C
ciero
Guest
I believe in the absence of the Eastern hierarch Rome is to be consulted, just because the Easterner is under the temporary care of the Latin bishop does not mean that the dispensation can be assumed.
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Ryan, an Eastern Bishop himself told me that save for Ordination, you can approach any ritual Church for any of the sacraments especially if you are already an active parishioner of another ritual Church. Even if you do not apply for Canonical transfer. Most people are not even aware of Canonical transfers.
Are you telling me that many Eastern Catholics especially those who have moved to areas where there are hardly EC parishes or none at all, and got married there, are now living in sin? Its highly unlikely the Church will delcare it as so. Remember, the Sacraments were created for man, not man for the Sacraments.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
So you’re telling me that a number of Eastern Catholics today who are unaware of the canons are living in sin today?
C
ciero
Guest
Yes Constantine according to canon law they are. Ordination AND marriage are the 2 sacraments that need to be received in your own Rite or have the proper dispensations to be married in another Rite.
C
ciero
Guest
Yes Constantine according to canon law they are. Ordination AND marriage are the 2 sacraments that need to be received in your own Rite or have the proper dispensations to be married in another Rite.
One must also have a dispensation to make vows in a monastery/religious order outside your Rite as well.
R
Rafaela
Guest
****I thank you for all of your outputs…
@malphono, I also thought that having to get a permission from a bishop residing in Kerala would be rather far-fetched idea.
@ciero, If one takes Rite after his father, then I should not be Catholic today…
Tiber Swim Team strikes again!
@pblopicasso, as to weather my husband is RCC or Syro-Malabar I have no clue. I do not also know in which church he has had his Confirmation, or weather it was at the same time as First Communion, and in either case would it matter at all, as to the outcome.
ConstantineTG said: “Eastern Bishop himself told me that save for Ordination, you can approach any ritual Church for any of the sacraments especially if you are already an active parishioner of another ritual Church. Even if you do not apply for Canonical transfer. Most people are not even aware of Canonical transfers.”
**My Latin Bishop confirmed what ConstantineTG heard of her Eastern Bishop.
**
****Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est
@malphono, I also thought that having to get a permission from a bishop residing in Kerala would be rather far-fetched idea.
@ciero, If one takes Rite after his father, then I should not be Catholic today…
Tiber Swim Team strikes again!@pblopicasso, as to weather my husband is RCC or Syro-Malabar I have no clue. I do not also know in which church he has had his Confirmation, or weather it was at the same time as First Communion, and in either case would it matter at all, as to the outcome.
ConstantineTG said: “Eastern Bishop himself told me that save for Ordination, you can approach any ritual Church for any of the sacraments especially if you are already an active parishioner of another ritual Church. Even if you do not apply for Canonical transfer. Most people are not even aware of Canonical transfers.”
**My Latin Bishop confirmed what ConstantineTG heard of her Eastern Bishop.
**
****Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
Great to hear you have it settled.I thank you for all of your outputs…
…
blopicasso, as to weather my husband is RCC or Syro-Malabar I have no clue. I do not also know in which church he has had his Confirmation, or weather it was at the same time as First Communion, and in either case would it matter at all, as to the outcome.
ConstantineTG said: “Eastern Bishop himself told me that save for Ordination, you can approach any ritual Church for any of the sacraments especially if you are already an active parishioner of another ritual Church. Even if you do not apply for Canonical transfer. Most people are not even aware of Canonical transfers.”
**My Latin Bishop confirmed what ConstantineTG heard of her Eastern Bishop.
**
Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est
I wanted to transfer to an eastern rite, but my wife did not and chose to convert to the Latin rite. Since I’ve settled in and have chosen to remain put for the sake of my family.
C
ciero
Guest
You should really find out what church your husband belongs to as it WILL affect any children that come from your marriage.****I thank you for all of your outputs…
@malphono, I also thought that having to get a permission from a bishop residing in Kerala would be rather far-fetched idea.
