Holy Day Obligation in the Eastern Rite

[Vico]

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

I read it that way also. There is another canon that allows Baptism without Chrismation, but it not normal for Eastern tradition. When Latins are baptised by an Eastern presbyter, it is not necessary to Chrismate, due to following the Latin tradition. (Stated in the book Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics mentioned before, on p. 18.) And 696, 3 mentions the conditions to be licit, mentioning to respect agreements between Churches.

 

[exarctly]

I keep hearing that marriage is a case where more permission is actually agreed upon as being needed. I was curious if my marriage was licit. My wife was Byzantine Catholic (direct convert from protestant Church) and I knew that I needed either the Pastor to obtain permission for me to be married in Byzantine Church or to officially change rites. I decided to change rites (something I had expected to eventually do anyway and there were many months remaining on engagement and Pastor thought this would be okay). Well I kept asking if the Pastor would consider getting the necessary dispensation just in case the response to my change of rite did not come in on time. The paperwork got lost a few times or details were needed and indeed the change of rite only came in about a month after I was married.
I decided to trust the Pastor and stop asking him about it (because he kept assuring me not to worry about it and that it was his responsibility, and I figured that I indeed should trust him, and I do) but he never explicitly told me that he did obtain the dispensation for me to be married in a Byzantine Church. Should I have made sure that he did, or still make sure?
I still am not sure. Should I have any concerns or just always believe that he did what he needed to do, and even if he did not, it would not make the marriage invalid even if in some way less than licit?

By the way, I do not want to change the subject matter, but this was more of an aside due to something that came up in the discussion.

 

[peresieh]

Regarding mixed Church sui juris families: if the husband is Byzantine Rite and the wife is Roman Rite but they live in an area not served by an Eastern Catholic Church (the nearest being 65 miles away,) may the husband follow the holyday and fasting rules of the wife? It sometimes is impossible to make it to a Roman Rite Mass on an Eastern Catholic holyday (or to the nearest Eastern Catholic church, although this can be done on most Sundays.) Also on Clean Monday and Great Friday, one’s spouse may not understand the regulation regarding abstinence from dairy products and eggs, besides meat, especially with regard to “hidden” ingredients in some foods. What is the Eastern Catholic spouse supposed to do in these circumstances?

 

[Vico]

Regarding mixed Church sui juris families: if the husband is Byzantine Rite and the wife is Roman Rite but they live in an area not served by an Eastern Catholic Church (the nearest being 65 miles away,) may the husband follow the holyday and fasting rules of the wife? It sometimes is impossible to make it to a Roman Rite Mass on an Eastern Catholic holyday (or to the nearest Eastern Catholic church, although this can be done on most Sundays.) Also on Clean Monday and Great Friday, one’s spouse may not understand the regulation regarding abstinence from dairy products and eggs, besides meat, especially with regard to “hidden” ingredients in some foods. What is the Eastern Catholic spouse supposed to do in these circumstances?

The family can follow the Latin schedule, see 883 item 2 for feast days and days of penance:

UGCC Particular Law
Can. 115 (CCEO c. 882) On the days of penance, the faithful are obliged to observe the fast, especially the 40-day fast, or other periods of fast, according to the customs of the place in which the faithful reside.
archeparchy.ca/documents/Particular_Law_Canons.pdf
CCEO Canon 882
On the days of penance the Christian faithful are obliged to observe fast or abstinence in the manner established by the particular law of their Church sui iuris.
CCEO Canon 883

1. The Christian faithful who are outside the territorial boundaries of their own Church sui iuris can adopt fully for themselves the feast days and days of penance which are in force where they are staying.
   2. In families in which the parents are enrolled in different Churches sui iuris, it is permitted to observe the norms of one or the other Church, in regard to feast days and days of penance.

Latin - USA:

CIC Canons 1246-1248 are on feast days
CIC Can. 1246 - Sundays and Holy Days
usccb.org/norms/1246.htm

CIC Canons 1251-1253 are on days of penance
CIC Can. 1252 & 1253 - observance of fast and abstinance
usccb.org/norms/12521253.htm

 

[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.

