Marriage between RC and Greek orthodox descent

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bossilla
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bossilla

Guest
Hi all,
Even though it’s sort of water under the bridge now that I’m married, I have a question regarding cannon law.

When my fiance and I went to my RC parish priest to express our intent to marry, he asked if either of us were descended from someone who was Greek Orthodox. My fiance’s dead father was (supposedly) baptized Greek Orthodox, even though he never practiced. My fiance was never baptized Greek Orthodox, was baptized Roman Catholic, has received the RCC sacraments, and remains devoutly RC. However, supposedly according to cannon law, the faith of the Greek Orthodox remains passed through the sons of the faith- and so my fiance was still Greek Orthodox?

The RC priest, then said that we had to obtain the permission of the Greek Orthodox church to get married as Roman Catholics. If we could not obtain their permission to get married, we would have had to get married as Greek Orthodox. I thought he might have been mistaken and so I called the Pittsburgh diocese (my parish diocese) code of cannon law office. The one who answered affirmed what he had said. I asked priests and deacons of other dioceses, but they answered that they had never heard of this particular cannon law!

The happy end to our story is that the Greek Orthodox parish priest could not find my fiance’s father’s baptismal certificate and so we were married as Roman Catholics.

Thank you for your patience in reading this. So, on to my question:
I’m wondering if anyone (besides the Pittsburgh diocese cannon law office) has heard of this cannon law or experienced what we did?
 
Actually the Canon Law is that if someone is Orthodox then becomes Catholic, they should be canonically received by the equivalent Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church. But if your fiancee was never baptized Orthodox, then there is no problem. Now if she herself was Greek Orthodox, then canonically she should belong to the Greek sui juris. But since she isn’t Greek Orthodox, then there is no problem.
 
Sorry, I should mention that my fiance at the time was/is male. I am the wife.

Supposedly what made this a large deal is that the Greek Orthodox faith is supposedly passed down from father to son. My fiance (now husband) never even knew the Greek Orthodox faith. His father, dead as of a few years ago, was never interested in practicing his Greek Orthodox faith. As I said, my husband was baptized Roman Catholic, was raised Roman Catholic, and embraces the Roman Catholic faith. I found it really awkward to have to ask a completely different faith if we, as Roman Catholics, could get married in the Roman Catholic church.

I’m looking into this matter in case my husband’s brothers are looking to get married. I don’t want them to have to go through what I did.
 
Bossilla said:
Sorry, I should mention that my fiance at the time was/is male. I am the wife.

Supposedly what made this a large deal is that the Greek Orthodox faith is supposedly passed down from father to son. My fiance (now husband) never even knew the Greek Orthodox faith. His father, dead as of a few years ago, was never interested in practicing his Greek Orthodox faith. As I said, my husband was baptized Roman Catholic, was raised Roman Catholic, and embraces the Roman Catholic faith. I found it really awkward to have to ask a completely different faith if we, as Roman Catholics, could get married in the Roman Catholic church.

I’m looking into this matter in case my husband’s brothers are looking to get married. I don’t want them to have to go through what I did.
Click to expand...
If he was never baptized Greek Orthodox, he was never Greek Orthodox. Even the Greek Orthodox will say this. It doesn’t get passed down like genetics.

If he was baptized Roman Catholic and never Greek Orthodox, then he is Roman Catholic.

Let me put it this way, if he never got baptized Roman Catholic and he didn’t get baptized at all, he is a pagan. He is not a Greek Orthodox just because his father is Greek Orthodox.
 
Bossilla said:
Supposedly what made this a large deal is that the Greek Orthodox faith is supposedly passed down from father to son. My fiance (now husband) never even knew the Greek Orthodox faith. His father, dead as of a few years ago, was never interested in practicing his Greek Orthodox faith. As I said, my husband was baptized Roman Catholic, was raised Roman Catholic, and embraces the Roman Catholic faith. I found it really awkward to have to ask a completely different faith if we, as Roman Catholics, could get married in the Roman Catholic church.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the priest who married you might have have run into something that caused concern in the course of his own dilgence, in preparation for your marriage. The canonical and sacramental history of prospective bride and groom is confirmed as part of the process. At first, he may have thought it would have been routine, as both were practicing Catholics. My priest has relayed more than a few stories about the interesting “finds” that surface in pre-cana review.

That said, as your husband was received into the Roman Catholic Church, this should have come up before he was baptized, and surely before he was confirmed.

The determination of canonical status is indeed assessed by tracing the paternal line, but again, this should have been a consideration long before your wedding preparation.
 
