www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canonical membership and discipline

With the greatest of respect, I would point out that from the first posting this thread has straddled canonical and national/ethnic issues. I believe that this discussion would progress more effectively if those with some depth of understanding of the RC, EC and EO canonical frameworks would clarify, for those of us not familiar with such technical matters, the following points:

1) To what extent does the discipline of each Church allow an individual, who is "in communion" with that Church but not "canonically affiliated" with it, to participate in the life of a parish belonging to that Church, beyond participation in its worship as a member of a congregation?

2) Assuming that a line might appropriately be drawn somewhere in one or another of these Churches, even for an individual "in communion" with that Church, where would that line be drawn and under what circumstances? Would the line be drawn differently if there was no other parish of that Church within a reasonable distance?

3) More concretely, how would each Church deal with the non-canonically-affiliated individual who is nonetheless "in communion" and who wishes to: a) join the choir, b) serve as a cantor, c) serve as an unordained Reader,
d) serve as an usher, e) join a social group,
f) join a pious society, g) become a member of the local KofC Council, h) become an officer of any of the foregoing bodies,
i) become a member of a parish council or other 'official' advisory group, j) become a trustee of the parish, k) teach in the school of religion, l) serve as a deacon, having been ordained in another Church that is in communion with the Church in question, m) be married, n) be buried, o) have his/her children receive the Sacraments of Initiation? Would the decision as to each of these be made at the parish level? At some higher ecclesiastical level? If so, by whom? How long would it take?

4) To the extent that there are differences in the responses to these questions among EC Churches, is that difference accounted for by pastoral practice, geography, legislation unique to the Particular Church or legislation unique to the local jurisdiction (diocese/eparchy) of that Church? To the extent that there are differences between EC responses to these questions and RC responses, is that difference accounted for by differences between the "Roman" Code and the Oriental Code or by other factors? To the extent that there are differences in the responses of various Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, what factors account for this?

I think the issue only comes up with weddings, going to seminary, being ordained and, for clergy, getting a bishop's permission to serve in another rite; probably most commonly the second and third. IOW IIRC there are cases where one has lived in the Roman Rite all one's life only to find, when one wants to go to seminary, that thanks to one's father's being born in the Ukrainian Catholic Church upstate (but he hasn't gone there in 40 years since he moved out of coal country) one is actually a member of a ritual church one knows little about!

Despite opinions to the contrary, a deacon does not need "bi-ritual faculties".

Fr. Serge

From the RC Archdiocese of Atlanta DEACONS DIRECTORY OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES. This supports Fr Serge's information which he has stated previously on the forum when questions have been asked about Deacons participating in Liturgy, Services, or working in various juristictions.

3.6.2 BI-RITUAL DEACONS

a. The bi-ritual indult of faculties is not granted by Rome to deacons, but by mutual consent of the proper ordinaries.

b. When a deacon of the Eastern Catholic Churches is granted bi-ritual faculties to assist in the Roman Catholic Church, the theological understanding of the Holy Sacraments and the Order of the Diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches is to be respected. Practically, a deacon of the Eastern Catholic Churches is not to be allowed to solemnize marriages in the Roman Catholic Church.

c. A deacon of another ritual Catholic Church receives faculties from the Archbishop of Atlanta after that deacon’s proper ordinary has granted him permission to serve as a deacon in this Diocese.

d. Bi-ritual deacons are obligated by all the norms and directives of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta while functioning within this ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

This query was transferred from a thread on "Parish Life and Evangelization" and relates also (and, it appeared from other posts on the adjacent thread, more directly) to the status of laypersons who find themselves in a parish of a Church with which they are in full communion but to which they are not canonically joined. Some posts on the other thread saw canonical obstacles to such persons accepting positions of responsibility or authority in the new parish, while others saw no problem with this. Those who saw problems seemed to think that there were specific points of legislation that "disenfranchised" such persons, however welcome they might be to share in the worship and general fellowship of their 'adopted' parish.

I am looking for some specifics on this, trying to see if there are differences in perspective among the Churches (Eastern and Western, Catholic and Orthodox) on this situation, and also trying to discover whether those differences are rooted in actual points of ecclesiastical law, in custom, or in some other factors.

I really would appreciate anyone with specific knowledge in this area focusing on the list of situations mentioned in my post at the head of this thread and opining on how each would be dealt with in whichever Church the person posting has knowledge of.

