Practicing Maronite/Canonically Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnworthyApostle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
The Late Metropolitan Basil
Retired Archbishop Francis Hurley (but noting that he’s also always been happy to sign off on change of ascription) and Archbishop Roger Schweitz (also happy to sign off on a change of ascription or to grant economia - case by case). These are my canonical bishops, BTW, and I have gotten verbal permission to practice in the Byzantine Rite fully from both, pending the formal change paperwork going through, in addition to the parish being granted personal parish status for Romans attached to the Byzantine Rite by their predecessor, Archbishop Ryan.
Eparch William of Passaic, when he was Eparch of Van Nuys. “Get your paperwork in so you only have to follow one set of rules!”
The late Bishop George of Van Nuys.

My last 5 pastors, who remind those parishioners who are ascribed as Roman to go to church on Jan 1 and Jan 6. One of whom was a JCL (Canon Law Licentiate), and another who is a STD (Doctor of Theology).

So, yes, I hear it every year around Nativity…
 
Aramis said:
The Late Metropolitan Basil
Retired Archbishop Francis Hurley (but noting that he’s also always been happy to sign off on change of ascription) and Archbishop Roger Schweitz (also happy to sign off on a change of ascription or to grant economia - case by case). These are my canonical bishops, BTW, and I have gotten verbal permission to practice in the Byzantine Rite fully from both, pending the formal change paperwork going through, in addition to the parish being granted personal parish status for Romans attached to the Byzantine Rite by their predecessor, Archbishop Ryan.
Eparch William of Passaic, when he was Eparch of Van Nuys. “Get your paperwork in so you only have to follow one set of rules!”
The late Bishop George of Van Nuys.

My last 5 pastors, who remind those parishioners who are ascribed as Roman to go to church on Jan 1 and Jan 6. One of whom was a JCL (Canon Law Licentiate), and another who is a STD (Doctor of Theology).

So, yes, I hear it every year around Nativity…
Click to expand...
\
The late Bishop George and Bishop William have both told me just the reverse. They have both stated that it was just fine for folks who REGULARLY attended the Byzantine church (although canonically Latin) to follow the fasting and holy day regulations of the Byzantine church. Knowing 2 of your former pastors (Fr. Wes and Fr. Steven)…I find it hard to believe that they would be saying this either.
 
In an area where jurisdictions overlap for various Catholic churches, those faithful ascribed to the Latin Church are subject to the Latin bishop, and those ascribed to an eastern Church are subject to the eastern Church eparch or exarch as their bishop, regardless of what parish they are attending.

The diocesan bishop of one Church sui iuris does not have the ability to dispense with a canonical matter of another Church sui iuris. Since we are to follow the laws of our respective ascribed Church sui iuris, a Latin Catholic in the USA does not get a dispensation from the Byzantine Catholic bishop.
 
ciero said:
\
The late Bishop George and Bishop William have both told me just the reverse. They have both stated that it was just fine for folks who REGULARLY attended the Byzantine church (although canonically Latin) to follow the fasting and holy day regulations of the Byzantine church. Knowing 2 of your former pastors (Fr. Wes and Fr. Steven)…I find it hard to believe that they would be saying this either.
Click to expand...
If by Fr. Steven, you mean Greskowiak, he’s the only one who didn’t. Fr. Wes did.

Fr. Mike Hornick did. Fr. James has repeatedly.

You’re only getting half of it, tho. Following the byzantine fasting requirements will, except on 2 days a year, meet the Roman requirements by a wide margin.

I’ve never heard any of them say the Romans were released from the Roman obligation… I’ve heard all of them point out that it meets all but a handful of items: 1 holy day, 2 days of mandated fast. Jan 1, Ash Wednesday, and Holy Saturday.
 
Thank You all for this edifying discussion. I just need to talk to my priest for more in depth help, but I do think that I will follow the canonical regulations concerning Holy Days. Again, God Bless.
 
