Statute of Limitations for what Rite One is?

[YoungApologist3]

As some of you may know, I am a seminary applicant. One of the (many, many) questions that is on the application is whether you have any Eastern Catholic relatives. Presumably, this is to ensure that you aren’t Eastern Catholic without actually knowing it, making it so that you can’t serve the diocese if you one day realized it. This got me thinking. What would happen if my great-great-great-…-great grandfather on my father’s fathers … father’s side was Eastern Catholic? This would make me, and possibly hundreds of other people, belong to an Eastern rite without even knowing it. This would then invalidate every marriage in the family that took place since then (since it would have taken place in a Latin church, by a Latin priest), and have other consequences as well.

My question is this: Is there a per se statute of limitations regarding what rite one is? For example, if a family forgets they belong to a certain rite, and begin practicing another one, after 3 generations their family belongs to the rite they associate themselves with?

 

[eagerbeaver]

One very quick response - remember your Rite is that to which your father belonged.

As to marriage - as long as it was by a priest it is a valid marriage [ Crowning in Eastern Terminology ]

A Deacon though he can receive the vows of a Latin Catholic [ i.e. Roman ] couple he may not receive the vows of an Eastern Catholic

 

[YoungApologist3]

Thank you for your response.

Yes, I am aware that your rite comes from your father. That is why I said “father’s father’s… father.” However, a couple cannot validly marry in front of a priest from another rite, with (of course) a few exceptions. (This can be seen here.)

 

[MikeInVA]

remember your Rite is that to which your father belonged.

I don’t understand this. If my dad was Byzantine Catholic and my mom was Roman, and they raised me in a Roman Catholic church (sacraments), are you saying that I would actually be a Byzantine not Roman Catholic?

(I’m not trying to start an argument, I just have never heard this. For the record, both my parents were Roman Catholic!)

 

[YoungApologist3]

Yes, you would be a Byzantine. You would (unless the Roman/Latin priests in your area have permission) need to be married by a Byzantine priest, and would need to follow the Byzantine laws of fasting and abstinence. You could receive (I think) all the other sacraments from a Roman priest, but you would be bound by Byzantine canon law.

 

[Augustinian]

What would happen if my great-great-great-…-great grandfather on my father’s fathers … father’s side was Eastern Catholic?

Actually it might mean nothing, if he was from the Middle East and his distant paternal ancestor was Baldwin I King of Jerusalem, who was Latin rite.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Haha. But assuming I’m not heir to the throne of Jerusalem, what then?

 

[Entwhistler]

Hey, we can start a crusade for you.

 

[Vico]

…

My question is this: Is there a per se statute of limitations regarding what rite one is? For example, if a family forgets they belong to a certain rite, and begin practicing another one, after 3 generations their family belongs to the rite they associate themselves with?

So are you assuming infant baptism and both parents are Catholic?

There is no time limit that I have ever read of, but there are different canon law revisions through time.

See: Which Church (Sui Iuris) Do You Enter at Baptism? – Jimmy Akin

 

[YoungApologist3]

Oh, goodness! Now, you’ve just further complicated this by an order of magnitude!

 

[HolySpirit]

Why would it make any difference what background you are for entering the seminary? If you are planning to be a diocesan priest, it is a matter solely for the bishop to decide. I am pretty sure that I have talked to a seminarian who has orthodox ancestry. (Although he was a religious vocation.)

A protestant who was married can enter the seminary so long as they convert to Catholicism.

 

[LilyM]

Why would it make any difference what background you are for entering the seminary? If you are planning to be a diocesan priest, it is a matter solely for the bishop to decide. I am pretty sure that I have talked to a seminarian who has orthodox ancestry. (Although he was a religious vocation.)

A protestant who was married can enter the seminary so long as they convert to Catholicism.

This.

I’ve also known of priests being biritual (ie having faculties to celebrate the sacraments as a priest in both Eastern and Latin Catholic rites). The late great Archbishop Fulton Sheen being one such.

So I don’t think the fact your grandfather or whoever was of a particular rite would prevent your being ordained in the Latin Catholic rite.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Why would it make any difference what background you are for entering the seminary? If you are planning to be a diocesan priest, it is a matter solely for the bishop to decide. I am pretty sure that I have talked to a seminarian who has orthodox ancestry. (Although he was a religious vocation.)

A protestant who was married can enter the seminary so long as they convert to Catholicism.

I don’t think a married former protestant can become a Roman Catholic priest, unless they were an Anglican or Episcopalian “priest.”

This.

I’ve also known of priests being biritual (ie having faculties to celebrate the sacraments as a priest in both Eastern and Latin Catholic rites). The late great Archbishop Fulton Sheen being one such.

