Why do rites matter over what parish you attend?

[Anastasia13]

Why would someone have to go through a formal process and only on a couple of occasions in life be able to change rites even if they attend several rites throughout their lifetime?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Because each “rite” (to use your preferred language, though no doubt some posters will argue against it) is its own ancient tradition with its own spirituality and outlook on the one Catholic Faith. Usually the tradition in which a Catholic was raised or from which he or she received the Gospel will be the right home for them. In unusual situations a change of rite might be appropriate, but it is difficult or impossible to imagine a scenario in which someone would rightly be switching around frequently throughout his or her life. That would suggest to me a very undesirable religious instability and a near impossibility of the person actually belonging in their latest choice.

 

[Elizium23]

Pragmatically, it creates a large hassle of paperwork for bishops when someone changes ritual Church. Your Church of canonical ascription is the one in which you will be married or ordained and in which your children will be baptized. You are bound by the laws and customs of your canonically ascribed ritual Church, especially in matters of liturgical observance, fast and abstinence rules, and so forth. A person is certainly free to attend liturgies in another Catholic Church, but you will always have a “home” that is inseparable from your identity as one of the faithful. Also, the Latin Church discourages movement out of the Eastern Churches as their small size already presents a crisis of culture. If too many people were to leave a particular Eastern Church then that Church could be threatened with extinction. So it is in everyone’s best interest to maintain stable populations and set a reasonable bar of entry that prevents people from switching their Church on a whim. I do not think the standards are unreasonably high. If someone truly feels at home in an Eastern Church then let him transfer and be at peace.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Pragmatically, it creates a large hassle of paperwork for bishops when someone changes ritual Church. Your Church of canonical ascription is the one in which you will be married or ordained and in which your children will be baptized. You are bound by the laws and customs of your canonically ascribed ritual Church, especially in matters of liturgical observance, fast and abstinence rules, and so forth. A person is certainly free to attend liturgies in another Catholic Church, but you will always have a “home” that is inseparable from your identity as one of the faithful. Also, the Latin Church discourages movement out of the Eastern Churches as their small size already presents a crisis of culture. If too many people were to leave a particular Eastern Church then that Church could be threatened with extinction. So it is in everyone’s best interest to maintain stable populations and set a reasonable bar of entry that prevents people from switching their Church on a whim. I do not think the standards are unreasonably high. If someone truly feels at home in an Eastern Church then let him transfer and be at peace.

Eastern identity would also be threatened if large numbers of Latin Catholics switched to them out of dissatisfaction with the current state of the Roman liturgy or other relatively shallow reasons while remaining fundamentally Western in spirituality and outlook.

 

[bitznbitez]

So… When the Church is finally unified again does this mean we won’t be able to attend eastern rite parishes … I tend to view it as a common spiritual history except for the last 800 years or so.

I personally love the liturgy of st. john Chrysostom and the chanting of the east.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

So… When the Church is finally unified again does this mean we won’t be able to attend eastern rite parishes … I tend to view it as a common spiritual history except for the last 800 years or so.

I personally love the liturgy of st. john Chrysostom and the chanting of the east.

Of course you can attend Eastern Catholic liturgies, and presumably this will always be the case. What we’re talking about here is actually changing membership rather than simply where you attend mass/divine liturgy.

 

[bitznbitez]

Of course you can attend Eastern Catholic liturgies, and presumably this will always be the case. What we’re talking about here is actually changing membership rather than simply where you attend mass/divine liturgy.

So I could attend and commune at a eastern rite?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

So I could attend and commune at a eastern rite?

Certainly. We’re all Catholic. Although, their manner of receiving communion is different so you should probably talk to someone about exactly what to do first.

Note that by this I mean receiving communion in Eastern Catholic churches. At non-Catholic Eastern churches, such as members of the Orthodox Church or Oriental Orthodox Church, we should not receive communion at least under normal circumstances.

 

[ConstantineTG]

At non-Catholic Eastern churches, such as members of the Orthodox Church or Oriental Orthodox Church, we should not receive communion at least under normal circumstances.

It’s not really up to you under any circumstance whether you can receive in an Orthodox Church. While I do know that there are instances where Catholics are communed in an Orthodox parish, I’d say 95% of the time the priest will not allow you to receive Communion regardless what your circumstance may be.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It’s not really up to you under any circumstance whether you can receive in an Orthodox Church. While I do know that there are instances where Catholics are communed in an Orthodox parish, I’d say 95% of the time the priest will not allow you to receive Communion regardless what your circumstance may be.

Which is why I deliberately kept my language vague as to whether there would ever be an occasion to receive in non-Catholic Churches or not. Also I know nothing about the policies of the Oriental Orthodox Church and Assyrian Church of the East on this issue. I imagine that at least the former would be if possible even more opposed to Catholics receiving than the Orthodox Church.

From a Catholic perspective there are limited circumstances in which communing at any of these Churches would be acceptable, but obviously both sides need to agree before it can actually happen.

