Holy Day Obligation in the Eastern Rite

[Vico]

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.

You said: “It certainly doesn’t address the case where a person regularly attends an Eastern parish and has adopted the calendar and observance of same.”

But, it does, a Latin Church member can ask their ordinary (Latin bishop) or proper pastor (Latin parish where they live), if they can follow the holy days and days of fast and abstinance for the Byzantine Catholic Church where they have decided to worship, and they can approve it.

If there is some other basis to this ability they I would like to know about it.

 

[Vico]

The book that I referenced before* is a practical guide and references the CIC and CCEO throughout, explaining the practices, which on page 3 states: “This project is not intended only or even primarily for canon lawyers but has beed conceived and developed first and foremost to meet the needs of the Catholic faithful who find themselves under the pastoral care of clergy of a Church sui iuris different from their own and for the parish priests and deacons who serve them.” It is recommended reading by Metropolitan Archbishop Basil Myron Schott.

There you read on p. 27 that the practice since 1992, of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (CEC) to exclude the cases of Eastern faithful asking for a transfer to the Latin Church whose diocese is in the same territory, even with approval of the bishops, justified by the concept of a Church sui iurus and the concept of ritus (liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary heritage).

And also that the CEC rarely authorizes transfer from an Eastern Church sui iuris to another, in the Eastern regions, and even more reluctantly to the Latin Church.

In the diaspora, most frequently approved is a to transfer to the Church of a family member. As explained in the book on p. 27, that every Catholic is to maintain, honor, and observe the rite of his or her own Church sui iuris. (This idea is expressed in the canons given by me in a previous post.) Yet the Holy See does sometimes approve, for the good of the souls, transfer of communities or regions, or persons.

• Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics
  clsa.site-ym.com/store/view_product.asp?id=315681

 

[malphono]

You said: “It certainly doesn’t address the case where a person regularly attends an Eastern parish and has adopted the calendar and observance of same.”

But, it does, a Latin Church member can ask their ordinary (Latin bishop) or proper pastor (Latin parish where they live), if they can follow the holy days and days of fast and abstinance for the Byzantine Catholic Church where they have decided to worship, and they can approve it.

If there is some other basis to this ability they I would like to know about it.

Yes that’s what I said, and that’s what I meant. That canon does not apply here, plain and simple. Yeah, sure, someone can ask if they want to, but there’s no need to do so and the canon has nothing to do with it.

It just seems to me that, for some reason or other, you’re grasping at straws about this to make it a lot more intricate than it is. It’s not complicated. My lot still goes with Diak.

 

[Vico]

…
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).

Can you give an actual example of how a soul is impeded from receiving the deifying Mysteries because of legalistic scrupulosity to follow a self-interpreted prescription of law vs. a non-self-interpreted prescription of law?

 

[Vico]

Yes that’s what I said, and that’s what I meant. That canon does not apply here, plain and simple. Yeah, sure, someone can ask if they want to, but there’s no need to do so and the canon has nothing to do with it.

It just seems to me that, for some reason or other, you’re grasping at straws about this to make it a lot more intricate than it is. It’s not complicated. My lot still goes with Diak.

The CIC and CCEO canons are “grasping at straws”?

 

[malphono]

The CIC and CCEO canons are “grasping at straws”?

They way they’ve been used here? Yes.

 

[ciero]

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**.**

I think I will just stick with the bishop on this one. Pick a church and observe it’s holy days and fasting regulations. Get a change of ritual church only if necessary as regards to ordination, marriage or entering religious life. Your children can be initiated by any catholic priest of any ritual church WITHOUT special permission.

Vico why not call the Latin chancery where you live and see what they say.

As Kyr Salachas is a personal friend of mine I should give him a call to get his “official” take on things.

 

[Vico]

I think I will just stick with the bishop on this one. Pick a church and observe it’s holy days and fasting regulations. Get a change of ritual church only if necessary as regards to ordination, marriage or entering religious life. Your children can be initiated by any catholic priest of any ritual church WITHOUT special permission.

Vico why not call the Latin chancery where you live and see what they say.

As Kyr Salachas is a personal friend of mine I should give him a call to get his “official” take on things.

You said: “I think I will just stick with the bishop on this one.”