There are significant disadvantages to attending a Byzantine Catholic Church, and I assume any other Eastern Catholic Church, while remaining Roman. One can be a parishioner but still not be a member of the Church. A Roman attending a Byzantine Church cannot be a Church Officer, member of the Church Council, teach ECF or be counted as a member in determining mission status. This is true even though the parishioner donates regularly and contributes to the Bishop’s fund. One cannot be an Eucharistic Minister in the Byzantine Church.
In the Roman Church one can be cremated and still have a memorial mass. There is no memorial divine liturgy in the Byzantine Church. If there is to be cremation, it must follow the funeral liturgy where a body must be present.
A deterrant to changing church is that we are a mobile society. Roman Churches are everywhere. A Byzantine or other Eastern Catholic Church may be distant or not present at all.
Remaining faithful to the Roman Cannon Law is not that difficult. Fasting (which includes the concept of abstinence) is much easier. It seems in the western US, most Roman obligatory days are moved to a Sunday. January 1 is no longer observed in western US.
If you reside in the territory of a Roman Church, the pastor must accept you. Membership in an Eastern Catholic Church is not territorial and a pastor is not obligated to accept you.
 
rdorseyhsd said:
There are significant disadvantages to attending a Byzantine Catholic Church, and I assume any other Eastern Catholic Church, while remaining Roman. One can be a parishioner but still not be a member of the Church. A Roman attending a Byzantine Church cannot be a Church Officer, member of the Church Council, teach ECF or be counted as a member in determining mission status. This is true even though the parishioner donates regularly and contributes to the Bishop’s fund.
Click to expand...
I was volunteering to teach and the priest and bishop had no problem with it. The issue isn’t about me teaching but about getting people to attend.
rdorseyhsd said:
One cannot be an Eucharistic Minister in the Byzantine Church.
Click to expand...
Of course, one has to be canonically a member before they can be Ordained. Not only to the priesthood but even to the Diaconate and I believe even to minor orders.
 
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...
It has no force of law when a bishop attempts to give a dispensation to the faithful that are not his subjects.

Yes, I have received instruction; the bishops are united on this. As Metropolitan Basil said in 2009 “the two current codes continue to regulate inter-ecclesial and inter-ritual relations, even though experience testifies to the fact that the ofen-followed praxis does not always correspond to the norm.” Also we have the statement of the four eparchs in the 1999 promulgation of the particular law, in accord with the CCEO 167, that it is obligatory and binding:
…

As the Metropolitan in collegial union with my brother bishops, I hereby promulgate The Norms of Particular Law of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. Furthermore, these norms shall be effective as of October 1, 1999 at which time they become obligatory and binding throughout this Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh.

Given at Pittsburgh this 29th day of June, in the year of our Lord, 1999, the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

Signed:
Most Reverend Judson M. Procyk, D.D.
Metropolitan Archbishop

Most Reverend Andrew Pataki, D.D.
Eparch of Passaic

Most Reverend George M. Kuzma, D.D.
Eparch of Van Nuys

Most Reverend Basil M. Schott, O.F.M., D.D.
Eparch of Parma
 
Vico said:
It has no force of law when a bishop attempts to give a dispensation to the faithful that are not his subjects.

Yes, I have received instruction; the bishops are united on this. As Metropolitan Basil said in 2009 “the two current codes continue to regulate inter-ecclesial and inter-ritual relations, even though experience testifies to the fact that the ofen-followed praxis does not always correspond to the norm.” Also we have the statement of the four eparchs in the 1999 promulgation of the particular law, in accord with the CCEO 167, that it is obligatory and binding:
…

As the Metropolitan in collegial union with my brother bishops, I hereby promulgate The Norms of Particular Law of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. Furthermore, these norms shall be effective as of October 1, 1999 at which time they become obligatory and binding throughout this Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh.