I contacted the Chancery of the Latin Diocese and had a telephone conversation with a Reverend, about Latin Catholics, regularly attending an Eastern Catholic parish, following feast days and days of penance, and about Eastern-Latin related issues in general. The Reverend said that one cannot licitly adopt the feast days and days of penance of the other Church sui iuris, but should follow those of the Church sui iuris they are members of (by baptism or change of rite). He said one can request a dispensation to follow the other norms, see below CIC 1245. (Of course there are exceptions for mixed Church families or out of territory.)

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

 

[malphono]

I contacted the Chancery of the Latin Diocese and had a telephone conversation with a Reverend, about Latin Catholics, regularly attending an Eastern Catholic parish, following feast days and days of penance, and about Eastern-Latin related issues in general. The Reverend said that one cannot licitly adopt the feast days and days of penance of the other Church sui iuris, but should follow those of the Church sui iuris they are members of (by baptism or change of rite). He said one can request a dispensation to follow the other norms, see below CIC 1245. (Of course there are exceptions for mixed Church families or out of territory.)

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.”

Around and around we go … this carousel is dizzying.

Anyway, I’m out of this discussion, but can’t help saying that if I see that same canon quoted one more time, I’m going to scream.

 

[Allyson]

I think that this question has definitely been answered!

You must attend at least where and when you are supposed to according to your current canonical church, but I say you can always go to both

It’s time to let this thread die!

 

[ciero]

I keep hearing that marriage is a case where more permission is actually agreed upon as being needed. I was curious if my marriage was licit. My wife was Byzantine Catholic (direct convert from protestant Church) and I knew that I needed either the Pastor to obtain permission for me to be married in Byzantine Church or to officially change rites. I decided to change rites (something I had expected to eventually do anyway and there were many months remaining on engagement and Pastor thought this would be okay). Well I kept asking if the Pastor would consider getting the necessary dispensation just in case the response to my change of rite did not come in on time. The paperwork got lost a few times or details were needed and indeed the change of rite only came in about a month after I was married.
I decided to trust the Pastor and stop asking him about it (because he kept assuring me not to worry about it and that it was his responsibility, and I figured that I indeed should trust him, and I do) but he never explicitly told me that he did obtain the dispensation for me to be married in a Byzantine Church. Should I have made sure that he did, or still make sure?
I still am not sure. Should I have any concerns or just always believe that he did what he needed to do, and even if he did not, it would not make the marriage invalid even if in some way less than licit?

By the way, I do not want to change the subject matter, but this was more of an aside due to something that came up in the discussion.

You needed no change of rite. Upon marriage of 1 byzantine & one latin either may declare they are changing to the rite of the other. This is then noted in the register of the church. Case closed.

 

[Diak]

But a Catholic that attends a parish, even regularly, is not automatically a subject of the pastor.

I have never used the term “automatically” in this discussion, this is your term used here (which is not used in the canons). However this this term implies that there is most certainly that possibility if one has to further use the term “automatic” as an additional clarifief.

The canons themselves most certainly and directly allow for the possibility of someone from one particular Church being the subject of another, however:

1. 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, **

Again, there is a specific canonical provision for a Catholic of one sui iuris Church being the subject of another. You still have demonstrated no prohibition of this possibility, either canonically or practically.

Speaking of canons, I am also reminded by the Canon of Small Compline for last evening which reiterated the spiritual death of those committed only to the letter of the law.

In the end I once again see here a Latin attempting to self-interpret and by extension limit the application of sacramental practice of Eastern Catholics.

 

[Diak]

I contacted the Chancery of the Latin Diocese and had a telephone conversation with a Reverend,

A “Reverend”??? What were his credentials to make canonical interpretations for the Diocese? How was the argument presented? Was the bishop consulted? Had he or the Bishop become familiar with the USCCB documents pertaining to the Eastern Catholics? You’ll have to do better than this.

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.”

You can ignore Canon 696, Section 3 all you want, but it is still there:

when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects…

If they could not be his subjects, that provision would not be allowed. If they belong to the same sui iuris Church, there would be no reason to make that provision. As I have previously stated, luckily the Latin bishops in the US do not make the PROHIBITIVE self-interpretations of Vico.

 

[Diak]

You must attend at least where and when you are supposed to according to your current canonical church, but I say you can always go to both

You “must”? You can attend any Catholic rite wherever and whenever you wish. You can make any particular Church your parish home and freely follow the spiritual and liturgical disclipline of that parish without worrying about following two sets of obligations.

 

[Vico]

But a Catholic that attends a parish, even regularly, is not automatically a subject of the pastor.

