1
1ke
Guest
Yes, see my post 17, and also my post on the other thread. I misread my own post when I replied!
- Status
B
babochka
Guest
Not being a canon lawyer, I don’t know what the law means by the priest’s “subjects”, but I do know the guidelines given by my own bishop to priests regarding the administration of the Holy Mysteries of Baptism and Chrismation to those of the Latin Rite. In our eparchy, priests are allowed to baptize and chrismate (and commune) the children of Latin Rite parents who have been parishioners for at least six months. The same guidelines apply to the chrismations of adults. I assume that any necessary permission has been worked out between bishops.
V
Vico
Guest
The reference is to those of another sui iuris Church. When the faithful have been placed in charge of the faithful of another sui iuris Church, which would be by the proper pastor (bishop or priest) established by territory (which could be personal parish). The Latin Church has a responsibility to care for the eastern Catholics without their own hierarchy. Also the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith has responsibility for missionary activity of areas outside of the ancient eastern territories, whereas the Congregation for the Eastern Churches has within them.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
In order to be a member of a parish, one must first be a member of that Church sui iuris.
If they are members of the Latin Rite, then that cannot be members of an Eastern parish. The two memberships completely contradict each other.
Substitute the word “subjects” or “parishioners” and it comes out the same way.
The exception happens when there is no pastoral care in that territory for members of a certain Church sui iuris, resulting in Catholics being under the pastoral care of a parish/eparchy/diocese of another. If that pre-arrangement does not exist, then the two forms of membership (Church and parish) must always be the same.
The term “subjects” means parishioners, or members of that particular parish. Usually it means the faithful of the same Church sui iuris as the pastor. Of course, with regard to an eparchy/diocese, it means the members of that eparchy/diocese*. Yes, it could refer to members of a different Church sui iuris, who are under the care of a different bishop and/or pastor other-than one of their own Church, but that’s not the usual situation.
- Of course, it also applies to other situations such as ordinariates and exarchates, etc. There’s no point in typing out every possible example of “ordinary jurisdiction.”
B
babochka
Guest
Yes, I understand the technical details here. I was speaking more colloquially. I should have used the term “registered families”. Parish registration is used as the determining factor for our goal for the annual Bishop’s appeal, for example. We have 18 families, but only a few are canonically Byzantine. Still, they count as “parishioners” when it comes to money.
So, to re-phrase it to be more precise - our bishop has issued guidelines to his priests that a family needs to be registered in the parish for at least 6 months before the priest can perform the sacraments of initiation for a member of that family. Given the situation in our parishes in the western United States, I believe it is very common to have long-term registered, non-parishioner families in Byzantine Catholic parishes. They have babies and their babies are baptized, chrismated, and given Holy Communion as the children of any parishioner would be. I assume any technical details were worked out between bishops before any guidelines were issued.What about a situation in which husband and wife are members of different sui iruis churches, but follow one rite as a family. For example, I am canonically Ruthenian, but my husband is not. We attend the Ruthenian Church, our children were baptized (and enrolled in) the Ruthenian Church. We follow Byzantine fasts and Byzantine Holy Days and my husband doesn’t worry about Ash Wednesday (fasting) and All Saints Day(Holy Day of Obligation), for example. I know that this situation is specifically allowed in canon law. (I can’t find the canon right now, or I would quote it, but I know I’ve seen it.) In spite of this, would my husband still not be a parishioner, while the rest of his family would be? If he desired a dispensation to miss Mass or Divine liturgy, for example, would he need to approach the pastor of the Latin Rite parish?
- Of course, it also applies to other situations such as ordinariates and exarchates, etc. There’s no point in typing out every possible example of “ordinary jurisdiction.”
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It’s not just a “technical issue” it goes to the very core of the topic of this thread.Yes, I understand the technical details here. I was speaking more colloquially. I should have used the term “registered families”. Parish registration is used as the determining factor for our goal for the annual Bishop’s appeal, for example. We have 18 families, but only a few are canonically Byzantine. Still, they count as “parishioners” when it comes to money.
