www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox to Catholic: questions

I'm interested in this question. I hope this thread won't die, but will instead be more fully developed.

Father John,

It is interesting in the theoretical standpoint... But save for it actually happening... Well the questions it engenders as to ritual praxis and what the identity of the WRO actually is, is something that seems to be a work in progress.

I have a feeling this would be filed under "cross that bridge when we come to it"... When dealing with real souls looking to belong in a real way, some of the issues of "let's figure out where you belong" would probably melt and morph into "where do you need to belong?"

Technically under CCEO 32, only the Apostolic See can give consent to a transfer of rite. But the Code presumes papal consent where the two local ordinaries agree on the transfer. So to make a formal transfer, one must petition the local bishop 'ad quem,' or his delegated representative (eg. proper pastor); the bishop 'ad quem' should then confer w/the bishop 'a quo' and get his consent before the individual can make a declaration to the bishop 'ad quem.'


You're right that Canon 35 presumes a close correspondence between the rite one practices and the Church sui iuris which embodies it. In only a couple of Orthodox Churches do we see totally different ritual traditions being celebrated within one autonomous church. And off the top of my head, an example of the same in the West is the Ge'ez Rite Catholic Church in DC under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Washington, not the Ethiopian Catholic Church. Mixing liturgical rite and ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not the ideal, but it's tolerated under special circumstances.

If an Ethiopian Orthodox wanted to convert to Catholicism while in America, then he would most likely be ascribed to the Latin Rite because there is no local Ethiopian Catholic eparchy with proper jurisdiction here. There's no provision that I know of that would ascribe the convert to another Eastern Catholic church that shares a closer liturgical relationship, such as the Coptic Catholic Church.

There is a real difference between the WRO and the Ge'ez rite under Latin jurisdiction, as well. The WRO is being actively promoted apart from a continuous historical community. But the Ge'ez rite parish is a pastoral provision for the care of the Ethiopian Catholic community in DC.

I also had overlooked the catch-all category at the end of the canon: "with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions." I think WRO converts would count as a "special case." So maybe formal transfer would not be necessary for a WRO convert to be immediately enrolled in the Latin rite. But given Orthodox ambivalence on WROs, I doubt Rome would broach the subject in any official capacity.


CCEO was promulgated in 1990, so we can safely presume that it doesn't harbor any reconquista intentions. I think the theology of Canon 35 reflects apostolic ecclesiology common to both Catholic and Orthodox. Liturgy is one with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And liturgical rite is about historical & ecclesiological continuity. Protestants, though heretical and schismatic, are still under the care of the Western Church; they are spiritual offspring of the Western Church. Protestant liturgies are all derivative of the Latin Rite. Though they reject the Catholic Church, there is no question as to who's ultimately responsible for them if and when they return to the Apostolic Faith.

With the Orthodox, uniatism does complicate matters, but theoretically if an Orthodox wants full communion with Rome, then submission to the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope is all that is needed. The authority of the Pope is independent of liturgical rite. So to give due respect to what is right and true in Orthodox liturgy, Canon 35 insists that liturgical continuity, and thus corresponding ecclesiastical governance under the proper Eastern Catholic hierarchy, be upheld. The Church is telling her converts: "You have a duty to preserve what's right and true in the ecclesial community you come from." It's an ecclesio-liturgical conservationist policy...or is it preservationist?

The Canon also effectively militates against our consumerist cult of choice. Even though adult conversion involves a personal act of will, I can't just shop for any ritual church I like if I convert. I have an 'ecclesial self' and it has a history that should be honored.

First of all Orthodox do not "convert" to being Catholic, they arleady are, they are simply received into communion.
And they are to be received into the equivalant sui juris Church.
Stephanos I

I don't really understand the importance of the question. It would seem if someone converted to Catholicism they would just pick a church or end up at one. The reverse is true when someone converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism. The most important question I would think would be how someone would be received, not which church they are received in.

In Catholic canon law, in order to theoritically both make conversion easier for the convert and strengthen the Eastern Catholic Churches, an Antiochian Orthodox convert would become Melkite Catholic.

The thing is though the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America has the Western-rite, which is more similar to the Roman-rite than the Byzantine-rite - so this leads to the strange paradox of a Western Christian converting to the Catholic communion but via canon law being "forced" to belong to the Eastern Catholic Melkite Church.

Of course this is just a curious matter of legality. The convert in question can and is encouraged to worship in whatever Catholic Rite he/she wishes and by all means attend Liturgy where they feel more spiritually comfortable and fulfilled. For example I know a 60ish Serbian Orthodox convert who is really into the Tridentine-rite and is now as Latin as they come even though on paper he is Byzantine Catholic.

