Is this normal?

[babochka]

Well then I guess it depends on who you talk to.

It does seem to very much depend upon who you talk to. I have a friend who has a unique situation (baptized in Anglican Church and received all other sacraments in Latin Catholic Church. Her father is Anglican and her mother is Byzantine Catholic.) She has consulted with canon lawers in the Latin diocese and the Byzantine eparchy and received different answers.

We had a child who was Baptized and Chrismated in the Orthodox church. She and her brother made their First Communion at our Roman Catholic parish. Her mother CONVERTED to Roman Catholicism and believed it covered her entire family.
It did not. Her dad is Byzantine Catholic.

If she received Baptism and Chrismation in an Orthodox Church, she no doubt received her First Communion as well, though she might have gone participated with her class in their First Communion Mass.

At Confirmation time, she received ONLY a blessing, (she had obviously already been confirmed) and was told by the visiting Bishop that she would have to “sort out” her Orthodox heritage before she got married if she wanted to marry as a Roman Catholic.
She is still considered Orthodox, despite everyone thinking that attending a Roman parish makes you a Roman Catholic.

Frankly, the Bishop might not even know what her canonical status is. If he doesn’t have much personal experience with such situations and isn’t a canon lawyer, it might not ever have come up before. Or, perhaps what the bishop meant by “sort out” her Othodox heritage before marriage is that she is a Byzantine Catholic and not a Latin Catholic. This would be the case based upon her father’s status as a Byzantine Catholic and based upon her Orthodox Baptism. Her mother might have converted through a Roman Catholic Church, but she would have been automatically enrolled in the Church corresponding with the Orthodox Church of her baptism. She is not a Roman Catholic. (Russian Orthodox = Russian Catholic; Antiochian Orthodox = Melkite Catholic; Ukrainian Orthodox = Ukrainian Catholic; Church of the East = Chaldean Catholic). She could request a change, but it is unlikely that it would be granted. These are not simple issues and do sometimes take sorting out and often require consultation with canon lawyers who have specialized knowledge.

 

[babochka]

The Bishop told her that her children didn’t automatically convert when she (the mother) did. He said they (the children) are still Orthodox, and they need to see to it before it gets further tangled upon becoming engaged, it needs to be tended to now, not later.

Since a member of an Othodox Church only needs to make a profession of faith to be received into the Catholic Church, what exactly (other than paperwork) would be required?

 

[pianistclare]

It does seem to very much depend upon who you talk to. I have a friend who has a unique situation (baptized in Anglican Church and received all other sacraments in Latin Catholic Church. Her father is Anglican and her mother is Byzantine Catholic.) She has consulted with canon lawers in the Latin diocese and the Byzantine eparchy and received different answers.

If she received Baptism and Chrismation in an Orthodox Church, she no doubt received her First Communion as well, though she might have gone participated with her class in their First Communion Mass.

Frankly, the Bishop might not even know what her canonical status is. If he doesn’t have much personal experience with such situations and isn’t a canon lawyer, it might not ever have come up before. Or, perhaps what the bishop meant by “sort out” her Othodox heritage before marriage is that she is a Byzantine Catholic and not a Latin Catholic. This would be the case based upon her father’s status as a Byzantine Catholic and based upon her Orthodox Baptism. Her mother might have converted through a Roman Catholic Church, but she would have been automatically enrolled in the Church corresponding with the Orthodox Church of her baptism. (Russian Orthodox = Russian Catholic; Antiochian Orthodox = Melkite Catholic; Ukrainian Orthodox = Ukrainian Catholic; Church of the East = Chaldean Catholic). These are not simple issues and do sometimes take sorting out and often require consultation with canon lawyers who have specialized knowledge.

OK. I’m only relating what happened HERE in my parish.
My boss (the Pastor) contacted a Canon Lawyer who is well versed on these things, and the Chancery. One Archbishop and two Auxiliary Bishops.
It was all done on the up and up, given the “professionals” who advised us.
I’m out.

 

[babochka]

OK. I’m only relating what happened HERE in my parish.
My boss (the Pastor) contacted a Canon Lawyer who is well versed on these things, and the Chancery. One Archbishop and two Auxiliary Bishops.
It was all done on the up and up, given the “professionals” who advised us.
I’m out.

All I’m saying is that these things are very complicated. I never meant to imply that people did not act in good faith or were participating in something ilicit. We have a family in our parish (Byzantine) that had a really complicated situation. The mother was cradle Antiochian Orthodox. She converted to Catholicism and was re-baptised (as if such a thing is possible - and no, it shouldn’t have been done) in the Latin Church, believing that she was becoming a Latin-rite Catholic. Her husband is Latin Rite, a convert to the Church. They began attending our Byzantine Catholic parish and had a plan to transfer to the Byzantine Catholic Church. When they submitted their documents to the tribunal, they were informed that she could not transfer to the Ruthenian Church because she was a Syriac Catholic, based upon her baptism in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. Syriac?? That’s a different rite entirely. And this is from the Byzantine Catholic tribunal, who deals with these things all the time. So, her documents were sent to the Syriac Catholic Church, who examined them and determined that they had no jurisdiction in the matter, as she was in fact, a Melkite Catholic. All along the way, people consulted with experts and acted in good faith, but a number of mistakes were still made.