@ciero, If one takes Rite after his father, then I should not be Catholic today…
@pblopicasso, as to weather my husband is RCC or Syro-Malabar I have no clue. I do not also know in which church he has had his Confirmation, or weather it was at the same time as First Communion, and in either case would it matter at all, as to the outcome.
ConstantineTG said: “Eastern Bishop himself told me that save for Ordination, you can approach any ritual Church for any of the sacraments especially if you are already an active parishioner of another ritual Church. Even if you do not apply for Canonical transfer. Most people are not even aware of Canonical transfers.”
**My Latin Bishop confirmed what ConstantineTG heard of her Eastern Bishop.
**
******Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Ryan and Ciero
How long has this been part of Canon Law ?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I don’t know. Perhaps Ciero does.
R
Rafaela
Guest
Thank you for your concern, ciero. We live in West and do not have any plans moving out of Europe. My husband has adjusted very well to the Roman Catholicism and our child was also baptized in Roman Catholic church.
M
malphono
Guest
At the beginning, I thought it was clear that the groom actually was Syro-Malabar, but as I read through this thread again, I’m not so sure. Anyway, the impression I’m getting is that there is little, if any, particular interest in the family as to the Syro-Malabar aspect at all. There are, no doubt, reasons for that, which are none of my business, but whatever those reasons, the matter should be dealt with.Thank you for your concern, ciero. We live in West and do not have any plans moving out of Europe. My husband has adjusted very well to the Roman Catholicism and our child was also baptized in Roman Catholic church.
With that said, let me suggest this: I think it would be worth getting a copy of the groom’s original baptismal record from Kerala. If he was baptized in a Latin church building and he was of Syro-Malabar lineage, that will be noted in the record. If the baptism was in a Syro-Malabar church building but he was not of Syro-Malabar lineage, that will also be noted in the record. Now, if in fact he is Syro-Malabar and has no interest in belonging to that Church, it’s possible for the local bishop in Germany to assist with a transfer to the Latin Church.
OTOH, if he is a Syro-Malabar and intends to remain so, his children are ipso facto enrolled in the Syro-Malabar Church irrespective of where the baptism took place. (NB: Canon 29 of the CCEO does allow a child to be enrolled in the mother’s Church provided both parents agree. Since there is a child, and I presume there was no discussion of this matter before the baptism, whether that can be applied after the fact is a question best asked of a Canon Lawyer.)
5
5Loaves
Guest
For them to have been married in the Latin Church both OP and her husband had to provide a recent copy of their baptismal records. (If either of them found it impossible to obtain a copy that person then had to provide some other acceptable proof of the baptism.) Without acceptable proof of their baptism there couldn’t be a marriage in the Church. (An unbaptized person could be married in the Church but that’s another story.)
The parish where the marriage took place then provided back to the parish where the baptism took place the notice of the marriage. The marriage would be then recorded in the baptismal record back in the parish where the baptism took place.
So the OP has been married just over 2 years. This is recent and they would have needed the recent copy of husband’s baptismal record at that time. Maybe they actually thought to make a copy to keep for themselves before handing it over to the parish office where the wedding was to take place.
As you say, the children are members of the Church of the father regardless of where they were baptized. IF the father was at the time of their baptism a baptized Syro-Malabar Catholic then the children are Syro-Malabar Catholic unless at the time of the baptism Rafaela and the father both agreed on enrolling the child in the Church of the other parent, being the Latin Church in this situation, as you quote Canon 29. The baptismal records of the children in the Latin Church where they were Baptized should then have a note in the record that they are Syro-Malabar Catholic. (Again, this supposes that the father is a baptized Syro-Malabar Catholic.)
Every Latin priest who is approached by someone from another ritual Church should be consulting with his local canon law tribunal to be sure he knows the correct procedures for this. The priest or the staff who do marriage prep in that parish had to have had a recent copy of the baptismal records of both parties so should have known which Church each was baptized in, ie which Church each is actually a member of.