In practice anyone who chooses to become Catholic joins the Church he wishes to join. A Western Rite Orthodox would most likely be attracted to the Roman Catholic life. One would expect him to be received into that Church. Should he feel called to become Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, etc.), Maronite, Chaldean, etc., then he would join that Particular Church. The canons regarding enrollment in a Particular Church are really meant to 1) keep Churches from stealing one another�s members (a vast problem in earlier times when a large part of the Roman Catholic Church felt that the Roman Rite was superior to all others) and 2) to encourage the individual to truly investigate the Ritual Church that would most closely match the one he is coming from. Once the individual makes a decision the paperwork is unimportant. The Canons exist to serve a general need for good housekeeping in the Church. They serve the people, not the other way around. At all times they are guided by the rule of charity.

The choice of Church enrollment is left to the individual. If this individual wishes to be received as a member of an Ethiopian Catholic Church then he is received as a member of an Ethiopian Catholic Church. It does not matter what Particular Church the receiving priest / bishop is part of. Likewise, should a Russian Orthodox decide to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church (in, for example, the United States) he could be received and enrolled into the Russian Greek Catholic Church even though there is no Russian Greek Catholic hierarchy in this country. The individual has this right under canon law even if he never steps foot into a Russian Greek Catholic Church. It is only the responsibility for pastoral guidance and the paperwork that are delegated to the local Roman Catholic Bishop, and he serves as the guardian of that individual since the individual has no local bishop of his own Particular Church to serve him.

Which is why I said that I don't understand the importance of the question. I understand the question itself.

It seems the Catholic Church takes the same approach as the Orthodox. It doesn't matter where the convert goes through, it is important that they embrace the faith wherever they feel most comfortable doing so.

As Administrator rightly suggests, if an Orthodox is received into full communion in a Latin-rite parish, canon law ascribes him to the Eastern-rite Church corresponding to his former Orthodox Church, even if a Latin-rite priest/bishop receives him in a Latin-rite liturgy. Similarly a Protestant who attends an Eastern-rite parish and enters into full communion through that Eastern Catholic Church is nonetheless enrolled in the Latin Rite, even if he has undergone formation and registration in that Eastern-rite parish. CIC 112.2 states it quite clearly CCEO 38 reflects the same approach: It may seem very counterintuitive but this is a matter of canonical affiliation, which has multiple juridic effects down the line, for example in determining who is subject to which ecclesiastical laws and which hierarchy, and in marriage cases. This is why enrollment and transfer of rite between Catholic Churches sui iuris are more than just formalities.

An non-baptized convert to the Catholic Church is enrolled in the ritual church in which he chooses to be baptized (CIC 111.2). Only the non-baptized catechumen has freedom to choose rite upon his reception into the Catholic Church.

We can talk about how strictly Catholics around the world actually practice this de facto, but that is a separate question from the canonical issue de iure.

On the Ethiopian Orthodox convert hypo, I stand corrected by the Administrator for my confused application of the canonical principles I've been discussing, though I still don't think he's at liberty to choose his enrollment without a formal transfer of rite.

As to the hypothetical convert from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to Catholicism, I would devoutly hope that whatever Priest accepts responsibility for preparing him takes the trouble to learn something about the teaching and practice of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and to learn something about the Ethiopian Catholic presence in the USA. Perhaps I'm being utopian, but if the Priest does not make such an effort he is seriously remiss in his pastoral duty.

Since the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does not permit mixed marriages at all, a mixed marriage of an Ethiopian Orthodox to a Catholic might well be the occasion for such a conversion. That makes it all the more important that the Priest knows what he is doing before he does it.

I believe that the overstretched Ethiopian Catholic parish in Washington has some form of outreach to people in other cities who either already are Ethiopian Catholics or who wish to become part of the Ethiopian Catholic Church. At a minimum the prospective convert and prospective Catholic spouse should be put in touch with the Ethiopian Catholic parish in Washington.

Fr. Serge

Father, bless.

Here's a hypothetical reality that has (and could happen in the future).. which Church is one received into if the community they were baptized in is a "reformed Orthodox" or "Eastern-Rite protestant" group (i.e. Ethiopian Tehadeso, Marthoma Syrian, Ukrainian Lutheran)?

That is the canon law of the Church and it is meant to protect diversity in the Church.
Stephanos I

Sorry if this is beating a dead horse, but both CCEO & CIC prioritize ecclesiological lineage over liturgical rite, canonically speaking (theologically, liturgy precedes ecclesiology). So the "reformed Orthodox" would be ascribed to an Eastern-rite Church and the "Eastern-rite Protestant" to the Latin Rite. We look to the ecclesial noun over the ritual modifier. This makes sense because ritual ascription is about the jurisdiction in which one's personal rights & obligations as a Catholic are to be fully realized. Catholics are always free to pray & receive sacraments in any other sui iuris Church in communion w/Rome, but that is a separate question from which Church is responsible for you and which Church you are responsible to.

Prodomos,

Not to oversimplify what you're saying, but it's sounds to me as though Rome doesn't recognize any "change of Rite" which takes place outside of the Roman Catholic Communion.

Thus (for example) even if EOs did create a western-rite patriarchate (for whatever reason), the members of said church wouldn't really be western, in Rome's eyes, because the change of Rite wasn't approved by Catholic authorities.

I'm just thinking out loud here.
Blessings,
Peter.