• Christ is Risen!
  • Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
Peter J said:
podkarpatska said:
Papist said:
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".
I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.
Hi Papist and podkarpatska. So, if I understand this right, the question you guys are (or were) talking about is, Why does a Catholic need the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction. Or am I misunderstanding the question?
P.S. I just came across this post of mine (having forgotten about it). It occurs to me that perhaps I ought to have said: Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction? Anyone?
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
Peter J said:
Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?
Do any of you have an answer to that?
 

Anastasia1

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Location
Other
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction
moving.
Peter J said:
Peter J said:
Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?
Do any of you have an answer to that?
IMO, that seems a bit controlling. I've never been or visited a church where you need permission to leave, and I've looked at a lot. I've heard of people talking to their minister before leaving and taking maybe advice, but ultimately, the individual makes the choice and talks to the receiving group. And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
3
Points
0
I'm not sure that's what Peter J is talking about though, Anastasia. If I remember correctly, to transfer to another church within the RC communion (rather than just showing up, I suppose) is a matter of canonical enrollment, so that you would be counted as a member of X (sui juris) church from there on out, rather than whatever church you were coming from (e.g., Latin Catholic transfers to the Maronite Church, thereby becoming Maronite 'officially', presumably after practicing at a Maronite Church for a while beforehand). It is a weird concept from an Orthodox perspective (the idea that you should have to officially "switch" to be a part of a particular church...to paraphrase what you wrote, if all share the same faith, why the switch?), but hey...one of many, right?
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
Anastasia1 said:
Peter J said:
Peter J said:
Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?
Do any of you have an answer to that?
IMO, that seems a bit controlling. I've never been or visited a church where you need permission to leave, and I've looked at a lot. I've heard of people talking to their minister before leaving and taking maybe advice, but ultimately, the individual makes the choice and talks to the receiving group. And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?
As dzheremi pointed out, we may be talking about two different things here.

You seem to be talking about someone leaving Catholicism (whether for Orthodoxy or for something else). In that case, certainly they would not receive permission from their old bishop to do so.

When I said "transfer to a different jurisdiction" I meant within the Catholic Church. I was responding to podkarpatska's post:

podkarpatska said:
I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.
(P.S. On the other hand, maybe we are talking about the same thing, given your last sentence:
Anastasia1 said:
And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?
If so, my apologies for needless clarifications.  :-\  :))
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
dzheremi and Anastasia1,

After posting a little while ago, it occurred to me to ask: Is your objection actually to the fact that we (Catholics) have overlapping jurisdictions? (I may be pulling that question out of somewhere; but I figure it's better to ask than to "assume".)

dzheremi said:
I'm not sure that's what Peter J is talking about though, Anastasia. If I remember correctly, to transfer to another church within the RC communion (rather than just showing up, I suppose) is a matter of canonical enrollment, so that you would be counted as a member of X (sui juris) church from there on out, rather than whatever church you were coming from (e.g., Latin Catholic transfers to the Maronite Church, thereby becoming Maronite 'officially', presumably after practicing at a Maronite Church for a while beforehand). It is a weird concept from an Orthodox perspective (the idea that you should have to officially "switch" to be a part of a particular church...to paraphrase what you wrote, if all share the same faith, why the switch?), but hey...one of many, right?
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
3
Points
0
I don't recall writing about objections, only about the practice of canonical transfers of enrollment or whatever you call them. Y'know, a Latin becomes a Maronite, or a Syro-Malabar becomes a Latin or whatever. That seems odd to me because if I as a Coptic Orthodox person were to approach a bishop about becoming Armenian Orthodox, I would be told no. There's no reason for it, since we're the same Church anyway, and there's nothing to stop me from going to an Armenian Church and receiving there. We Orthodox have overlapping jurisdictions, too, though that's not really how it's supposed to be. But we're definitely not supposed to decide at some point "I'm sick of being Coptic; I want to be Tewahedo now" or something. This idea that we could "transfer" from one Church to another is odd. I was baptized Coptic Orthodox and God-willing I'll die Coptic Orthodox, even if that happens while I'm attending an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
dzheremi said:
There's no reason for it, since we're the same Church anyway, and there's nothing to stop me from going to an Armenian Church and receiving there.
Well, I won't deny that I can see the similarity. Indeed we (Catholics) can go to any Catholic church (whether Latin (whether Roman, Ambrosian, Bragan, etc), Maronite, UGCC, etc). That certainly doesn't require a canonical transfer.

