Orthodox (OCA) getting married in a RC Church

[alepine3]

I was baptized Ukrainian Catholic, but when I was roughly 7-8 years old my parents became members of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). By extension my brothers and I also became OCA. Two years ago I got married to a RC and we decided to get married in a RC church as opposed to an Orthodox one. A dispensation was needed despite having been baptized into the UGCC.

Here’s my question: as a result of this dispensation was I essentially “converted” to the Latin Rite? Am I under any explicit obligation to go to a RC Church (as opposed to a Byzantine Rite, for example)? Have I essentially excommunicated myself from the Orthodox Church (i.e. can I still receive the Holy Mysteries)?

Thanks in advance.

 

[1ke]

I was baptized Ukrainian Catholic, but when I was roughly 7-8 years old my parents became members of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). By extension my brothers and I also became OCA. Two years ago I got married to a RC and we decided to get married in a RC church as opposed to an Orthodox one. A dispensation was needed despite having been baptized into the UGCC.

A dispensation from whom?

Here’s my question: as a result of this dispensation was I essentially “converted” to the Latin Rite?

That does not sound plausible. I am not understanding from whom you received a dispensation and what it was for?

The process to change from an Eastern Rite to Latin Rite Catholic is spelled out in the Eastern code of canon law. And, it doesn’t have anything to do with marrying a Latin Catholic.

Am I under any explicit obligation to go to a RC Church (as opposed to a Byzantine Rite, for example)?

No. By virtue of your baptism into the Ukrainian Catholic Church, you are obligated to attend Divine Liturgy and are bound by the Eastern code of canon law. You can fulfill your Sunday obligation in a Latin Rite Church as well.

Have I essentially excommunicated myself from the Orthodox Church (i.e. can I still receive the Holy Mysteries)?

That is a question for your Orthodox priest, but I believe the answer is yes because you married outside the Orthodox Church.

 

[alepine3]

Thanks for your response.

I’m sorry for the confusion. I received a dispensation from the RC priest who completed the paperwork for us to get married (although he wasn’t the one to marry us).

 

[FrDavid96]

Until October 2009, if a Catholic left the Catholic Church by some formal act, then for purposes of marriage, that person was considered a “non-Catholic.” Pope Benedict changed that. In order for that marriage to be valid, permission (not a dispensation) was needed from the local bishop (the one having jurisdiction over the marriage ceremony itself). Since your marriage happened 2 years ago, the old canons apply. See this link vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

That’s just some background. Either before or after the change in the code, permission would still be needed for a Latin rite Catholic to marry an Orthodox in a ceremony in a Latin Rite church.

No. The permission for the marriage did NOT make you Latin Rite Catholic. In order for that to happen, you would have had to explicitly declare your intention of wanting this–since you’re unaware of doing it, you couldn’t have done it. Just for information, when 2 Catholics of different Catholic Churches sui iuris get married, they have the option of one spouse joining the Church sui iuris of the other spouse (for the sake of unity-of-rite within the family). This is a one-time option. It has to be exercised at the time of the marriage. But again, if you aren’t aware of having done it, it could not have happened.

As for your status in the OCA, you’ll have to speak to your OCA priest about that.

 

[1ke]

I’m sorry for the confusion. I received a dispensation from the RC priest who completed the paperwork for us to get married (although he wasn’t the one to marry us).

I still don’t understand what this dispensation was for. Priests do not give dispensations, bishops give dispensations.

The two dispensations involved in Catholic marriages are dispensations from disparity of cult for a Catholic to marry an unbaptized person and dispensation from Catholic form for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic in their church or in a civil ceremony.

Neither of these two dispensations seem to apply to your situation.

 

[1ke]

Until October 2009, if a Catholic left the Catholic Church by some formal act, then for purposes of marriage, that person was considered a “non-Catholic.” Pope Benedict changed that. In order for that marriage to be valid, permission (not a dispensation) was needed from the local bishop (the one having jurisdiction over the marriage ceremony itself). Since your marriage happened 2 years ago, the old canons apply. See this link vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html .

Only if the OP formally defected, and it doesn’t sound like he did. That would have required the OP write to the Catholic bishop, defect, and have that defection received by the bishop.

Also, the OP is under the Eastern code, and i don’t even know if the defection and dispensation from form apply in the Eastern code because it is the priest who is the minister of the sacrament, not the couple.

