Practicing Maronite/Canonically Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnworthyApostle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UnworthyApostle

Guest
Hi All,
I have a couple quick questions and want to see if anyone can help.

First, I was baptized,communed,confirmed as a Latin Rite Catholic, but I have not attended a Latin Rite church in over a year and a half. I have fallen in love with the Maronite church and liturgy, plus the local community has kind of “taken me in”, so I attend the local Maronite Church on Sundays, feast days, and Holy Days etc. To me it seemed straight foward to just adopt the practices of the ritual church I attend, but it seems to be a bit more complicated. I have done some scanning of threads on here and read other material that says I am stil bound by Latin Rite feast days, and I am wonderng if this is true? And secondly, I am thinking of getting married in a year or so in the Maronite church by the parish priest, so I am wondering if there is going to be some obstacles to this. Navigating through canon law is about as interesting as watching paint dry and can be confusing, so I am hoping there are others more knowlegeable in this matter. Does anyone know how to navigate through this stuff?
God Bless
Nick
 
UnworthyApostle said:
Hi All,
I have a couple quick questions and want to see if anyone can help.

First, I was baptized,communed,confirmed as a Latin Rite Catholic, but I have not attended a Latin Rite church in over a year and a half. I have fallen in love with the Maronite church and liturgy, plus the local community has kind of “taken me in”, so I attend the local Maronite Church on Sundays, feast days, and Holy Days etc. To me it seemed straight foward to just adopt the practices of the ritual church I attend, but it seems to be a bit more complicated. I have done some scanning of threads on here and read other material that says I am stil bound by Latin Rite feast days, and I am wonderng if this is true?
Click to expand...
You’re already living the Maronite spirituality. Is it a sin to follow the Church? A bishop told me that you can follow the precepts and discipline of the Church where you live spiritually. I know people here will quote lines and lines of canon law to say otherwise. But I too have followed the Ukrainian Church even though me and my family are canonically Latin. My 1 year old has been receiving communion like any other Eastern Catholic child.
UnworthyApostle said:
And secondly, I am thinking of getting married in a year or so in the Maronite church by the parish priest, so I am wondering if there is going to be some obstacles to this. Navigating through canon law is about as interesting as watching paint dry and can be confusing, so I am hoping there are others more knowlegeable in this matter. Does anyone know how to navigate through this stuff?
God Bless
Nick
Click to expand...
Now this is where its going to be complicated. It can happen but there has to be permissions needed to be asked from the pastor of the RC parish where you should belon (the one whose territory encompasses the place of your residence). Why not request a canonical transfer to simplify matters? This will help including the time when you have your children baptized.
 
UnworthyApostle said:
Hi All,
I have a couple quick questions and want to see if anyone can help.

First, I was baptized,communed,confirmed as a Latin Rite Catholic, but I have not attended a Latin Rite church in over a year and a half. I have fallen in love with the Maronite church and liturgy, plus the local community has kind of “taken me in”, so I attend the local Maronite Church on Sundays, feast days, and Holy Days etc. To me it seemed straight foward to just adopt the practices of the ritual church I attend, but it seems to be a bit more complicated. I have done some scanning of threads on here and read other material that says I am stil bound by Latin Rite feast days, and I am wonderng if this is true? And secondly, I am thinking of getting married in a year or so in the Maronite church by the parish priest, so I am wondering if there is going to be some obstacles to this. Navigating through canon law is about as interesting as watching paint dry and can be confusing, so I am hoping there are others more knowlegeable in this matter. Does anyone know how to navigate through this stuff?
God Bless
Nick
Click to expand...
Just talk with the deacon or the priest in your Maronite parish. They will be familiar with what is involved in marriage in a Church other than your own Church* sui iuris*.

I actually loved studying canon law 🙂 and a year later repeated the classes we were offered as Master Catechists in my Latin Diocese because I enjoyed it so much. But it is best left to canonists. You can also contact the local tribunal and ask to talk with one of them about this. They will either have an EC canonist in house or have one they refer to when such topics come up. IF they desire it at the time of marriage a Latin Catholic may transfer his/her enrollment *automatically at their request *to the Church of their spouse. So if you are lucky enough to be in love with a Maronite you can just transfer at that time without any fuss. 🙂
 
The canons are clear: you’re still obligated by the Roman calendar. It means hitting a couple extra liturgies a year. Since most EC praxis is actually more restrictive than Roman… the fasts are more and longer, and include all the periods the Roman fasts entail, it’s not going to be much harder (tho the two days of obligatory meal skipping under Roman praxis should still be obeyed).