Of course, I am not suggesting otherwise, but had hope you could find out why. (There are local variations.)

 

[Vico]

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

CCEO Canon 696, 3* includes the case “when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects”.

I asked my Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic pastor yesterday about this, specifically if the Latin Catholics that regularly attend at our parish are his subjects or not. He said they are not his subjects, rather only those that are members of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church sui iuris.

The prohibition to administering Chrimation (meaning not licit) is contained here in 696, 3 so you can see that it is not licit to give (even though it is valid) when the Christian faithful are of other Churches sui iuris but have not been made his subjects. It is possible for a presbyter of a different Church sui iuris to be in charge of a parish when they are assigned to do that. In that case they must be given faculties, if they do not have them. (Some may be bi-ritual, others may have an adaption of rite.)

Actually the book is all about canon law, both codes CCEO and CIC are covered as it is designed to be a practical guide.

The book, referenced in the quote, details (p. 18) a frequent condition of Eastern faithful that are lacking their own parish priest, and are entrusted to the care of a Latin ordinary or pastor, the Latin administers the mysteries (using the Eastern norm of holy myron with baptism) acording to the faculties given to him to care for the Eastern faithful in his area.

Also in the book, is explained that in the Eastern Churches chrismation is administered with baptism or separately (CCEO 694). When baptising the faithful of the Latin Church, the Eastern minister is not required to confer it jointly with Chrismation.

---

• CCEO 696, 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.

 

[ciero]

You said: “I think I will just stick with the bishop on this one.”

Of course, I am not suggesting otherwise, but had hope you could find out why. (There are local variations.)

Spoke with the Latin bishop again yesterday. He says there is a standing agreement between the bishops of the Eastern and Latin churches here in the US that Eastern priests may administer the sacraments to any Latin catholic who chooses to worship regularly in the Eastern parish. No special permissions needed. Any Latin can also register as a parishioner in any Eastern church. Also any Latin catholic who regularly attends an Eastern parish may adopt the calendar of the Eastern church in regards to fasting and holy days. He was actually very amused as to the fasting part as the Latins really have no (very little) fasting left on their calendar. His only disclaimer as to sacraments was with marriage. A dispensation of form is needed if marrying 2 Latin catholics in an Eastern church.
Ordination is another whole ball game.

 

[Diak]

Can you give an actual example of how a soul is impeded from receiving the deifying Mysteries because of legalistic scrupulosity to follow a self-interpreted prescription of law vs. a non-self-interpreted prescription of law?

Yes. To start you have stated a “prohibition” exists for the reception of the Mysteries of Initiation, to use your own term derived from your own legalistic interpretation. “Prohibit” means in its general sense 'to forbid by authority". Nowhere in any canons is there a stated forbidding of receiving the Holy Mysteries of Initiation by the authority of anyone.

The prohibition to administering Chrimation (meaning not licit) is contained here in 696, 3 so you can see that it is not licit to give (even though it is valid) when the Christian faithful are of other Churches sui iuris but have not been made his subjects. It is possible for a presbyter of a different Church sui iuris to be in charge of a parish when they are assigned to do that. In that case they must be given faculties, if they do not have them. (Some may be bi-ritual, others may have an adaption of rite.)

Actually there is no prohibition, as I have reiterated several times, in Canon 696. Rather it it quite generously allows Chrismation even to Latins. If it is valid it absolutely cannot be sensibly considered a prohibition under any circumstances.

You still have not demonstrated a clear canonical prohibition against any Eastern Catholic administering his parishoners the Mystery of Christmation if they are his parishoners (and by extension subjects). The carousel continues to turn.

Actually the book is all about canon law, both codes CCEO and CIC are covered as it is designed to be a practical guide.

It can be “all about canon law” all it wants, but it is NOT canon law, but a guide to application of the canons. Two very different things.

The book, referenced in the quote, details (p. 18) a frequent condition of Eastern faithful that are lacking their own parish priest, and are entrusted to the care of a Latin ordinary or pastor, the Latin administers the mysteries (using the Eastern norm of holy myron with baptism) acording to the faculties given to him to care for the Eastern faithful in his area.