Both marriage and holy orders are affected by what Church one is formally a member of so it is important that this be clarified for the proper recording for the children’s baptismal records assuming the children decide to marry or become ordained some day.
5
5Loaves
Guest
As malphono has noted just being baptized in a Latin/Roman Catholic Church would not make your children Latin/Roman Catholic. Eastern and Oriental Catholics in the diaspora are often baptized in a Latin Church since it is the only Catholic Church around. It has no affect on the Church they are in fact a member of due to their parents’ enrollment.Thank you for your concern, ciero. We live in West and do not have any plans moving out of Europe. My husband has adjusted very well to the Roman Catholicism and our child was also baptized in Roman Catholic church.
For your children this can affect the validity of their marriage and/or their ordination if they choose to marry and/or seek ordination. I strongly encourage you to contact your local chancery about this. The canon law office will be very happy to help clarify your specific situation and make sure the proper procedures and the proper recording have been done.
Don’t be nervous about contacting the canon law office. They are there to help with such things and are very easy to talk to.
V
Vico
Guest
It will be interesting to see if anyone knows what rules were used prior to 1991. I know some rules were different because I read a journal (Messenger: Vol 50) from 1908 and it contained some of the laws used in the USA pertaining to Ruthenian Catholics and Latin Catholics:
In cases of marriage between a Ruthenian and a Latin Catholic, the Latin party must, the Ruthenian may, remain in his own rite; a return to the latter rite is permitted only after the demise of the other party. If the man be of the Latin rite, the marriage ceremony must be of that rite; but the Ruthenian has his choice. Should they decide to keep to their separate rites, they are obliged to receive the Easter Communion and the last Sacraments, and be buried accordingly. All children in the United States must be baptised according to the Latin rite, if the Ruthenian father consents, and fall under the jurisdiction of the baptizing priest. – p. 85, Messenger, Volume 50.
books.google.com/books?id=ILUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=ruthenian+marriage+law&source=bl&ots=Owx8-ggEY-&sig=1fQsAq7jIwOzt_-T5N4dzf96uMI&hl=en&ei=DT9STaHpEM3ytgfemNyPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
These rules were different than they are today in the Eastern Canons (CCEO) of 1990, promulgated 1991. This was a codification of various other documents with new material also. The decision to have a unified code dates back to Vatican I, and it took until 1917 to get the Latin canon law in place, and the Congregation for Oriental Churches. Finally the cannon law was revised in 1983 and the new eastern code in 1990.
Also, the actual practice is not up to canon law in some places today.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I’m sure someone will get offended, but when it comes to most Catholic doctrines, I have no trouble understanding or explaining them, when it comes to canon law, my reaction tends to be
W
white_sheep
Guest
This should be discussed with your priest. That’s always best with any questions about marriage as they can be so complicated sometimes.
A
Aramis
Guest
In places where one has no hierarchs of Church Sui Iuris A and the faithful of Church Sui Iuris A are under the canonical care of church sui iuris B’s bishop, no dispensation is required for receipt of marriage in church sui iuris B by the faithful of church A. It is merely required that the celebrant be a priest and give the nuptial blessing. (CCEO 830, 833)
Also, the CCEO specifies that the nuptial blessing is not requisite for validity of the marriage, but is requisite for licity, and that the valid sacramental marriage exists, but the sacrament is not completely received, if marriage is by means of public declaration in front of two witnesses, instead of conferred by the priest. Note that such marriage by declaration requires the bishop’s permission, that permission may only be given when no priest is available, and requires that the couple complete the sacrament when they next see a priest by requesting the nuptial blessing.
A few important canons:
CCEO
Canon 779
Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; consequently, in doubt, the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven.
Canon 827
Even if a marriage was entered invalidly by reason of an impediment or defect of form for the celebration of marriage required by law, the consent which was furnished is presumed to continue until its revocation has been proved.
Canon 828
- Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor, or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according, however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
- That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.