 

[FrDavid96]

Only if the OP formally defected, and it doesn’t sound like he did. That would have required the OP write to the Catholic bishop, defect, and have that defection received by the bishop.

Also, the OP is under the Eastern code, and i don’t even know if the defection and dispensation from form apply in the Eastern code because it is the priest who is the minister of the sacrament, not the couple.

The formal defection happened when the parents joined the OCA, and the minor children followed the parents.

Yes, the OP is under the Eastern code. However, the OP’s spouse is still bound by the Latin code. That’s why, no matter what, the Latin code 1124 still applies. Since the marriage was before Oct. 09, the older text applies. But it still doesn’t matter much because the Latin Rite spouse needed permission to marry someone who was a member of the OCA. The point here is that permission from the local Latin ordinary was needed, and that permission was given. This isn’t a question about the validity of the marriage, it’s about “what are the effects of that permission.” The references I made to the changes in c 1124 were just background information.

The permission didn’t make the OP a Latin Rite Catholic–and that was the question.

 

[1ke]

The formal defection happened when the parents joined the OCA, and the minor children followed the parents.

Actually, this is not correct. Because the term “formall defection” was ambiguous in canon law, the Vatican clarified the requirements for formal defection and how it was to be done for the purposes of the marriage canons. Simply leaving and joining antoher denomination or religion does not constitute formal defection. This would be classified as ‘notorious defection’.

Also, the Vatican also ruled that formal and notorious defection are personal acts, and therefore minor children taken out of the Church by their parents are not considered to have canonically defected.

Yes, the OP is under the Eastern code. However, the OP’s spouse is still bound by the Latin code. That’s why, no matter what, the Latin code 1124 still applies. Since the marriage was before Oct. 09, the older text applies. But it still doesn’t matter much because the Latin Rite spouse needed permission to marry someone who was a member of the OCA. The point here is that permission from the local Latin ordinary was needed, and that permission was given. This isn’t a question about the validity of the marriage, it’s about “what are the effects of that permission.” The references I made to the changes in c 1124 were just background information.

I think this entire matter is a question for a canonist because it is very convoluted and I don’t know if the OP would be considered a Catholic or Orthodox from the Catholic Church’s perspective.

The permission didn’t make the OP a Latin Rite Catholic–and that was the question.

Yes, but he mentions other elements in his OP. And, this is a very complex situation due to his baptism in the Catholic Church and removal from it as a minor child.

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually, this is not correct. Because the term “formall defection” was ambiguous in canon law, the Vatican clarified the requirements for formal defection and how it was to be done for the purposes of the marriage canons. Simply leaving and joining antoher denomination or religion does not constitute formal defection. This would be classified as ‘notorious defection’.

Also, the Vatican also ruled that formal and notorious defection are personal acts, and therefore minor children taken out of the Church by their parents are not considered to have canonically defected.

I think this entire matter is a question for a canonist because it is very convoluted and I don’t know if the OP would be considered a Catholic or Orthodox from the Catholic Church’s perspective.

Yes, but he mentions other elements in his OP. And, this is a very complex situation due to his baptism in the Catholic Church and removal from it as a minor child.

.

Let’s look at the canon at the time of the marriage:

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

First category: “one of whom is baptized in the Catholic Church…” is the OP’s spouse, who is Latin Rite Catholic.

Second category: “the other of whom is enrolled in a Church…not in full communion with the Catholic Church” is the OP, who was, at the time of the marriage, a member of the OCA.

The OP’s spouse, as a Latin Catholic is bound by c. 1124. That’s why permission from the local bishop was needed for the marriage. That permission was given. If I can’t convince you myself, look at it from the point of view that the local bishop determined that his permission was needed for the marriage to be valid–and gave that permission. He would not have issued a rescript if it wasn’t necessary.

I think what you’re missing here is that you’re trying to put the OP into the first category rather than the second. It’s the OP who is “enrolled in a Church…not in communion.” That’s why the canon applies. Do you see it now?

 

[1ke]

I think what you’re missing here is that you’re trying to put the OP into the first category rather than the second. It’s the OP who is “enrolled in a Church…not in communion.” That’s why the canon applies. Do you see it now?

What you are missing is that the OP was baptized a Catholic. Therefore, he is not considered Orthodox by the Catholic Church.

The section of the canon you quote is meant to apply to those who are not, and never have been, in communion with the Catholic Church. It doens’t apply to the OP.

 

[FrDavid96]

What you are missing is that the OP was baptized a Catholic. Therefore, he is not considered Orthodox by the Catholic Church.