Bossilla said:
Hi all,
Even though it’s sort of water under the bridge now that I’m married, I have a question regarding cannon law.

When my fiance and I went to my RC parish priest to express our intent to marry, he asked if either of us were descended from someone who was Greek Orthodox. My fiance’s dead father was (supposedly) baptized Greek Orthodox, even though he never practiced. My fiance was never baptized Greek Orthodox, was baptized Roman Catholic, has received the RCC sacraments, and remains devoutly RC. However, supposedly according to cannon law, the faith of the Greek Orthodox remains passed through the sons of the faith- and so my fiance was still Greek Orthodox?

The RC priest, then said that we had to obtain the permission of the Greek Orthodox church to get married as Roman Catholics. If we could not obtain their permission to get married, we would have had to get married as Greek Orthodox. I thought he might have been mistaken and so I called the Pittsburgh diocese (my parish diocese) code of cannon law office. The one who answered affirmed what he had said. I asked priests and deacons of other dioceses, but they answered that they had never heard of this particular cannon law!

The happy end to our story is that the Greek Orthodox parish priest could not find my fiance’s father’s baptismal certificate and so we were married as Roman Catholics.

Thank you for your patience in reading this. So, on to my question:
I’m wondering if anyone (besides the Pittsburgh diocese cannon law office) has heard of this cannon law or experienced what we did?
Click to expand...
Congrats on your wedding…Very interesting story, but my guess is your Priest was just being cautious
 
Bossilla said:
Hi all,
Even though it’s sort of water under the bridge now that I’m married, I have a question regarding cannon law.

When my fiance and I went to my RC parish priest to express our intent to marry, he asked if either of us were descended from someone who was Greek Orthodox. My fiance’s dead father was (supposedly) baptized Greek Orthodox, even though he never practiced. My fiance was never baptized Greek Orthodox, was baptized Roman Catholic, has received the RCC sacraments, and remains devoutly RC. However, supposedly according to cannon law, the faith of the Greek Orthodox remains passed through the sons of the faith- and so my fiance was still Greek Orthodox?

The RC priest, then said that we had to obtain the permission of the Greek Orthodox church to get married as Roman Catholics. If we could not obtain their permission to get married, we would have had to get married as Greek Orthodox. I thought he might have been mistaken and so I called the Pittsburgh diocese (my parish diocese) code of cannon law office. The one who answered affirmed what he had said. I asked priests and deacons of other dioceses, but they answered that they had never heard of this particular cannon law!

The happy end to our story is that the Greek Orthodox parish priest could not find my fiance’s father’s baptismal certificate and so we were married as Roman Catholics.

Thank you for your patience in reading this. So, on to my question:
I’m wondering if anyone (besides the Pittsburgh diocese cannon law office) has heard of this cannon law or experienced what we did?
Click to expand...
If he was baptized as an adult (age 14 or greater) then the faith of the father has no bearing. However it he was baptized in a Catholic Church as an infant (less than age 14) then he would be ascribed to the Catholic Church sui iuris by other canons for this regarding the Catholic parent. Do you know the age?

According to the Latin canon law (CIC) and the eastern canon law (CCEO):

CIC Canon 111
§1 Through the reception of baptism a child becomes a member of the Latin Church if the parents belong to that Church or, should one of them not belong to it, if they have both by common consent chosen that the child be baptized in the Latin Church: if that common consent is lacking, the child becomes a member of the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
§2 Any candidate for baptism who has completed the fourteenth year of age may freely choose to be baptized either in the Latin Church or in another autonomous ritual Church; in which case the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

CCEO Canon 29
  1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
  2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
    (1) born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
    (2) born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied;
    (3) born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.
CCEO Canon 588
Catechumens are free to enroll in whatever Church sui iuris they want, according to the norm of can. 30; however, it has to be provided that nothing stands in the way of their enrollment in the Church that is more appropriate to their culture.

CCEO Canon 30
Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
 
ConstantineTG said:
If he was never baptized Greek Orthodox, he was never Greek Orthodox. Even the Greek Orthodox will say this. It doesn’t get passed down like genetics.

If he was baptized Roman Catholic and never Greek Orthodox, then he is Roman Catholic.

Let me put it this way, if he never got baptized Roman Catholic and he didn’t get baptized at all, he is a pagan. He is not a Greek Orthodox just because his father is Greek Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I thought this was so as well, but according to my diocese’s code of cannon law office, that’s not so. I think it has to do with some ecclesiastical treaty, but I don’t know. If this is a misinterpretation of some cannon law, how would I fight it? This procedure is the ‘norm’ of my entire diocese, not just my home parish.

