Infant Christian Initiation in Eastern Catholic Church vs Latin Church

[Vico]

There are differences in Christian Initiation between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church. Some of you here may have experience with these in that the Mysteries of Chrismation and Holy Eucharist, for most eastern Catholic Churches, are given with baptizm, whereas this is not the practice in the Latin Church.

Some of you Latin ascribed may have had your infants baptized in an eastern Catholic Church, validly but illicitly, because of the illicit giving of Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist. (Also an eastern priest must have permission to give baptism from the Latin Church.)

Also some of you eastern ascribed may have had your infants baptized in a Latin Catholic Church, validly but illicitly, because of the improper witholding of Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist. (A Latin priest must have faculties for Chrismation to administer it, and also must have permission to give baptism from the other Church.)

Eastern (generally)
infant baptizm (by priest or bishop) with
infant chrismation (by priest or bishop), and eucharist

Latin (and some eastern)
infant baptizm (by priest, or deacon, or other)
age of discretion confirmation (by bishop or delegate) and eucharist

In Baptizm, the emphasis of the eastern Churches is on nourishing (not a one time event, but a new reality) the faithful with the Holy Spirit, Christ amoung us, and in many eastern Churches includes Chrismation and Holy Eucharist whereas, in the Latin Church, it is on imprinting on the soul a charististic of the likeness of Christ, and the union with the bishop as guarantor of the Church.

Chrismation or Confirmation is completion of baptizm, which is delayed in the Latin Church, along with Holy Eucharist, to the age of reason. So these are different expressions of Christian initiation which are to be observed according to the traditions of the various Catholic Churches, and codified in the canons (CIC and CCEO, etc.)

About five years after the CCEO was promulgated (which was in 1991), the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1996) was presented. We know that when Catholics have their infants baptized, the infant is ascribed to the Church sui iuris based upon their parents ascribed Church which might be different than the Church sui iuris in which the ritual is done or of the minister. The Instruction explains that** the rite visibly signifies the entrance into the infant’s Church sui iuris**, except when a minister of one’s own rite is lacking.

Initiation is to be done according to prescriptions for the Church sui iuris of ascription of the parents (or guardian), even if the initiation is by a different ritual. This also means that Chrismation and Holy Eucharist are not given with baptism for Latin Catholic parents having their infant baptised in an eastern Catholic Church.

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1996):
47. Baptism is to be received in one’s own rite

With the exception of special circumstances, which would have to be authorized by the competent authorities, the practice of requesting Baptism in a rite other than one’s own for motives such as esthetics, friendship with the minister, etc. is absolutely discouraged. Except for the case of lacking a minister of one’s own rite, the celebration of Baptism should also visibly signify the entrance in one’s own Church sui iuris. For this reason, can. 683 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states that “Baptism must be celebrated according (to) the liturgical prescriptions of the Church in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.”
byzcath.org/faith/documents/instruction.htm

 

[ciero]

There are differences in Christian Initiation between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church. Some of you here may have experience with these in that the Mysteries of Chrismation and Holy Eucharist, for most eastern Catholic Churches, are given with baptizm, whereas this is not the practice in the Latin Church.

Some of you Latin ascribed may have had your infants baptized in an eastern Catholic Church, validly but illicitly, because of the illicit giving of Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist. (Also an eastern priest must have permission to give baptism from the Latin Church.)

Also some of you eastern ascribed may have had your infants baptized in a Latin Catholic Church, validly but illicitly, because of the improper witholding of Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist. (A Latin priest must have faculties for Chrismation to administer it, and also must have permission to give baptism from the other Church.)

Eastern (generally)
infant baptizm (by priest or bishop) with
infant chrismation (by priest or bishop), and eucharist

Latin (and some eastern)
infant baptizm (by priest, or deacon, or other)
age of discretion confirmation (by bishop or delegate) and eucharist

In Baptizm, the emphasis of the eastern Churches is on nourishing (not a one time event, but a new reality) the faithful with the Holy Spirit, Christ amoung us, and in many eastern Churches includes Chrismation and Holy Eucharist whereas, in the Latin Church, it is on imprinting on the soul a charististic of the likeness of Christ, and the union with the bishop as guarantor of the Church.

