Holy Day Obligation in the Eastern Rite

[Tradycja]

I go to the UGCC for Sunday Liturgy and confession, but I just follow the fasts and obligation days of my rite (Latin). I had the pastor fooled for awhile, he thought I was Ukrainian because I know what do do during the Liturgy and in fact I don’t participate in Latinizations like kneeling or beating my breast at the prayer before communion. Having studied all the Old Calendrist websites and having “snuck” into more than a few Orthodox Churches in Europe, one of my Ukrainain friends told me, “Starriy, you don’t look like a Latin, if anything you look like you are from Moscovsky Patriarhat.” LOL!!

I go to Mass every day anyway so conflicting obligations are never a problem. Since the UGCC parish has their daily Liturgy at an inconvenient time I am in the Latin rite most of the time anyway.

It’s no big deal really especially since the UGCC follows the new calendar. All the rest is just technicalities.

I just keep my eye on this web page: usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/obligation.shtml because of course if you go to the Byzantine on Sunday the Church bulletin will not remind you about Latin feats coming up.

One day when I am married and have kids of course I will have to make a decision of how to bring them up. I probably will bring them up in the Latin rite since it is my heritage. Probably I will end up having them receive the sacraments of initiation and Catechism in the Tridentine rite because althougth I go to the Novus Ordo being that it is a valid Mass approved by Rome (and I have studied enough not to let the liturgical abuses affect my faith) I don’t want my children exposed to that “rite”.
However, I will also make sure that they are familiar with the Byzantine Tradition as well.

 

[babochka]

I do not know, but suspect, that two Latin Catholics, married and attending a Byzantine Catholic parish, must have their children follow the Latin rule for baptism, eucharist, and chrismation at three different ages, vs the Byzantine practice of infant baptism, eucharist, and chrismation. And their children will certainly be in the Latin Church (because their parents are) regardless of which church it is received from.

CCEO Canon 696

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

My husband and I are both Latin Rite, but attend a Byzantine Rite church. Each of our 4 children have been baptized, Chrismated, and received Holy Communion as infants in our Byzantine Rite parish. The needed permissions were accomplished with a few phone calls in the space of a day or so.

 

[Vico]

I go to the UGCC for Sunday Liturgy and confession, but I just follow the fasts and obligation days of my rite (Latin). … I go to Mass every day anyway so conflicting obligations are never a problem. Since the UGCC parish has their daily Liturgy at an inconvenient time I am in the Latin rite most of the time anyway. I probably will bring them up in the Latin rite since it is my heritage. … However, I will also make sure that they are familiar with the Byzantine Tradition as well.

By being a member of a particular ritual Church (1 of 23) we are automatically members of the Roman Catholic Church, but we are also members of a parish (in our particular ritual Church) based upon where we live. So your are actually a Latin Church member? I think the idea is to foster communion with your own parish, through assisting on Sunday and Holy Days and with donations. It does seem normal to visit other parishes sometimes or when traveling, or when temporarily located, though.

 

[Diak]

talked to my pastor at my Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church a few weeks ago about this. He said he cannot administer the mysteries to Latin Church members according to the Byzantine rules for Baptism/Chrismation/Eucharist, and Matrimony.

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

Note: some exceptions exist for dire circumstances for some Mysteries.

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

So, Vico, your pastor’s opinion is not congruent with the approach used by the majority of priests I’ve encountered.

I agree with Aramis; I have been godfather for at least three Latin godchildren who received the triple Sacraments of Initiation but whose parents remained “officially” Latin. This practice is not uncommon in UGCC parishes. I do not know personally of any UGCC priests who would deny Christian Initiation to any Catholic, Latin or otherwise, who freely approached these Mysteries. Likewise I know of no Latin bishop who has problems with this; most would likely agree theologically with the late Holy Father JPII’s opinion of the “perfection” of the Eastern triple initiation.

A valid point has been raised, however; weddings and especially Holy Orders are generally to be done in the particular Church of the recipients, but even these can be dispensed by the appropriate Bishop to whom the persons are subject. But I have never heard of any canonical restriction to the Mysteries of Initiation (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Eucharist) if these are freely requested by any Catholic.