By the way, Constantine, are you French-Canadian? It seems like some things I’m saying are lost in translation and I was wondering if it was because you are translating from English to French. I can modify my words to be better translated.
 
Vico said:
If he was baptized as an adult (age 14 or greater) then the faith of the father has no bearing. However it he was baptized in a Catholic Church as an infant (less than age 14) then he would be ascribed to the Catholic Church sui iuris by other canons for this regarding the Catholic parent. Do you know the age?
Click to expand...
My husband was baptized at 5 or 6 years old into the Roman Catholic church. But does the fact that he was confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church have any bearing? I know it isn’t baptism, but he did choose to stay Roman Catholic as a confirmed member.
 
As others have said, Orthodoxy does not pass through genetics.

In Roman Catholicism one’s “rite” is transferred through the father’s line. As a former Roman Catholic what I think your priest was saying was that since your husband is descended from Greek Orthodox, when he was baptized, no matter which rite he receives the sacrament of baptism in, he is a Greek Catholic (which is different than Greek Orthodox).

So your husband, canonically, remains a Greek Catholic. Wouldn’t really matter since at marriage either spouse is allowed to become the rite of the other and you two are now practicing Romans. Since your husband now switched (if there’s any paperwork your priest might’ve done it for you, or might’ve not bothered since no evidence of Orthodoxy could be found in his lineage) your children are Romans as well.
 
Bossilla said:
I thought this was so as well, but according to my diocese’s code of cannon law office, that’s not so. I think it has to do with some ecclesiastical treaty, but I don’t know. If this is a misinterpretation of some cannon law, how would I fight it? This procedure is the ‘norm’ of my entire diocese, not just my home parish.
Click to expand...
I believe it is a misinterpretation. It seems they may have mixed up a number of canons that pertains to different things. I remember that an RC priest contacted our priest to ask us about an Orthodox man marrying a Catholic woman, on what to do and how to handle it. I’m pretty sure there are canon lawyers in the RC archdiocesan office, but they see it better to ask the Eastern Catholics about it. Anyway, as noted earlier, here are the relevant canons (paraphrased) that they jumbled up:
  1. If one is Greek Orthodox and becomes Catholic, one belongs to the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church.
  2. If one is Catholic and one’s father is Greek Catholic (and not Greek Orthodox), then that child would take after the “sui juris” of the Father. In this case because the man is the one who is canonically Greek Catholic, then by default the Sacramental Rites of Marriage should follow the Rite of their canonical Church. But as with everything, it can be arranged that the wedding be in the Latin Rite. But again, this only applies if the father is Greek Catholic and not Greek Orthodox.
Bossilla said:
By the way, Constantine, are you French-Canadian? It seems like some things I’m saying are lost in translation and I was wondering if it was because you are translating from English to French. I can modify my words to be better translated.
Click to expand...
No, I’m Filipino. Pardon me, my English comprehension is quite good but I do have ADD and sometimes I may skim about the words if my focus just isn’t there.
 
Bossilla said:
My husband was baptized at 5 or 6 years old into the Roman Catholic church. But does the fact that he was confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church have any bearing? I know it isn’t baptism, but he did choose to stay Roman Catholic as a confirmed member.
Click to expand...
No, confirmation does not bring enrollment, that is already established at the time of the Catholic baptism. Since he was under 14 different canons apply.

Baptism in the Catholic Church, of one under the age of 14 of Orthodox parents, is not licit, unless physically or morally impossible to be baptized in the Orthodox Church, or in danger of death. In those situations the child is not Catholic but remains Orthodox if the parents are opposed to it becoming Catholic or it would cause serious inconveniences for the Church or person. If not opposed to this, and it will not cause serious inconveniences for the Church or person, the infant can be received into the Catholic Church in the corresponding eastern Catholic Church (sui iuris), but not unless there is a founded hope of Catholic education. An indult can also be sought to be received into the Latin Church.

You said before that “The happy end to our story is that the Greek Orthodox parish priest could not find my fiance’s father’s baptismal certificate and so we were married as Roman Catholics.” This means they could not prove that your deceased father in law was Greek Orthodox. It seems that the Church allowed your husband to be baptized like the child of non-baptized parents, who are then ascribed to the Church sui iuris that undertakes the Christian education. (CCEO 29)

Also, it would be significant if the mother in law had a proved valid baptism.
 