It is detailed in the Gallaro book referenced before, it is not my interpretation.

I have always maintained that Christian faithful can be subjects even if in another Church sui iuris. What I mean by automatically is: without a specific comitment by the Church. It is not lawful when they are Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris if they are not his subjects, unless through another title or danger of death.

Situations occur where a cleric is committed to the care of those in a different Church sui iuris because the cleric has been ascribed/incardinated for that purpose, and has received an adaptation of rite or bi-ritual faculties.

Examples:

1. Where an Eastern hierarchy is established for a Church sui iuris, but no pastor has been appointed for a place, a pastor from another Church sui iuris may be designated by the hierarch with approval of the future pastor’s bishop.
2. Where no Eastern hierarchy has been established for a Church sui iuris, the proper hierarch may be of another Church sui iuris, in which case the faithful have no proper pastor. A personal parish may be created and a cleric of the same or different Church sui iuris ascribed/incardated for their care. Sometimes this is a vicar “for all the rites”.

Basically, for the Eastern Churches, the specific comitment is detailed in CCEO Canon 916. Similar canons exist in CIC.

CCEO Canon 916

1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile each person acquires his or her local hierarch and pastor of the Church sui iuris in which he or she is enrolled, unless other provision is made by common law.
2. The proper pastor of one who has neither an eparchial domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where that person is actually staying.
3. The proper local hierarch and pastor of a transient is the pastor of his church and the hierarch of the place where the transient is actually staying.
4. If there is no pastor for the Christian faithful of a certain Church sui iuris, the eparchial bishop of these people can appoint the pastor of another Church sui iuris to look after them as their proper pastor, but with the consent of the eparchial bishop of the pastor who is to be appointed.
5. In places where no exarchy has been constituted for the Christian faithful of a certain Church sui iuris, the hierarch of another Church sui iuris, even the Latin Church, of the place is to be considered the proper hierarch of these faithful, with due regard for the prescription of can. 101; if, however, there are several hierarchs, that one is to be considered their proper hierarch who has been appointed as such by the Apostolic See or, if it is a question of Christian faithful who belong to a patriarchal Church, by the patriarch with the assent of the Apostolic See.

 

[Diak]

1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile each person acquires his or her local hierarch and pastor of the Church sui iuris in which he or she is enrolled, unless other provision is made by common law.
2. The proper pastor of one who has neither an eparchial domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where that person is actually staying.
3. The proper local hierarch and pastor of a transient is the pastor of his church and the hierarch of the place where the transient is actually staying.
4. If there is no pastor for the Christian faithful of a certain Church sui iuris, the eparchial bishop of these people can appoint the pastor of another Church sui iuris to look after them as their proper pastor, but with the consent of the eparchial bishop of the pastor who is to be appointed.
5. In places where no exarchy has been constituted for the Christian faithful of a certain Church sui iuris, the hierarch of another Church sui iuris, even the Latin Church, of the place is to be considered the proper hierarch of these faithful, with due regard for the prescription of can. 101; if, however, there are several hierarchs, that one is to be considered their proper hierarch who has been appointed as such by the Apostolic See or, if it is a question of Christian faithful who belong to a patriarchal Church, by the patriarch with the assent of the Apostolic See.

Since all of these reinforce what I have been saying, I will address these by number as presented:

1. “Other provision” is made in numerous places in the law. This canon is not linked numerically or in the commentaries to 696, and thus only pertains to the realm of domicile; even here there is no prohibition that would even imply that domicile limits one (if they wish to be so) being a subject of an Eastern Catholic priest.
2. and 3. “Place where is staying” makes no limitations on particular Church.
3. only applies where there are no clergy of a particular Church present. It does not limit reception of the Mysteries in another particular Church.
4. This is another specific provision, but of course no Eastern Catholic priest will prohibit the reception of the Mysteries to someone of a Church without an Exarch (which now only pertains to the Russian and Georgian Greek Catholics in diaspora).

What I mean by automatically is: without a specific comitment by the Church. It is not lawful when they are Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris if they are not his subjects, unless through another title or danger of death.

