Different Technicalities

So if from one diocese to another certain things are/are not required ie: certain diocese still have no meat friday a direct requirement vs the alternate options. Some do holy days of obligation on slightly different time. Then there is Eastern vs Western Rite… all 100% catholic but with vast differences in some ways.

Are the items that are true for one but not another “true sins”

An example is Eastern take communion with baptism both eastern Catholic/Orthodox. Since my son was baptized Eastern Orthodox he has had valid sacraments but per my pastor he is to make first communion in the Roman Rite and then be able to partake. While it isn’t an issue, I was just wondering how in one sense he has had a Catholic recognized first communion and simultaneously do to local delegation of certain rules sort of doesn’t. And would him taking it then be actually sinful or sonething less?

And I realize he is a child and therefore wouldn’t be sinning because of ignorance and all that, it is just an example of something where there are two rules in place within the same Religion. It is something that mildly confuses me lol.

Another example is the meat friday thing, if one belonged to a no meat diocese and practiced as the ones who can, would they be truly sinning?

Yes. There is the matter of obedience.

If you eat meat when you are obligated to abstain, you are not guilty of eating meat (an objectively good act). You are guilty of disobedience, and therein lies the sin.

Good info :slight_smile:

I would add a question that popped in my head. Let’s say like a holy day, if me and my fam always celebrated and attended mass in one place and moved for some reason to another, and wanted to adhere to the usual we would be subject to attend both days essentially to live up to diocesan requirements?

And wondering as long as there is a mass on the “alternate” day you are used to attending, could you theoretically get permission to keep your tradition from the bishop or such?

In these cases, you’d only be subject to the authority of your local bishop. If you wanted to attend on the feast day your old parish celebrated then you would be welcome to, but not obligated to. I don’t know about getting permission to worship on a different day, but I doubt it. If you worship on a different day to fulfill some requirement, you’re not really fulfilling the requirement because you are not taking part in the celebration intended by the feast day.

The day of obligation is on a specific day, not to celebrate a specific feast. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but that is the way the law is written. So if there is a day obligation, but say the parish you attend uses the 1962 calendar, you cannot simply skip the day of obligation and substitute the same feast in a different calendar. I believe this was addressed by Ecclesia Dei back in 2008. You are free to attend on the traditional date, but you are not free to move the obligation to another date.

With regard to a Eastern Catholic that was Chrisimated and is no longer allowed to receive the Eucharist in the Latin Church, that is sad. The age of reception is a matter of discipline so there is no absolute reason to bar someone who has already validly received. He has already received his first communion so simply doing it in the Latin church isn’t going to change that; there is no such thing as first Greek or first Latin communion. You either have or have not received the Eucharist.

But if it IS the right day for half if the Catholic Church? That is where it seems odd… sepecially given the tern “Universal” in my heart I am sure God would forgive a legalese issue… but I am wondering from a proper standpoint.

The term “universal” does not equal “uniform”. All 24 Catholic churches are part of the one universal church, but the differences between all of them is mind-boggling.

The “proper” standpoint is that you are bound by both the laws of the universal Church AND your own particular church, which includes the authority if your local Ordinary. One should not worry about what’s the right day for half of the Catholic church. You must worry about the right day that binds for you.

Case in point: Ascension. On the universal calendar, it’s Thursday of the sixth week of Easter. But universal law has given Ordinaries the power to move it to the following Sunday. Therefore, if you live in/move to a diocese where Ascension is moved to Sunday, then there is no more obligation for Thursday and you won’t get Ascension Masses on Thursday (outside of the EF and DW). Even if you moved from a place (not merely travelling, but moving) where Ascension was Thursday and a holy day of obligation, that will no longer bind when you live in your new place.

Hello,

How did it happen that he was baptized Orthodox? (That’s an irrelevant question, I guess, only asked out of curiosity). Is it your intention that he become Latin Catholic or has that already happened? If so, then it does stand to reason that he would follow Latin Catholic law.

He has yet to receive his first Communion in the Catholic Church but there shouldn’t really be any need to delay the event if he is of the normal age for “First Communion.”

In his case, it may be a more solemn event but is not, technically, “First Communion.”

Dan

Prior to birth was when split with the exwife. I didbt see him until the courts got around to the case and made it so. I waited 7 months to get in court… she pretended I didnt exist on everyhtong she could, birth cert, baptism cert… all listed as no father lol… yeah my life. But I have custody now :slight_smile:

Well, I can see the pastor wanting the child to go to First Communion classes and to Confession, or even asking the kid to hold back in order not to scandalize casual observers. But it actually goes against the rules of the Latin/Roman Rite, not to recognize the child’s status as a full okey-dokey communicant.

Sigh. This too shall pass.

I did basically think based on my research he wasn’t really supposed to be dissallowed. But for a 1 yr wait isn’t a big deal (long story short he is a year behind ccd) but I do think it’ll be good for him to actually kbonow what he is doing :slight_smile:

Hello,

Could you point me to the “rules” you mention here? Thanks.

Dan

Idk what he mught know beyond what I understood, but if the Church recognizes any valid sacrament then it is recognized. Ie: baptism, you don’t get “rebaptized” if you had a valud one.

My understanding is that his communion is technically 100% a valud communion. Just as an Eastern Catholic is valid. Idk about any “rule” that would preclude the priest’s decision though as being “bad”.

Now my ex doesnt actively go to church (she only did to look good early days of court) but since he is a minor without full comprhension and decision authority, I believe if she took him he would be wholly safe in attending and recieving communion there. Sort of like an emergency provision for an adult. According to what I read if we could not possibly attend our respective services Catholic/orthodox can in extreme cases use the others.

