Who can reconcile this?

[dyspepsic]

Whatever if my local Bishop allows me to do it, than I will.

Sure, ask him, and let us know what he has to say. But, if you haven’t been baptised, who is your local bishop? What jurisdiction would your local bishop have?

 

[dyspepsic]

dyspepsic;3550635:

QUOTE]

That’s not my Code. In our Code, it says ‘rite’

There are some 22 rites which recognize Peter’s successor as the head of the Church, the whole Church, the universal Church. There are not 22 Churches; there is one Church. The Vicar of Christ on earth is the head of Roman Catholic Church

Maybe we are both right. I don’t have the Eastern Code.

 

[jimmy]

QUOTE]

That’s not my Code. In our Code, it says ‘rite’

Maybe we are both right.

It is the code of my church and all eastern churches. It is approved by Rome. Even the code for the latin church speaks of it as a church as canon 112 says,

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

 

[jimmy]

Here is a thread that shows the type of knowledge which Irish Melkite has. He actually specifically addresses the discussion of 'rite versus ‘Church’ using the Eastern Code of Canons in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=204252

 

[Allyson]

Wrong. The Vatican almost never grants permission to change Rites.

I understand the Canon very well. You never heard of it before I quoted it to you, so your instruction to me is hardly appreciated.
You might do us a favor, then, to change your determination at Roman Catholic, if in truth you have never been baptised.

If has already been said, consider this a reiteration.

In the cannonical process of changing rites, those switching from East to West must always go through the Vatican, because they are moving from the smaller rite to the larger, and the Vatican seeks to preserve the numbers of the smaller ritual sui iuris Churches. There is no appeal.

However, if someone were to seek to move from the Latin Rite to any Eastern Rite, he or she (like me) need only write to the Bishop of the rite which they wish to join (of the proper geographical jurisdiction) - this includes a letter and petition. The Bishop then contacts the Latin Bishop under whose jurisdiction you reside, and if they both agree, the Eastern Bishop decrees you to be a member of his rite, and you sign it in the presence of two witness and the parish priest. If it is denied at this level, you may appeal to Rome in this case.

I have switched rites, and it did not go through Rome. So while it is true that Rome never approved it, Rome does not prevent such an event either.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Usagi]

And, just so you know where I am coming from, I applaud Pope Benedict XVI for having the courage to admit that the old Mass was never abrogated. It would have been much easier to issue another phony indult and let the Bishops continue to supress the Mass that he knew was never abrogated, but he did not. Our new Pope had the courage to admit the truth and he is to be commended for it.

Are you implying here that John Paul II also knew full well the TLM had never been abrogated, but issued “phony indults”?

I, too, applaud Pope Benedict for his actions with regard to the TLM, but I’m not sure I’m ready to imagine the previous policy as a matter of “pretending” or issuing “phony” permissions.

Usagi

 

[dyspepsic]

I agree that this does not touch, in any way, Papal Infallibility.

And, just so you know where I am coming from, I applaud Pope Benedict XVI for having the courage to admit that the old Mass was never abrogated. It would have been much easier to issue another phony indult and let the Bishops continue to supress the Mass that he knew was never abrogated, but he did not. Our new Pope had the courage to admit the truth and he is to be commended for it.

Courage? What courage was required? What? He would have been put to death?

If it was true, and he admitted it, no courage was necessary.

What, popes lie, in your view?

 

[dyspepsic]

Your interpretation of things is not how it happens in reality. In reality it is the local bishop of the church you are transfering from and the bishop of the church you are transfering to. Here is what probably the most knowledgable poster on these subjects on this forum says on the subject.

It shouldn’t be an interest to you either.

It is none of your business whether it is or it is not of interest to me. It is a topic we are discussing, and I choose to participate in the discussion. I don’t need anyone’s approval.

Secondly, with all the ‘expert’ opinion, it is not clear to me why the Code of Canon law is not being followed, that it is a matter of decision of the Holy See. Maybe the experts could answer that.

 

[Formosus]

Dyspepsic, it is very common for the Pope to delegate certain things to local Bishops. Lifting certian impediments to the Priesthood is something Canon law delegates to the Pope, but the Pope has granted some of these to be handled by the Local Bishop. Likewise that is how ritual church enrollement has happened. Canon law allows for many things handled at a higher level to be delegated off to lower levels. In the case of canonical enrollement, as long as the eparchial Bishop and the Latin Bishop agree for a latin Catholic to transfer to another ritual church, then the Pope automatically approves it without it having to go to his desk. If its an eastern catholic of any jurisdiction wanting to go latin, then it does go to the Pope’s desk. Likewise clerics switching churches goes to the Vatican as well. This has been the policy of the Vatican for some time.

 

[dyspepsic]

Dyspepsic, it is very common for the Pope to delegate certain things to local Bishops. Lifting certian impediments to the Priesthood is something Canon law delegates to the Pope, but the Pope has granted some of these to be handled by the Local Bishop. Likewise that is how ritual church enrollement has happened. Canon law allows for many things handled at a higher level to be delegated off to lower levels. In the case of canonical enrollement, as long as the eparchial Bishop and the Latin Bishop agree for a latin Catholic to transfer to another ritual church, then the Pope automatically approves it without it having to go to his desk. If its an eastern catholic of any jurisdiction wanting to go latin, then it does go to the Pope’s desk. Likewise clerics switching churches goes to the Vatican as well. This has been the policy of the Vatican for some time.

Of course. But such delegations are provided for in Canon Law. What is suggested is that though the law says that change of Rite is a matter of approval of the Holy See, the Holy See has ‘delegated’ it to the local bishops.

