Will someone please explain changing rites? I don't get it

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t understand this about switching rites. I’m Latin, but my impression is that I can attend Mass at, e.g., a Maronite parish all the time and there’s nothing wrong with doing it. Is it a matter of being an official member of the parish or something similar to that? If I went to the pastor and told him I want to join that Maronite parish, is he going to tell me I can’t unless I change rites? I’m reasonably sure he isn’t going to throw me out just because he observes that I sometimes genuflect by mistake and really struggle with the Syriac, but maybe I really can’t be a member of the parish in an official way.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it. Can someone kindly explain?

 

[ronyodish]

Ridgerunner,

Here is some information to help you understand. First, you should be clear on the difference between a Church and a rite:

The One Catholic Church is a full communion of 23 self-governing Churches.

A rite is basically the theological, liturgical, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony of a Church.

As a Roman Catholic, you can attend and participate in the services of the Maronite Church and any other Catholic Church. You can pray with the Maronites, receive the Eucharist, attend their Bible studies, etc. You can do these things without having to officially switch Churches (note: It’s not just switching rites, but switching Churches). In fact, I believe you can even be a member of the local Maronite parish without having to officially switch to the Maronite Church (someone more knowledgeable than me may correct me here).

Now, if you want to not just liturgically and spiritually pray with the Maronites, but pray as a Maronite, in other words, become no longer a Roman Catholic but a Maronite Catholic, then you would have to officially switch Churches. You would still be Catholic, just not a Roman Catholic, though you would still be in full communion with Roman Catholics. Same goes with Maronite theology (how they express the Catholic faith), and disciplines (like their fasting guidelines, etc.)

I hope this helps, another Catholic may add more info.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Aramis]

I don’t understand this about switching rites. I’m Latin, but my impression is that I can attend Mass at, e.g., a Maronite parish all the time and there’s nothing wrong with doing it. Is it a matter of being an official member of the parish or something similar to that? If I went to the pastor and told him I want to join that Maronite parish, is he going to tell me I can’t unless I change rites? I’m reasonably sure he isn’t going to throw me out just because he observes that I sometimes genuflect by mistake and really struggle with the Syriac, but maybe I really can’t be a member of the parish in an official way.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it. Can someone kindly explain?

You are bound to a bishop of your canonical Rite, which, barring changes, is the same rite you were born in. You actually are enrolled in a particular Church Sui Iuris, of which there are 23, counting the Roman Church.

Now, unless a paternal line ancestor was not Roman, you are probably a Roman.

As far as attending, it’s almost immaterial which rite & church sui iuris you are enrolled in. Confession/Absolution, Eucharist, annointing of the sick are all allowed cross rite & cross church without restriction. Marriage, Confirmation, and Baptism can be done as well, but there is a preference for notifying the canonical bishop before hand.

Ordination can only be done within the same Rite, but by other churches within the same rite is technically allowed. (So a Ukrainian can be ordained by the Ruthenians, and vice versa; in practice, a change in canonical enrollment is usual.)

Annulments, releases from vows, exemptions from fasting, and other matters of canon law are adjudicated by the local bishop for the church of canonical enrollment.

So, I’m still subject to the requirements of the Archbishop of Anchorage, even though I’m a member of the Byzantine-Ruthenian parish under Eparch William of Van Nuys. If I need (for medical reasons) to be released from the Great Lent Fast, I need Archbishop Rodger’s permission.

Now, if (when) I change Rites, I will no longer be under Archbishop Rodger + Schweitz, but under Eparch William + Skurla.

Changing is rare. It is a major step, and not taken lightly. Eastern Church disciplines are much steeper. (Current Ruthenian is no meat on Wed or Fri for St. Phillip’s Fast, which is from St. Phillip’s Feast to Christmas… so “advent” has started already for Ruthenians & other byzantines).

It’s a major step in one’s faith journey, removing one from one tradition, church sui iuris, and rite, and placing one’s self under another. It makes no difference which parish one can attend (except in a few odd cases involving certain non-Catholic churches).

It does make a large difference in annulments.

Oh, and it’s not which parish baptized you, but which Church Sui Iuris your father was enrolled in on your 14th birthday… or your mother if your father’s death was before that… since a change in canonical enrollment carries children under 14 along with the father.