Yes, he has already been fully initiated into the Christian faith (baptism, confirmation/chrismation, Communion) and a person can only have one “first Communion.” If he, in the future, is taken to an Orthodox Liturgy, he may well receive Communion (although I don’t think they would do that if they knew he was now part of the Catholic Church) but that’s their concern. The Latin Church has a different legal system.

I am simply unaware of “rules” which address this particular circumstance and say that someone such as your son should be able to receive Communion even prior to the normal age in the Latin Church when he himself is a member of the Latin Church. If he was a member of an Eastern Catholic Church, then certainly he should be allowed to receive Communion at any age. …

I would be very happy to learn of these rules, though.

Dan

YES, here is WHY

Acts 20:27-28 [Douay Catholic Bible]
[27] For I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God. [28] Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [29] I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [30] And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."

John 17: 12-22 “While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, [Judas] that the scripture may be fulfilled. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. … Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [HERE JESUSGIVES HIMSELF AS THE WARRANTY OF CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON ALL Faith & Moral issues] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.** And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one”
**

Eph. 2: 20-23 “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, [singular] being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [singular] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.”

Bishops have, similar powers as does the SEE of Peter, BUT on a far more limited scale, limited tohis-assigned- Diocese . The Bishop assumes and is GIVEN the necessary authority to DO what ever HE deems is for the betterment of the Souls of his FLOCK, SO LONG as it aligns fully in the beliefs and practices on Faith & Morals taught by the Magisterium.

**CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND DOGMA ARE UNCHANGEABLE

CATHOLIC PRACTICES ARE CHANGEABLE**

An example is Eastern take communion with baptism both eastern Catholic/Orthodox. Since my son was baptized Eastern Orthodox he has had valid sacraments but per my pastor he is to make first communion in the Roman Rite and then be able to partake. While it isn’t an issue, I was just wondering how in one sense he has had a Catholic recognized first communion and simultaneously do to local delegation of certain rules sort of doesn’t. And would him taking it then be actually sinful or sonething less?

VERY interesting question

It touches on BOTH

Faith beliefs & Practices

And both the Orthodox and the RCC are well within there authority to claim their position.

The Orthodox [seemingly] give communion along with Baptism as a surety; a HELP to the infant to enable them to Grow in there FAITH [ALL God’s doing]

We Catholics hold off Communion until the infant reaches the age of reason [around 7 yrs old], so that the child can take an ACTIVE role [semi-cognizant] of WHAT [WHO] they are participating in.resulting in God working through the child with their consent [or at least knowledge]

And I realize he is a child and therefore wouldn’t be sinning because of ignorance and all that, it is just an example of something where there are two rules in place within the same Religion. It is something that mildly confuses me lol.

It is highly notable HERE that we speak of the SAME-Faith beliefs, but a different form of PRACTICE.

BOTH are to be honored in there respective communities as being RIGHT “for them.”

Another example is the meat Friday thing, if one belonged to a no meat diocese and practiced as the ones who can, would they be truly sinning?

[28] Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

So, NO!

Obeying the chosen PRACTICES of one;s Bishop, who is well within HIS Authority and has from both God’s and the Churches perspective ; total responsibility for the care of the Souls of His Flock.

Religious FAITH & Moral beliefs are God’s and to be obeyed by BOTH, but practices are the domain of the Bishops.:slight_smile:

I pray that this helps you,
Patrick

Dan, would he not automatically belong to an Eastern Church? In which case the laws of the Latin Church would be irrelevant, right?

I just saw this. So, if you are the father, I believe your child would be Latin Rite, even though he was baptized Orthodox. (I am not a canon lawyer, but Dan is, so maybe he can verify.)

This is a somewhat unique situation and your priest is probably just doing the best he can with a situation for which there are no clear guidelines. If this is important to you, perhaps you can arm yourself with information and make an appointment with the priest. Your son has received his first Communion and it really doesn’t make sense to me to wait years for him to receive again. Maybe your pastor has concerns about catechesis and you can address those and assure him that you will enroll him in classes, regardless of whether he has received or not. He’ll still need to prepare for Confession and that preparation is often done at the same time.

How old is your son? Does he have an understanding that he has already received Communion?

That was my thought too, but not sure what happens if you have an Orthodox and Latin catholic parent and a minor is now taken care of by the Latin parent without the Orthodox parent coming into full communion. If I understand Canon 35 of the Eastern Churches correctly, they should retain their rite as much as possible and therefore be enrolled in the corresponding Eastern Catholic church. What is unclear is if a Latin parent can provide the profession to bring the child into full communion in a rite that is not their own. :shrug:

Yeah, he is enrolled, I got the decision when enrolling him. He is 7 so only one year behind. (He is 2nd grade in a class of 1st graders)

He does understand for the most part his pre communion lol… I also don’t fight his mother’s religion or make it a negative. I talk on the similarities and things about a possible future reunion of the schism churches (which would negate all issues lol) and things like that. So he actually has some pride about how despite the mixed religion confusion he is sort of legitimate to both and doesnt feel like he is looked down upon… except some of what my ex says :frowning:

She has gone on the negative side and such and contradicts orthodox teaching just to condradict catholic teaching (ie: he learned it with me so he must be told the opposite by her)

Now we are in a situation where religion is going to be brought up at the next court… so the secular government is actually going to decide what religion my son can be… so that’ll be interesting. On the off chance she wins that, at least I didnt marry a pagan lol

Then it gets murkier as I could legally take him to mass and theologically his sacraments are valid in either. But he would have to leave CCD which he actually loves. He literally was mad at his mom because she wouldnt take him on her Sundays. He looks forward to CCD… so errr there is that crushing of what he loves that she’d do just to get at me.

So a child gets stuck for 18 years in the opposite church of his parent just cause?

Can we not convert rites? Like I can’t become eastern rite etc?

Especially with a non practicing parent involved?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.