I really disagree with that analysis. Changes in matrimonial law have been given over to local Curias, but that is in the law. Dispensation from celibacy is reserved to the Holy Father, as is return to the ministry of resigned priests.

I hate to be a Canonist, but the law is the law, and I would like to see something authorizing the local bishops to make these determinations.

 

[Allyson]

What?

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not one of the 22 churches - Eastern Orthodox is outside the Mystical Body of Christ.

What is the attraction of Orthodox?

And if you are going to tell us you are planning on joining a Uniate church, you cant. You are forbidden by Canon Law.

“Uniate” is a derogatory term. Please refrain from using it.

Also, since the discussion of changing rites is of topic - something I did not notice lat last night when I posted - would you be interested in discussing it in a separate thread?

I will add that no one is forbidden by canon law to change rites, but I believe that it is something that should not be undertaken lightly or to escape liturgical abuses in the West. In other words it must be a true calling. In other words, it should be extraordinary.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[jimmy]

It is none of your business whether it is or it is not of interest to me. It is a topic we are discussing, and I choose to participate in the discussion. I don’t need anyone’s approval.

Excuse me but you are the one who said it is none of every other Catholics business. Neither do we need your approval.

Secondly, with all the ‘expert’ opinion, it is not clear to me why the Code of Canon law is not being followed, that it is a matter of decision of the Holy See. Maybe the experts could answer that.

As I quoted from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, you are wrong. It is the two local bishops that make the decision. Rome does not get involved. It is canon 32 mentioned above.

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.
If you are going to avoid what people say then this discussion is pointless.

 

[jimmy]

Of course. But such delegations are provided for in Canon Law. What is suggested is that though the law says that change of Rite is a matter of approval of the Holy See, the Holy See has ‘delegated’ it to the local bishops.

I really disagree with that analysis. Changes in matrimonial law have been given over to local Curias, but that is in the law. Dispensation from celibacy is reserved to the Holy Father, as is return to the ministry of resigned priests.

I hate to be a Canonist, but the law is the law, and I would like to see something authorizing the local bishops to make these determinations.

Canon 32

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.

 

[dyspepsic]

It is the code of my church and all eastern churches. It is approved by Rome. Even the code for the latin church speaks of it as a church as canon 112 says,

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

“ritual church” means ‘rite’, not Church.

The heading in my commentary from Catholic University for this canon is “Change of Rite”. We do not assume it is a change of Church. However, if this is so important to you, call it a church if you want.

The person in question has not been baptised, so the whole issue is moot.

I am sure by now that this matter is totally off-topic.

 

[jimmy]

“ritual church” means ‘rite’, not Church.

False, ritual is an adjective. The word church is the noun. So, no, it means what it says and that is church.

The heading in my commentary from Catholic University for this canon is “Change of Rite”. We do not assume it is a change of Church. However, if this is so important to you, call it a church if you want.

Commentaries are nothing more than opinion. I can read the text itself and see that it says that it is a change of church, not rite. The noun is church. Just to show that the word ‘rite’ is an adjective and that church is the main word here is another part of the same canon.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.
The word ritual is completely absent from the second part of the statement where the word Church stands alone. Further, it distinguishes between rite and ritual church.

 

[dyspepsic]

False, ritual is an adjective. The word church is the noun. So, no, it means what it says and that is church.

Commentaries are nothing more than opinion. I can read the text itself and see that it says that it is a change of church, not rite. The noun is church. Just to show that the word ‘rite’ is an adjective and that church is the main word here is another part of the same canon.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.
The word ritual is completely absent from the second part of the statement where the word Church stands alone. Further, it distinguishes between rite and ritual church.

You know, Jimmy. You are right. You can have the high ground, and the low ground. I can see there can be no discussion here.

Although our Code says to the contrary, let the pastor have him enter your Eastern rite.

Yes, there are 22 churches, not 22 rites. You can have the whole argument.

I never have seen such a threatened group of people. No wonder we have never made any headway in discussions with Easterns on union with the Holy See. They will never agree to the primacy of Peter, nor with the Filoque, or their rituals, or anything for that matter. It is a totally useless exercise.

 

[holdencaulfield]

However I have to say that many of the things you listed are innovations. FYI both the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in the Primacy of St. Peter.

 

[dyspepsic]

However I have to say that many of the things you listed are innovations. FYI both the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in the Primacy of St. Peter.

So, the Protestant Orthodox Church believes in the Primacy of Peter. What happened in the great Eastern Schism? What was that all about? Communion under both species? Or some other not so-earth shattering dogmas?

 

[Allyson]

So, the Protestant Orthodox Church believes in the Primacy of Peter. What happened in the great Eastern Schism? What was that all about? Communion under both species? Or some other not so-earth shattering dogmas?

Dyspepsic,

Please approach this in a non-polemical manner.

A. The Orthodox Church is NOT PROTESTANT.

B. They do believe in the Primacy of Peter. The articulation is different from that which you know.

Interestingly enough, the filioque was cited by Humbert in the bull of 1054. He states that the East had “removed” the filioque from the liturgy. He does not acknowledge that it was never in the Eastern liturgy. The matter of authority in the Church, however, was at the center of the debate as it related to the issue of the filioque and episcopal prerogatives.

There were many wrongs on both sides. Only by finding the humility that our fathers in the faith lacked, will we bring about the end of Schism.

God Bless,
Rosemary

P.S. Do you do much reading in the Eastern Catholicism forum?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Good point.