Switch back to one's old rite?

[ConstantineTG]

Sacraments which must ordinarily be received in one’s Ritual Church are Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Matrimony (must take place in the Church of at least one of the parties) and Holy Orders.

This guideline states “We should encourage families to attend their own Ritual Church.”

aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/Evangelization/RitualChurchAscription.pdf

This is in keeping with statement of by the Church (Synod of Bishops) to Eastern Catholics in the Mid-East:
56. In towns, the faithful of the various Churches *sui iuris *often frequent a Catholic Church different from their own, because it is nearest to them or one in which they feel most at ease. Such people are asked to maintain their attachment to their original community, i.e., the one in which they were baptized. At the same time, Christians should see themselves as members of the Catholic Church in the Middle East and not simply as members of a particular Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20100606_instrumentum-mo_en.pdf

And the NCCB:
“The Committee on the Relationship between Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their work Eastern Catholics in the United States of America, in 1999, explains that in the USA, 'It is the normal practice of the Church that Catholics celebrate the Lord’s day by participating in the celebration of the Eucharist in a community of their own church. Nevertheless, where there is diversity of Churches in the one place, the faithful worthily celebrate the resurrection of Jesus by attending the Eucharist in any of the autonomous ritual Churches.”

zenit.org/article-31050?l=english

Yes but if one becomes attached to another ritual Church, all Sacraments sans ordination can be carried out in that Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I did not make a comparison to adultery.

A comparison for you and your situation would be an unmarried and childless man dating while looking into monasticism. You’re discerning and your actions of going back and forth and between them would be appropriate to the circumstances. If you asked the bishop, “Is it OK for me to date while I consider monasticism as my vocation?” he’d say, “Of course!” You could ask this online and get plenty of people assuring you of the same. It’s common and doesn’t require nuance or greater attention to detail. That would be a comparison to your situation.

The comparison I made to the situation being discussed was to a married man who decided after marriage and family life that getting married was a big mistake and he wanted to return to celibacy. There are ways that is possible, but this is not a normal situation like a young adult dating and discerning marriage. This is an unusual situation and it now affects a wife and child(ren). Applying the advice given to a dating man to this situation, or for that matter comparing it to adultery, would not adequately address the uniqueness or the complexity of his situation. This type of situation requires guidance that can’t be found online.

But thats my point, its really hard to compare going to Church with marriage, especially going to different ritual Churches within the same Catholic Church. And like I mentioned, what is so binding in the person’s life about canonical enrollment that they cannot just practice Roman Catholicism regardless of it? A marriage certificate would have many implications, a canonical enrollment, not so much. There’s no alimony or child support or taxing brackets to worry about. You go to the parish of your chioice, register there (completely optional), support that prarish and follow in the traditions of that Rite.

 

[Vico]

Vico,

I understand but my question is what is preventing the person from just registering as a member of an RC parish and go there? I’m registered in an Eastern parish now and I’m canonically RC. I’m learning more and mroe about the Eastern faith and by little steps every day I become more Eastern. I did have concerns too about canonical enrollment and they were put to rest by the Bishop after I asked him directly. Basically what he told me is what I am saying here. Go to a parish and live life in that tradition, regardless of canonical enrollment. It can be done. If this person in question is unhappy in his Eastern parish, then leave and go to an RC parish or another Eastern parish and live and follow the traditions there. And that is my question, what is holding back this person from doing that? Certainly canonical enrollment does not hold them back from doing so. Sure, you have this piece of paper that says you belong to this ritual Church. But many have that and have lived lives as good Catholics in another ritual Church without switching. So why can’t this person just do the same?

Yes but if one becomes attached to another ritual Church, all Sacraments sans ordination can be carried out in that Church.

Enrollment is not ascription, and per the canons, one can assist validly and receive Eucharist and confession at any Catholic church, so that is in agreement with what the bishop said. It is also true that one can receive the baptism, confirmation/chrismation, and matrimony, in a different Catholic ritual Church, but not without various permissions or dispensations, and there are differences in the laws which makes the Eastern Catholic laws more restrictive. Anointing of the Sick should be by one’s proper pastor, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Also, if one is in a family of those ascribed to only one ritual Church, receiving permission to follow the obligations for holy days and penitential fast and abstinance of a different ritual Church is needed. The faithful can only be urged (not forced) to assist in their ascribed ritual Church, yet the clergy must follow rules closely in administration of the sacraments.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We’re going around in circles now so I’ll stop right here and hear from the OP to answer my question. Which is, what is stopping the person he is referring to from attending a RC parish without canonical change?

