard to our own rite:

CIC Canon 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.

CCEO Canon 38
Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church.

CCEO Canon 12
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 28

1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.

CCEO Canon 40 (sections 1 and 2 are about hierarchs and clerics)
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.

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
intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM
CIC
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Diak]

Anyone is free to cut and paste sections of Canon Law on Internet forums, and anyone can quote canons, especially when targeting them for a specific argument. One cannot ignore other parts of the corpus, however.

CIC Canon 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.

CCEO Canon 38
Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church.

You seem to have missed the esential point. The question is not one of enrollment, but of reception of certain Mysteries of Initiation to Catholics. That is not necessarily dependent on enrollment (outside of marriage and Holy Orders).

Which takes us back to Canon 696:

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.

And likewise the Latins can do the same via Canon 886:

Can. 886 §1. A bishop in his diocese legitimately administers the sacrament of confirmation even to faithful who are not his subjects, unless their own ordinary expressly prohibits it.

Every, without exception, canon lawyer will agree that any parishoner, regardless of enrollment, if they have become a member of their own free will, are “subjects” in the sense of Section 3. I am not against the courtesy call to the Latin chancery, as I have previously stated; but in my own experience as well as several others here the Latin canonists and delegated “authentic interpeters” as per Canon 16 of the Latin Code (and not those cutting and pasting canons to an Internet forum) do not consider the reception of Chrismation by Latins who have willfully joined Greek Catholic parishes to be a grave thing.

Canon 213 of the Latin code can likewise not be ignored:

Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

Canon 17, 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.

Canon 214, Latin Code:

Can. 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.

If you are implying worshipping in another particular ritual Catholic Church is not “consontant with the teaching of the Church”, or that the law in and of itself should limit the free approach of any worthy soul to the Holy Mysteries, the Magisterium would beg to differ. Worshipping in every Catholic sense includes reception of the Sacraments. “Right” is just that - the right of every Catholic to follow their own rite, but it does not equate in any way to a forceable binding to any one particular ritual tradition. In fact other Canons already mentioned specifically prohibit forcing someone to change any kind of parish allegience or canonical enrollment in a particular Church.

While the Church certainly orders herself through legislation, there is (1) no prohibition in either the Latin nor the Eastern Code on the reception of the Mystery of Chrismation by Latin Catholics, which was the original point here (and which is specifically allowed according to the Eastern code); and (2) the legislator or other delegated authority can interpret the law with economia in specific instances.

Again, it is nonsensical for anyone who in good faith has joined an Eastern Catholic parish, belongs there, and having studied wishes to approach the Mysteries of Initation to be refused such, forced to attend a Latin confirmation program against their will in a parish they do not belong to simply for the non-binding personal interpretation of an Internet poster. It takes one phone call and very simple follow-up documentation to the baptismal registries in question (Canon 696 prescribes this, “…is obliged to notify the pastor of the place where the baptism was administered.” And that is all.

 

[Vico]

…

You seem to have missed the esential point. The question is not one of enrollment, but of reception of certain Mysteries of Initiation to Catholics. That is not necessarily dependent on enrollment (outside of marriage and Holy Orders).
…

If you are implying worshipping in another particular ritual Catholic Church is not “consontant with the teaching of the Church”, or that the law in and of itself should limit the free approach of any worthy soul to the Holy Mysteries, the Magisterium would beg to differ. Worshipping in every Catholic sense includes reception of the Sacraments. “Right” is just that - the right of every Catholic to follow their own rite, but it does not equate in any way to a forceable binding to any one particular ritual tradition. In fact other Canons already mentioned specifically prohibit forcing someone to change any kind of parish allegience or canonical enrollment in a particular Church.

…
Again, it is nonsensical for anyone who in good faith has joined an Eastern Catholic parish, belongs there, and having studied wishes to approach the Mysteries of Initation to be refused such, forced to attend a Latin confirmation program against their will in a parish they do not belong to simply for the non-binding personal interpretation of an Internet poster. It takes one phone call and very simple follow-up documentation to the baptismal registries in question (Canon 696 prescribes this, “…is obliged to notify the pastor of the place where the baptism was administered.” And that is all.

My post was not a reply to your last post to me, I was planning a reply to that later.

The essential point of my post is about the rights and obligations for the enrolled members of a Church sui iuris. You said: “If you are implying worshipping in another particular ritual Catholic Church is not “consontant with the teaching of the Church”, …”

No I am not saying that or anything similar. What I am saying is that one has rights and obligations pertaining to their own Church sui iuris enrollment, which in fact, includes “participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.” And as you can readily see from CCEO Canon 403 “1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite,…”

You said: ““Right” is just that - the right of every Catholic to follow their own rite, but it does not equate in any way to a forceable binding to any one particular ritual tradition”

I make no statement about “forceable binding”, one either has rights and obligations or does not. Their “own rite,” refers to rite as defined in the CCEO Canon 28, a “patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people” … “in each Church sui iuris”. Part 2 of Canon 28 also defines “The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.”

