What is the point of officially changing rites?

[Emma2829]

I totally understand why a Roman rite Catholic would be drawn to liturgy and spirituality of the Eastern Catholic rites, but I was wondering for what reasons a person would actually go through the process of changing rites?

From what I understand, a Roman rite Catholic is perfectly free to attend an Eastern Catholic church (and vice versa) as often as they like- they could receive communion, go to confession, participate in parish activities/organizations, practice Eastern spirituality and devotions, etc. So why would someone feel the need to actually change rites officially?

I understand that the Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, with their own governance and law, separate from that of the Latin Church. So I get that when a person switches to an Eastern rite, they would now be under the jurisdiction of an Eastern bishop and subject to the ecclesiastical law of that particular church. However, from a practical standpoint, what actual changes would this entail?

 

[Casilda]

I was wondering for what reasons a person would actually go through the process of changing rites?

So why would someone feel the need to actually change rites officially?

I was unable to revert back into communion to the Latin Catholic church. My parents left shortly after I received FHC. I had tried to revert as a teen but was unable. This was back in the 70’s, I guess there was no interest in Catholic youth back then. Fast forward 30 odd years, my protestant husband wanted to convert but also encountered a lack of cohesion in the local diocese with differing rcia programs and no pastoral support or guidance we were left abandoned in a parish with no priest unable to proceed with the process. We were told to live separately until conversion/reversion and our marriage situation was regularized.

An Eastern Catholic priest received us rather quickly, by examine. My husband converted, I transferred. I changed rites because of the lack of pastoral support in the Latin church.

 

[jimkhong]

I was unable to revert back into communion to the Latin Catholic church. My parents left shortly after I received FHC. I had tried to revert as a teen but was unable. This was back in the 70’s, I guess there was no interest in Catholic youth back then. Fast forward 30 odd years, my protestant husband wanted to convert but also encountered a lack of cohesion in the local diocese with differing rcia programs and no pastoral support or guidance we were left abandoned in a parish with no priest unable to proceed with the process. We were told to live separately until conversion/reversion and our marriage situation was regularized.

An Eastern Catholic priest received us rather quickly, by examine. My husband converted, I transferred. I changed rites because of the lack of pastoral support in the Latin church.

So sad, reminds me of a story a few years ago. I attended a Coptic mass a few years ago out of curiosity. There are hardly any Copts in my country. The only other person in the congregation was a Polish man getting his baby baptised, with his non-Christian local wife.

After mass, I mentioned that I didn’t realise there were Copts in Poland. He said he is actually Catholic but the local Catholic parish wanted his original baptism certificate to baptise his baby. But that will be in Poland. Still, the local parish insisted. Since, he didn’t want his baby to be baptised in a Protestant church, he turned to the next closest thing - an orthodox church.

How sad we have become

 

[babochka]

I totally understand why a Roman rite Catholic would be drawn to liturgy and spirituality of the Eastern Catholic rites, but I was wondering for what reasons a person would actually go through the process of changing rites?

From what I understand, a Roman rite Catholic is perfectly free to attend an Eastern Catholic church (and vice versa) as often as they like- they could receive communion, go to confession, participate in parish activities/organizations, practice Eastern spirituality and devotions, etc. So why would someone feel the need to actually change rites officially?

I understand that the Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, with their own governance and law, separate from that of the Latin Church. So I get that when a person switches to an Eastern rite, they would now be under the jurisdiction of an Eastern bishop and subject to the ecclesiastical law of that particular church. However, from a practical standpoint, what actual changes would this entail?

The recent thread on Latin Catholics receiving the Sacraments of Initiation in Eastern Churches highlights one possible reason. It simplifies and clarifies the situation when it comes to having one’s children baptized in one’s spiritual home. This also affects future marriages and ordinations. Additionally, it clarifies the obligations regarding fasting, keeping Holy Days, etc. Generally speaking, with some possible exceptions, one is obligated to the regulations of the Church in which one is enrolled. For example, if a Latin Catholic were fully living out the liturgical life of the Byzantine Catholic Church, he would still be obligated to attend Mass or Divine Liturgy on November 1, even though this day is not a Holy Day in the Byzantine Church. And sometimes, a person just wants what is “official” to match what is already in place in reality. If you are living out the spirituality and liturgical calendar of a particular rite and intend to continue to do so, for some people it just makes sense to make the change.

 

[Vico]

I totally understand why a Roman rite Catholic would be drawn to liturgy and spirituality of the Eastern Catholic rites, but I was wondering for what reasons a person would actually go through the process of changing rites?

From what I understand, a Roman rite Catholic is perfectly free to attend an Eastern Catholic church (and vice versa) as often as they like- they could receive communion, go to confession, participate in parish activities/organizations, practice Eastern spirituality and devotions, etc. So why would someone feel the need to actually change rites officially?

I understand that the Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, with their own governance and law, separate from that of the Latin Church. So I get that when a person switches to an Eastern rite, they would now be under the jurisdiction of an Eastern bishop and subject to the ecclesiastical law of that particular church. However, from a practical standpoint, what actual changes would this entail?