 

[RomanHeart]

He IS attending an RC parish again; but wishes to regain the RC status, which especially he is concerned with anointing, burial, etc., as an RC. To him, this is dearly important; he and his family truly miss being RC together. For others, it may not matter as much as it does to him. I cannot understand why he would not be allowed to return - compassion would be in order here by both Bishops, IMHO.
Thank you to all - he just wanted some advise before approaching his Pastor, and then the subsequent hierarchy.
Perhaps a good lesson here is not to move either too quickly OR too slowly; I think in his case, again, IMHO, it took so long that he felt compelled to act; especially out of appreciation to the good priest and wife for their kindness. Perhaps its better just to attend and not switch to an Eastern Parish. Often, it is awesome at first, until reality sets in, and then a person may be experiencing regret due to not being able to “fit in” as perhaps he or she ‘ideally’ thought. “There’s no place like home.” Just my thoughts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

He IS attending an RC parish again; but wishes to regain the RC status, which especially he is concerned with anointing, burial, etc., as an RC. To him, this is dearly important; he and his family truly miss being RC together. For others, it may not matter as much as it does to him. I cannot understand why he would not be allowed to return - compassion would be in order here by both Bishops, IMHO.
Thank you to all - he just wanted some advise before approaching his Pastor, and then the subsequent hierarchy.
Perhaps a good lesson here is not to move either too quickly OR too slowly; I think in his case, again, IMHO, it took so long that he felt compelled to act; especially out of appreciation to the good priest and wife for their kindness. Perhaps its better just to attend and not switch to an Eastern Parish. Often, it is awesome at first, until reality sets in, and then a person may be experiencing regret due to not being able to “fit in” as perhaps he or she ‘ideally’ thought. “There’s no place like home.” Just my thoughts.

There’s nothing preventing the Roman pastor from giving him any and all Sacraments sans Ordination in the Roman Rite. Burrial rites, anointing, etc., can be given by his Roman pastor.

If you think about it, Canonical Enrollment is just a piece of paper. It not like the Early Christians would have such a thing which would say which ritual Church they belong to.

Speaking about anointing of the sick, a couple of months ago someone was anointed in our parish because the person was going for surgery. I learned yesterday they are Roman Catholics who go to the UGCC parish for the past 15 years. No canonical change, but was anointed in the Byzantine Rite. By all intents and purposes, they are Eastern Christians.

Its not that I’m preventing him from applying back. Maybe he will be granted. But what if he is not? What I say guarantees that no matter the outcome, he can live and practice as a Roman Catholic. And its fine with the Church.

 

[Vico]

There’s nothing preventing the Roman pastor from giving him any and all Sacraments sans Ordination in the Roman Rite. Burrial rites, anointing, etc., can be given by his Roman pastor.

If you think about it, Canonical Enrollment is just a piece of paper. It not like the Early Christians would have such a thing which would say which ritual Church they belong to.

Speaking about anointing of the sick, a couple of months ago someone was anointed in our parish because the person was going for surgery. I learned yesterday they are Roman Catholics who go to the UGCC parish for the past 15 years. No canonical change, but was anointed in the Byzantine Rite. By all intents and purposes, they are Eastern Christians.

Its not that I’m preventing him from applying back. Maybe he will be granted. But what if he is not? What I say guarantees that no matter the outcome, he can live and practice as a Roman Catholic. And its fine with the Church.

It is not true that there is nothing preventing a Roman pastor from giving him any and all Sacraments sans Ordination in the Roman Rite. The sacraments are to be given according to the canons that apply CIC for Latin Church or CCEO with particular law, for Eastern Catholics.

Ascription is not merely a piece of paper, but the clergy is bound to use the ascription as a basis on how to administer the sacraments, and also know what discipline the faithful are to follow.

For annointing of the sick, there are also permissions needed to be licit, even though valid, but may be presumed.

CCEO Canon 739

1. All priests, and only priests, validly administer the anointing of the sick.
2. The administration of the anointing of the sick belongs to the pastor, parochial vicar and to all other priests for those persons committed to their care in virtue of their office; any priest can licitly administer this sacrament with at least the presumed permission of those mentioned, indeed, in case of necessity he must do so.

 

[5Loaves]

We of course have here a second or third hand account of that situation. So going only on the principles of the matter…

An honest discussion with the Eastern bishop is probably where he should start. Out of humility, he should place himself under the bishop’s guidance, should be honest concerning everything and not just those areas he believes will get him what he now wants (to go back to the west), and should follow the bishop’s advice.

Amen.