Given at Pittsburgh this 29th day of June, in the year of our Lord, 1999, the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

Signed:
Most Reverend Judson M. Procyk, D.D.
Metropolitan Archbishop

Most Reverend Andrew Pataki, D.D.
Eparch of Passaic

Most Reverend George M. Kuzma, D.D.
Eparch of Van Nuys

Most Reverend Basil M. Schott, O.F.M., D.D.
Eparch of Parma
Click to expand...
Boy Vico, whats the deal with the Latin Bishops telling me there is a standing agreement that Latins may fulfill their obligations in an Eastern church then? Having been told this by many Latin Bishops I just don’t get it…:confused:

I guess I should disallow everything the Bishops have actually told me (and Constantine as well) as being the case and take the word of an armchair canonist. :rolleyes:
 
ciero said:
Boy Vico, whats the deal with the Latin Bishops telling me there is a standing agreement that Latins may fulfill their obligations in an Eastern church then? Having been told this by many Latin Bishops I just don’t get it…:confused:

I guess I should disallow everything the Bishops have actually told me (and Constantine as well) as being the case and take the word of an armchair canonist. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
As stated in a previous post with you before, myself and others have received contrary instruction from the Church. You are essentially advising the faithful to ignore the written statements of the Church in preference for what you post here.

There is no such notation on the USCCB site of Norms (Sundays and Holy Days) 1246 (Observance of Fast and Abstinence)1252-1253, as one can see:

usccb.org/norms/norms.htm

Nor on the Holy Days of Obligation page:

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/general/obligation.shtml

Latin Catholics may fulfill their mass, annual confession and eucharist, and holy day obligations, in an Eastern church, canonically.

What is not canonical is for the Latin faithful (not in an inter-ritual marriage) to skip holy day observances (e.g. in the USA) of All Saints (Nov 1), Immaculate Conception (Dec 8), Solemnity of Mary (Jan 1), or the Ash Wednesday penance, without explicit indult, dispensation, or permission (whichever one applies in this case).

If there is a national allowing of a substution for days of penance or skipping or substuting of holy days, then it would have to be given by all the Latin diocesan bishops in the jurisdictions of the USA. If applicable to the faithful of the eastern churches too, each with their own laws (such as Ukrainian observing the Annunciation but not the Byzantine) then those eparchs/exarchs would also be involved. There are 15 USCCB regions. If for Canada then it would be the Canadian Conference of Bishops.

Ask any of the bishops you spoke with what is the basis of their statements. Get the name of the document, or the protocol number, and date of it, and the term, what jurisdictions it applies to, and report it here. It would be very useful because the Latin Church chancery here would like to know about it, and I think the Byzantine chancery in Passaic would also like to know.
 
We all are under the CCEO general canons, but surely the UGCC parish ConstantineTG is part of is not affected by “The Norms of Particular Law of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A.”, i.e. the Ruthenium Catholic Church in the US. Unless ciero is Ruthenium then the Norms of the Byzantine Catholic Church of the US are also not binding for him.

I am not addressing the argument currently going on yet again in this thread which has gone in the same fashion in other threads in the EC section regarding Latins practicing in an EC parish. I’m only saying that I don’t really see any value in quoting canons or other norms of the Byzantine Catholic Church of the US in situations in which no member of that Church is involved.
 
5Loaves said:
We all are under the CCEO general canons, but surely the UGCC parish ConstantineTG is part of is not affected by “The Norms of Particular Law of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A.”, i.e. the Ruthenium Catholic Church in the US. Unless ciero is Ruthenium then the Norms of the Byzantine Catholic Church of the US are also not binding for him.

I am not addressing the argument currently going on yet again in this thread which has gone in the same fashion in other threads in the EC section regarding Latins practicing in an EC parish. I’m only saying that I don’t really see any value in quoting canons or other norms of the Byzantine Catholic Church of the US in situations in which no member of that Church is involved.
Click to expand...
Of course, but the response was not about ConstantineTG who is an ascribed Latin Catholic. The post was to the statement of ciero:
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?
I do not remember ciero’s Church sui iuris (it he ever told me) but his religion is “orthodox in communion with rome”. It is really irrelevant to the question asked.
 
