www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Change Sui Juris Church or go Syriac/Malankara Orthodox

Sorry to those who have read my post on Catholic Answers Forum, but I wanted to post this here as well.

My wife and I are both canonically Latin Catholics. We both spent time in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Our son was chrismated and received communion in the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church at 1 year of age. We've since come back to the Latin Catholic Church, partially because there is no Syriac Church anywhere near us. We are now practicing in the Latin Church again and are very unhappy with it. We want to bring our children up in an Eastern Church and as such are planning to relocate whenever we are able to be somewhere there is an eastern Church.

Our problem is that in coming back into the Catholic Church, we recognize that we need to be in union with Rome, but we cannot continue as Latin Catholics, even if we are forced by circumstances to worship in the Latin Church for the time being. We really don't know what to do anymore and are torn between returning to the Orthodox Church and maintaining cummunion with Rome, which leaves us in a situation where we are under the authority of bishops of a tradition we can no longer find ourselves at home in.

Part of our issues are that the Latin priest and bishop here will not allow our child to continue receiving communion unless we formally return to the Syriac Orthodox Church or possibly do an official change of sui juris Church. We'd love to enter officially into the Syriac Catholic Church or Syro-Malankara Church, but their are none anywhere near us, the closest Eastern Churches are Ukrainian Catholic (5 hours away), which are Byzantine, and while we feel more at home with them than in the Latin Church, we don't want to use the Byzantine Church just as an escape from the Latin Church, we want to be Oriental.

Any thoughts? I don't want to belittle the Latin Church, but I have never been at home in it, however it was the only Catholic or Orthodox Church where I grew up, so that was the choice I had when I felt called to join the Catholic Church when I was in the 4th Grade.

Thanks
Countertenor

I will pray for you brother. (maybe if you fell called you could start a mission parish for one of the Oriental Catholic Churches, if there are others in your area and you feel called to do so?)

I just can't figure out what ails some of the Latin bishops when it comes to granting permission for a person to transfer canonically to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. How would such a step hurt THEM? Why keep a person "imprisoned" in a ritual Church he/she no longer feels at home in? Bishops in general, especially the Latin ones, mystify me.

Latin bishops have a tendency to repulse me period. Though I'm still technically enrolled in a parish in my old diocese (it's only twenty minutes to the old diocese, and I also have a residence in that diocese) so I'd probably go with that bishop to request a transfer, because he's always been very helpful to ECs in my experience.

Honestly what mystifies me, is the Latin Canon law and the CCEC. And the other thing that mystifies me is how the Latin Church, spends more time creating some semblance of theology to back up their disciplines rather than teaching their people actual theology.

I would also point out the fact that the current situation makes it hard for all Eastern Catholics to evangelize to non-Catholics. Since if they are protestants and come into the Catholic Church through the Eastern Church, they are by Canon Law a Roman Catholic, even though they were catechized by an Eastern church, feel at home in the eastern church, ect. That needs to change.

What is the process one has to go through to switch Sui Juris Churches?
I know for me when I came into the Catholic Church I wanted to know my canonical Sui Juris Church. I was in the Greek Orthodox Church, was received into the Catholic Church by a Ukrainian priest, according to Canon Law (from the canon lawyers I emailed) I am a Melkite since the actual Greek Catholic Church which I would belong to is only found in Greece, and am currently in the process of switching (God willing) to a Ruthenian Parish.


I wish you well brother.

You need the written consent of the Bishops involved, e.g. the local Latin Bishop and the local Melkite Greek-Catholic Bishop, or the local Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Bishop and the local Syriac Catholic Bishop. If one of the Churches involved does not have a local hierarchy in place, the consent of the Holy See is needed.

I agree. That's one of the problems I'm having with maintaining myself in the Catholic Church at all. Thanks to the way canon laws are written it's like we are the property of a particular Church or Bishop.