The section of the canon you quote is meant to apply to those who are not, and never have been, in communion with the Catholic Church. It doens’t apply to the OP.

The second category says “enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.” That’s the OP, who considered himself to be Orthodox at the time of the marriage, and was “enrolled” in the OCA.

The permission was needed. Believe me–I do know what I’m talking about here, and the bishop who issued the rescript knew what he was doing. Bishops don’t issue rescripts for marriages lightly. Again, if you won’t take my explanation, keep in mind that the bishop determined that the permission was necessary, and he gave that permission.

 

[1ke]

The second category says “enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.” That’s the OP, who considered himself to be Orthodox at the time of the marriage, and was “enrolled” in the OCA.

That may be what he considers himself, but canonically that is not what the Catholic Church considers him.

He was baptized Catholic, therefore, he is Catholic. Canon law applies to him. Formal defection does not apply to him because he did not formally defect. See here for the requirements (pre Motu Proprio of Oct 2009) for formal defection. The OP does not meet these requirements based on his rendition of the facts. And as far as I can telll, the Eastern Code doesn’t even contain this language regarding formal defection, I don’t know if it was even possible to do this in the Eastern Churches.

Again, if you won’t take my explanation, keep in mind that the bishop determined that the permission was necessary, and he gave that permission.

The OP didn’t say the *bishop *did anything. The OP said the *priest *did. The OP didn’t even know what the supposed-dispensation was for. Canon 1124, which you posted, has nothing to do with a **dispensation **at all.

Also, the OP is bound by the Eastern Rite code of canon law, which has entirely different canons regarding form including permissions needed for the Latin Rite priest to bless the marriage of an Eastern Rite Catholic.

I don’t think all the facts are included here because the OP is pretty shaky on the details. That is why I suggested that a **canonist **be involved in sorting it out.

 

[Hesychios]

I was baptized Ukrainian Catholic, but when I was roughly 7-8 years old my parents became members of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). By extension my brothers and I also became OCA. Two years ago I got married to a RC and we decided to get married in a RC church as opposed to an Orthodox one. A dispensation was needed despite having been baptized into the UGCC.

Here’s my question: as a result of this dispensation was I essentially “converted” to the Latin Rite? Am I under any explicit obligation to go to a RC Church (as opposed to a Byzantine Rite, for example)? Have I essentially excommunicated myself from the Orthodox Church (i.e. can I still receive the Holy Mysteries)?

Thanks in advance.

If you consider yourself a Catholic under the Pope, you are canonically a member of the UGCC and your bishop is the local bishop of the UGCC, regardless of which parish you regularly worship in.

You can apply for a change in canonical enrolment if you wish to become a Latin Catholic, but you are not really required to do so. You are free to take the sacraments in the Latin church.

As I understand it, at the time of marriage a Catholic person can ask for a change in enrolment to the church of the new spouse. I don’t know if this exclusively applies to the wife but I have only heard of wives making the change. It doesn’t sound like you made the decision, you probably would have remembered it.

As to your second question, you have to speak to an Orthodox priest about your status with them, but if you did not seek permission from the Orthodox bishop to marry in the Catholic church, and have been receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic church without the approval of your bishop, those are two possible reasons for your position to be irregular, and you would not likely be allowed to recieve communion without working it out. There is no communion or concelebration between the churches.

If you are happy worshiping in the Roman Catholic church, then don’t worry about it.

 

[FrDavid96]

That may be what he considers himself, but canonically that is not what the Catholic Church considers him.

He was baptized Catholic, therefore, he is Catholic. Canon law applies to him. Formal defection does not apply to him because he did not formally defect. See here for the requirements (pre Motu Proprio of Oct 2009) for formal defection. The OP does not meet these requirements based on his rendition of the facts. And as far as I can telll, the Eastern Code doesn’t even contain this language regarding formal defection, I don’t know if it was even possible to do this in the Eastern Churches.

The OP didn’t say the *bishop *did anything. The OP said the *priest *did. The OP didn’t even know what the supposed-dispensation was for. Canon 1124, which you posted, has nothing to do with a **dispensation **at all.

Also, the OP is bound by the Eastern Rite code of canon law, which has entirely different canons regarding form including permissions needed for the Latin Rite priest to bless the marriage of an Eastern Rite Catholic.

I don’t think all the facts are included here because the OP is pretty shaky on the details. That is why I suggested that a **canonist **be involved in sorting it out.