- As long as they legitimately hold office, the local hierarch and the pastor can give the faculty to bless a determined marriage within their own territorial boundaries to priests of any Church sui iuris, even the Latin Church.
- However, only the local hierarch can give a general faculty for blessing marriages with due regard for can. 302, 2.
- In order that the conferral of the faculty for blessing a marriage be valid, it must be expressly given to specified priests; further, if the faculty is general, it must be given in writing.
- The local hierarch or pastor licitly blesses a marriage:
(1) after he has established the domicile, quasi-domicile, or month-long residence, or, if it is a case of a transient, actual residence of either party in the place of the marriage;
(2) if, when these conditions are lacking, he has the permission of the hierarch or pastor of the domicile or quasi-domicile of either of the parties, unless a just cause excuses;
(3) also, a place exclusively of another Church sui iuris, unless the hierarch who exercises power in that place expressly refuses. - The marriage is to be celebrated before the pastor of the groom, unless either particular law determines otherwise or a just cause excuses.
- If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:
(1) in danger of death;
(2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month. - In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
- If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.
- The local hierarch can give to any Catholic priest the faculty of blessing the marriages of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church if those faithful cannot approach a priest of their own Church without great difficulty, and if they spontaneously ask for the blessing as long as nothing stands in the way of a valid and licit celebration.
- Before he blesses the marriage, the Catholic priest, if he is able, is to inform the competent authority of those Christian faithful of the fact.
- The form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed if at least one of the parties celebrating the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or was received into it.
- If, however, a Catholic party enrolled in some Eastern Church celebrates a marriage with one who belongs to an Eastern non-Catholic Church, the form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed only for liceity; for validity, however, the blessing of a priest is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
- For the valid celebration of marriage, it is necessary that the parties be present at the same time and mutually manifest marriage consent.
- Marriage cannot be validly celebrated by proxy unless the particular law of one’s own Church sui iuris establishes otherwise, in which case it must provide the conditions under which such a marriage may be celebrated.
5
5Loaves
Guest
Aramis-
I appreciate the canons you provided. For me it just supports the position I take:
When I approached the priest in my Latin Church about something he said he always turns everything that in any way involves an ECC/OCC over to the tribunal for their direction, it’s too complicated and he doesn’t want to be responsible for getting it wrong. When I approached my friend and former canon law teacher about something related to EC/OC he consulted two EC canonists before he got back to me with an answer.
I appreciate the canons you provided. For me it just supports the position I take:
When I approached the priest in my Latin Church about something he said he always turns everything that in any way involves an ECC/OCC over to the tribunal for their direction, it’s too complicated and he doesn’t want to be responsible for getting it wrong. When I approached my friend and former canon law teacher about something related to EC/OC he consulted two EC canonists before he got back to me with an answer.
We know OP’s wedding took place in a Catholic Church. The Church is, excuse me, proud of the good record keeping they do. (FYI I found good record keeping to * not * be the case both times I needed to acquire records for myself and for my daughter.) Given my own experience and that of others I’ve run into regarding parish records, West and East, were I OP I would follow up now while the kids are young and get their status clarified and properly recorded.
R
Rafaela
Guest
Could somebody please provide me the canon where it says that one takes the rite after his father?
I have my husbands baptism record in the house, because as you said we had to provide it when we got married. However, I do not quite understand what you meant. So if the record does not mention anything about the rite of his parents, then I can presume he is a Roman Catholic given that the baptism was in Roman Catholic church?
Unfortunately my husband is not the least bit interested of these things, and if I ask he says, well what do u mean, we are Catholic…
I have my husbands baptism record in the house, because as you said we had to provide it when we got married. However, I do not quite understand what you meant. So if the record does not mention anything about the rite of his parents, then I can presume he is a Roman Catholic given that the baptism was in Roman Catholic church?
Unfortunately my husband is not the least bit interested of these things, and if I ask he says, well what do u mean, we are Catholic…
- Status