Wrong again. No statement or use of the term “commitment” is included specifically or implicitly in Canon 696. Nor are there any limitations on “lawful” if they are his subjects. What is allowed, and therefore fully “lawful”, is for one of another sui iuris Church (the Latin Church is NOT exempted, specifically or implicitly) to be a subject of an Eastern Catholic priest. Canon 696 is quite open and generous in this regard:

. 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

Situations occur where a cleric is committed to the care of those in a different Church sui iuris because the cleric has been ascribed/incardinated for that purpose, and has received an adaptation of rite or bi-ritual faculties.

What exactly is an “adaptation of rite”? That is another term you have brought up that is not canonically defined.

As has been demonstrated, and as is general practice amongst Latin bishops in North America, “subject” is actually interpreted far more generously in compliance with Canon 696 than you incompetently (using this term in the canonical sense) interpret. And, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, de mutatione legum

As someone who firmly believes in “lex orandi, lex credendi” rather than " servio legi", I am reminded of the Ikos from this morning’s Bridegroom Matins: “Why are you slothful, my wretched soul? **Why dwell unseasonably on senseless cares? **Why busy yourself with what is passing? The last hour is at hand, and we shall soon be parted from what is here. While you still have time, come to your senses and cry out, ‘I have sinned against you, my Saviour; do not cut me off like the unfruitful fig tree, but as you are compassionate, O Christ, take pity on a soul that cries out in fear: May we not be left outside Christ’s bridal chamber!’”

Every Catholic should be absolutely at peace knowing they can freely and fully partake of other particular Catholic traditions, and approach their Savior in the Holy Mysteries rather than be a fearing slave of the law and bound by two competing masters.

 

[Vico]

Since all of these reinforce what I have been saying, I will address these by number as presented:

1. “Other provision” is made in numerous places in the law. This canon is not linked numerically or in the commentaries to 696, and thus only pertains to the realm of domicile; even here there is no prohibition that would even imply that domicile limits one (if they wish to be so) being a subject of an Eastern Catholic priest.
2. and 3. “Place where is staying” makes no limitations on particular Church.
3. only applies where there are no clergy of a particular Church present. It does not limit reception of the Mysteries in another particular Church.
4. This is another specific provision, but of course no Eastern Catholic priest will prohibit the reception of the Mysteries to someone of a Church without an Exarch (which now only pertains to the Russian and Georgian Greek Catholics in diaspora).

Wrong again. No statement or use of the term “commitment” is included specifically or implicitly in Canon 696. Nor are there any limitations on “lawful” if they are his subjects. What is allowed, and therefore fully “lawful”, is for one of another sui iuris Church (the Latin Church is NOT exempted, specifically or implicitly) to be a subject of an Eastern Catholic priest. Canon 696 is quite open and generous in this regard:

What exactly is an “adaptation of rite”? That is another term you have brought up that is not canonically defined.

As has been demonstrated, and as is general practice amongst Latin bishops in North America, “subject” is actually interpreted far more generously in compliance with Canon 696 than you incompetently (using this term in the canonical sense) interpret. And, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, de mutatione legum

As someone who firmly believes in “lex orandi, lex credendi” rather than " servio legi", I am reminded of the Ikos from this morning’s Bridegroom Matins: “Why are you slothful, my wretched soul? **Why dwell unseasonably on senseless cares? **Why busy yourself with what is passing? The last hour is at hand, and we shall soon be parted from what is here. While you still have time, come to your senses and cry out, ‘I have sinned against you, my Saviour; do not cut me off like the unfruitful fig tree, but as you are compassionate, O Christ, take pity on a soul that cries out in fear: May we not be left outside Christ’s bridal chamber!’”

Every Catholic should be absolutely at peace knowing they can freely and fully partake of other particular Catholic traditions, and approach their Savior in the Holy Mysteries rather than be a fearing slave of the law and bound by two competing masters.

A papal indult of adaptation of rite is obtained from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches to permit a cleric to observe a different rite than of his own Church sui iuris. It is needed because per CCEO Canon 40 we are bound to observe our own rite everywhere and to acquire a greater knowledge of it. (See p. 9, *)

You said: “Nor are there any limitations on “lawful” if they are his subjects. What is allowed, and therefore fully “lawful”, is for one of another sui iuris Church (the Latin Church is NOT exempted, specifically or implicitly) to be a subject of an Eastern Catholic priest.”