I thought I'd say that I've spent time in both the Byzantine and Oriental Churches. I actually feel quite at home in both. While my sons godparents are Malankara Orthodox, and he was chrismated there, my daughter is to be baptized in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I love both, and am able to fully practice my faith and connect to their spiritualities and theologies even though I'm still processing and learning some of them. The place that I really can no longer maintain myself is in the Latin Church and in its theology. While I understand it, so much of it seems almost wrong to me, and often what passes as Latin theology is just plain wrong.

While I can generally harmonize official Latin theology, much of what I hear out of priests and people is different from the official doctrines. And what's not, tends to be a double speak. Even the filioque, while I don't think it's heretical (obviously, I'm Catholic) I do find it frustrating and I think it's ridiculous that the Latin Church still uses it.

I'm okay with practicing in the Latin Church when I have to, but not at what I see as the expense of my children (and honestly what I see as at the expense of their children). While I may not be able to "fix" the things I see wrong in the Latin Church I will do whatever I can to shield my children from it. I've put in countless hours with this priest, going over the liturgy, and working with parishioners to try to bring about some sense of liturgy to the parish. I've trained their musicians, I've borne the brunt of people who want to jump up and down and dance around during mass, for changing the "music" to something that has a sense of the sacred, they're asking me to help with catechism classes, ect. I'm at that parish all the time, but I will not be there when they deny my children the Eucharist, based on historical weirdness, and bad theology, just because of their age or in the case of others in the parish because of the their mental abilities.

On a side note, I as a musician, I absolutely love Byzantine sacred music.

Dear Counter,

May the Holy Spirit give you strength.
I take it that your son was baptised RC. And you and your wife are RC. Without knowing the circumstances or your son's age, he probably shouldn't have been chrismated by the Malankara priest.

I think the RC bishop is correct (assuming your son is under 14 or the godparents were the guardians at the time of chrismation. Unless you can be active in an Eastern Church, I suggest that you be obedient and patient until your children become First Communion age.

Its unfortunate that there isn't an Eastern Church in your area, but your patience will be rewarded.

Peace be with you.
Fr Deacon Paul

I should add to my comment that I would like to see the RC bishops follow canon law when his pastors accept (even encourage) Eastern Catholics to illicitly marry and have children baptized in their parishes. They should insist that non-Romans return to their Church.

I wish we didn't need to have such divisions in a Church that is supposedly in Union. There would be no need to send people back to their Church, if Rome would follow its early customs and the customs of the rest of the Catholic Church, in regard to the sacraments of initiation none of this would be a problem. I see why many of the Orthodox I've met were Eastern Catholics before, being in communion with Rome can seem like a very big price, especially when you're not somewhere with non-Roman Churches. It's honestly very difficult to even stay Catholic, but I do feel that it's necessary, but when I feel like I'm not even in the Catholic Church, when I'm there, it makes it very difficult. Granted this particular Latin parish is definitely something else and not indicative of many that I've been to.

I think that leaving comunion with Rome is not the end all answer though. I am happy to be in communion with Rome and I agree some of the practices of the current Roman rite is a little on the non-traditional side. Yet I see a hope in the future of the Western Church. Most of the younger priests are orthodox and there is a movement towards traditionalism among the college age students (at least thats what I have noticed).

Now if we can just get them out of the mind set that to be Catholic you have to be Roman.

Yes I agree with you.

CT,

I'm not going to win fans with this post, but ...

I have a long-standing issue with Latin clergy denying the Mystery of the Eucharist to our children who are baptized, chrismated, and communed in infancy, as should be the practice in our Churches. However, the more that I read this thread and its companion one at what passes for an EC forum on a Latin site, the more I feel that both you and those who are rallying to the cause espoused are doing so emotionally and without fully considering the circumstances.

You and your spouse are Latin Catholics. You speak of having practiced in the Syriac Orthodox Church, but not of having translated to it. You had your child receive the Mysteries there as an infant - let's consider the particulars of that.

Had there been a Syriac Catholic temple convenient to you, you might have done likewise - and the priest could have accommodated you by doing so. However, under Canon Law (both CEC & CCEO) of the (Catholic) Church, with which you wish to remain in communion by your own statement, a Syriac Catholic (or any EC/OC priest) should administer the Mysteries to a child not canonically of his Church in accord with the rubrics and prescriptions of the Church to which the child is ascribed and should so note that fact in the Sacramental Register.

A child is canonically ascribed to the Church sui iuris of its father, unless the mother is of a different Church sui iuris and the parents consciously express their desire to have the child ascribed to the mother's Church. That would not have applied in your case, since both parents are canonically of the same Church. We would (should) be able to expect the same courtesy of a Latin priest who, for reasons of non-availability - distance - etc, affords the Mysteries of Initiation to a child who is ascribed to an EC or OC Church by reason of its paternity (that it does not always happen is tangential to this discussion).

Ok - so what changes because it was a Syriac Orthodox, rather than Syriac Catholic, priest who administered the Mysteries to your child? Well, first of all, he is obviously not bound by the CEC or CCEO, so he 'can' do whatever he pleases within the canonical prescriptions of his own Church. Now, most Orthodox priests of my acquaintance, whether EO or OO, would be loath to administer the Mysteries of Initiation to a child whose parents were not themselves of the priest's Church - for the simple reason that to do so is to risk the likelihood that the child will not be raised spiritually in the traditions and theology of that Church. (There is certainly merit to such an exercise of caution.)

The priest in this case apparently was not concerned by that - or - and this is speculative - he had in mind the pastoral provisions in place between Rome and the Syriac Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, and considered that he was acting within that framework. But, he wasn't really, if you stop and consider the facts.

Relations between the Catholic Churches (and I would include not only Rome and the Syriac Catholic, but also the Melkite and Maronite) and the Syriac Orthodox Church are among the most positive - that pastoral agreement was the first formal one and has been a model for others, formal and informal. But, keep in mind that it was established principally to service the pastoral needs of Syriacs - Catholic and Orthodox - given the relative scarcity of their temples in various places both at home and in the diaspora. That other Catholics are occasionally served under it is an accommodation, not the norm, certainly in the diaspora and, most certainly, as it might be applied to Latin Catholics, who are unlikely to find themselves without access to a parish of their own Church sui iuris. So, whether he thought so or not, the priest was stretching the spirit and intent of the agreement, if that was the basis on which he relied.

Alternatively, he may have considered that you and your wife had the intent or a definite inclination towards translating to Syriac Orthodoxy. But, you didn't and, by your statement, you aren't planning to do so.

So, you approach the Latins with whom you are now communing (and, from your description, with whom you are actively participating in parish life) and ask that they allow your child to aproach the Mystery to which she has been validly (but not licitly, in the admittedly legalistic Catholic viewpoint) initiated. But, she's a Latin in their eyes and by the Canons of the Church to which you ascribe yourself - canonically, if not in your heart. I find myself sympathetic to you but inclined to consider that the bishop and priest are acting in accord with the Canons to which they are subject. Your daughter is neither an Oriental Orthodox nor is she an Oriental Catholic - like it or not, she is a Latin at the present time. Were she truly OO or OC, I'd be among the most vociferous in condemning the Latin decision.

On the matter of your decision to seek a transfer of canonical enrollment, I have to tell you that, historically, the likelihood of receiving consent for such is not enhanced when the reasons for doing so are so heavily encumbered by a hostile, critical, and bitter attitude toward the Church sui iuris from which one seeks to transfer.

It may not make sense to you ("if I hate it here, why make me stay?") but that attitude is often off-putting not only to the Latin hierarch involved, but to Eastern hierarchs who frequently see such discontent and disgruntlement as not boding well for the prospective member's future in their Churches.

It has often been said that we of the East are most pleased to welcome those who are running TO us, rather than those who are running FROM the West.

We endured decades of the latter in the post Vatican II era. It was disruptive, unsettling, had little positive and much negative impact on our parishes, and decidedly few of those who transitioned remained in the long term, finding us not up to whatever preconceived expectations they had of us.