 

[Vico]

… But I have never heard of any canonical restriction to the Mysteries of Initiation (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Eucharist) if these are freely requested by any Catholic.

Posts 47 and 53 mentioned CCEO 696. Note 3 states, regarding chrismation, “and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter”.

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.
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.

The Latin Church laws are more complex, and there are some regarding first communion and confirmation, and this varies by diocese too. Also the Latin code limits those who can administer confirmation. Canon 882 states the the Bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, canon 884 that the Bishop may allow a presbyter to confirm, if the qualify by law (given below).

Can. 883 The following have, by law, the faculty to administer confirmation:
1° within the confines of their jurisdiction, those who in law are equivalent to a
diocesan Bishop;
2° in respect of the person to be confirmed, the priest who by virtue of his office
or by mandate of the diocesan Bishop baptizes an adult or admits a baptized adult
into full communion with the catholic Church;
3° in respect of those in danger of death, the parish priest or indeed any priest.

Also a note on the next canon:
“Canon 884. The treatment of the minister of chrismation in the Eastern code is greatly simplified, since all presbyters have by law the faculty to adminster this sacrament to infants and adults alike, either in the context of the celebration of baptism or apart from it, and regardless of the rite sui iuris to which the one to be chrismated belongs. They need no special faculty by concession as do presbyters in the West. See CCEO 694, 696, section 1.”

From New commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 1078.

 

[Diak]

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…

There are no restrictions or limitation in the cited canons. Anyone who requests the Sacraments from the priest become “his subjects or those whom he lawfully baptizes” (assuming, of course, that the priest’s faculties are current). There is no specific prohibition for Eastern priests to “leave Latins alone”, and indeed no Latin canonist has interpreted anything remotely like this, especially when it is the Latin faithful who in good faith approach the Eastern priest for these Mysteries. Canon Law never impedes access to the Sacraments made in good faith. The Eastern canons never prohibit any conferring of Christian Initiation on those who come freely requesting such.

The Latin canons, if read carefully, only regulate the ministers of Confirmation for those clergy subject to the Latin code. This has no bearing on the actual conferring of the Sacraments of Initiation in another particular ritual tradition that is subject to another entirely different corpus of Canon law.

It is further stated in the Latin canon (884) that any Eastern priest is assumed to have the faculties of “confirmation”, and furthermore there is no stated prescription for acquiring dispensation or even notifying the Latin ordinary if conferring on Latin faithful who request the Sacraments from an Eastern priest. This allowance of a very general application is understood in the Latin canon with the conclusion to this canon: “**since all presbyters have by law the faculty to adminster this sacrament to infants and adults alike, either in the context of the celebration of baptism or apart from it, and regardless of the rite sui iuris to which the one to be chrismated belongs. **”.

Certainly if it was the intention in the Latin Canons to limit Chrismation being received in other *sui iuris * Churches by Latins, it would most certainly have been provided for explicitly in the law. No such thing is present.

 

[Vico]

It is difficult to read any “limitation” into this canon. …\quote]

Well, the limitation is there, and it is observed by my Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic pastor, CCEO 696 section 3. I suppose you did not read it?

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

 

[Diak]

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

I’ve read it many times. You’ll have to tell me with definitive references to what is/are “the agreements”? The Union of Brest or other particular Unions?

The guidance to the Catholic Bishops in the US makes no judgment on the practice for Latins, but only exhorts Eastern Catholics “If, at the time of confirmation for the class or group of children in the sacramental program, it is found that a child belonging to an Eastern Church has not yet received the holy mystery of Chrismation, the child must then be chrismated in his or her proper autonomous ritual Church.” (Eastern Catholics in the USA, NCCB). Not a word about Latins being limited or prohibited to receive at an Eastern Catholic parish.