I believe we have both maintained this throughout this thread: that it is sometimes allowed that a member of another Church sui iuris be the canonical subject of an Eastern Catholic priesbyter. And is true that there is not a Chrismation limitation (per CCEO 696) where the faithful are his subjects, other than inter-ecclesial agreements. One can become a subject in a few ways, but there is still the condition of a non-subject of a different Church sui iuris that is not in danger of death, and over which one does not have authority in virtue of another title, that is prohibited. Canon 696 is not defining who is subject to the presbyter, which is done elsewhere.

There are situations of Catholic faithful committed or entrusted to a cleric of a different Church sui iuris, as mentioned in the last post. Also, Eastern faithful living in Latin Church territory without their own hierarchy are subject to the Latin bishop but do not fall under the pastoral care of the local pastor, unless he has been entrusted to their care. (See p. 132 *)

Both “entrusted” and “committed” are used in the canons showing how subjects are acquired by the pastor from the bishop.

CIC Can. 519 The pastor (parochus) is the proper pastor (pastor) of the parish entrusted to him, exercising the pastoral care of the community committed to him under the authority of the diocesan bishop in whose ministry of Christ he has been called to share, so that for that same community he carries out the functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing, also with the cooperation of other presbyters or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of the Christian faithful, according to the norm of law.

CCEO Canon 281

1. The pastor is to be a presbyter to whom, as the principal cooperator of the eparchial bishop, is entrusted the care of souls as their proper shepherd in a determined parish under the authority of the same eparchial bishop.
2. A juridic person cannot validly be a pastor.

A different Church sui iuris example: Italo-Albanian Catholics (Las Vegas), entrusted to the Byzantine-Ruthenian eparchy of Phoenix.

In the US there are ten Churches sui iuris (including Latin) with their own sui iuris hierarch.

---

• “Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics”, CSLA, by Gallaro

 

[Vico]

This CCEO canons shows how the tradition of Christian Initiation for each Church sui iuris is followed, based upon the sui iuris enrollment. The priest is to use the Baptism prescriptions for the Church sui iuris of enrollment, which is that of the parent or guardian for those under age 14. (See CCEO Canons 29-30)

CCEO Canon 683
“Baptism must be be celebrated according the liturgical prescriptions of the Church sui iuris in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.”

So overall the members of each Church sui iuris are bound to observe the tradition of their enrolled Church sui iuris in holy days, penitential periods, and mysteries/sacraments, with some allowances for communion and penance (after the first time) and liturgy assistance.

 

[ciero]

This CCEO canons shows how the tradition of Christian Initiation for each Church sui iuris is followed, based upon the sui iuris enrollment. The priest is to use the Baptism prescriptions for the Church sui iuris of enrollment, which is that of the parent or guardian for those under age 14. (See CCEO Canons 29-30)

CCEO Canon 683
“Baptism must be be celebrated according the liturgical prescriptions of the Church sui iuris in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.”

So overall the members of each Church sui iuris are bound to observe the tradition of their enrolled Church sui iuris in holy days, penitential periods, and mysteries/sacraments, with some allowances for communion and penance (after the first time) and liturgy assistance.

Interesting interpretation! Vico when are ya just going to give it a rest?
Get a hobby or something.

Why cant you accept that the bishops in the US have an agreement about this. As my RC bishop has stated many times, there are far more important things we have to worry about, then who is fulfilling their obligation where. If Latin catholics are more inclined to worship with the Easterners why would we stop them. Its actually that many less people we have to minister to, and we all know how bad the shortage of priests is…

 

[malphono]

Interesting interpretation! Vico when are ya just going to give it a rest?
Get a hobby or something.

Why cant you accept that the bishops in the US have an agreement about this. As my RC bishop has stated many times, there are far more important things we have to worry about, then who is fulfilling their obligation where. If Latin catholics are more inclined to worship with the Easterners why would we stop them. Its actually that many less people we have to minister to, and we all know how bad the shortage of priests is…

Ya beat me to it.

 

[Vico]

Interesting interpretation! Vico when are ya just going to give it a rest?
Get a hobby or something.

Why cant you accept that the bishops in the US have an agreement about this. As my RC bishop has stated many times, there are far more important things we have to worry about, then who is fulfilling their obligation where. If Latin catholics are more inclined to worship with the Easterners why would we stop them. Its actually that many less people we have to minister to, and we all know how bad the shortage of priests is…

It is not an interpretation I made, rather the explaination in The “Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern And Latin Catholics” book, and the Canon quote. Regardless of any agreements between bishops in the USA, the canon shows the way the law is structured. Having an agreement, is in accord with being not free to ignore the traditions of the Churches sui iuris, which is important. What I do before acting is ask my local hierarchy rather than interpret. (And you and I have been given different answers.) What we are called to do, is to understand.

