www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Where I am at in all this...

That is an exception granted by the lawgivers, not presumed, or arrogated to themselves, by those under the law.

Eli

My own documents simply say I am "Byzantium Slavorum". Hence I flit all over the joint like a butterfly.

Dear Brother Eli,

Just a note to say that if we are going to have a contest of the Gaels here between yourself and Fr. Serge Keleher on canon law . . .

my money is on Father Keleher!

(it's the safest there . . .)

Alex

My bets are on the Canons themselves and the canonists, east and west, who taught me to read them.

Eli

Dear Eli,

Whatever you say - I agree in advance!

With you too, Father Archimandrite!

Alex

Now you all got me scared, folks.

Assuming I spend the next couple of years at a UGCC parish, fit-in and become a model parishioner, can I expect to have my request to change jurisdiction from the Latin Church approved without a bunch of flak?

Speaking in terms of the spiritual life and the idea of the laity being called to an active life in Christ, which for all should include life in a parish family, that is the worst possibile way to approach any idea of a spiritual call to an eastern Catholic way of life!!

There are NO guarantees in the life of the spirit.

Eli

I'd say given all other things being equal, you should expect no flak. Some things that wouldn't be equal would include: you expressing a desire to circumvent the Latin tradition of a celibate priesthood, you having made a change of enrollment before, you being under a bishop who for some reason has a bee in his bonnet about such changes (rare, but it could technically cause problems), you expressing a desire to return to the Latin church in the future (for example, if a TLM was approved for your area, if liturgical abuse stopped happening, etc). As you can see, much of this is in your hands. Those things that are not in your hands (such as which bishop you are dealing with) are not worth worrying over since you can't do anything about it now anyway. And if it were to be a serious impediment (which I think has almost no chance of happening), then you do have the ability to move geographically if you so wish.

In other words, just accept where you are now and where the Lord will lead you for the future. If he wants you to be in the UGCC, then you will be there.

Do you think it is prudent to tell someone how to 'work' the system in these cases?

The reason that I responded to Chance the way that I did is because Chance has indicated experience with and formation in Carmel or contemplating formation in Carmel.

In either case there's more than a little awareness on Chance's part of the call to vocation and what that entails, and it entails no guarantees.

In fact to seek that kind of guarantee can cripple one spiritually.

Which is more loving? The soft voice that quietly recommends how to circumvent the system or the seemingly harsh voice who warns against a serious spiritual peril to one who has made their inner desires known.

I have walked Chance's walk. Carmel and all.

I love to see a soul learn to fly.

Eli

Eli,

You raise a good point, and I ask the moderator to remove my post if he deems it out of line. I am sure that anyone who wished to circumvent the system could figure out how. Without the blessings of God, though, he has many other greater things to worry about than a canonical change of enrollment. A call to the priesthood is not validated by the person but by the church, and if that is his purpose of changing rites then you are correct to warn him that he has much to worry about. I believe this board has several people who had strong desires to serve the Lord and were denied entrance to seminary, presumably because they were not cradle easterners. I answered only if he would be accepted into the church after several years of faithful adherence to it. Whether he would be accepted into the priesthood is an entirely different matter, which you rightly point out.

You raise a good point, and I ask the moderator to remove my post if he deems it out of line. I am sure that anyone who wished to circumvent the system could figure out how. Without the blessings of God, though, he has many other greater things to worry about than a canonical change of enrollment. A call to the priesthood is not validated by the person but by the church, and if that is his purpose of changing rites then you are correct to warn him that he has much to worry about. I believe this board has several people who had strong desires to serve the Lord and were denied entrance to seminary, presumably because they were not cradle easterners. I answered only if he would be accepted into the church after several years of faithful adherence to it. Whether he would be accepted into the priesthood is an entirely different matter, which you rightly point out.
______________________

I wouldn't for the world deny that some have been denied entrance to the seminary... But, looking at how many of the priests who serve in our Metropolia already are "not cradle easterners", and how many bi-ritual Romans who serve, and are not even technically "easterners", it would be difficult to substantiate the claim that those who were denied were denied out of that motive.

How someone would know what that motive is is somewhat problematical in itself. I doubt a bishop would casually discuss that in open conversation with anyone and blurt out something as idiotic as that.

On second thought.........<hmmmm>

Maybe there *are* some who would have so done...

Is a puzzlement.
_____________

I asked a question. I did not suggest that you should withdraw what was already said.

Excuse me, I meant to say ask to have it withdrawn.

But you do get my point about prudential judgment here, no?

Also, when I spoke of a vocation I was speaking of Chance and a lay vocation in particular in Carmel. So he would know something about a vocational call even as a lay person in progress.

Also, I see a call to change jurisdictions as part of or a particular kind of a vocational call whether it be for laity or clergy. Seems to me that it should not be some self-willed act.

If it isn't a call then it's best to stay home, I think.

Sorry I confused you with talk of vocations. I just assume that people assume there's more than one kind of vocational call and women get them too, oddly enough.

Eli

Rely upon the law? Well . . .

Here's a case that I had to deal with. After supper one Friday evening a Latin priest whom I knew slightly came to my rectory in Ontario lamenting "Father, you have to help me! I can't marry them!" Since I was unaware of any wedding scheduled in the next few days, I asked my visitor just whom he could not marry, and why not, and what I could do about it in his opinion.

The good Father named two people (one young man, one young woman) whom I had never heard of. So I asked what was the problem, and how I could be of help.

Well! The priest explained that he had done the usual prenuptial preparation, including the inquiry (to determine freedom to marry), obtained the Baptismal certificates - and both parties had been baptized in Latin parishes - but, suspecting that something was Not Right, at the last minute he inquired further, discovered that the groom's father was originally from Winnipeg, telephoned Winnipeg, had the Chancery there telephone all the Ukrainian parishes - and, lo and behold, the groom's grandfather had been baptized in a Ukrainian parish!

Therefore, under the letter of the law, the groom was a member of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (of which he knew absolutely nothing - in fact he was unaware of the existence of any such form of religion) and the priest could not marry them! I offered to delegate him - no, that would not do; in his view I had no authority to delegate him. It was already Friday evening and therefore too late to reach Bishop Isidore or the Latin Bishop of Thunder Bay (whose name escapes me at the moment - and this was a few years ago). He was adamant; either I would do the wedding (of these people whom I had never heard of and who had never heard of me) or they would not be able to get married, and the wedding was set to take place in less than 24 hours.

He had me neatly boxed in. Under the letter of the law, he was right - the canons do not consider how many generations have gone by since some paternal ancestor was in truth, as well as in canonical fiction, a member of some particular Church; this fictitious membership persists at least until the Second Coming and probably even after that (do they have canon lawyers in Heaven?).

So I went to the rehearsal, apologized profusely to the poor couple and their attendants, assured them that I would make the service as simple as I possibly could - and of course in English, not in Ukrainian (a language with which they were completely unacquainted) and then held the rehearsal. The couple, of course, were not happy, to put it mildly. The groom asked me what he could do to prevent this situation from persisting to their eventual children - and before I could answer the Latin priest immediately said that I was not allowed to answer that question! So I told the groom to come and see me when they came back from the honeymoon and I would sort it out (which, of course, I did). The next day I felt like the prize elephant in the zoo holding this weird ceremony for a couple with whom I had no pastoral connection and who certainly did not desire any pastoral connection with me. I wouldn't blame them if to this day they have never attended any Church at all.

Now is there anyone on the Forum who wishes to defend this enormity, this unspeakable pastoral abuse of people who had done absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment? If so, please don't bother to tell me. But right now, try meditating on the passage "the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Meanwhile, my thanks to Alex for his compliment! I have occasionally been involved in some battles about canon law - and my success record is not bad.

Fr. Serge

I have had several such occurrences in my life. I could, however, have wished that a lot more of the Roman clergy had been as conscientious in the matter as these men and yours had been. Much strife and controversy could have been avoided with a timely early intervention, such as you have suggested.

Yes.

You offer an occasion for exception. That does not alter the law. Were you not sufficiently bound by the law to comply? And you did.

Sad state of affairs, but nobody complained but the Latins, when I used to catch eastern rite candidates for Rites of Christian Initiation and send them home.

I am in full agreement with you concerning the spirit of the law, and I am in full agreement with me concerning the letter of the law.

Eli