 

[IsidoreOfKiev]

Eastern identity would also be threatened if large numbers of Latin Catholics switched to them out of dissatisfaction with the current state of the Roman liturgy or other relatively shallow reasons while remaining fundamentally Western in spirituality and outlook.

I don’t see a problem with people joining for this reason. After all, the deplorable state of the Orthodox Church (corruption with clergy, etc) in the regions in which the Union of Brest took place where actually a major reason that the Union was successful.

This is described in this book about St. Josaphat:
amazon.com/Life-Of-St-Josaphat-Martyr/dp/1258135876/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370122827&sr=8-1&keywords=st.+josaphat+martyr+of+union

Wanting solid Catholic doctrine and to avoid liturgical abuse are not SHALLOW reasons. Besides, most of the “rite-changers” I know are a lot more knowledgeable about the Byzantine tradition than the cradle people.

 

[bitznbitez]

Certainly. We’re all Catholic. Although, their manner of receiving communion is different so you should probably talk to someone about exactly what to do first.

Note that by this I mean receiving communion in Eastern Catholic churches. At non-Catholic Eastern churches, such as members of the Orthodox Church or Oriental Orthodox Church, we should not receive communion at least under normal circumstances.

Perfect. One of my friends since college ultimately left protestantism too, I went west he went east. I take great comfort in the statement of the Church that the Orthodox not in communion have valid sacraments.

 

[5Loaves]

**
“why do rites matter over what parish you attend?”
Why would someone have to go through a formal process **and only on a couple of occasions in life be able to change rites even if they attend several rites throughout their lifetime?

I don’t understand what you’re asking. And to be clear a Catholic belongs canonically to one Particular Church-- the Latin Church (Roman Rite usually, but there are other rites in the Latin Church) , the Melkite Church (Byzantine Rite), the Chaldean Church (East Syrian Rite), etc. One does not belong to a rite. Regardless of the Church in which one is formally enrolled, one can receive all the Holy Mysteries in any Church, although ordination and marriage in a Church other than the one you are enrolled in requires permission from your ordinary, and possibly the Holy See (ordination).

It’s very common for Eastern Catholics to be active in a particular Church which is not the one they are formally enrolled in. It’s not any different than my Coptic Orthodox friend who is often in Liturgy in an OCA parish, or OCA friends who are often at the Greek Orthodox parish.

 

[Peter_J]

Why would someone have to go through a formal process and only on a couple of occasions in life be able to change rites even if they attend several rites throughout their lifetime?

I don’t understand what you’re asking. And to be clear a Catholic belongs canonically to one Particular Church-- the Latin Church (Roman Rite usually, but there are other rites in the Latin Church) , the Melkite Church (Byzantine Rite), the Chaldean Church (East Syrian Rite), etc. One does not belong to a rite. Regardless of the Church in which one is formally enrolled, one can receive all the Holy Mysteries in any Church, although ordination and marriage in a Church other than the one you are enrolled in requires permission from your ordinary, and possibly the Holy See (ordination).

It’s very common for Eastern Catholics to be active in a particular Church which is not the one they are formally enrolled in. It’s not any different than my Coptic Orthodox friend who is often in Liturgy in an OCA parish, or OCA friends who are often at the Greek Orthodox parish.

Exactly. For Eastern Catholics, Rite is basically determined by which Church the parish is a part of. “Canonical Change of Rite” is something of a confusing term – I imagine it will eventual disappear, in favor of “Canonical Change of Church (Membership)”.

By way of comparison, Western Catholics all belong to the Latin Church. Someone could switch from, say, the Roman Rite to the Mozarabic Rite … but there would be no “Canonical Change” since those are 2 Western Rites within the one Latin Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Which is why I deliberately kept my language vague as to whether there would ever be an occasion to receive in non-Catholic Churches or not. Also I know nothing about the policies of the Oriental Orthodox Church and Assyrian Church of the East on this issue. I imagine that at least the former would be if possible even more opposed to Catholics receiving than the Orthodox Church.

From a Catholic perspective there are limited circumstances in which communing at any of these Churches would be acceptable, but obviously both sides need to agree before it can actually happen.

The Assyrian Church of the East (along with the Polish National Catholic Church) is a good example to use because they would be willing to give communion to a Catholic who didn’t have access to a Catholic priest.

 

[Aramis]

The Assyrian Church of the East (along with the Polish National Catholic Church) is a good example to use because they would be willing to give communion to a Catholic who didn’t have access to a Catholic priest.

The ACotE has, in a few dioceses at least, gone to communing Anglicans and Lutherans, as well.

Not as good an example as it used to be.

 

[Peter_J]

The ACotE has, in a few dioceses at least, gone to communing Anglicans and Lutherans, as well.

Not as good an example as it used to be.

Yeah that’s definitely not an example that we ought to follow, given how liberal some of the Anglicans and Lutherans have gone.