Truth be told, it shouldn’t be an issue, but attempts to legislate preservation of the Eastern Churches have resulted in it being a paper chase.

So a great many “semi-ruthenians” and some “semi-Ukrainians” are canonically still roman, but practice as Ruthenians or Ukrainians. Bishop Rodger is quite well aware of my “move east” and I suspect is waiting for the paperwork. Then again, my dad is a Roman Deacon in obedience & service to him, and he knows me on-sight, by name. (Knows my eldest’s name, too… surprised me. But Dad went on pilgrimage with him a couple years ago…)

Likewise, there are a good number of canonical Ruthenians who don’t realize they ARE canonically Ruthenians, thinking that since they were baptized in a Roman parish, they are Romans. Until they go to get an annullment or ordained. I knew a Dominican Deacon who was Byzantine… He served in a roman parish, wearing a byzantine dalmatic and orarion (byzantine stole)… Fr. Deacon Norbert Finh, O.P.

 

[Aramis]

One other thing:

Up until Vatican II, it was a hard-line, one switch per lifetime.

Now, it’s “With good cause”…

A wife can, at marriage, switch to her husband’s church sui iuris or not; and at widowing or annullment, can switch back to her original church sui iuris.

Children can switch at 14 even if dad didn’t; anyone over 14 can make one switch with any valid justification.

Husbands are encouraged to switch if they marry an Eastern Catholic, (Vatican II Post Concilliar Documents) but are not required to.

Anyone seeking ordination in a given church of a different Rite must switch canonical enrollment before ordination (to the subdeaconate if present in a given church, or deaconate if no subdeaconate).

Further changes must be for “Good Cause”…

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Anyone seeking ordination in a given church of a different Rite must switch canonical enrollment before ordination (to the subdeaconate if present in a given church, or deaconate if no subdeaconate).

Further changes must be for “Good Cause”…>>

Also, if one plans to enter a religious order not of one’s own church, it is necessary to change sui juris church (not “rite”).

 

[Aramis]

<<Anyone seeking ordination in a given church of a different Rite must switch canonical enrollment before ordination (to the subdeaconate if present in a given church, or deaconate if no subdeaconate).

Further changes must be for “Good Cause”…>>

Also, if one plans to enter a religious order not of one’s own church, it is necessary to change sui juris church (not “rite”).

Not entirely true. See Fr. Deacon Norbert Finh, OP, Byzantine Deacon. The Dominican Order is decidedly Roman. But Fr. Deacon Norbert wasn’t. Even odder, he was assigned to Holy Family Cathedral, in Anchorage, a Roman parish.

It is preferred & encouraged, and is required in some orders typicons, but non-clerical monastics & friars are not explicitly required to do so.

 

[Patchunky]

Now, if (when) I change Rites, I will no longer be under Archbishop Rodger + Schweitz, but under Eparch William + Skurla.

Better do it fast unless you’re moving to Parma with Vladyka Skurla…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Anyone seeking ordination in a given church of a different Rite must switch canonical enrollment before ordination (to the subdeaconate if present in a given church, or deaconate if no subdeaconate).

This only goes for the secular clergy.

Those joining religious orders of a different Church *Sui Iuris *only need an approval from Rome.

This is covered in the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches.

Specifically Canon 517, 2.

Canon 517
1. One is admitted validly to the novitiate of an order or congregation who has completed the seventeenth year of age. In respect to other requirements for admission to the novitiate cann. 448, 450, 452, and 454 shall be observed.

2. No one is admitted lawfully to the novitiate of a religious institute of another Church sui iuris without the permission of the Apostolic See, unless it is a candidate who is destined for a province or house, mentioned in can. 432, of the same Church.

 

[Kielbasi]

Husbands are encouraged to switch if they marry an Eastern Catholic, (Vatican II Post Concilliar Documents) but are not required to.

Which document? I had never heard this one, and my brother married a Ukrainian woman.

 

[HailMary]

Yeah, I don’t get it either. I believe you were born into a particular rite for a reason and your job is to live out that rite to its full potential, sanctifying yourself and all your fellow neighbors.

 

[Aramis]

Which document? I had never heard this one, and my brother married a Ukrainian woman.