 

[malphono]

All I’m saying is that these things are very complicated. I never meant to imply that people did not act in good faith or were participating in something ilicit. We have a family in our parish (Byzantine) that had a really complicated situation. The mother was cradle Antiochian Orthodox. She converted to Catholicism and was re-baptised (as if such a thing is possible - and no, it shouldn’t have been done) in the Latin Church, believing that she was becoming a Latin-rite Catholic. Her husband is Latin Rite, a convert to the Church. They began attending our Byzantine Catholic parish and had a plan to transfer to the Byzantine Catholic Church. When they submitted their documents to the tribunal, they were informed that she could not transfer to the Ruthenian Church because she was a Syriac Catholic, based upon her baptism in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. Syriac?? That’s a different rite entirely. And this is from the Byzantine Catholic tribunal, who deals with these things all the time. So, her documents were sent to the Syriac Catholic Church, who examined them and determined that they had no jurisdiction in the matter, as she was in fact, a Melkite Catholic. All along the way, people consulted with experts and acted in good faith, but a number of mistakes were still made.

Not to butt in to this thread, but I suspect the reason why she was considered “Syriac” was due to old nomenclature. In the past, what is now called the Antiochian Orthodox Church was known as the Syrian (not Syriac) Orthodox Church. This was until some 45+ years ago when the English name was officially changed. The reason for the name change was to avoid confusion with the Syriac (not Syrian) Orthodox Church, which at the time was also known as Syrian Orthodox. That name was formally changed a few years later to Syriac Orthodox in order to avoid further confusion and political stereotyping. Yes I know … it’s still confusing …

 

[kdbueno]

Maronite seems lucid to me.

 

[babochka]

Not to butt in to this thread, but I suspect the reason why she was considered “Syriac” was due to old nomenclature. In the past, what is now called the Antiochian Orthodox Church was known as the Syrian (not Syriac) Orthodox Church. This was until some 45+ years ago when the English name was officially changed. The reason for the name change was to avoid confusion with the Syriac (not Syrian) Orthodox Church, which at the time was also known as Syrian Orthodox. That name was formally changed a few years later to Syriac Orthodox in order to avoid further confusion and political stereotyping. Yes I know … it’s still confusing …

That actually makes a lot of sense. Sort of how the Ruthenian Church went from being Greek-Catholic to Byzantine Catholic. And even more confusingly, how a good number of Orthodox (OCA) churches still have “Catholic” in their names. At any rate, this is just one example of how confusing this stuff can be, even to the experts.

 

[Vico]

All I’m saying is that these things are very complicated. I never meant to imply that people did not act in good faith or were participating in something ilicit. We have a family in our parish (Byzantine) that had a really complicated situation. The mother was cradle Antiochian Orthodox. She converted to Catholicism and was re-baptised (as if such a thing is possible - and no, it shouldn’t have been done) in the Latin Church, believing that she was becoming a Latin-rite Catholic. Her husband is Latin Rite, a convert to the Church. They began attending our Byzantine Catholic parish and had a plan to transfer to the Byzantine Catholic Church. When they submitted their documents to the tribunal, they were informed that she could not transfer to the Ruthenian Church because she was a Syriac Catholic, based upon her baptism in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. Syriac?? That’s a different rite entirely. And this is from the Byzantine Catholic tribunal, who deals with these things all the time. So, her documents were sent to the Syriac Catholic Church, who examined them and determined that they had no jurisdiction in the matter, as she was in fact, a Melkite Catholic. All along the way, people consulted with experts and acted in good faith, but a number of mistakes were still made.

So she was Melkite-Greek from Eastern Orthodox (Arabic speaking) rather than Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (Syriac), which are Oriental Orthodox. The Melkite Patriarchal Metropolitan Archeparchy is of Damascus, Syria.

 

[babochka]

So she was Melkite-Greek from Eastern Orthodox (Arabic speaking) rather than Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (Syriac), which are Oriental Orthodox. The Melkite Patriarchal Metropolitan Archeparchy is of Damascus, Syria.

Exactly. (But of German heritage.)

 

[CJsmommy]

Is this all only between Catholicism and Orthodoxy? My husband is a baptized Methodist… but our daughter was baptized (Roman) Catholic (as was I). My paternal line is RC as far back as I know. (Sorry for hijacking the thread.)

 

[Vico]

Is this all only between Catholicism and Orthodoxy? My husband is a baptized Methodist… but our daughter was baptized (Roman) Catholic (as was I). My paternal line is RC as far back as I know. (Sorry for hijacking the thread.)

No, for the non-Catholics the baptism is significant, so ascription of those coming into full communion with the Catholic Church as ascribed to the closest match, such as Latin Catholic for Lutheran or Anglican and one of the various eastern Catholic Churches for Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox.