www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West question on canonical church identity

My father was a Byzantine Catholic and my mother was a RC. I was baptized in a Rc church, which I attend now, but I have been told by many priests and religious that canonically I am a Byzantine Catholic. I am asking this because I have had inner desires to turn East in my Christian journey. I considred orthodoxy for a period of time, and naturally the Ukrainian bishop I spoke to told me I was actually Byzantine, but I thought for a moment he said that just to get me to convert since he left the Catholic Church himself. Anyone shed some light on this for me? I realize that a RC can go to a Byzantine church. I am inquiring as to my canonical identity. Also, I was baptized in 1957. I was also told I am under the old canon law before the modifications in 1983. Don't know what to believe.

V

Although, definitely not an expert on this...I think he was correct...if I remember correctly, for "preservation of the rite" if one parent is Eastern Catholic the children technically are Eastern...

My understanding is that "back in the day" children born to Byzantine Catholic fathers were automatically ascribed to the father's ritual Church at Baptism, even if the Baptism took place in an RC parish.
I'm curious just what "brand" of Byzantine Catholic you apparently are: Ruthenian? Ukrainian? Melkite?

I would be Ukrainian.

V

From the information you have provided you are Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

God bless!

Volodymyr,

You are indeed a Ukrainian Greek (or Byzantine) Catholic. It does not matter what year you were born and what someone else described as the practice 'back in the day' is, in fact, still the practice. The determining consideration is the Catholic Church to which one's father belonged by baptism.

The Church to which one's mother belongs is only a consideration if the father was not a Catholic or if the parents formally agreed that the child would be ascribed to her Church (and that would have to have been recorded at the time of baptism). That you were baptized in a Latin church and raised in it, absent those factors, does not change the canonical ascription which you inherited from your father.

Many years,

Neil

CCEO Canon 29 [intratext.com] CCEO was first published in 1990

CIC Can. 111 §1 [vatican.va].

See the commentary [tinyurl.com] for that CIC Can. 111 §1 page 151


I would check with the tribunal in your Diocese since the Baptism predates these codes, tho the "according to long standing tradition" in the commentary indicates this was the practices before it was codified in the 1983 revision if nothing was in the old CIC.

We recently had a seminarian who was ordained to the priesthood last June and celebrated his first Divine Liturgy with us. He was raised in the Latin Church and realized he was actually Ukrainian Catholic in adult life. He is a member of the OP/Dominicans and had to get permission to be in that community as an EC. He surely was born and baptized prior to 1983 so either the old CIC must have had the same stipulation, or the "long standing tradition" been accepted practice. I believe it was only his father who was Ukrainian Catholic and his mother Latin Church.

We have had a similar senario to the Dominican at the Seminary in Melbourne (Australia) a few years ago and as the old code was in place he had to be considered as UGCC as his father was. He changed to the Latin Rite and continued his studies for the Archdiocese.

I assume then if parents choose to follow the rite of mother then the making of a choice needs to be added to the register as a very clearly worded note, to ensure that there is no question of what the Church is a person belongs to.

Folks, we need to stop confusing the issue - this is a topic that has been discussed and explained here innumerable times.

Note the opening line of Canon 111 - Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it.

That line of the Canon does not govern the canonical status of a child whose both parents are not of the Latin Church. Canon 29 of the CCEO governs.



Further, as to the cited commentary on C 111, CIC, it asserts that the ascription to the father's ritual Church is because of long-standing tradition. No, it is because the very Canon on which it comments states that to be the case.

That the baptism predates the Code is of no consequence. The Codes as they were promulgated explicitly abbrogated all prior Codes. The gentleman is a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic by virtue of his father having been such, unless it is recorded in the sacramental registry that his parents mutually agreed that he was to be ascribed to the Latin Church.

Whenever one parent is of a non-Latin Church, folks need to get in the habit of looking to the CCEO and working back from that, thereby reducing confusion and avoiding the risk of disseminating misinformation.

Many years,

Neil

I thought OP said his dad is EC and mom RC.


I agree, Neil. I thought that Canon 29 of the CCEO was so clear about it I didn't quote, just linked to it. [intratext.com] I only included the CIC because sometimes people ask if there is something parallel there. Sorry it that may contribute to confusion.

Mary Louise,

He did and that's why the opening line of C.29 of the CIC isn't relevant - because it only applies if both parents are of the Latin Church. It has no standing if both are not Latin.

If they are not both Latin - but they agree to have the child baptized in the Latin Church (which requires more than the physical act of baptism - it requires also an intent that the child be enrolled to the Latin Church), then the second phrase of the sentence comes into play and does have relevancy.

Many years,

Neil

I think this means thee and me are on the same page, I just quoted the entire canon rather than dropping the 1st phrase, which does not pertain to this situation. Just the way I was taught to read them, as a whole canon... I thought you were saying that the CIC C29 did not pertain at all to his situation. My misunderstanding of your point.