It’s easy for the pastor to get the exemptions needed to perform your wedding. If your spouse to be is Maronite, you should be able to transfer without a problem; canon law only makes it automatic approval for the wife, but it’s often expedited for husbands of EC women.
 
Aramis said:
If your spouse to be is Maronite, you should be able to transfer without a problem; canon law only makes it automatic approval for the wife, but it’s often expedited for husbands of EC women.
Click to expand...
The CCEO and CIC are actually different on this.

CIC Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:
1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

(This CIC is going from Latin to EC, which I think OP is talking about.)

CCEO Canon 33 A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.
 
UnworthyApostle said:
Hi All,
I have a couple quick questions and want to see if anyone can help.

First, I was baptized,communed,confirmed as a Latin Rite Catholic, but I have not attended a Latin Rite church in over a year and a half. I have fallen in love with the Maronite church and liturgy, plus the local community has kind of “taken me in”, so I attend the local Maronite Church on Sundays, feast days, and Holy Days etc. To me it seemed straight foward to just adopt the practices of the ritual church I attend, but it seems to be a bit more complicated. I have done some scanning of threads on here and read other material that says I am stil bound by Latin Rite feast days, and I am wonderng if this is true? And secondly, I am thinking of getting married in a year or so in the Maronite church by the parish priest, so I am wondering if there is going to be some obstacles to this. Navigating through canon law is about as interesting as watching paint dry and can be confusing, so I am hoping there are others more knowlegeable in this matter. Does anyone know how to navigate through this stuff?
God Bless
Nick
Click to expand...
I recommend this book, endorsed by Metropolitan Basil Schott. It is for all the faithful and covers the canon law and practical application of it.

Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholic

clsa.site-ym.com/store/view_product.asp?id=315681

In inter-ecclesial Catholic marriages (e.g., Latin-Maronite) the family can adopt the norms for feast days and days of penance of either Church sui iuris. This is a canon law to allow for harmony of the family in such practices. (CCEO 883.2) The priest will have to evaluate the impediments to marriage based upon your ascribed Church, as the they are different between Latin and eastern. You are bound, as is the clergy, to follow the sacramental prescriptions of the ascribed Church of the faithful receiving the sacrament.
 
It is my understanding that any Catholic can attend any Catholic Church on obligatory days. However, a Catholic is bound by the canon law of the Church to which he or she belongs. This is usually not a problem because most of the obligatory feasts are the same. An exception is All Saints Day which a Roman Catholic must observe regardless of the Church he attends.
Relating to marriage between members of different Catholic Churches, the marriage is supposed to occur in the Church of the husband while the wife gets to pick the parish. Any dis-pension to vary this must be obtained from Rome.
Formally changing membership between Catholic Churches is relatively easy, but incur different obligations, for example fasting.
 
rdorseyhsd said:
It is my understanding that any Catholic can attend any Catholic Church on obligatory days. However, a Catholic is bound by the canon law of the Church to which he or she belongs. This is usually not a problem because most of the obligatory feasts are the same. An exception is All Saints Day which a Roman Catholic must observe regardless of the Church he attends.
Relating to marriage between members of different Catholic Churches, the marriage is supposed to occur in the Church of the husband while the wife gets to pick the parish. Any dis-pension to vary this must be obtained from Rome.
Formally changing membership between Catholic Churches is relatively easy, but incur different obligations, for example fasting.
Click to expand...
Exactly:

CCEO 12
  1. The Christian faithful are bound by an obligation in their own patterns of activity always to maintain communion with the Church.
  2. They are to fulfill with great diligence the duties which they owe to the universal Church and to their own Church sui iuris.
CCEO 403
  1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite, lay persons have the right to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.
CCEO 40.3
Other Christian faithful are also to foster an understanding and appreciation of their own rite, and are held to observe it everywhere unless something is excused by the law.
CCEO 881
  1. The Christian faithful are bound by the obligation to participate on Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy, or according to the prescriptions or legitimate customs of their own Church sui iuris, in the celebration of the divine praises.
CIC 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

CIC 1248.1
The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.
CCEO 882
On the days of penance the Christian faithful are obliged to observe fast or abstinence in the manner established by the particular law of their Church sui iuris.

CIC 1249
All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.
CCEO 883
  1. The Christian faithful who are outside the territorial boundaries of their own Church sui iuris can adopt fully for themselves the feast days and days of penance which are in force where they are staying.
  2. 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.
CCEO 916
  1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile each person acquires his or her local hierarch and pastor of the Church sui iuris in which he or she is enrolled, unless other provision is made by common law.
CIC 107 §1.
Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.

CCEO = eastern canon law
CIC = Latin canon law
 
Here is one for you. What if you don’t currently belong to a Roman Rite parish, but you are a Roman Rite through Baptism and Confirmation, practicing the Byzantine traditions and rituals, and belonging to a Byzantine Rite parish. Example: a lapsed Roman Catholic, for say 20 or so years, and who decided to come back, but to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, instead. I cannot see why you must follow Roman Rite Holy Days of Obligation. It make no sense what so ever. If you want to be Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, etcc. The fact that you are Catholic means you are in communion with the other Churches of different Rites already. The whole purpose of switching to a new tradition, is to follow that new tradition. Not follow the former just for legalistic reasons.
 
bkovacs said:
Here is one for you. What if you don’t currently belong to a Roman Rite parish, but you are a Roman Rite through Baptism and Confirmation, practicing the Byzantine traditions and rituals, and belonging to a Byzantine Rite parish. Example: a lapsed Roman Catholic, for say 20 or so years, and who decided to come back, but to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, instead. I cannot see why you must follow Roman Rite Holy Days of Obligation. It make no sense what so ever. If you want to be Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, etcc. The fact that you are Catholic means you are in communion with the other Churches of different Rites already. The whole purpose of switching to a new tradition, is to follow that new tradition. Not follow the former just for legalistic reasons.
Click to expand...
Even if you are not lapsed. Canonical ascription is just earthly laws. If you are genuinely following the spirituality of another Christian rite, then there is no reason why you cannot follow all traditions and practices of that rite. Quoting canon law to no end is just phariseeism if you ask me.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Even if you are not lapsed. Canonical ascription is just earthly laws. If you are genuinely following the spirituality of another Christian rite, then there is no reason why you cannot follow all traditions and practices of that rite. Quoting canon law to no end is just phariseeism if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I agree!.
 
bkovacs said:
Here is one for you. What if you don’t currently belong to a Roman Rite parish, but you are a Roman Rite through Baptism and Confirmation, practicing the Byzantine traditions and rituals, and belonging to a Byzantine Rite parish. Example: a lapsed Roman Catholic, for say 20 or so years, and who decided to come back, but to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, instead. I cannot see why you must follow Roman Rite Holy Days of Obligation. It make no sense what so ever. If you want to be Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, etcc. The fact that you are Catholic means you are in communion with the other Churches of different Rites already. The whole purpose of switching to a new tradition, is to follow that new tradition. Not follow the former just for legalistic reasons.
Click to expand...
It’s possible for a person to not be registered in a Latin Rite parish, but according to the CIC he is nonetheless canonically a member of one, usually the one closest in geographic proximity. It is equally possible that a person is registered in an Eastern/Oriental parish, but even so, he is not canonically a member of that parish. Only at such time as a canonical transfer has taken place does the person become (a) canonically released from the Latin Rite parish and (b) canonically enrolled in the Eastern/Oriental parish. Anyone who wishes that the law were not what it is is free to do so, but that doesn’t change either the fact that the law is the law, or the fact that the law says what it says.

That said, however, the law is far less clear on matters of discipline such as fasting, HDO’s etc. In a case where a person has adopted the practice of another Church, it seems to me that the precepts of law are satisfied as long as the person actually does follow the disciplines of the Church which he habitually attends. OTOH, it should be kept in mind that the matter of canonical ascription to a Church does bear on certain Sacraments, mainly Holy Orders and Matrimony and, to a lesser extent, on Baptism/Chrismation and (depending on circumstances), Extreme Unction. Those should always be discussed with the pastor of the parish one habitually attends.

Just my :twocents:
 
constantinetg said:
even if you are not lapsed. Canonical ascription is just earthly laws. If you are genuinely following the spirituality of another christian rite, then there is no reason why you cannot follow all traditions and practices of that rite. Quoting canon law to no end is just phariseeism if you ask me.
Click to expand...
amen! Amen! Amen!!!
 
ConstantineTG said:
Even if you are not lapsed. Canonical ascription is just earthly laws. If you are genuinely following the spirituality of another Christian rite, then there is no reason why you cannot follow all traditions and practices of that rite. Quoting canon law to no end is just phariseeism if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Here’s where you start to sound heretical, Constantine: You are denying the authority of the church to bind and loose.

The power to bind and loose was given to the Apostles; they have bound (through issuing canon laws) one to one’s church of ascription and it’s obligations. They have provided a means for changing that ascription as well.

Therefore, being bound by the church’s law under the collective will of the successors of the Apostles, if you claim canon law to be “merely laws of men” then the whole church is logically nought but laws of men, and false.