Vico said:
Baptism in the Catholic Church, of one under the age of 14 of Orthodox parents, is not licit, unless physically or morally impossible to be baptized in the Orthodox Church, or in danger of death. In those situations the child is not Catholic but remains Orthodox if the parents are opposed to it becoming Catholic or it would cause serious inconveniences for the Church or person.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I’ve never heard about this before. Do you know what the relevant canons are?
 
Peter_J said:
Interesting, I’ve never heard about this before. Do you know what the relevant canons are?
Click to expand...
Interesting indeed. It could have been one of those anti-proselytizing agreements between the Catholics and Orthodox.
 
Peter_J said:
Interesting, I’ve never heard about this before. Do you know what the relevant canons are?
Click to expand...
it has to do with the age of personal choice, and that the parents should translate into the relevant Eastern Catholic Church if they plan to raise their children in the Catholic communion.

They are permitted, under both the CIC and CCEO, to approach for sacraments if either (1) they have their pastor or bishop’s permission †, or (2) they are physically or morally unable to approach an orthodox parish.

A good case in point would be, say, some remote village in Alaska. Joe’s Orthodox, the village is Catholic, and the nearest Orthodox parish is 12 hours by snomobile, but it’s summer, so it’s 30 minutes by air or 2 days slog through the muck or 14-16 hours by ATV. Joe is, practically, able to approach for any sacraments except ordination, if his bishop and proper pastor won’t excommunicate him, and his minor children likewise.

In another case - Dave’s in a large village with both an Orthodox and Catholic parish. Dave has an issue with the Orthodox priest - perhaps he saw the priest doing something he perceived as heresy, or perhaps the priest made a major theological error from the pulpit, and Dave overreacts - in his indignation with perceived heterodoxy and/or heteropraxy, he’s morally unable to approach that priest… he can then legitimately approach the Catholic parish for sacraments of initiation for his children. This would be odd, because in such a case, he’s likely to think the (most likely Roman) Catholic parish as heterodox as the offending priest, but I’ve heard of this happening from Catholic priests, so it DOES happen… Such children are usually re-chrismated, but without rebaptism, when a new priest is assigned.

Likewise, a Catholic may do the same if the situation is reversed - but the Orthodox response will usually be “Sorry, no.” But not always, especially in the case of physically unable to approach…

Relevant canons CCEO 671 and CIC 844.
 
Peter_J said:
Interesting, I’ve never heard about this before. Do you know what the relevant canons are?
Click to expand...
Baptism in the Catholic Church, of one under the age of 14 of Orthodox parents, is not licit, unless physically or morally impossible to be baptized in the Orthodox Church, or in danger of death. In those situations the child is not Catholic but remains Orthodox if the parents are opposed to it becoming Catholic or it would cause serious inconveniences for the Church or person.
Click to expand...
CCEO Canon 681
§1 For an infant to be licitly baptized it is necessary that:
1° there is a founded hope that the infant will be educated in the Catholic Church, with due regard for 5;
2° the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully takes their place, consent.
§2 An abandoned infant or a foundling, unless his baptism is certainly established, should be baptized.
§3 Those who lack the use of reason from infancy are to be baptized as infants.
§4 An infant either of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholics, who is in a critical situation wherein death is prudently foreseen before he or she reaches the use of reason, is licitly baptized.
§5. The infant of non-Catholic Christians is licitly baptized, if the parents, or one of them or the one who legitimately takes their place, request it and if it is physically or morally impossible to approach their own minister.

CCEO Canon 900
§1 One who has not yet completed his fourteenth year shall not be received if the parents are opposed to it.
§2 If from the same reception, grave inconveniences are foreseen either to the Church or to the person, the reception may be put off unless there is imminent danger of death.

CIC Canon 868
§1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.
§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.
 
FYI - a very knowledgable Eastern Catholic friend suggested and recommended this resource, published by the USCCB:

When a Catholic Marries and Orthodox Christian

In his cover note to me on the subject, he summarized that this document relates to EO/Catholic Intermarriages and incorporates the joint statement of the USCCB and SCOBA, the equivalent EO hierarchical body in the US.

It was further noted that the “essence of the joint statement is that the Catholic Church, recognizing that it allows of a dispensation for a Catholic to marry in an Orthodox church, but that the Orthodox partner to a mixed Catholic-Orthodox marriage incurs excommunication by marrying other than in an Orthodox church, recommends that the necessary dispensation be obtained by the Catholic party and that the marriage be performed by an Orthodox presbyter in an Orthodox church and be recorded in the metrical books/sacramental registers of the parishes of both parties.”

Hope this provides further clarity.
 
How did your husband come to be baptized in the Catholic Church? Is his mother a Catholic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top