Also in the book, is explained that in the Eastern Churches chrismation is administered with baptism or separately (CCEO 694). When baptising the faithful of the Latin Church, the Eastern minister is not required to confer it jointly with Chrismation.

I have no idea what your point is about Latins administering the Mysteries, which they cannot do without the specific faculties from an Eastern Catholic hierarch unless it is a particular Church without an Exarch.

The Instruction issued by the Oriental Congregation, is clear about not celebrating Christmation alone unless it was not previously conferred. If you will read Canon 694, it is prefaced by “according to the tradition”. Therefore Christmation should not be specifically separated from the other Mysteries of Initation (at least in my own particular Church); if someone was imperfectly initiated previously with Baptism alone there may be a necessity to confer it alone (as in the case of Latins who were baptised alone and did not receive Christmation).

 

[Diak]

• CCEO 696, 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.

Again, it is more helpful to not just cut and paste a specific bit of the canon that you think makes your point, but rather to include the entire canon for context:

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.

It is simply common sense as well as understood orthopraxis amongst experienced Eastern Catholic and Latin canonical authorities that If there is no possibility of a Catholic of another particular Church ever being a subject of the Eastern Catholic priest, there is absolutely no reason for this contingency to be included in Section 3. If you are implying the only reason of this inclusion is strictly for Latin priests who have bi-ritual faculties, you are again mistaken as this logically would have been included in Section 2 along with other explanatory limitations; as this section deals solely with reception of the Mysteries from Latin priests (who have valid faculties from the appropriate Eastern Catholic hierarch).

 

[Diak]

Spoke with the Latin bishop again yesterday. He says there is a standing agreement between the bishops of the Eastern and Latin churches here in the US that Eastern priests may administer the sacraments to any Latin catholic who chooses to worship regularly in the Eastern parish. No special permissions needed. Any Latin can also register as a parishioner in any Eastern church. Also any Latin catholic who regularly attends an Eastern parish may adopt the calendar of the Eastern church in regards to fasting and holy days. He was actually very amused as to the fasting part as the Latins really have no (very little) fasting left on their calendar. His only disclaimer as to sacraments was with marriage. A dispensation of form is needed if marrying 2 Latin catholics in an Eastern church.
Ordination is another whole ball game

Of course you are correct, and this has been the general understanding at least since Bishop Gregory was the head of the USCCB. The last time I brought up a question of dual obligation/dual fasting requirements from a similarly legalistic and scrupulous Latin self-interpretor (probably going on 7 years ago now) I was almost laughed out of the room by the Latin archdiocesan judicial vicar, who was a full J.C.D.

 

[Vico]

Yes. To start you have stated a “prohibition” exists for the reception of the Mysteries of Initiation, to use your own term derived from your own legalistic interpretation. “Prohibit” means in its general sense 'to forbid by authority". Nowhere in any canons is there a stated forbidding of receiving the Holy Mysteries of Initiation by the authority of anyone.

Actually there is no prohibition, as I have reiterated several times, in Canon 696. Rather it it quite generously allows Chrismation even to Latins. If it is valid it absolutely cannot be sensibly considered a prohibition under any circumstances.

You still have not demonstrated a clear canonical prohibition against any Eastern Catholic administering his parishoners the Mystery of Christmation if they are his parishoners (and by extension subjects). The carousel continues to turn.

It can be “all about canon law” all it wants, but it is NOT canon law, but a guide to application of the canons. Two very different things.

I have no idea what your point is about Latins administering the Mysteries, which they cannot do without the specific faculties from an Eastern Catholic hierarch unless it is a particular Church without an Exarch.

The Instruction issued by the Oriental Congregation, is clear about not celebrating Christmation alone unless it was not previously conferred. If you will read Canon 694, it is prefaced by “according to the tradition”. Therefore Christmation should not be specifically separated from the other Mysteries of Initation (at least in my own particular Church); if someone was imperfectly initiated previously with Baptism alone there may be a necessity to confer it alone (as in the case of Latins who were baptised alone and did not receive Christmation).

Prohibited is a synonym for illicit which means not licit. As you can read I stated that “The prohibition to administering Chrimation (meaning not licit) is contained here in 696, 3…” which contains “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…” etc. So you can see that is is not licit to administer Chrismation in some cases.