There are sacramental disciplines that are distinct for the sui iuris Catholic churches. Each is bound to their canon laws of their membership. The proper pastor is determined by the sui iuris Church membership, but when out of jurisdiction, the Latin Catholic church will care for them, but that does not modify membership. The norm is that membership is determined by baptism, however for an infant, this assumes that the infant is baptized in the Catholic church of the guardian or parent.

Exceptions for observation of holy days and penitential periods are made for members of mixed Catholic sui iuris churches in one family, so they may all observe the same.

 

[Vonsalza]

He said he is actually Catholic but the local Catholic parish wanted his original baptism certificate to baptise his baby. But that will be in Poland. Still, the local parish insisted.

I find that so disturbing that I kinda hope you made that up.

 

[angelic06]

There are sacramental disciplines that are distinct for the sui iuris Catholic churches. Each is bound to their canon laws of their membership. The proper pastor is determined by the sui iuris Church membership, but when out of jurisdiction, the Latin Catholic church will care for them, but that does not modify membership. The norm is that membership is determined by baptism, however for an infant, this assumes that the infant is baptized in the Catholic church of the guardian or parent.

Exceptions for observation of holy days and penitential periods are made for members of mixed Catholic sui iuris churches in one family, so they may all observe the same.

I remember that there was a document issued by the Holy See issued to this effect in the early 2000s, but I do not know what the name of it was or which dicastery issued it. If you know, can you post it? I would like to post it on another forum re: marriage prep (non-CAF), so that I can reassure my fellow Catholics considering dual rite marriages that they are doable.

(As an aside, while I am drawn to Byzantine spirituality, it is my own desire to show my children the richness of the Catholic faith, both Eastern and Western, that they may know that the Holy Catholic Faith is not that of one nation only, but that the Christian religion has been taught on every inhabited continent, and that our Lord’s command to “Do this in memory of me” has been fulfilled for virtually every reason conceivable, from students taking their final exams to condemned criminals at their final hour.)

 

[FollowChrist34]

I totally understand why a Roman rite Catholic would be drawn to liturgy and spirituality of the Eastern Catholic rites, but I was wondering for what reasons a person would actually go through the process of changing rites?

From what I understand, a Roman rite Catholic is perfectly free to attend an Eastern Catholic church (and vice versa) as often as they like- they could receive communion, go to confession, participate in parish activities/organizations, practice Eastern spirituality and devotions, etc. So why would someone feel the need to actually change rites officially?

I understand that the Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, with their own governance and law, separate from that of the Latin Church. So I get that when a person switches to an Eastern rite, they would now be under the jurisdiction of an Eastern bishop and subject to the ecclesiastical law of that particular church. However, from a practical standpoint, what actual changes would this entail?

As I understand it, the Eastern rites are not governed by any Latin development or proclamations (not using the right word here - anything really) that occurred after the schism 1054. So, in essence, they are free to follow Orthodox teaching, tradition. That could be wrong but I don’t think so. They acknowledge the primacy of the Pope and he appoints/approves members of the hierarchy but he does not interfere in matters or policy governing parish life.

 

[Vico]

As I understand it, the Eastern rites are not governed by any Latin development or proclamations (not using the right word here - anything really) that occurred after the schism 1054. So, in essence, they are free to follow Orthodox teaching, tradition. That could be wrong but I don’t think so. They acknowledge the primacy of the Pope and he appoints/approves members of the hierarchy but he does not interfere in matters or policy governing parish life.

The same dogmas of faith are assented to.

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

1. We order that everything decreed by us in this Apostolic Letter, given motu proprio, be established and ratified, and we prescribe that the insertions listed above be introduced into the universal legislation of the Catholic Church, that is, into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Well at least nobody in the USA thinks the post latin mass (Novus Ordo) came from St. John XXIII during Vatican II…

 

[Augustine]

One reason, that I don’t think was mentioned in this thread, is that, canonically, one is still obliged to follow the norms of one’s Church. So it may be hard to juggle different calendars and disciplines when on is a member of the parish of another Church.

Of course, practical matters such as these should have little bearing in the discernment about changing Churches.

 

[Vico]

One reason, that I don’t think was mentioned in this thread, is that, canonically, one is still obliged to follow the norms of one’s Church. So it may be hard to juggle different calendars and disciplines when on is a member of the parish of another Church.

Of course, practical matters such as these should have little bearing in the discernment about changing Churches.

Canon 112 (New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law, Beal, Coriden, & Green)
“… because ascription to a ritual church is definitive, it belongs to the status of persons.”
“In effect, the canon distinguishes membership from liturgical practice. This means that change of ritual church membership occurs in one of the three ways provided for in paragraph one.”