These rites are to be respected and preserved and is why there should be no inducement into a different rite (CCEO 31). CCEO Canon 588 also emphasizes rite with the appropriate culture: “Catechumens are free to enroll in whatever Church sui iuris they want, according to the norm of can. 30; however, it has to be provided that nothing stands in the way of their enrollment in the Church that is more appropriate to their culture.”

You said: “In fact other Canons already mentioned specifically prohibit forcing someone to change any kind of parish allegience or canonical enrollment in a particular Church.”

You refer to CCEO Canon 31" “No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.”

I have not seen any canons related to “parish allegience”. We are free to fulfill our Divine Liturgy/Mass obligations in any Catholic Church, which means any Catholic parish. We just must nevertheless be careful to not neglect our obligation to preserve and observe our rite of enrollment (CCEO 40 and 403). As we have seen before holy days and fasting/abstinance are binding on the faithful per Church sui iuris, with exceptions for those traveling or out of jurisdiction, and for mixed Church sui iuris families.

 

[ciero]

My post was not a reply to your last post to me, I was planning a reply to that later.

The essential point of my post is about the rights and obligations for the enrolled members of a Church sui iuris. You said: “If you are implying worshipping in another particular ritual Catholic Church is not “consontant with the teaching of the Church”, …”

No I am not saying that or anything similar. What I am saying is that one has rights and obligations pertaining to their own Church sui iuris enrollment, which in fact, includes “participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.” And as you can readily see from CCEO Canon 403 “1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite,…”

You said: ““Right” is just that - the right of every Catholic to follow their own rite, but it does not equate in any way to a forceable binding to any one particular ritual tradition”

I make no statement about “forceable binding”, one either has rights and obligations or does not. Their “own rite,” refers to rite as defined in the CCEO Canon 28, a “patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people” … “in each Church sui iuris”. Part 2 of Canon 28 also defines “The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.”

These rites are to be respected and preserved and is why there should be no inducement into a different rite (CCEO 31). CCEO Canon 588 also emphasizes rite with the appropriate culture: “Catechumens are free to enroll in whatever Church sui iuris they want, according to the norm of can. 30; however, it has to be provided that nothing stands in the way of their enrollment in the Church that is more appropriate to their culture.”

You said: “In fact other Canons already mentioned specifically prohibit forcing someone to change any kind of parish allegience or canonical enrollment in a particular Church.”

You refer to CCEO Canon 31" “No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.”

I have not seen any canons related to “parish allegience”. We are free to fulfill our Divine Liturgy/Mass obligations in any Catholic Church, which means any Catholic parish. We just must nevertheless be careful to not neglect our obligation to preserve and observe our rite of enrollment (CCEO 40 and 403). As we have seen before holy days and fasting/abstinance are binding on the faithful per Church sui iuris, with exceptions for those traveling or out of jurisdiction, and for mixed Church sui iuris families.

You keep saying that, but my Latin bishop says otherwise and he is a canon lawyer. He made it very clear that if you are worshiping regularly at a Byzantine parish and you are a Latin you are free to observe the holy days and fasting discipline of the Byzantine church.

 

[Vico]

ciero:
You keep saying that, but my Latin bishop says otherwise and he is a canon lawyer. He made it very clear that if you are worshiping regularly at a Byzantine parish and you are a Latin you are free to observe the holy days and fasting discipline of the Byzantine church.

Yes, I read that before, but the basis was not explained. I have read this canon which would allow for commutation to a different schedule and rule:

CIC Can. 1245 “Without prejudice to the right of diocesan bishops mentioned in can. 87, for a just cause and according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop, a pastor can grant in individual cases a dispensation from the obligation of observing a feast day or a day of penance or can grant a commutation of the obligation into other pious works. A superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, can also do this in regard to his own subjects and others living in the house day and night.”

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4M.HTM

 

[Diak]

You keep saying that, but my Latin bishop says otherwise and he is a canon lawyer.

Absolutely consistent with my 20+ years of dealing with this on a regular basis. The voices of those who actually engage in the interpretive work are those who should be heard, rather than the “armchair canonists”.

In the end the whole discussion is of questionable use in general; certainly no convert has been made through legalistic scrupulosity, and it is doubtful any soul has been saved through same, either, and is most certainly "un-Eastern.

“Law” is most certainly not doctrine; and thus is mutable (as can be easily seen from the very significant differences in the Latin Code in the 20th century); thus law can be changed, abrogated, reduced, dispensed from, and even interpreted differently on a specific-case basis. It is for those competent to do so to speak to these, and not simply cut and paste canons as one wishes.