I also see now that I misunderstood your objection (and possibly Anastasia1's). So I'm glad to understand now what you're saying, although I don't agree with it.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
I wonder if what we're seeing here isn't an example of the old "Any stick is good enough to beat Catholics with".  :-\
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Who's we? You got a mouse in your pocket, Peter J? Nobody's beating up on your church just by saying what you doesn't make sense from an outsider's perspective. The same could be said about Orthodoxy from an RC perspective. We are, after all, not the same.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
dzheremi said:
Who's we? You got a mouse in your pocket, Peter J? Nobody's beating up on your church just by saying what you doesn't make sense from an outsider's perspective. The same could be said about Orthodoxy from an RC perspective. We are, after all, not the same.
I didn't object to either you or podkarpatska saying that what we do doesn't make sense. Rather, my point is that your reasons are opposite each other. podkarpatska said:

podkarpatska said:
Papist said:
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".
I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.
then you said that it doesn't make sense that a Catholic can get permission to switch churches, period.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
3
Points
0
I don't really see those as being opposite. It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal. What I am saying is something different, namely that if you are Catholic and all rites are equal, why do you need to "switch" in the first place to be a part of another church? I could go to live in Armenia for some reason, and I would be under the bishop of wherever it is I reside. It would not make a difference that I'm Coptic Orthodox and not Armenian. (This is how it SHOULD be, anyway, but of course in places like Lebanon, the Copts established a church despite there already being Armenian churches in the area...I don't know if there were transportation issues or what.)

Rather, what I have seen (admittedly on the internet, as I'm not longer interacting with people in Catholic churches in real life) of this phenomenon as concerns transfers from one Catholic Church to another is a lot of disaffected Latins deciding they would rather be Byzantines, and hence changing churches/rites/whatever because of their personal disgust for the Latin rite or their personal love of the Byzantine rite. That's what I meant to address in my post. We don't become members of other churches just because we decide we don't like the one we're in. When I first moved here to NM, we had Ethiopians worshiping with us in the Coptic Church, and apparently before I was here we had Armenians, as well. If you want to be OO here (or already are), you worship in the Coptic church that's already here. Of course, many larger places have many different kinds of churches that people can go to, but from what I've been told this is not preferable (it's understandable, it's reality, but it's not preferable), as it tends to create a situation in which the Ethiopians stick together, and the Copts stick together, and the _____ stick together, and as a result are isolated from each other along ethnic/cultural lines (taken to its extreme, this can become phyletism, wherein people not of X background are not welcome in a particular church).
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
81
Location
Abington, PA USA
Papist said:
Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.
If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
JoeS2 said:
Papist said:
Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.
If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.
I think you're misreading Papist's statement. He didn't say that an Eastern Catholic needs a canonical transfer to attend a Latin parish, or vice versa.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
dzheremi said:
It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal.
You realize, of course, that Papist made a point of explaining that it is "a two-way street"?
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
3
Points
0
And you realize that I was summarizing what I got out of Podkarpatska's post (which I hadn't read before you pointed it out, and may not even be understanding properly), and not making any sort of statement of my own?
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
dzheremi said:
And you realize that I was summarizing what I got out of Podkarpatska's post (which I hadn't read before you pointed it out, and may not even be understanding properly), and not making any sort of statement of my own?
Well, yes I do. Thanks for asking. :)
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
81
Location
Abington, PA USA
Peter J said:
dzheremi said:
It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal.
You realize, of course, that Papist made a point of explaining that it is "a two-way street"?
If its all Catholic there is no "two way street", its all on the same block.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JoeS2 said:
Papist said:
Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.
If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.
That is the problem with a communion of Churches with different traditions.  The Canonical Enrollment is meant to prevent married Roman Catholic men from showing up en masse at Ukrainian, Melkite, Ruthenian, etc., seminaries seeking to be ordained into the Eastern Rite.  Of course that happens still but because it is not automatic there is usually a long process of transfer and belonging to the Eastern Rite before the bishop would even consider accepting your transfer.