There’s a name for those who deny the authority of the church to define sin: Protestant.
 
bkovacs said:
Here is one for you. What if you don’t currently belong to a Roman Rite parish, but you are a Roman Rite through Baptism and Confirmation, practicing the Byzantine traditions and rituals, and belonging to a Byzantine Rite parish. Example: a lapsed Roman Catholic, for say 20 or so years, and who decided to come back, but to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, instead. I cannot see why you must follow Roman Rite Holy Days of Obligation. It make no sense what so ever. If you want to be Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, etcc. The fact that you are Catholic means you are in communion with the other Churches of different Rites already. The whole purpose of switching to a new tradition, is to follow that new tradition. Not follow the former just for legalistic reasons.
Click to expand...
The reasons are given here by Bl. Pope John Paul II, for the 1983 Latin canon law:
This being so, it appears sufficiently clear that the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace and the charisms in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to faith, grace and the charisms, it at the same time renders easier their organic development in the life both of the ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it.

The Code, as the principal legislative document of the Church, founded on the juridical - legislative heritage of Revelation and Tradition, is to be regarded as an indispensable instrument to ensure order both in individual and social life, and also in the Church’s activity itself. Therefore, besides containing the fundamental elements of the hierarchical and organic structure of the Church as willed by her divine Founder, or as based upon apostolic, or in any case most ancient, tradition, and besides the fundamental principles which govern the exercise of the threefold office entrusted to the Church itself, the Code must also lay down certain rules and norms of behavior. …

In actual fact the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the Church. Since, indeed, it is organized as a social and visible structure, it must also have norms: in order that its hierarchical and organic structure be visible; in order that the exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to her, especially that of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, may be adequately organized; in order that the mutual relations of the faithful may be regulated according to justice based upon charity, with the rights of individuals guaranteed and well defined; in order, finally, that common initiatives, undertaken for a Christian life ever more perfect may be sustained, strengthened and fostered by canonical norms.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges_en.html

And here for the eastern canon law, 1990:

But what pertains to the universal ecumenical movement, stirred up by the Holy Spirit to perfect the unity of the whole Church of Christ, the new Code is in no way the least obstacle but rather greatly advances it. For the Code guards this fundamental right of the human persons, namely that the faith be professed in whatever their rite, for the most part derived by them in their mothers’ wombs, which is the rule of all ecumenism. Nor is it in any way neglected that the Eastern Catholic Churches, content in the tranquility of order desired by the Second Vatican Council, “may flourish and execute with a new apostolic vigor the task entrusted to them” (OE 1). Thus it happens that it is necessary that the canons of the Code of the Eastern Catholic Churches have the same firmness as the laws of the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church; that is, that they be in force until abrogated or changed by the supreme authority of the Church for a just cause, of which causes full communion of all of the Eastern Churches with the Catholic Church is indeed the most serious, besides being especially in accord with the desire of Our Savior Jesus Christ himself.

archive.org/details/ApostolicConstitutionSacriCanonesJohnPaulIi1990
 
Aramis said:
Here’s where you start to sound heretical, Constantine: You are denying the authority of the church to bind and loose.

The power to bind and loose was given to the Apostles; they have bound (through issuing canon laws) one to one’s church of ascription and it’s obligations. They have provided a means for changing that ascription as well.

Therefore, being bound by the church’s law under the collective will of the successors of the Apostles, if you claim canon law to be “merely laws of men” then the whole church is logically nought but laws of men, and false.

There’s a name for those who deny the authority of the church to define sin: Protestant.
Click to expand...
Someone with that authority told me that I’m free to follow their spirituality and traditions regardless of my canonical ascription. So there.

But really, is it a sin to follow authentic Church spirituality? I’m not playing around being Ukrainian Catholic. It has gotten to a point that there are pains and hardships with living that life, yet I continue on. I’m committed to it. Is that a sin?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Someone with that authority told me that I’m free to follow their spirituality and traditions regardless of my canonical ascription. So there.

But really, is it a sin to follow authentic Church spirituality? I’m not playing around being Ukrainian Catholic. It has gotten to a point that there are pains and hardships with living that life, yet I continue on. I’m committed to it. Is that a sin?
Click to expand...
As you say Constantine…the BISHOP gave you this advise and it is good advise. Countless bishops both Latin and Eastern have told me the same thing…I wonder if Aramis or Vico have had any bishops give them the advise that they are spouting here? Just wondering…🙂
 
ciero said:
As you say Constantine…the BISHOP gave you this advise and it is good advise. Countless bishops both Latin and Eastern have told me the same thing…I wonder if Aramis or Vico have had any bishops give them the advise that they are spouting here? Just wondering…🙂
Click to expand...
And I do respect Aramis and Vico. But we shouldn’t be flaunting the canons if the Bishops themselves are not holding it against us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top