 

[Diak]

Both “entrusted” and “committed” are used in the canons showing how subjects are acquired by the pastor from the bishop.

In spite of the attempted reconciliation, you previously used the term “commitment”, which is not canonically defined:

What I mean by automatically is: without a specific comitment by the Church. It is not lawful when they are Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris if they are not his subjects, unless through another title or danger of death.

In either case, your use of the term “commitment” is not canonically defined, and therefore would have little meaning or bearing on the argument.

A papal indult of adaptation of rite is obtained from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches to permit a cleric to observe a different rite than of his own Church sui iuris. It is needed because per CCEO Canon 40 we are bound to observe our own rite everywhere and to acquire a greater knowledge of it. (See p. 9, *)

Wrong again, there is no canonical definition of “adaptation of rite”. You have created this term, have not justified its use nor defined its meaning, and it does not exist in Canon 40 nor any other.

It is not an interpretation I made, rather the explaination in The “Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern And Latin Catholics” book, and the Canon quote.

Yes, it most certainly is your own very subjective and biased opinion and interpretation, and one not made by a competent authority. What also needs to be understood is your opinions and personal interpretations are not conventional interpretations by either Latin or Eastern canonists. Therefore, your personal opinions are only that and (thankfully) cannot be considered normative.

Regardless of any agreements between bishops in the USA, the canon shows the way the law is structured. Having an agreement, is in accord with being not free to ignore the traditions of the Churches sui iuris, which is important. What I do before acting is ask my local hierarchy rather than interpret. (And you and I have been given different answers.)

“Regardless of any agreements”? You misunderstand the entire nature of the working relationship between Eastern and Latin Catholics. So the only operative is to serve the law rather than God and our faithful? As Eastern Catholics we are first faithful to God and our faithful and to our agreement of communion with the Church.

What we are called to do, is to understand.

“To understand”? Indeed we are called to understand, not personally self-interpreted minutia but rather the entirety of Magisterial teaching regarding the Eastern Churches, the nature of those Churches, the respect due those Churches, and respect for the respective Union agreements of communion between those Churches and Rome.

 

[Vico]

In spite of the attempted reconciliation, you previously used the term “commitment”, which is not canonically defined:

In either case, your use of the term “commitment” is not canonically defined, and therefore would have little meaning or bearing on the argument.

Wrong again, there is no canonical definition of “adaptation of rite”. You have created this term, have not justified its use nor defined its meaning, and it does not exist in Canon 40 nor any other.

Yes, it most certainly is your own very subjective and biased opinion and interpretation, and one not made by a competent authority. What also needs to be understood is your opinions and personal interpretations are not conventional interpretations by either Latin or Eastern canonists. Therefore, your personal opinions are only that and (thankfully) cannot be considered normative.

“Regardless of any agreements”? You misunderstand the entire nature of the working relationship between Eastern and Latin Catholics. So the only operative is to serve the law rather than God and our faithful? As Eastern Catholics we are first faithful to God and our faithful and to our agreement of communion with the Church.

“To understand”? Indeed we are called to understand, not personally self-interpreted minutia but rather the entirety of Magisterial teaching regarding the Eastern Churches, the nature of those Churches, the respect due those Churches, and respect for the respective Union agreements of communion between those Churches and Rome.

In understanding I am following the advice of the Eparchial Bishop to use the book “Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics”. An adaptation of rite is issued by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. This is described on page 9 of that book. The issues about the legality of administering the sacraments is throughly described in this book also, which is the source of my posted comments (in addition to my pastor and the chancery), not my speculation or personal opinion.

Previous I said: “What I mean by automatically is: without a specific com[m]itment by the Church. It is not lawful when they are Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris if they are not his subjects, unless through another title or danger of death.” And you object to the words the words committed and entrusted, because they are not the word commitment, and because there is no canonical definition.

I can recommend that you read the book I reference to see what I am talking about with regard to each sacrament, and also in general for the canons included for the preservation of the individual rites and the rights and obligations of the faithful.