I don’t recall the title. It’s in the collection of post-concilliar documents, the one I referenced earlier.

And yes, The good Brother is right; the ordered monastic exception for ordination is there. I forgot to mention it.

 

[Woodstock]

You are bound to a bishop of your canonical Rite, which, barring changes, is the same rite you were born in. You actually are enrolled in a particular Church Sui Iuris, of which there are 23, counting the Roman Church.

Oh, and it’s not which parish baptized you, but which Church Sui Iuris your father was enrolled in on your 14th birthday… or your mother if your father’s death was before that… since a change in canonical enrollment carries children under 14 along with the father.

These two paragraphs are inaccurate. This should be more accurate:

You are bound to a bishop of your canonical -]Rite/-] Church, which, barring changes, is the same -]rite/-] Church you were -]born/-] baptized in to. You actually are enrolled in a particular Church Sui Iuris, of which there are 23, counting the Roman Church.

Oh, and it’s not which parish baptized you, but which Church Sui Iuris your father was enrolled in -]on your 14th birthday/-] when you were baptized… or your mother -]if your father’s death was before that/-] if your parents were unmarried when you were baptized, if they chose to baptize you into your mother’s Church, or if your father was not Catholic at the time of your baptism. A change in canonical enrollment for parents carries children under 14 along with the -]father/-] parents, or if only one parent changes Churches they may choose to carry the children under age 14 along with that parent. Any children whose Church was changed because of a parent’s change may choose to return to their original Church after the age of 14. All Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians are automatically ascribed to the Catholic sister Church when they convert and their children follow the same process along the paternal line of following a father’s affiliation by default, meaning there are many Eastern and Oriental Catholics who are unaware of their status.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Historically, the formal process for change was enacted as a protection for the Eastern and Oriental Churches. The purpose was to reduce instances of Eastern and Oriental Catholics being forced or lured from their own liturgical heritage to that of the Latin Church. This came about in an era when, papal proscriptions aside, Latin missionaries often exclusively equated Latin with Catholic.

In a perhaps unintended consequence, it also became a means by which to protect the integrity of the Latin Church with regard to the clerical discipline of celibacy. Here, the protective aspect was invoked inversely - to limit entry onto the rolls of Eastern Churches as a means to circumvent that discipline.

In modern times, with our faithful dispersed across continents, no longer localized within ethnic enclaves defined by geographic constraints, added pressures beset the continued existence and vitality of our Churches. The lure now is not cast by missionaries but is the convenience factor involved in attending the much more prevalent Latin parish. Almost 40 years ago, Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, in a pastoral message titled The Courage to Be Ourselves, cautioned that there were two, seemingly conflicting dangers to our continued existence, assimilation and a ghetto mentality. The truth of his statement has not changed, but to those I would add the danger of dilution, whether accidental or deliberate.

The latter risk was not yet being fully realized at the time that Archbishop Joseph wrote. That our temples might be beseiged by Latins, seeing us as a bastion of traditionalism left behind by the Latin Church in the wake of Vatican II, was not foreseeable. Always before, if even noticed, we were “foreign” or “ethnic”. Now, we were of interest; our latinized aspects welcomed as reminders of “how church used to be”. It took a while for us to recognize that this unexpected influx of congregants might not be a blessing to us.

Some parishes experienced outright battles internally, seeking the introduction of further latinizations, at a time when hierarchs were instructing them to begin weaning themselves from uses inconsistent with our heritage. Other parishes realized that increased attendance on Sunday was not reflected in other aspects of parish life. These were the “ethnic” and “cultural” activities inherent to the communal focus of our spiritual life, but superfluous and “foreign” to the newcomers - content to be parishioners only for the length of time required for Divine Liturgy.

All of those considerations color the process as it now exists.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

The formal phrase for the process by which one changes from one Church sui iuris to another (because it is the “Church” that you change; the change in Rite is an incidental by-product of doing so) is a Change (or Transfer) of Canonical Enrollment(although, last I knew, the forms still use the now obsolete terminology Change of Rite, reflecting an incorrect and offensive usage common prior to Vatican II, when each of the Eastern Catholic Churches was referred to as a “Rite”, suggesting a second-class status in relation to the Latin Church).