You’re still confused as to the two categories. You keep trying to use the definition found in the first category and apply it to the second category. If you would just sit back and look at it again, you’ll realize that’s what you’re doing. Read the canon and re-read your own posts.

The part of the canon that applies to the OP is “enrolled in a [non-Catholic] Church” That part of the canon doesn’t say anything about formal defection–you’re putting words there that aren’t found in the canon. The OP was enrolled in the Orthodox Church in America–not merely “on the mailing list” (anyone can type in names from a phone book) but an (apparently) practicing Orthodox.

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and
the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The OP’s spouse is in the first category: a Catholic. Formal defection has nothing to do with this, because as far as we know, the OP’s spouse never defected formally or not.

The OP is in the second category: one who is enrolled in a non-Catholic Church (ie the OCA).

You keep trying to take the description of the first category and apply them to the second category. That’s not what we read in the canon.

I never said canon law doesn’t apply to the OP. What I did say is that the Latin code of canon law does apply to the OP’s spouse, because the spouse is Latin rite, and therefore the canon must be satisfied.

 

[1ke]

You’re still confused as to the two categories. You keep trying to use the definition found in the first category and apply it to the second category. If you would just sit back and look at it again, you’ll realize that’s what you’re doing. Read the canon and re-read your own posts.

No, I’m not confused.

The part of the canon that applies to the OP is “enrolled in a [non-Catholic] Church”

The OP is **not **enrolled in a non-Catholic Church. He is enrolled in the Catholic Church by virtue of his Catholic baptism. The part of the canon you are trying to apply to him does not apply to him, canonically. It is not a matter of self-identification, it is a matter of canon law.

To actually be considered by the Catholic Church as a non-Catholic the OP would have had to formally defect. Which he didn’t. And, moreover, in the Eastern code I don’t believe there is even a way to “formally defect.”

That part of the canon doesn’t say anything about formal defection–you’re putting words there that aren’t found in the canon. The OP was enrolled in the Orthodox Church in America–not merely “on the mailing list” (anyone can type in names from a phone book) but an (apparently) practicing Orthodox.

This canon does not apply to him due to his Catholic baptism.

The OP’s spouse is in the first category: a Catholic.

So is the OP.

Formal defection has nothing to do with this, because as far as we know, the OP’s spouse never defected formally or not.

I’m not talking about the OP’s spouse, I’m talking about the OP. It would be necessary for him to have formally defected to be considered not Catholic.

The OP is in the second category: one who is enrolled in a non-Catholic Church (ie the OCA).

No, he isn’t.

I never said canon law doesn’t apply to the OP. What I did say is that the Latin code of canon law does apply to the OP’s spouse, because the spouse is Latin rite, and therefore the canon must be satisfied.

And the Eastern code applies to the OP because he is a Catholic, canonically.

 

[1ke]

If you consider yourself a Catholic under the Pope, you are canonically a member of the UGCC and your bishop is the local bishop of the UGCC, regardless of which parish you regularly worship in.

Actually, canonically he is a Catholic regardless of whether or not he considers himself to be one. He is one, by virtue of his baptism into the Catholic Church.

 

[1ke]

Hmmm, one of my posts on this thread didn’t show up and the numbering is all off… I think the database problems today ate my posts.

 

[Bluegoat]

I thought the CC usually suggested that Orthodox/Catholic couples should marry in the Orthodox Church?

 

[1ke]

I thought the CC usually suggested that Orthodox/Catholic couples should marry in the Orthodox Church?

It does, because otherwise the Orthodox Church does not recognize the marriage as valid.

The complexity arises in that the OP is not-- by the information he has given-- canonically a member of the Orthodox Church. He was baptized a Catholic, and one can presume that he was also confirmed and communed as the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches confer all three sacramtns of initation upon infants. He would be considered a Catholic from the Catholic Church’s point of view.

 

[Bluegoat]

It does, because otherwise the Orthodox Church does not recognize the marriage as valid.

The complexity arises in that the OP is not-- by the information he has given-- canonically a member of the Orthodox Church. He was baptized a Catholic, and one can presume that he was also confirmed and communed as the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches confer all three sacramtns of initation upon infants. He would be considered a Catholic from the Catholic Church’s point of view.

He doesn’t seem to have said what he considers himself though - it sounds to me like he may still consider himself Orthodox. If so, the Orthodox probably don’t much care what the Catholic Church considers him.