I doubt Irish Melkite’s knowledge of this.
First, the canon involved in determining the rules, is 112, and this was approved in 1983, well after Vatican 2.
There is no reason why the Code would not be updated to reflect what you claim to be a chainge.
Finally, it is not change of Church - It is the same Church. The canon rightly refers to the matter as ‘change of rite’ not ‘change of church’.
I hold to the canonical requirement of approval of the Holy See, unless you have something in writing to the contrary. I believe I am just as much an expert as Irish Melkite.
This is exactly the type of knowledge Irish Melkite has. He deals with issues of the relations between the various churches and there legal nature. Check out some of the stickies which were provided by him. This is precisely his area.
Second, canon 112 is not the only canon that is of importance. The eastern canons were approved in 1990.
Third, to say it is not a change of church because it is the same church is to distort the idea of church within Catholicism. It is to say that the word church only applies the the Church universal. It is to say that there is no association with the particular Church. It is purely false. Especially since official documents like Orientale Ecclesiarum specifically call the eastern churches churches.
No, rite is an incorrect term. We are not simply a rite, we are churches. The Code of Eastern Canons, which is approved by Rome calls it a change of church in canon 32(quoted below) not of rite. Canon 28 in the Eastern Canons.
- A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris. 2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
Canon 291. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See. 2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is: (1) born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs; (2) born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied; (3) born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.
It is a church, not a rite.
You are wrong.
I will go by actual reality which happens more along the lines which I have spoken of. I know people who are going through the process who have gone through the local bishop of each of the two churches involved.
Canon 32 of the Eastern Canons.
In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.
As I said, it is the two local bishops that make the call.