In brief, the process begins when a person believes that his or her spiritual well-being would best be served by fully participating in the life of a sui iuris Church other than the one of which he or she is then a member.

How soon after becoming acquainted with another Church sui iuris can one legitimately claim such discernment? It varies from individual to individual, but at least one Eastern Catholic jurisdiction (Eparchy of Passaic of the Ruthenians) has quantified it from their perspective, formally requiring participation by the petitioner in a parish’s life for 3 years before approval will be granted. I believe that the Eparchy of Saint Maron in Brooklyn of the Maronites imposes a two-year requirement. To the best of my knowledge, no other US Eparchy has a defined period of involvement prior to granting approval of a petition. I think it’s safe to say that a minimum of one year would be expected by any other jurisdiction, with two years being desirable in my opinion.

The petitioner addresses his written request to both his existing ordinary and the ordinary into whose jurisdiction he/she seeks to transfer, explaining the motivation for seeking transfer.

At one time, Rome (in the person of the Apostolic Nuncio) had a direct role in effectuating such changes. It no longer does, except in unusual circumstances. The authority to approve such a Change is now formally delegated to the discretion of the ordinaries involved (the bishop or eparch of the Church from which the petitioner is originating and his counterpart in the Church with which the petitioner seeks to join).

 

[Irish_Melkite]

The worst possible reasons! Petitions espousing traditionalist viewpoints that result in an antagonistic view toward the NO Mass and post-VII reforms. These are not ordinarily deemed an appropriate basis to grant a Change.

Why? Among other reasons is the fact that the Eastern Church one sees today may not be the one of tomorrow, as our Churches undergo their own reforms, intended to remove latinizations and restore our historical traditions. Will a transplanted Latin still like us when we look less like the Church they’ve romanticized us to be? Or will they be disenchanted and want to move on? And to where? (In most instances, only a single Change of Canonical Enrollment is permitted, although the oft-repeated canard that only a single such Change is permitted in a lifetime is no longer true.)

The extent to which one might encounter disenchantment with one’s new liturgical environment will vary. Some Eastern Churches are much further along in achieving a return to their historical liturgical origins than others. So, in those, to use a computer analogy, WYSIWYG, (What You See Is What You Get). In others, what you see may not be what you’ll ultimately have.

It is important to us that our Latin sisters and brothers understand that we appreciate interest in us and in our liturgical traditions, but we want to and must be understood and appreciated for ourselves, not as an antidote to what disaffected Latins perceive as wrong in their own Church. The Novus Ordo Mass is neither less authentic nor holy than the Tridentine Mass; each, as a service of worship directed to God, has its own intrinsic holiness when served faithfully and reverently. To the extent that abuses exist within either, they must needs be addressed; but the form is only that - an external; ultimately, worship comes from within oneself, one’s heart and soul.

In assessing a petitioner’s motivation for a Change, one consideration on the part of the receiving ordinary is commonly the extent to which the requestor is perceived to truly understand and be drawn to the Church, for reasons related to his theological development and spiritual well-being.

A Change of Canonical Enrollment is a decision that should not be lightly made. For many, it is not only a change of Church, Parish and Rite, but also a whole process of inculturation, particularly given the ethnicity of parishes in some of the Churches.

We tend to be a ‘family’ and ‘family’ is more than liking the pirohi, the fataya, or the lahmajun at the annual food fair. Anyone intending to make a change should feel certain that they feel comfortable not only with the spirituality, but with the community with whom they will share, explore, and develop that spirituality.

One is often entering into a community whose ties to one another stretch back generations - not uncommonly back to a single village in the Levant, Ukraine, or elsewhere. Our parishes are either very welcoming to outsiders who come among us or incredibly closed - there is no in-between.

As to why a Latin who has gained an appreciation for the East and feels more spiritually comfortable there could - or should - wish to formally Change - the fullest sense of belonging to the Ritual Church in which one worships is, for many, reason enough to do so.

One can (and many do) worship for years, even decades, without formally petitioning Change and neither feel nor are made to feel any less a part of their “adopted” parish family.