…Self-direction and abandoning what he committed to won’t help him in the long-run. Facing it and working through it with legitimate guidance would.

Amen.

…They’re now under the care of the Eastern bishop. If they have a problem, they need to go to him. There are processes in place. The bishop is the one who knows those processes and is able to guide them through this while caring for their and their children’s souls. Not only is he able, but it is his responsibility. This particular problem is too big, too personal, and affects too many people to be dealt with by strangers online or by themselves.

Amen.

 

[Formosus]

If you think about it, Canonical Enrollment is just a piece of paper. It not like the Early Christians would have such a thing which would say which ritual Church they belong to.

It is not merely a piece of paper, but it determines quite a lot as to what one is canonically bound to do as far as feasts, fasting etc.

The OP should do as others have advised and inform their friend that he should speak with his Eparchial Bishop on the subject. The internet does not hold the answers to every question.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is not merely a piece of paper, but it determines quite a lot as to what one is canonically bound to do as far as feasts, fasting etc.

The OP should do as others have advised and inform their friend that he should speak with his Eparchial Bishop on the subject. The internet does not hold the answers to every question.

That is what I used to believe too, but that is not what the Bishop told me. The reality of it is many people are even unaware of the canons and would go about switching Churches for one reason or another. Are the committing sin or disobeying the Bishop where they are canonically enrolled? The answer I got was no.

Unless one is being disingeniuos and trying to avoid fasting rules and such by switching rites on the fly, then theres nothing wrong if one attaches oneself to another ritual Church and follow the traditions of that Church.

 

[Vico]

A Latin Catholic is not the subject of (that means no jurisdiction) an Eastern Catholic bishop, except when specifically placed in his care, and the converse.

The bishops and clergy of the Latin Catholic and each Eastern Catholic Church are bound to administer the sacraments/mysteries by their respective canons, and must obtain various permissions and dispensations for some of the sacraments/mysteries to be licit, and these are obtained from one’s ascribed Church sui iuris, except for those reserved to the Holy See. The faithful are not expected to be knowledable of these details like those that administer them, yet they are impacted by them. It is particularly noticable with baptism, confirmation/chrismation, and first eucharist, infant euchrist, matrimony (with a different set of impediments in CIC and CCEO and covenant requirements), and orders. Confession, adult eucharist, and annointing are very simple in contrast. The Eastern Code specifically states that the faithful are obliged to preserve their Church sui iurus always and everywhere (CCEO 12, 39, 40, and 403), and for that reason we see in the Middle-East that the faithful were recently asked to attend the Church of their baptism (ascribed Church sui iuris).

 

[Vico]

Latin Church Catholics are under the jurisdiction of the Latin bishop (except when specifically placed under another authority, which could be of a different Church sui iuris, similar to the Russian Catholics with the Melkite or Latin). The converse is also true.

The canon law one is bound to is based upon the Church sui iuris of ascription. The clergy is bound to obey the canons in the administration of the sacraments, which are administered differently in the Churches sui iuris, so that will have a direct impact upon the faithful. The greatest differences exist in confirmation/chrismation, first eucharist, infant eucharist, and in matrimony (different impediments, and discipline) and holy orders.

The eastern canons (CCEO) do make it clear that one is bound always and everywhere to observe their duties, including preservation of their rite, to their Church sui iuris of ascription. Recently in the Middle-East the bishops emphasized that the faithful should assist at their parish of baptism (Church sui iuris). (Posted previously.)

CCEO Canon 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.

 

[Diak]

Since the change was apparently well discerned and its gravity apparently explained by the Eastern clergy involved, it is much more difficult to canonically re-transfer. The suspicions of spiritual instability may also arise with such a “switch-back”. In general the Latin hierarchs are now cautioned to not allow transfers of Eastern Catholics to the Latin Church because of past issues involving forced attendance of Eastern Catholics at Latin parishes because of parochial school issues, etc.

I would recommend not transferring and simply just attending with the family. Since ordination is not a question nor marriage (the two major sacraments requiring dispensations when crossing ecclesiastical boundaries) I see no issue to simply go the the Catholic parish where one wants, and the “change” would be superfluous at this time. Out of all the transfers I have assisted with (well over a dozen now) I have never heard of a canonical “do-over” back to the Latin Church.

I am also not sure what the implication that the priest should not have “recommended him to the bishop” is implying in the previous post; to change particular churches a petition has to be freely made by the petitioner; and this was done with discernment. This should never be done lightly, and is usually for life when made. Since this appears to be a second-party inquiry, the petitioner himself should be the one making the inquiry since he was the original petitioner.