Chrismation or Confirmation is completion of baptizm, which is delayed in the Latin Church, along with Holy Eucharist, to the age of reason. So these are different expressions of Christian initiation which are to be observed according to the traditions of the various Catholic Churches, and codified in the canons (CIC and CCEO, etc.)

About five years after the CCEO was promulgated (which was in 1991), the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1996) was presented. We know that when Catholics have their infants baptized, the infant is ascribed to the Church sui iuris based upon their parents ascribed Church which might be different than the Church sui iuris in which the ritual is done or of the minister. The Instruction explains that** the rite visibly signifies the entrance into the infant’s Church sui iuris**, except when a minister of one’s own rite is lacking.

Initiation is to be done according to prescriptions for the Church sui iuris of ascription of the parents (or guardian), even if the initiation is by a different ritual. This also means that Chrismation and Holy Eucharist are not given with baptism for Latin Catholic parents having their infant baptised in an eastern Catholic Church.

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1996):
47. Baptism is to be received in one’s own rite

With the exception of special circumstances, which would have to be authorized by the competent authorities, the practice of requesting Baptism in a rite other than one’s own for motives such as esthetics, friendship with the minister, etc. is absolutely discouraged. Except for the case of lacking a minister of one’s own rite, the celebration of Baptism should also visibly signify the entrance in one’s own Church sui iuris. For this reason, can. 683 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states that “Baptism must be celebrated according (to) the liturgical prescriptions of the Church in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.”
byzcath.org/faith/documents/instruction.htm

More Canon Law…gotta love it on the Eastern forum…I think the Latins should take their CCEO and stick it some some Vatican dungeon and forget about it…This CCEO is one of the biggest Latinisations imposed on us from Rome…it just stinks!

 

[Ghosty]

More Canon Law…gotta love it on the Eastern forum…I think the Latins should take their CCEO and stick it some some Vatican dungeon and forget about it…This CCEO is one of the biggest Latinisations imposed on us from Rome…it just stinks!

Agreed!

 

[malphono]

It’s no secret here that I’m not, and never have been, a big fan of the CCEO, but perhaps this question is in order: is it better to have the CCEO or would it be preferable to be subject directly to the CIC? Let’s face the fact that it’s Rome we’re dealing with, and with that it mind, and considering all things, it has to be one or the other. Yeah, I know, I suppose it’s like asking which a person would rather have, a headache or a stomach ache, but …

 

[Vico]

More Canon Law…gotta love it on the Eastern forum…I think the Latins should take their CCEO and stick it some some Vatican dungeon and forget about it…This CCEO is one of the biggest Latinisations imposed on us from Rome…it just stinks!

You thumb your nose at blessed Pope John Paul II.

 

[Aramis]

Most Eastern Rites Christians live in nations with accepted systems of law; The US, Canada, Russia, Turkey, India, Australia; to a lesser extent, Israel and Iran.

Even Egypt, Syria, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia make pretense of same. And much of the division between Catholics and Orthodox is legalistic wrangling.

In modern Westernized societies, any organization is expected t have consistent rules.

Whilst the CCEO isn’t ideal as written, some similar structure is essential to normalizing processes. The lack of similar unified code is driving divergence in praxis amongst the Orthodox - at least in terms of Church Governance. The Sobors of the Russians, vs the metropolitans-only of the Antiochians… and the semi-canonical Kyivan Patriarchate.

The 20th and 21st centuries are truly the era of the Rise of Law. Canon Law for the Catholic Church was codified and simplified in 1917; and revised in the 1980’s, when a different set of rules was allowed for the east. It was written in consultation with the Eastern Primates… but written in a legalistic manner, so as to be clear.

No set of such canons is perfect, but not having one would put us at far greater risk of being forcibly latinized.

Honestly, I’d rather see the Eastern Canons in the main code, as subsections, so that the Romans would see the East within the main code, but realistically, most would read versions with the Eastern Specific parts redacted anyway.