It is still, however, not the same as knowing, when you see, meet, very possibly speak with the Patriarch or Major-Archbishop or Metropolitan or Eparch of the Church sui iuris which you attend that he is your Patriarch or Major-Archbishop or Metropolitan or Eparch. And, when, perhaps looking more than a wee bit different from others in the parish, you are asked by someone from outside “do you come here often?”, there is a special feeling in being able to look to them and say, with love, justifiable pride, and without reservation or explanation - “I belong here; I’m a (Melkite, Ruthenian, Syriac, Ukrainian, etc.) Catholic”.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Woodstock]

A wife can, at marriage, switch to her husband’s church sui iuris or not; and at widowing or annullment, can switch back to her original church sui iuris.

Husbands are encouraged to switch if they marry an Eastern Catholic, (Vatican II Post Concilliar Documents) but are not required to.

These would be better rendered:

A wife can, at marriage or any time subsequent to the wedding in the life of the marriage, switch to her husband’s church sui iuris or not; and at widowing or annullment and don’t ask me to explain it, but according to the Ruthenian eparchy at civil divorce, can switch back to her original church sui iuris all without a formal petition.

Roman Catholic husbands are -]encouraged/-] allowed to switch Churches at their wedding, but not subsequent to it, without a formal petition if they marry an Eastern or Oriental Catholic, (-]Vatican II Post Concilliar Documents/-] because the Latin Code of Canon Law was changed to allow men or women to switch with a wedding while the Eastern Code of Canon Law has not made such an egalitarian change), but are not required to.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Special considerations (albeit some are relevant to reception, rather than Change) as Woodstock and others have noted, include:

• Under Canon 33 (CCEO), a wife may transfer to the Church of the husband at the time of marriage or at any time during tthe marriage, without formally petitioning to do so. On cessation of the marriage, by annulment or death, (or otherwise - such as by a civil divorce), she can (but is not required to) return to the Church sui iuris in which she was originally enrolled.
• Albeit unaddressed in the CCEO, a petition by a husband for such a transfer (at or during marriage) is invariably approved. It is arguable, however, that he would have to petition for reversion when the marriage ended, if he desired to do so.
• The enrollment of children under 14 years of age in a Church sui iuris changes with that of their parents, provided that both parents make such a change. If only one parent changes, the enrollment of the children changes only if both parents consent to that change.
• At 14 years of age, a child may revert to the to the Church sui iuris in which he was originally enrolled, if he wishes to do so. It has generally been interpreted that this automatic right to change without formally petitioning continues until the child reaches the age of majority, variously acknowledged as anywhere from 16 to 21.
• At baptism, a child below 14 years is ascribed to the Church sui iuris of:
• its parents, if both are of the same Church sui iuris
• its father, if the parents are of different Churches sui iuris
• its mother, if the parents are of different Churches sui iuris
  and both parents express the desire that it be ascribed to that of the mother
• its mother, if only she is Catholic
• its mother, if born out of wedlock
• the person (e.g., an adoptive parent) to whose care the child is legally committed, if the parents are unknown
• the person who will be responsible for raising him in his faith if the parents are unbaptized persons
• Christians converting to Catholicism are ordinarily ascribed to the Church sui iuris that is most consistent with their religious heritage. Thus, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox entering communion with Rome will ordinarily be received into the Church sui iuris which is the historical counterpart of the Church from which they originate.

Canon 35

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

However, contrary to popular opinion, and by extension of the precept enunciated in Canon 30, and interpretation of other Canons that I’ve cited below, this has been held to not be absolute and the individual can opt to be received to another Church sui iuris.

Canon 30

Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of
age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she
then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same
Church, with due regard for particular law established by the
Apostolic See.

Title 17

Baptized Non-Catholics Coming into Full Communion with the
Catholic Church

Canon 896

Whether it is a group or an individual, no obligation except what
is necessary can be imposed on the Christian faithful who have
been baptized in non-Catholic Churches or ecclesial communities
and who ask of their own to enter into full communion with the
Catholic Church.

and

Canon 31

No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to
transfer to another Church sui iuris.

 

[Aramis]

These two paragraphs are inaccurate. This should be more accurate:

You are bound to a bishop of your canonical -]Rite/-] Church, which, barring changes, is the same -]rite/-] Church you were -]born/-] baptized in to. You actually are enrolled in a particular Church Sui Iuris, of which there are 23, counting the Roman Church.

