F
FrDavid96
Guest
He “must not.” If he does, the ordination would be valid, but illicit.
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes.
And that does actually happen.
Let’s say that there was a family who immigrated from Russia to the U.S. in the early 1800’s
They move to a part of the U.S. where there was no Eastern Catholic parish. They attend the local Latin Rite parish, and the family continues to attend Latin parishes through the years.
Fast forward to 2018. A young person today (let’s say born in 2000) traces his ancestry back and learns that his great (X6 patrilineal) grandfather was Russian Catholic. Unless there is some record that one of his grandfathers made a formal change-of-church, then he is (by canon law) a member of the Russian Catholic Church. The fact that his family has been attending Roman Mass (and weddings, baptisms, confirmation, etc.) for the past 200 years makes no difference.
No.
It’s not enough that they agree.
They must make their intentions known formally and those intentions must be recorded in the baptismal register. Unless it was done formally, it did not happen.
Last edited:
Y
YoungApologist3
Guest
Oh, ok. Good to know. Thank you very much for your time and responses, Father.
D
dochawk
Guest
Father, isn’t it normally the case outside North America that the local bishop has jurisdiction over all rites & churches, with the obligation to provide them for the faithful of all rites? In the US, we ended up with first a couple of floating eastern bishops to serve us all, and then the various hierarchies–but this only happened because we were abused but he Latin bishops.
A few things, most of which Fr. has already nenbtioned;
- A bishop ordains into his own church (except as noted as exceptions already), so for a man to be ordained in another church, he needs to formally change ritual church. This can only be done once, ever.
- It has only been possible to change from RC to EC in the last century or so.
- At least until the last couple of years, when changing from RC to EC, a lingering finger remains for a married man preventing ordination. I believe there are (were?) actually two forms of approval/transfer, one of which didn’t allow ordination, and the other only with vatican approval (which would not come, ever, if married). i think that this was lifted then +Frances wiped out the limits on married priests in their diaspora, but I’m not certain (fifteen years ago I would have checked, quite seriously, but it’s a bit late for me).
- Protestants or anyone else converting can be ordained, but only Episcopal and Lutheran clergy can be ordained if married (and it’s not automatically).
- When Orthodox enter communion with Rome, they are enrolled in the “most similar” EC church. Clergy are generally/usually received as clergy, and don’t need ordination.
- If the father is Catholic, the children belong to his ritual church, whether he knows it or not. If the father is not catholic, then they are ascribed to the mother’s ritual church. As of the last century or so, the parents may request a different church at time of baptism, and it will be noted. As Father noted, it could be through several generations of unknowing Eastern Catholics.
- Priests can receive faculties from a single other bishop for permission to celebrate in the other rite, and to wear the vestments of that rite. Priests do not generally need permission for one-time concelebration with a priest of another rite in the other priest’s rite, but should wear their own rite’s vestments. If memory serves (and it might not), deacons do not have this limitation.
If a seminarian’s head explodes from this discussion, is CAF at fault?
hawk
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Not any more. In the last 20+ years since the Eastern Code took effect, there’s been a trend toward appointing Eastern bishops outside of their traditional territory (even if they might be exarchs rather than eparchs). From the perspective of most of the members here (since the forum is in the English language) it’s more unlikely to find that situation of Eastern Catholics under the pastoral care of a Latin bishop.
Since the Eastern Code of 1990, a layman could change ritual churches by presenting his petition to both bishops (no need for Rome to get involved).
I can think of a few who were born Latin but became Eastern laymen then were ordained as married Eastern priests, and that was before the Eastern Code. I’m not sure how far back in time you’re writing about.
Subtle distinction here. That doesn’t apply to Lutherans. There might have been a tiny number (2 or 3) of exceptions made by way of special individual dispensations.
As for Episcopalians: replace that word with “Anglicans.” The new Anglican-tradition ordinariates are available to all former Anglicans, and that means the eligibility extends beyond just Episcopalians. It includes, for example, Methodists (since they originated within Anglicanism) and AME (African Methodist Episcopal).