I'm not suggesting that you don't find Oriental Christiaity to afford you a unique and deeply personal spiritual and theological peace that you don't experience elsewhere - but if your expression of that is accompanied by denigration of the spirituality and praxis of the sister Church of your origins, you need to step back and prayerfully consider what is motivating you to seek the change. Your focus at present seems to be more on your emotions than the spiritual aspects of doing so.

Finally, with all due respect to my Syriac Catholic brethren, you need to realize that their Church is still in the throes of recovering from a long period of latinization. You will likely find it to still be significantly less 'Oriental' than its Sister Orthodox Church and not as advanced in shedding its latinizations than the Byzantine Churches.

My prayers for the resolution of your concerns in a way that gives you spiritual comfort.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes I agree with you about the fact that the OCs are still recovering from much Latinization.

In regards to us practicing in the SO Church, but not transalting to it. We spoke with the priest and he put no particulars on us translating, he said if we wanted to be accepted as SO he would accept us, and I agreed, there was nothing formal about it, because as he said, there is no formal way of accepting a Catholic into the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. If you want to come in and the priest accepts you as part of his parish, that is it. So from my perspective I was Malankara Orthodox at that point, which is one of the reasons we had our son chrismated there.

In response to us now wanting to commune (by this I actually me worship in their Church) with the Latins. We don't really want to, but that's the only option in this area. Eastern Parishes are hours away. Yes it is true that we want to be in communion with Rome now, because we see that as a very important thing, however when we were in the Syriac OC, we weren't running from the Latin Church at all, we went there because we had the opportunity to find out about it, and loved what we learned there and the way we were spiritually fed.

While I'd like to run full speed from the particular Latin parish I'm in at the moment, that is peculiar to the parish, not other Latin parishes I've been in. The only "complaint" or thing I'd "run from" in all the other Latin parishes I've been in, is that they separate the sacraments of initiation. I'm not anti-Latin, I just am not as at home there as in terms of my spirituality, theology and praxis as I am in either the Byzantine Church or the Oriental Church.

Your comment of emotionality is well taken, and you are right that emotions take over and it doesn't look very good, and when we follow all the canon laws your statements are very true. I must admit I have a hard time respecting or even following canons that don't align with the Apostolic Traditions of the Church and this includes when canon laws prevents children from receiving the sacraments of initiation together. To be rather legalistic about it, how can a canon even be considered valid if it goes against the overall Tradition of the universal Church?

From a Catholic standpoint I want to officially go to the Eastern Church, because that is where I can experience Christ and the Church most fully. As stated above, there was no official document saying I was Malankara Orthodox, because it wasn't needed, however if it would make the Catholic Church feel better I could get something from Malankara Orthodox Church, attesting to my acceptance into that Chuch.

When I've said I am canonically Latin, it is because I was baptized in the Latin Church when I asked to be as a child, not because I've stayed Latin Catholic my whole life. I respect a great many things about the Latin Church. I dislike the Latinizations of the Eastern Churches, but in many ways the true concern for me, is that what we now call Latinizations ought to be looked at, because much of the problem with many Latinization in regards to the Eastern Churches, is that these Latinizations are not correct to the Eastern Church, but many of them really are not correct to the Latin Church either, because they don't follow the Apostolic Tradition. There are many things that are peculiar and right to the Latin tradition, but things that break with the universal Tradition of the Church, cannot really be considered proper.

Again, I do not want to run from the the Latin Church, but I do want to run to the Eastern Churches, there are a great deal of reasons for becoming an Eastern Catholic, and while issues with the Latin Church can play into it, or perhaps were the tipping point in this case (though this is because I considered myself to be returning to communion from the East, and was under the assumption that having been Orthodox I would be eastern, I had not looked into it. So it wasn't until a canon lawyer said I was still Latin, even though I had been Orthodox, that I even began the process of discerning whether or not to do the paperwork, or go back to the Orthodox)it is not the reason I am seeking to go canonically Eastern.

CT