Again, see CCEO canon 696.
An Eastern priest Chrismates validly always, but licitly only under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the person be one of his own subjects, or he has permission/delegation (depending on circumstances).
That can get rather complicated. To answer it briefly, canon law does address this issue. The couple can choose to be members of the same Church sui iuris at the time of the wedding. The children follow the rite of the father, unless the parents specify otherwise at the time of baptism. At least, that is how it happens under the Eastern Code. Before that Code took effect, the laws were different—therefore, each situation has to be evaluated on an individual basis, so questions like “what year was the wedding?” or “what year was each child baptized?” are very relevant.
Your last one is rather easy, because pastors can dispense according to their own territory, so as long as the one asking is within his territory, there’s no problem. However, for the pastor to dispense someone outside of his own territory, the person must be one of his own subjects.
B
babochka
Guest
Of course, you’re right that this isn’t just a technical issue and I should have been more precise in my language. But if a bishop has given guidelines for just this situation, would a priest err in following the specific instructions given by his own bishop? This situation occurs often in our churches. A couple of years ago, our bishop came to baptize two babies in our parish. Side-by-side their parents and godparents stood, reciting the same creed. They were immersed in the same baptismal font, they received the same Chrismation, they received Holy Communion from the same chalice, with the same spoon. One child was Byzantine, one was Latin Rite. Two weeks ago, we had another baptism, a Latin Rite family who has attended our parish (and other Byzantine parishes) for a number of years. I know what canon law says, and I believe that it is important to follow the law. But doesn’t my bishop know the law better? Shouldn’t I assume that he knows something that I don’t? What I meant by the “technical details have been worked out” is that necessary permissions have been requested and given. Perhaps the bishops of overlapping territories have an agreement for this situation. It would make sense, given the situation in my eparchy, at least. I have no idea. I guess my default is just to assume that if something appears to be opposed to canon law as I understand it, that I lack information. I also assume the good intentions of my pastor and bishop. With these assumptions, I also have to assume that what appears to be ilicit probably isn’t.
B
babochka
Guest
This is related to, but not quite the issue that I was discussing. We are clear on our canonical status and that of our children.
Canon 883 (2) states: 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.
This is what we have chosen to do in our family. In a case in which the wife and children are Byzantine, the husband is Latin, and the entire family attends the Byzantine Church and follows the norms of the Byzantine Church in regard to feast days and days of penance, would the wife be a parishioner of the parish and the husband not?
This is getting a bit off-topic, so let me bring it back to the subject of the thread. If the husband were not confirmed and wished to receive the sacrament, would he be considered a subject of the Byzantine pastor. As the canon reads, without any other permissions, would the Byzantine pastor be permitted to Chrismate this individual?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I keep trying to explain that membership in a parish depends on what canon law says, meaning “how canon law defines membership in a Church sui iuris”. That cannot be answered broadly because it depends on the time-period (before or after the CCOE was promulgated) and how that relates to the date of the wedding and the dates of baptism. Such questions are simply too complicated for a forum like this and they must be asked on an individual basis. Yes, general answers are possible, but they depend on secondary questions like “did the parents declare such-and-such at the time of the baptism?”
Attending a Church sui iuris (or for that matter, attending any particular parish) does not make someone a member. In fact, the Eastern Code (the CCOE) explicitly states this (I cannot remember the canon # offhand).
Yes, families can choose to follow one set of fasting laws for the sake of the good of the family. However, that does not make them members of one Church or another.
No.
Same thing again. If the husband is Latin Rite (which is not something I am deciding, it’s something you are presenting as a “given” in the situation), then he is not a subject of the Byzantine pastor. Please see my earlier posts.
The terms “member” and “parishioner” and “subject” are all synonymous.
It makes no difference if we say “the person must be a member of that parish” or we say “the person must be a subject of that pastor.” Those all mean the same thing.
No.
Not the way you’ve asked the question.