Vico said:
As stated in a previous post with you before, myself and others have received contrary instruction from the Church. You are essentially advising the faithful to ignore the written statements of the Church in preference for what you post here.

There is no such notation on the USCCB site of Norms (Sundays and Holy Days) 1246 (Observance of Fast and Abstinence)1252-1253, as one can see:

usccb.org/norms/norms.htm

Nor on the Holy Days of Obligation page:

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/general/obligation.shtml

Latin Catholics may fulfill their mass, annual confession and eucharist, and holy day obligations, in an Eastern church, canonically.

What is not canonical is for the Latin faithful (not in an inter-ritual marriage) to skip holy day observances (e.g. in the USA) of All Saints (Nov 1), Immaculate Conception (Dec 8), Solemnity of Mary (Jan 1), or the Ash Wednesday penance, without explicit indult, dispensation, or permission (whichever one applies in this case).

If there is a national allowing of a substution for days of penance or skipping or substuting of holy days, then it would have to be given by all the Latin diocesan bishops in the jurisdictions of the USA. If applicable to the faithful of the eastern churches too, each with their own laws (such as Ukrainian observing the Annunciation but not the Byzantine) then those eparchs/exarchs would also be involved. There are 15 USCCB regions. If for Canada then it would be the Canadian Conference of Bishops.

Ask any of the bishops you spoke with what is the basis of their statements. Get the name of the document, or the protocol number, and date of it, and the term, what jurisdictions it applies to, and report it here. It would be very useful because the Latin Church chancery here would like to know about it, and I think the Byzantine chancery in Passaic would also like to know.
Click to expand...
Sorry Vico…I’m not as hung up on Canon law as you are…if the bishop tells me it is ok…then it is good enough for me! 😃 One of the reasons I left the Latin church many years ago…was their hang up with canon law…IMO the Eastern approach to law is much more healthy! 🙂

And as far as the Byzantine Catholic Chancery of Passaic goes…I dont have the time of day for them! 😃
 
While a Roman Catholic attending an Eastern Catholic Church must observe Roman Canon Law, interestingly, the Eastern Bishop can impose additional regulations. For example, the Eastern Bishop may require that any person receiving communion in his Eparchy, must observe Eastern fasting requirements.
 
ciero said:
Sorry Vico…I’m not as hung up on Canon law as you are…if the bishop tells me it is ok…then it is good enough for me! 😃 One of the reasons I left the Latin church many years ago…was their hang up with canon law…IMO the Eastern approach to law is much more healthy! 🙂

And as far as the Byzantine Catholic Chancery of Passaic goes…I dont have the time of day for them! 😃
Click to expand...
Help me to understand what you are doing: you have canonically transferred from the Latin Church to an eastern Church sui iuris, yet advise Latin Church Catholics about their obligations, using statements from eastern bishops that have no jurisdiction over them? Or are you referring to the Latin bishops?
 
Vico said:
Help me to understand what you are doing: you have canonically transferred from the Latin Church to an eastern Church sui iuris, yet advise Latin Church Catholics about their obligations, using statements from eastern bishops that have no jurisdiction over them? Or are you referring to the Latin bishops?
Click to expand...
So as a canonical Roman Catholic, I should kneel for consecration then and receive CITH or kneeling if I so choose so. 👍
 
Vico said:
I see you are joking, so you actually understand what is canonical.
Click to expand...
Well if I am not subject to Byzantine traditions, then I should do the Roman traditions in the Divine Liturgy as you have suggested. You see where I am getting at? Didn’t that phrase “when in Rome” get coined from a similar incident? St. Ambrose followed the fasting day of the Romans when he was in Rome. He didn’t change Churches or anything. He said to follow the custom of the Church where you are. Its an age old Church belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top