Oh, and it’s not which parish baptized you, but which Church Sui Iuris your father was enrolled in -]on your 14th birthday/-] when you were baptized… or your mother -]if your father’s death was before that/-] if your parents were unmarried when you were baptized, if they chose to baptize you into your mother’s Church, or if your father was not Catholic at the time of your baptism. A change in canonical enrollment for parents carries children under 14 along with the -]father/-] parents, or if only one parent changes Churches they may choose to carry the children under age 14 along with that parent. Any children whose Church was changed because of a parent’s change may choose to return to their original Church after the age of 14. All Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians are automatically ascribed to the Catholic sister Church when they convert and their children follow the same process along the paternal line of following a father’s affiliation by default, meaning there are many Eastern and Oriental Catholics who are unaware of their status.

Aside from the issue with how this was presented, it’s wrong. Here’s the relevant canon:
CCEO:

Canon 29

1. 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.

Emphasis mine.

Canon 678 says that only the authorized individuals can baptize, but that a priest of the rite to be batised into cannot be denied permission by the local ordinary
CCEO:

Canon 689

1. The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated, must record carefully and without delay in the baptismal register, the names of those baptized, the minister, parents, sponsors, and also the witnesses, if there are any, the place and date of the baptism, together with the place of birth and also the Church sui iuris in which the baptized persons are to be enrolled.
2. …]

It is expected but not automatic that baptism will occur within the Church of Canonical Enrollment. In the US, exemptions are easily obtained in either direction.

It is also quite true that each person** is** bound to a bishop; which bishop varies by locality AND Church of Canonical Enrollment. The relevant bishop can change easily: just move to a different see of the given church. If I move to Juneau, I am subject to Bishop Michael. If I move to Detroit, I am subject to the local Roman Bishop of Detroit. In either case, the individual is bound to a bishop within their Church if one is an Ordinary for the area; if not, one is subject to an Ordinary with territorial jurisdiction.

Now, a Ruthenian pretty much anywhere in the American Pacific-West & Southwest is under the Eparch of Van Nuys… in the Midwest, it’s the Eparchy of Parma…

Several special cases exist that twist even that, but primarily for smaller sui iuris churches without hierarchs (or in some cases, even priests) outside their homelands.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Roman Catholic husbands are -]encouraged/-] allowed to switch Churches at their wedding, but not subsequent to it, without a formal petition if they marry an Eastern or Oriental Catholic,

(emphasis added)

Woodstock,

That is incorrect insofar as the male spouse not being allowed to do so during the pendancy of the marriage. The Latin Code does not distinguish between the spouses by sex and allows the change both at time of or during the marriage:

Canon 112 (Latin Code)

§1 After the reception of baptism, the following become members of another autonomous ritual Church:

1° those who have obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

2° a spouse who, on entering marriage or during its course, has declared that he or she is transferring to the autonomous ritual Church of the other spouse;

(emphasis added)

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Canon 678 says that only the authorized individuals can baptize, but that a priest of the rite to be batised into cannot be denied permission by the local ordinary

It is expected but not automatic that baptism will occur within the Church of Canonical Enrollment. In the US, exemptions are easily obtained in either direction.

It is also quite true that each person** is** bound to a bishop; which bishop varies by locality AND Church of Canonical Enrollment. The relevant bishop can change easily: just move to a different see of the given church. If I move to Juneau, I am subject to Bishop Michael. If I move to Detroit, I am subject to the local Roman Bishop of Detroit. In either case, the individual is bound to a bishop within their Church if one is an Ordinary for the area; if not, one is subject to an Ordinary with territorial jurisdiction.

Now, a Ruthenian pretty much anywhere in the American Pacific-West & Southwest is under the Eparch of Van Nuys… in the Midwest, it’s the Eparchy of Parma…

Several special cases exist that twist even that, but primarily for smaller sui iuris churches without hierarchs (or in some cases, even priests) outside their homelands.

Aramis,

In reading both your text and that of Woodstock, I am lost in trying to discern in what respect your post disagrees with what she has posted, other than the issue of children below 14 years being ascribed to Church sui iuris of the father versus the parents.

Many years,

Neil