This sort of legalistic scrupulosity has often worked to hamper and suppress the pastoral work of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the diaspora for centuries, and thankfully as Ciero has pointed out and is my own experience, there is much more economia being imparted in these situations especially in the last 20 years.

It is always easy to tell someone who is lesser and smaller than you what he can’t do. In the diaspora we live as a small and often misunderstood minority in a very large Latin minory where hundreds of Eastern Catholic families have been surreptitiously lost to Latin parishes because of parochial “requirements” to belong to the Latin parish in order to attend its Catholic school (which is coercion, rather than the converse situation being discussed of seeking the Mysteries on their own good faith) among other injustices. Luckily, as Ciero points out, this sort of attitude is changing in many places (as I can attest as well).

A soul longing for the Most Holy Trinity should never be impeded from receiving the deifying Mysteries because of legalistic scrupulosity; impeding the soul only to follow some self-interpreted prescription of law does neither the soul nor the Church any objective good (2 Cor. 3).

 

[malphono]

Yes, I read that before, but the basis was not explained. I have read this canon which would allow for commutation to a different schedule and rule:

CIC Can. 1245 “Without prejudice to the right of diocesan bishops mentioned in can. 87, for a just cause and according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop, a pastor can grant in individual cases a dispensation from the obligation of observing a feast day or a day of penance or can grant a commutation of the obligation into other pious works. A superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, can also do this in regard to his own subjects and others living in the house day and night.”

With due respect, I cannot see that this canon has anything whatsoever to do with the topic. It merely reiterates the prerogative of a Roman pastor to dispense for just cause, and is nothing new. It certainly doesn’t address the case where a person regularly attends an Eastern parish and has adopted the calendar and observance of same.

To say that a Roman who does this is also bound by the rules and obligations of the Roman Church essentially says that the law is a burden in that the person is bound by two sets of rules: the Roman because of law and the Eastern because of practice. It makes no sense and anyway, it really doesn’t work that way.

I’ve said this before and I repeat: Father Deacon is on target here.

 

[ciero]

Absolutely consistent with my 20+ years of dealing with this on a regular basis. The voices of those who actually engage in the interpretive work are those who should be heard, rather than the “armchair canonists”.

In the end the whole discussion is of questionable use in general; certainly no convert has been made through legalistic scrupulosity, and it is doubtful any soul has been saved through same, either, and is most certainly "un-Eastern.

“Law” is most certainly not doctrine; and thus is mutable (as can be easily seen from the very significant differences in the Latin Code in the 20th century); thus law can be changed, abrogated, reduced, dispensed from, and even interpreted differently on a specific-case basis. It is for those competent to do so to speak to these, and not simply cut and paste canons as one wishes.

This sort of legalistic scrupulosity has often worked to hamper and suppress the pastoral work of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the diaspora for centuries, and thankfully as Ciero has pointed out and is my own experience, there is much more economia being imparted in these situations especially in the last 20 years.

It is always easy to tell someone who is lesser and smaller than you what he can’t do. In the diaspora we live as a small and often misunderstood minority in a very large Latin minory where hundreds of Eastern Catholic families have been surreptitiously lost to Latin parishes because of parochial “requirements” to belong to the Latin parish in order to attend its Catholic school (which is coercion, rather than the converse situation being discussed of seeking the Mysteries on their own good faith) among other injustices. Luckily, as Ciero points out, this sort of attitude is changing in many places (as I can attest as well).

A soul longing for the Most Holy Trinity should never be impeded from receiving the deifying Mysteries because of legalistic scrupulosity; impeding the soul only to follow some self-interpreted prescription of law does neither the soul nor the Church any objective good (2 Cor. 3).

Great post!! Especially the part about armchair canonist.

 

[ciero]

With due respect, I cannot see that this canon has anything whatsoever to do with the topic. It merely reiterates the prerogative of a Roman pastor to dispense for just cause, and is nothing new. It certainly doesn’t address the case where a person regularly attends an Eastern parish and has adopted the calendar and observance of same.

To say that a Roman who does this is also bound by the rules and obligations of the Roman Church essentially says that the law is a burden in that the person is bound by two sets of rules: the Roman because of law and the Eastern because of practice. It makes no sense and anyway, it really doesn’t work that way.

I’ve said this before and I repeat: Father Deacon is on target here.

Good points!!

 

[Vico]

ciero:
You keep saying that, but my Latin bishop says otherwise and he is a canon lawyer. He made it very clear that if you are worshiping regularly at a Byzantine parish and you are a Latin you are free to observe the holy days and fasting discipline of the Byzantine church.

This forum is for faith building, learning, and sharing armchair cannonist dialog. If you can, please find out what is the basis of his statement**.**