From the Latin canon itself there is no limitation for Latins freely requesting any of the Sacraments of Initiation from any Eastern Catholic priest, nor should any Latin feel one exists. There simply is not any particular “agreements” for Eastern Catholic priests to “leave Latins alone” if the Latins freely request the Sacraments of Initiation from the Eastern Catholic priest.

 

[Vico]

I’ve read it many times. You’ll have to tell me with definitive references to what is/are “the agreements”? The Union of Brest or other particular Unions?
…
There simply is not any particular “agreements” for Eastern Catholic priests to “leave Latins alone” if the Latins freely request the Sacraments of Initiation from the Eastern Catholic priest.

I am reporting to you all what my experience is in a Byzantine Catholic parish in the US, and I have showed you where there is limiting wording in the CCEO, even if there are no agreements in place at a particular eparchy/diocese. He talked on the topic to the parish before, and later I asked for more details.

I read my Feb 21 post again and it does not mention anything about approvals, only that there are exceptions. The pastor has said that he does not give the Mystery of the Eucharist to infants that are Latin Church members nor Chrismate them when they are baptized as infants without approvals (which are the limitations).

As another example, did you read what babochka said in post 62?:

"My husband and I are both Latin Rite, but attend a Byzantine Rite church. Each of our 4 children have been baptized, Chrismated, and received Holy Communion as infants in our Byzantine Rite parish. The needed permissions were accomplished with a few phone calls in the space of a day or so. "

Validity and lawfulness are independent.

 

[Vico]

This is an addendum to the last post, addressing liceity of chrismation by Eastern Catholic presbyter to Latin Catholics.

USA Archdiocese of the Military Priests Manual is here:
milarch.org/inc/data/priestsmanual.pdf

4.2.10.3 Chaplains who are presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer the chrismation with holy myron, along with Baptism or separate from it, to all members of the faithful of any ritual church, including the Latin Church. For liceity, a presbyter ordinarily administers this sacrament only to members of his own church sui iuris. (CCEO c.696). Therefore, chaplains who are of the Eastern Churches should receive permission from the chancery to licitly confirm Latin Catholics.

 

[Diak]

Yes, I read babochka’s post. While I applaud her desire to “dot the i’s” if their home parish is Eastern I would honestly not have bothered with “permission”, consistent with not only the CCEO but the Latin canons but merely made sure the baptismal registry of the parish of baptism was adequately documented.

I am puzzled by the need to continually cite Canons to seemingly regulate the activity of Eastern Catholic clergy into senseless dissections of “liceity” and “validity” when there is no compelling reason to do so (the old Rolling Stones song “Under my thumb” keeps coming to mind). Should we not be conferring the Sacraments of Initiation when the faithful freely approach, knowing who we are?

Is it actually objectively bad or evil for a Catholic to request Christian Initiation from a Catholic priest, albeit of a different particular liturgical tradition? Is this a sinful or disordered act? Absolutely not according to the canons. So why the need to place more hoops along the way? To prove points that do nothing but in the end place additional barriers or limitations on the activity of Eastern Catholic priests who in good faith in living their priesthood and trying to administer the Sacraments to Catholics who also in good faith are approaching them?

OK, lets look at your latest offering. First of all these canons ONLY apply to the Military Chaplaincy, which will not be disputed by ANY canon lawyer. So there is no corresponding general application of these outside of the military usage to either the Eastern or Latin Canons, and thus we are talking about a very narrowly applied set of canons to very specific communities regulated to U.S. military installations.

Secondly, there is more here than just no question of validity. “can validly administer the chrismation with holy myron, along with Baptism or separate from it, to all members of the faithful of any ritual church, including the Latin Church.” Why in the world would a specific open reference to allowing Chrismation to Latins be included if it were to be a prohibited or limited practice?

It seems your argument hinges on the tendentious point of “liceity”; this portion of a canon is obviously intended for a very specific audience. “For liceity, a presbyter ordinarily administers this sacrament only to members of his own church sui iuris. (CCEO c.696). Therefore, chaplains who are of the Eastern Churches should receive permission from the chancery to licitly confirm Latin Catholics.” “Ordinarily” is not an exclusive word - “only” would have been used if it were the intention of the legislator to limit or prohibit the practice.