 

[Stephentlig]

My son was baptised yesterday on feast of Pentecost by Archimandrite Fr.Serge in Dublin. It was a great day glory be to Christ. The Ukrainian women were very helpful. It was also my parents and immediate family and relatives and neices and nephews first time ever at a Ukrainian Liturgy and it has revived their faith and they have begun already to take interest in their faith and return to it. One Ukrainian man joked with my dad and whispered to him ‘‘the priest will want to take a snip of your hair when you go up to kiss the Cross at the end’’ lol hahaha. My 6 year old neice saw the children going up for communion and wanted to go also but my dad came to me and asked me can she go and I said ‘‘no’’ but can go up and the end with the children to kiss the Cross as she has not yet made her communion and is of the latin rite’’. She took a big huff after hearing she couldnt go up lol

Stephen

 

[Robertwilliam]

THAT is why the West should reinstate Communion for Children.

 

[5Loaves]

My son was baptised yesterday on feast of Pentecost by Archimandrite Fr.Serge in Dublin. It was a great day glory be to Christ.
Stephen

S Prazdnikom!
That’s such wonderful news. Time flies, I can’t believe you’re so integrated into this parish and have your beautiful son, and now baptized and chrismated.
God grant him many years!

 

[ConstantineTG]

My son was baptised yesterday on feast of Pentecost by Archimandrite Fr.Serge in Dublin. It was a great day glory be to Christ. The Ukrainian women were very helpful. It was also my parents and immediate family and relatives and neices and nephews first time ever at a Ukrainian Liturgy and it has revived their faith and they have begun already to take interest in their faith and return to it. One Ukrainian man joked with my dad and whispered to him ‘‘the priest will want to take a snip of your hair when you go up to kiss the Cross at the end’’ lol hahaha. My 6 year old neice saw the children going up for communion and wanted to go also but my dad came to me and asked me can she go and I said ‘‘no’’ but can go up and the end with the children to kiss the Cross as she has not yet made her communion and is of the latin rite’’. She took a big huff after hearing she couldnt go up lol

Stephen

We’re canonically Latin and my 1 year old receives communion. The kid must be chrismated/confirmed though (my son is, also in the Latin Rite). This is with the approval of the Eastern Bishop because we’re practicing the Ukrainian faith now.

(Get ready for 5 pages of canon laws about my situation )

 

[gregdaly]

More Canon Law…gotta love it on the Eastern forum…I think the Latins should take their CCEO and stick it some some Vatican dungeon and forget about it…This CCEO is one of the biggest Latinisations imposed on us from Rome…it just stinks!

I’m new to all this. What is it about the rules for transfer between Catholic Churches that “stinks?”

In Christ,
Greg

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m new to all this. What is it about the rules for transfer between Catholic Churches that “stinks?”

In Christ,
Greg

He’s not talking about rules of transfer. He’s talking about the CCEO in general

 

[Aramis]

I’m new to all this. What is it about the rules for transfer between Catholic Churches that “stinks?”

In Christ,
Greg

The transfer from the Roman Church to the Eastern Church is, pretty much, at the discretion of the two bishops involved, and most “just rubber stamp it” (wording of His Grace Gerald of HPotMoG Eparchy of Phoenix)…

But going from an Eastern Church to a different Eastern Church, or to the Roman, requires the permission of the Sacred Commission of the Eastern Churches. Or being a woman marrying a man of the church one wishes to transfer to.

Also, it’s explicit that one does not transfer ascription unless one actually pushes the paperwork, no matter how long one has been attending…

 

[Peter_Mogila]

The 20th and 21st centuries are truly the era of the Rise of Law. Canon Law for the Catholic Church was codified and simplified in 1917; and revised in the 1980’s, when a different set of rules was allowed for the east. It was written in consultation with the Eastern Primates… but written in a legalistic manner, so as to be clear.

There was actually a fair amount of involvement by Eastern Catholics in the development of the Eastern Catholic Canon Law, if one accepts John Paul II’s explanation when he promulgated it in 1990. See:

archive.org/details/ApostolicConstitutionSacriCanonesJohnPaulIi1990

He claimed:

“We must admit that this Code is ‘composed by the Easterners themselves’ according to the directions given by our predecessor, Paul VI at the solemn inauguration of the work of the commission.”