So I don’t think the fact your grandfather or whoever was of a particular rite would prevent your being ordained in the Latin Catholic rite.

I think the matter at hand is the fact that I would need to be under the authority of the local ordinary of my own church sui iuris. I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure bi-ritual priests are still under the authority of just one bishop.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Just to be clear, I am not aware of any Eastern Catholics being in my family at all, so this isn’t a problem for me. The diocese has many canon lawyers, and even if I did have Eastern Catholic heritage, I’m sure they would get everything figured out. The main thing I’m curious about is what would happen to any marriages performed between now and then, assuming no such statute of limitations exists. Would they indeed be all invalid?

 

[LilyM]

I think the matter at hand is the fact that I would need to be under the authority of the local ordinary of my own church sui iuris. I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure bi-ritual priests are still under the authority of just one bishop.

But how would one’s ancestry (or even one’s personal history) affect any of that?

If I were born Melkite Catholic, for example, but as an adult chose to change rites to become Latin Catholic, why would the fact of me, let alone any of my ancestors, having been born in a different rite make it impossible for me, now being a Latin Catholic, to become a priest under the authority of the local Latin Catholic bishop? Am I not, as a Latin Catholic layperson, equally subject to the authority of my own bishop and no other once I convert?

Maybe go back to whoever gave you the form and ask about the question - it may just be a bit of a “getting-to-know-you” type of question.

 

[HolySpirit]

Lay protestant converts can become priests as well. I believe most Baptists are precluded.

It is more common that Anglicans and Episcopalians make the transition because their beliefs are more similar to ours.

Regardless, marriage is not an impediment as long as the Bishop agrees.

I still can not see how an orthodox ancestry would be an impediment unless the Bishop choose to make it an issue. (If you have lived your entire life as a Catholic.)

It sounds like seminary paperwork paranoia is entering your mind. I’d imagine most seminarians start having similar thoughts the closer it becomes to the due date. I know I felt it when I was applying to graduate school.

It will be over soon, and you will soon be a seminarian. When God calls a man, he doesn’t make a mistake.

 

[YoungApologist3]

But how would one’s ancestry (or even one’s personal history) affect any of that?

If I were born Melkite Catholic, for example, but as an adult chose to change rites to become Latin Catholic, why would the fact of having been born in a different rite make it impossible for me, now being a Latin Catholic, to become a priest under the authority of the local Latin Catholic bishop?

Maybe go back to whoever gave you the form and ask about the question - it may just be a bit of a “getting-to-know-you” type of question

If you were born Melkite, and changed rites formally, it would not matter. You formally changed rites, and are no longer bound by the canons of the Melkite church. However, if you just start attending Roman Mass and don’t formally change rites, then you are still Melkite, and are bound by canon law (I think) to be ordained in the Melkite church. I think this is just a precaution so that it would be caught before you entered seminary if you belonged to a different church sui iuris without knowing it.

We need some canonists in this thread.

 

[HolySpirit]

This is just third hand from the peanut gallery. I believe that Father Mitch Pacwa said that he became ordained as a Maronite Priest because he developed an interest in their heritage while he was studying Aramaic. I’ve heard that he does occasionally perform Maronite services because he appreciates their sanctity and beauty.

 

[YoungApologist3]

I still can not see how an orthodox ancestry would be an impediment unless the Bishop choose to make it an issue. (If you have lived your entire life as a Catholic.)

This is not asking about Eastern Orthodox ancestry. This is asking about Eastern Catholic ancestry. Many of the Eastern Orthodox churches (little “c”) have equivalent churches (little “c”) in the Catholic Church (big “C”). (I’m sorry if I’m patronizing you. I just can’t tell if you don’t know about the existence of Eastern churches in the Catholic Church, or if I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying.)

It sounds like seminary paperwork paranoia is entering your mind. I’d imagine most seminarians start having similar thoughts the closer it becomes to the due date. I know I felt it when I was applying to graduate school.

I’m not really paranoid about anything; if I was Eastern Catholic and had no way of knowing it, I know that there would be no mortal sin for me not following the canons of the Eastern church.

It will be over soon, and you will soon be a seminarian.

This is the first time I’ve actually heard this, and honestly, it hit me like a ton of bricks, in a good way.

 

[LoyalViews]

I think (I could be wrong) that Fr Mitch Pacwa is just bi-ritual. He is a Jesuit, and an extremely erudite and learned priest.

OP, I’m praying for you. I think your best contribution will come from Fr David, another brilliant priest and I hope with haste. You should try to PM him.