For an Eastern priest to Chrismate a non-subject, he always acts validly, but he only acts licitly if he has the necessary permission or delegation.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I am not going to address the issue of whether or not any particular bishop or priest actually does have the necessary permission or faculties or delegation.
What I can say is things like “he acts licitly if he has the necessary permission” because when I write that, I’m merely repeating what the law already says.
When I write that he needs permission &c., that should never be taken to imply that I think he doesn’t have it.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I think it is absolutely wrong for anyone to operate under an assumption that the respective priests in these situations, in fact, do not know what they are doing or how to do it properly – and even less that the hierarchs do not know what they are doing.
When I was in my chancery, we had the warmest of relations with the Eastern Catholic priest and with the Eparch, who actually had most cordial personal relations with our bishop. Assuredly, the particularities were always tended to meticulously on both sides…at all levels.
When it came to the seminarians in formation, the answer was very simple: if you even think the matter touches on both codes, do not proceed on your own; call the chancery.
Frankly, it is absolutely wrong to in any way engender a sense that would cause a want of confidence on the part of the laity that what proceeds would not properly conform to the respective Codes of Canon Law.
C
carefullytread
Guest
I always enjoy reading Fr. Ruggero’s responses. He’s right that it’s not good to be generally suspicious of the actions of priests and I can see that he took this post to be me suggesting that there was a problem with Eastern presbyters confirming Latin Rite Catholics. I didn’t mean to do that and I’m sorry for the earlier poster who misunderstood the question and was upset.
However, I don’t see how it can be good advice to not inform yourself of matters that concern you and be vigilant of situations that involve professionals. When I deal with doctors or lawyers, I know that I’m paying thousands of dollars for highly qualified, educated professionals who have devoted their lives to thinking about the sort of problems that I face.
But at the end of the day, the outcomes matter to me and not them. It is always a mistake to not do your own diligence and simply trust the professionals when the outcome has a large impact on you. I have saved myself both health and legal problems by catching errors made by my highly paid and highly recommended legal and medical professionals. If spiritual matters are that much more important, how can you not counsel being diligent in them too?
This is a totally different matter than being generally distrustful of them. In this particular case, it doesn’t seem that there are any implications for the confirmand even if the confirmation was illicit, so it seems there isn’t much reason to be educated. But in general, as much as I respect Fr. Ruggero, I think he’s off the mark here to suggest that you should simply trust what you are told in important spiritual matters. I think the relevant expression is “Trust, but verify”.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You know in all my years, I have had one person who asked to see the actual form that the bishop had sent regarding a needed dispensation. He actually wasn’t asking to see it because he did not believe it had been granted but was curious as to the type of paper it was printed on and how elaborate the seal. So, of course, I showed it to him.
Your “trust but verify comment” rather depends upon what the matter is and who it concerns. If it directly concerns the person, I would be happy to either show them the permission I am giving (if the matter relates to me making a grant) or the permission or delegation or dispensation that has been received. If the person asking is, in fact, not the person directly concerned, my answer would be no.
My last response was specifically to Babochka’s comments. She is referencing parishioners who are neither herself nor members of her family but members of the liturgical assembly. My response was in no way a criticism of her but quite the opposite and a support to the point she is making: parishioners rightly assume that their pastor, who was named by the bishop who is their shepherd, has complied with the law and, above all, that the bishop himself has complied with the law…which was, again, her precise point, to wit: “But doesn’t my bishop know the law better? Shouldn’t I assume that he knows something that I don’t?” The answer is “yes.”
In her example and were the situation altered to involve me, those directly concerned would have their question answered, if they sought an answer. A mere member of the liturgical assembly who asked a question concerning the matter would have a very simple answer: “The specifics of the law were complied with”…and possibly a one sentence answer beyond that to a follow up question. And that’s all the answer they would receive from me. I don’t make it a habit to show Church documents that concern specific individuals to any and all who may simply have an interest in them…if said documents are even at hand.
- Status