Other than ordination, there is really no bar to attending another ritual Church.  Just go and attend.  I attended the Ukrainian Catholic Church for over 2 years before converting to Orthodoxy.  My 1 year old son was admitted to Communion and then when our daughter was born she was baptized, chrismated and communed in the Ukrainian-Byzantine Rite.  Canonically we're still Romans.  Transfers are really only for men who'd like to be ordained.  Other than that, some just seek it as a formality.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
I apologize in advance if this question has been asked and answered before (I don't think it has) ...

Does anyone have any theories as to why there are so (relatively) few Oriental Catholics?

(Note: I mean "Oriental Catholics" in the restrictive sense of Catholic churches that have corresponding Oriental Orthodox churches, not the more inclusive sense of Eastern Catholics who aren't Greek/Byzantine, or the even more inclusive sense of all Eastern Catholics.)
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
New England
Faith
Christian
Anyone have any thoughts about ^^ that?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,409
Reaction score
280
Points
83
Age
40
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Peter J said:
Anyone have any thoughts about ^^ that?
I've never really thought of it, so not really. 

How successful were Roman Catholic missions in "EO" regions as opposed to "OO" regions?  In India, the first Eastern Catholics were the Syro-Malabar Catholics.  Their liturgy has been all over the place, going from Eastern rite to Roman rite translated into Syriac back to Eastern rite with copious Latinisations (pre-Vatican II) to Eastern rite with copious Latinisations (post-Vatican II).  The Syro-Malankara Catholics have an entirely different history.  But in both cases, their jurisdiction was limited to "traditional territories".  Any pastoral ministry outside those very limited boundaries had to be conducted under the Roman aegis, using the Roman rite, etc., even if the people doing the work were Eastern Catholics.  And this didn't seem to bother anyone.  I know of a Syro-Malabar religious priest, now deceased, who spent almost the entirety of his forty plus years as a priest within the Roman rite.  I also know a Syro-Malankara priest who is pastor of a large RC parish near to where I live...not sure how/when/if he manages to serve in his own tradition, or if it's even a big deal to him.   

I wonder if a fierce attachment to liturgical rite, autonomy, etc. among those in "EO" lands played a role in this.  My limited experience with "Oriental Catholics" is that they're "Catholic" (read: Papist) before anything else.  I don't think they'd be bothered too much if the Roman rite was imposed on them either from within or without.  Most of the ones I personally know are functionally Roman rite anyway.  If the sui iuris Churches were shut down and their members were all forced into the local RC dioceses, I don't think very many would fight over it.  The "Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics", on the other hand, seem to identify more with being Eastern rather than "Catholic", no matter how many Latinisations they accepted/adopted in order to distinguish themselves as "Catholic".  Perhaps the "Byzantine Rite" needed to be promoted more heavily among the Eastern Catholics in order to keep them within the Roman communion, while the "Oriental Rites" were not in as much danger of defecting. 

Totally conjecture, so I could be wrong, but there it is.         
 

Eurasian

Newbie
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter J said:
JoeS2 said:
Papist said:
Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.
If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.
I think you're misreading Papist's statement. He didn't say that an Eastern Catholic needs a canonical transfer to attend a Latin parish, or vice versa.
You don't need a canonical transfer to receive communion at an Eastern parish as a Latin, or vice versa. The different sui iuris churches have somewhat different church disciplines, though, for example regarding fasting, holy days of obligation, marriage and ordination, etc. Your canonical enrollment determines which disciplines are binding on you. There are rules about canonical transfers to prevent cherry picking or transferring for trivial reasons. It's more about maintaining disciplines (both Eastern and Western) than anything else. That is at least how I understand it.
 

Dominika

Merarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
8,212
Reaction score
548
Points
113
Age
30
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
I don't want to start a separate thread, so I've chosen this one.

I've found a video from Nativity Coptic Catholic Liturgy and would like to know any differences from the original eg. Orthodox rite.

What I notice is:
1. The byzantine headgear of the patriarch
2. No iconostasis
3. Gregorian date of the feast
4. Much more Arabic than Coptic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGHV-8EOKwo
 
Top