The comment “…a frequent condition of Eastern faithful that are lacking their own parish priest…” was to further illustration how one can be placed in charge of a parish that is of another Church sui iuris, which is the condition mentioned in canon 696, 3: “when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects”.

As my pastor explained, the Latins are not his subjects, and it is also for that reason that he must get permission for matrimony of two Latins. In fact he said, he used to able to marry two Latins, but now the Latin diocese began to disallow it. What that means is that he does not have authority unless it is given to him, and it must be obtained from the proper authority of the Church sui iuris of those receiving the mystery. Now, in a given diocese there may be different rules and it may be possible due to an agreement to administer, but the general principle is that the proper authorization must be given for licitness when it is specified in the canons CCEO or CIC.

The canons allow for administration of Chrismation separately from baptism, see CCEO 694 that I referenced: “According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, chrismation with holy myron is administered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism or separately.” What you mention pertains to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, and for unbaptised adults in the Latin Church, but not for infants. When an Eastern presbyter administers baptism to a Latin infant, it is not required for him to chrismate at that time. The Latin tradition is to receive baptism, first communion, and confirmation at different times, unless an non-baptised adult initiation is occurring.

 

[Aramis]

Except, Vico, in the US, it is licit by National Particular Law of the USCCB.

 

[Vico]

Again, it is more helpful to not just cut and paste a specific bit of the canon that you think makes your point, but rather to include the entire canon for context:

It is simply common sense as well as understood orthopraxis amongst experienced Eastern Catholic and Latin canonical authorities that If there is no possibility of a Catholic of another particular Church ever being a subject of the Eastern Catholic priest, there is absolutely no reason for this contingency to be included in Section 3. If you are implying the only reason of this inclusion is strictly for Latin priests who have bi-ritual faculties, you are again mistaken as this logically would have been included in Section 2 along with other explanatory limitations; as this section deals solely with reception of the Mysteries from Latin priests (who have valid faculties from the appropriate Eastern Catholic hierarch).

No implications, a cleric may be incardated/ascribed to any Church sui iuris, the same or different than his own. But a Catholic that attends a parish, even regularly, is not automatically a subject of the pastor.

 

[ciero]

No implications, a cleric may be incardated/ascribed to any Church sui iuris, the same or different than his own. But a Catholic that attends a parish, even regularly, is not automatically a subject of the pastor.

According to my bishop you are wrong. Any catholic can register as a parishioner at any catholic church regardless of rite. By registering you become “subject” to the pastor.

 

[Vico]

Except, Vico, in the US, it is licit by National Particular Law of the USCCB.

It would be nice if I could find a copy of that document, but have been unable to find it on the USCCB site (but I have seen the norms for sexual abuse or minors). I had to proceed here more generally, just relying upon the canon stating:

“…and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.”

 

[babochka]

CCEO Canon 696 (Chrismation)

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’m not, of course, a canon lawyer, nor am I particularly well versed in canon law, but I seem to interpret this canon differently than it has been presented here. It doesn’t state the sacrament of Baptism can be administered separately from the Sacrament of Chrismation, just that the Sacrament of Chrismation can be administered separately from Baptism.

Elizabeth

 

[Vico]

According to my bishop you are wrong. Any catholic can register as a parishioner at any catholic church regardless of rite. By registering you become “subject” to the pastor.

It is always good to remember that a bishop has great power and what one hierarch does may not be what another one does. We also do not have a promogulated doucument showing what agreements are in place.

I know that there is no registration in a parish referred to in canon law, but there is membership in a Church sui iuris called enrollment. Registration in a parish and enrollment in a Church sui iuris are different, and registration in a parish does not make one a member of the Church sui iuris.

The parishes are territorial or personal (by group membership). In some cases there are overlapping dioceses for two or more Churches sui iuris. One is subject to the ordinary/eparch, that the have by where they live, which is of the Church sui iuris that one is a member of. This was explained to me by my pastor.

You will notice also in marriage law that a subject and non-subject may be married (without prior approval) by the Eastern presbyter as long as one of them is of the Church sui iuris that the couple are being married in. Otherwise an approval is needed, at none are subjects. This was also explained to me by my pastor.