CIC Can. 112
§1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another Church sui iuris:

1° a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2° a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;
3° before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another Church sui iuris; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.​

 

[jimkhong]

I always think of the Polish chap who was the only other member of the congregation in a local Coptic mass I was visiting. Sadly, he was there to baptise his baby because the local Catholic Church insisted on his (the father’s) baptismal certificate and he got no joy when he tried to explain that the church he got baptised in is far away in Poland. Not wishing to get his baby baptised in a Protestant church, he figured out that the closest he can get to Catholic is the Orthodox church.

How does this Polish baby get his situation regularised? I cannot imagine that the Polish dad will be shuttling back and forth between his Catholic church and this Coptic church which has no capacity to provide any pastoral support (no community, no congregation, no permanent presence, definitely no Sunday School). Can the Polish dad get the baby accepted into the Catholic Church, say at a RCIC when the baby is of qualifying age? If so, would the baby need to be accepted as a Coptic Catholic first then change rite into a Roman Catholic? Or can he be accepted directly as a Roman Catholic? I remember that there was a rule that an Orthodox has to be accepted into the corresponding Catholic Rite.

 

[Vico]

I always think of the Polish chap who was the only other member of the congregation in a local Coptic mass I was visiting. Sadly, he was there to baptise his baby because the local Catholic Church insisted on his (the father’s) baptismal certificate and he got no joy when he tried to explain that the church he got baptised in is far away in Poland. Not wishing to get his baby baptised in a Protestant church, he figured out that the closest he can get to Catholic is the Orthodox church.

How does this Polish baby get his situation regularised? I cannot imagine that the Polish dad will be shuttling back and forth between his Catholic church and this Coptic church which has no capacity to provide any pastoral support (no community, no congregation, no permanent presence, definitely no Sunday School). Can the Polish dad get the baby accepted into the Catholic Church, say at a RCIC when the baby is of qualifying age? If so, would the baby need to be accepted as a Coptic Catholic first then change rite into a Roman Catholic? Or can he be accepted directly as a Roman Catholic? I remember that there was a rule that an Orthodox has to be accepted into the corresponding Catholic Rite.

The baptized infant is ascribed to the ritual church of the Catholic parent not that of the baptizer nor of the church baptizing.

 

[Kielbasi]

How does this Polish baby get his situation regularised? I cannot imagine that the Polish dad will be shuttling back and forth between his Catholic church and this Coptic church which has no capacity to provide any pastoral support (no community, no congregation, no permanent presence, definitely no Sunday School). Can the Polish dad get the baby accepted into the Catholic Church, .

Its already regularized, just because there were circumstances where the child was baptized outside of the the parent’s parish doesn’t mean that the child is suddenly a member of the baptizing sui juris church.

In the situation of my mum, example given. When she was born back in 1931 on a Sunday, they lived 5 or 6 miles from their (ethnic) parish church. They didn’t have a car, it would be at least a week or two and probably more to bring her by streetcar to church.

She was baptized at a local Catholic church of a different ethnicity, and that was fine. Still was a member of her own parish, and she wasn’t suddenly Polish because she was baptized in a Polish church.

 

[jimkhong]

Its already regularized, just because there were circumstances where the child was baptized outside of the the parent’s parish doesn’t mean that the child is suddenly a member of the baptizing sui juris church.

In the situation of my mum, example given. When she was born back in 1931 on a Sunday, they lived 5 or 6 miles from their (ethnic) parish church. They didn’t have a car, it would be at least a week or two and probably more to bring her by streetcar to church.

She was baptized at a local Catholic church of a different ethnicity, and that was fine. Still was a member of her own parish, and she wasn’t suddenly Polish because she was baptized in a Polish church.

A bit different this one: the baby and dad are different rites in different communions not just different ethnic catholic churches.

 

[jimkhong]

The baptized infant is ascribed to the ritual church of the Catholic parent not that of the baptizer nor of the church baptizing.

How does this work when in a different communion? Are you saying that if the infant is accepting into the Catholic communion as a baby or as a child, he will be Roman rite, but if he is accepted as an adult, he will be Coptic rite?

 

[Vico]

How does this work when in a different communion? Are you saying that if the infant is accepting into the Catholic communion as a baby or as a child, he will be Roman rite, but if he is accepted as an adult, he will be Coptic rite?

The ascription of one baptised at age 14 or older is based upon the free choice, but with baptism before that age, the infant is ascribed to the ritual church of the Catholic parent not that of the baptizer nor of the church baptizing. Ascription is determined by baptism not by declartion of full communion.

 

[jimkhong]

The ascription of one baptised at age 14 or older is based upon the free choice, but with baptism before that age, the infant is ascribed to the ritual church of the Catholic parent not that of the baptizer nor of the church baptizing.

But in this case, it is a Coptic Orthodox, not Coptic Catholic? Are you saying that the baby is Catholic despite being baptised in an Orthodox church?

 

[Vico]

But in this case, it is a Coptic Orthodox, not Coptic Catholic? Are you saying that the baby is Catholic despite being baptised in an Orthodox church?

If the parent is Latin Catholic and the child is an infant, then the validly baptized infant is ascribed to the Latin Catholic church.

Latin Canon Law
Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.

Can. 112 §2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.