In reality (knowing several of our priests who are military chaplains) the application of this is merely a notification (“permission” is usually understood since all of the Eastern priests also have Latin faculties as a requirement to be in the Chaplain Corps) and some have even been told not to bother with the call and only make sure the baptismal registry states the appropriate facts.

I’m still puzzled at the apparent need to place additional legislative roadblocks to the free access of a Catholic to the Sacraments of Initation freely chosen in another particular ritual Church?

The citation of the military chaplains canons still reiterates what I have stated, namely any Catholic can approach an Eastern Catholic priest for any of the Sacraments of Initiation, and there is no limitation or prohibition on the reception of these sacraments. Notification of the Chancery even by admission of the canons is at best an obsequence, and most certainly (by any Canons yet proposed as evidence) no requirement for conferring or approaching these Sacraments.

“Ordinarily” a priest does not refuse any Catholic Christian Initiation who freely approaches in good faith.

 

[Vico]

…

Should we not be conferring the Sacraments of Initiation when the faithful freely approach, knowing who we are? …

So why the need to place more hoops along the way? To prove points that do nothing but in the end place additional barriers or limitations on the activity of Eastern Catholic priests who in good faith in living their priesthood and trying to administer the Sacraments to Catholics who also in good faith are approaching them? …

First of all these canons ONLY apply to the Military Chaplaincy, which will not be disputed by ANY canon lawyer…

Secondly, there is more here than just no question of validity. … Why in the world would a specific open reference to allowing Chrismation to Latins be included if it were to be a prohibited or limited practice? …

The citation of the military chaplains canons still reiterates what I have stated, namely any Catholic can approach an Eastern Catholic priest for any of the Sacraments of Initiation, and there is no limitation or prohibition on the reception of these sacraments. Notification of the Chancery even by admission of the canons is at best an obsequence, and most certainly (by any Canons yet proposed as evidence) no requirement for conferring or approaching these Sacraments. …

No, the CCEO does not allow administering of the Sacraments of Initiation when the faithful freely approach. This shows respect for the traditions of the individual sui iuris Churches.

The military priests guide I referenced refers to the CCEO 696 as the source of it’s comment on licety for confirmation, and CCEO pertains to all Eastern Churches.

Refer to 696 number 3 * for liciety of confirmation and it’s other sections for validity. The Canon Law Society of America comissioned the book “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” by Beal, et. al. which states on p. 37, in a comment about CCEO 696 for confirmation:

“In order for the chrismation to be licit, the Christian faithful should approach their proper minister.”

In these posts I am reporting what I have experienced and what is said in the canons. Last night I asked my parish priest again about why he is not able to give Latin Church members some of the mysteries freely. He said it was because they are not juridicial subjects of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church, but Latin, and that is why he must contact the Latin Church chancery. He said, they would not grant him to administer Confirmation to infants along with baptism. He said that the reason was that those that are enrolled members of the Latin Church are under its jurisdiction even though they regularly attend at another sui iuris Church. He said it someone changes ritual Church (through the process of two years attendance plus the letters to the bishops) there they are then under the jurisdiction of that churches Bishop.

---

• 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.”

 

[Diak]

No, the CCEO does not allow administering of the Sacraments of Initiation when the faithful freely approach. This shows respect for the traditions of the individual sui iuris Churches.

“Does not allow”? Show again where it is PROHIBITED. You haven’t yet. So the faithful approaching an Eastern Catholic priest of their free will, knowing he is an Eastern Catholic priest and familiar with the ritual differences, can be NOT ALLOWED Christian Initiation by Canon Law? That is an interesting development. I always thought the highest law was the saving of souls and bringing the faithful to the Sacraments, but not according to your interpretation. I see nowhere where the respect to the Eastern Churches is diminished by my interpretations.