Tim,

Given the hour (and the date), I won't even attempt to tackle your list tonight but I did want to quickly remark on a point/query that was raised (I believe by you) in the earlier thread and which I don't think made the transition to here. The comment was made that the failure to seek a transfer of canonical enrollment seemed to be much more of an issue for the Eastern (and perhaps Oriental) Catholics than for their Latin brethren. I never thought about it previously - but that's absolutely true. I don't know that I've ever heard it discussed in a Latin parish.

Why? The majority of Latins are comfortably unaware of the other Churches sui iuris or, if aware of us, think of us as some exotic ethnic, cultural, national species - never associating such with that nice Mr. Haddad, who ushers the 10am Mass, or that lovely Mrs. Sekula, who teaches CCD. That the one might once have been (and most likely - technically at least -still is) Melkite or Maronite and the other a Ukrainian never crosses their mind. The sheer numbers and anonymity of the typical Latin congregation adds to the likelihood of such.

That said, I continue to believe that those who have come to embrace Eastern Christianity as the path that best serves their own spiritual needs should ultimately seek canonical transfer. Why? To be, fully, a member of the parish and its Church, to be counted among its faithful (in the regretable numbers game that becomes essential to our survival and growth), and not merely do so when ordination, marriage, chrismation of their children, or other factors make it a necessity.

Many years,

Neil

I do not feel we make a fuss about what particular rite any Catholic follows over here unless it is for more serious matters like Marriage, or Holy Orders. So Eastern Rite Catholics can perform a number of roles in the RC world here and vice versa. A willingness to turn up and do the job what ever it is, gets priority over any other consideration. Some people do get around to formally requesting changes eventually, while others don't bother ever. Latins go Eastern and now and again Easterners request to go Latin. The latter does not happen often but I am aware of an entire family who decided to leave the UGCC simply because there was no way due to vast distance for them to live the life of the UGCC church and they were not even linked in the Ukrainian community networks.

In this country the Latin Bishops are very helpful and supportive to the various Eastern Churches. A Ruthenian of USA decent was granted permission in a number of Latin diocese for the babies to take communion even though they were in a Latin parish.

I suppose in short the rules are kept for what really matters and otherwise life goes on. I agree with Neil here that people will tend to want to change over to another church if they are immersing themselves in a particular spiritual tradition.

Neil,
We,ve corresponded in the past. I have been a member of St. Basil of Lincoln, RI for about 8 years and I am troubled about your comment regarding changing Cannonical membership. My status has bothered me for the past several years and I asked Fr. Joe to which cannons I was subjected. I told him that I would like to be buried from St. Basil. His answer was not to worry since I was not about to remarry of have children baptized. He also said it was not necessary to sent letters because I was an accepted parishoner of the church. Let me have your thoughts.

Welcome to the forum, shaihalude. I must admit that I'm racking my brain as to where we've encountered one another previously - obviously your nick is different (or my memory is not as good as I claim it to be ).

As regards your concerns - don't let yourself be troubled. What I posted is my personal opinion, one that some share and others (including many - here and elsewhere - for whom I have great respect and affection) do not. Father Joe (Hajjar), whom I've known for probably close to 40 years, regardless of his opinion on the matter, is high on the list of those for whom I have deep respect and affection.

In regard to being buried from a particular church, under the current Latin Code there is no issue.


The Eastern Code does not specifically address the issue, but I have never encountered an instance in which any canonically Latin Catholic who attends a Melkite parish has ever been refused burial from it. And I've seen many Latin family members of those same individuals buried from our parishes as well, although the deceased never themselves set foot in a Melkite temple.

My personal hang-up (not the word I want, but I'm blocking at the moment) regarding the matter of seeking canonical enrollment doesn't turn on the issue of the inconvenience of being subject to canons of one's Church of origin (although I always remind folks that, technically, they remain subject to those). Personally, I have just always considered that such a transfer heightens both the spiritual and the temporal senses of "belonging" to the Church and parish.

As well, from a practical standpoint, in an era when parishes are canonically suppressed as a consequence of finances and declining numbers of faithful, I find myself concerned that those who count beans might well look at parish registers and dismiss, out-of-hand, those faithful attendees who are not canonically parishioners. A valid concern? I'm not certain, since ecclesial census reporting is such a haphazard process (witness the unexplained and oft-times wild population fluctuations in the various Churches, as reported in Annuario Pontificio from year-to-year). As St Basil's is a historically robust and thriving parish, that is a matter that would be an unlikely concern to Father Joe.

So, my friend, if any of my ramblings resonate with you, discuss them with Father Joe, but don't feel ill-at-ease should he be unconvinced that your status needs to be formally addressed. Your pastor is a wonderful priest and I'd never suggest that my views on the subject are more "right" than his - just that they are "different".

Many years,

Neil