I recall that when the Ordinariates were first established, there was a group of Lutherans who said that they would ask Rome to make the same accommodations for them. They said it, but Rome did not say it. Here on CAF, there were a number of completely unfounded claims (some rather vociferous) that the Ordinariates applied to Lutherans as well as Anglicans. Simply put: no truth to it.
A bishop can give faculties to a priest from a different ritual Church for a single celebration, if the circumstances are unusual (that’s done very rarely). Ritual faculties do need to be granted by the Holy See; they cannot be granted by the local bishop.
In appealing for faculties, the priest must show some genuine need for them, and both bishops must assent to the petition.
Once the faculties are granted, they apply universally. So a Latin priest who has ritual faculties for the Byzantine Rite can exercise them anywhere in the world (with the usual conditions that always apply to a traveling priest). They don’t apply to only a certain diocese.
Catholic priests are always invited to concelebrate at Mass. Indeed the law requires priests to concelebrate whenever they’re present at Mass (unless there’s some good reason not to).
The vestment issue is not addressed directly in the law. A concelebrating priest should wear his own rite’s vestments (that is in the law). If these are unavailable, he can wear those of the rite that he’s visiting (that’s not in the law, but is an interpretation).
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Deacons do need ritual faculties to function in a different ritual Church. However, since a deacon is typically not the actual celebrant, he often doesn’t need them. If he’s going to be the celebrant then he does. An Eastern deacon would need ritual faculties to celebrate baptism or officiate a marriage according to the Latin Rite. Likewise, if a Latin deacon were to serve as an Eastern Deacon at Divine Liturgy on anything other than a “rare occasion” he would need Latin-rite faculties.
B
babochka
Guest
I don’t really think it can be said that we have “floating” bishops. We have bishops with well-defined, very large territories that overlap with the territories of Latin-rite bishops. This situation exists mostly anywhere that there are significant numbers of Eastern Catholics, not just in the US. It is more noticeable in the US because we have so many different jurisdictions.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Today, no. But after that pig-headed bishop I refuse to name caused two schisms, but before the raising of eastern parches, these were used. There were, of course, conflicts between some of these and different eastern groups :headbang:
hawk
F
FrDavid96
Guest
They were not “floating” whatever that might mean. They had (as babochka said) very large, but still defined territory (such as “the entire United States”).babochka:
Today, no. But after that pig-headed bishop I refuse to name caused two schisms, but before the raising of eastern parches, these were used. There were, of course, conflicts between some of these and different eastern groups :headbang:
hawk
D
dochawk
Guest
If memory serves there was initially one, then shortly thereafter two.
Their territory was the US, but at least initially, they still were subject in some ways to the local bishops. So they tended to Eastern Catholics and ordained priests–unless the local bishop wouldn’t let them.
That would change when the Eparchies were raised. This created a canonically irregular situation of multiple overlapping dioceses, but I really don’t see another way that the EC faithful could have been protected (or perhaps “less abused” would be a better word choice.
There are still EC bishops with territories that size. I believe the Melkites have one bishop for the US (or is it North America?), and the Maronites have two. The Metropolia of Pittsburgh, formerly known as Ruthenian, has four (one of whose Eparchy is the entire western half of the US.).
hawk
Their territory was the US, but at least initially, they still were subject in some ways to the local bishops. So they tended to Eastern Catholics and ordained priests–unless the local bishop wouldn’t let them.
That would change when the Eparchies were raised. This created a canonically irregular situation of multiple overlapping dioceses, but I really don’t see another way that the EC faithful could have been protected (or perhaps “less abused” would be a better word choice.
There are still EC bishops with territories that size. I believe the Melkites have one bishop for the US (or is it North America?), and the Maronites have two. The Metropolia of Pittsburgh, formerly known as Ruthenian, has four (one of whose Eparchy is the entire western half of the US.).
hawk
- Status