Refer to 696 number 3 * for liciety of confirmation and it’s other sections for validity. The Canon Law Society of America comissioned the book “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” by Beal, et. al. which states on p. 37, in a comment about CCEO 696 for confirmation:

“In order for the chrismation to be licit, the Christian faithful should approach their proper minister.”

Are you aware of the disctinction between canon and commentary? Commentary is NOT canon law, but merely a personal interpretation of application. You haven’t given any definitive new information to prove that a prohibition exists in Canon 696 for anyone who wishes in good faith to approach an Eastern Catholic priest for the Sacraments of Initiation. We’ve already been through this, but the canon states

he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title,

First of all, “his subjects”, is included separately from the previous statement regarding “the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris” and is specifically introduced with the very open statement, "when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris. 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”. I’ll assume you understand that Latins are not excluded in this allowance of “other Churches sui iuris” since no exclusion is present either here or in the Latin code to specifically exempt them from being able to receive the Sacraments or be “subjects” of an Eastern Catholic priest.

He said, they would not grant him to administer Confirmation to infants along with baptism.

According to the CCEO, Baptism is not to be administered by an Eastern priest without Chrismation. Canon 692 states “It is necessary that those who are baptized be chrismated with holy myron, that by a seal they be signed with the gift of the Holy Spirit and be made more proper witnesses and co-builders in the Kingdom of Christ.” Necessary is a strong and definite word here. 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.

Obviously if the priest had bi-ritual faculties and was working in a Latin parish or chaplaincy, he would be following and respecting the Latin practice. But this is not what we are considering. We are considering a person approaching an Eastern Catholic priest, knowing he is an Eastern Catholic priest, and desiring the Sacraments of Initiation in the Eastern Catholic particular tradition. That is absolutely not prohibited by either Latin or Eastern canon law.

He said that the reason was that those that are enrolled members of the Latin Church are under its jurisdiction even though they regularly attend at another sui iuris Church. He said it someone changes ritual Church (through the process of two years attendance plus the letters to the bishops) there they are then under the jurisdiction of that churches Bishop.

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.

As an aside, you might want to read a bit on the history of the Russian Catholic Church, since +Fabian of blessed memory, whom you have in your signature block, abhorred the kind of strict legalism that you propose here. He was often the victim of limitations on his ministry to his own people, who were “subject” to the Latins in the absence of an active Russian Greek Catholic Exarchate and continually had to deal with this sort of nonsense.

 

[Diak]

I, of course, respect the personal interpretation of your priest, if that is in fact what he said as you related.

I am less impressed with the majority of your content with a seeming need to legalistically quote Eastern canons to Eastern Catholics with your personal interpretations on the application of “law” to the very unique pastoral situations of Eastern Catholics. Quoting canons is one thing, understanding orthopraxis and pastorally taking care of your faithful is another thing entirely. I want to clarify that while I have not received any different opinions whatsoever amongst any of the nearly dozen diocesan and archdiocesan Latin canon lawyers I have consulted all the way to the canon lawyer for the Pro-Nuncio about interpretations of these issues, I would not presume to pontificate any subjective personal opinion as definitive as you have, esepcially on a member of another Church sui iuris. I only state what I do based on precedental experience, Eastern canon law training in the seminary, as well as my own parochial experiences over multiple decades.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

“Ordinarily” a priest does not refuse any Catholic Christian Initiation who freely approaches in good faith.

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?

 

[babochka]

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?

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.

 

[Joab_Anias]

:nope::sad_yes::yup::clapping::dancing::extrahappy::tsktsk

 

[Joab_Anias]

:jrbirdman:

 

[Joab_Anias]

:blackeye::coolinoff::nunchuk:kpeople:

 

[exarctly]

Diak,

I understand that you do not like seeing legalism and restrictions or lack of respect for Eastern Priests. I still, am more in agreement and convinced by Vico’s interpretations.
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.

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.

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.

I am enjoying the discussion though, and I hope that it is in a spirit of charity and kind exchange of ideas though there may be differences of opinion and practice.

I am pretty sure that you are correct about the no such thing as a two year minimum, however.

Brian