Roman Catholic registered in an Eastern parish

Hey, as a Roman Catholic…I can register as a parishioner in an Eastern Catholic parish but I would still retain my latin rite, correct? I just registered at a UGCC parish, but I just want to verify that I will not run into problems later on by doing this.

I think the only issue is that I would need the Byzantine pastor to vouch for me to the Latin church that I am a practicing Catholic if I planed to get married some day, correct? From my friends (all Latins) who have been getting married lately they said that the parishes are being really strict about being registered in the parish AND being an “active member” (which really means giving money through a verifiable means such as check) for even up to a year.

I have been going to this parish for a few years anyway, and now I am actually able to go there a few times a week due to my schedule, so I figure…why not just register.

I do know that I have to keep an eye on the Latin obligation days and fast days so I don’t miss those. That is usually not to hard though as this Eastern parish follows the Gregorian Calendar…and their rules are generally stricter.

It would surprise me if a Latin Rite Catholic could register at UGCC parish, unless the “registration” for them is not a matter of parish membership but just an informal email list or something. We Latin Rite Catholics can of course attend Eastern Catholic liturgies, fulfill our Sunday obligation by doing so, and receive communion from them, but membership in a parish to me implies entering under the authority of the bishop who has authority over that parish, and that means what is commonly called changing rites, which requires permission from both your old Latin bishop and your new Eastern bishop.

Then surprised you shall be.

I did it years ago, and it is very common. I am quite certain that a number of the regular posters here in this section of CAF are (or have been) Latin Catholics registered in Eastern Catholic parishes.

The reverse is also extremely common, perhaps moreso. It is very likely that the majority of canonically Byzantine Catholics in north America are registered in Latin rite parishes. Some of these people may not actually be aware that they are canonically eastern rite, but have family legends about Christmases and Easters at great grandpa’s house that were so different because he was ‘Russian’.

Hi Tradycja,

No, you will not.

Well, that would be the same regardless of which parish you were registered in, I imagine. So then, you can get that verification from a Roman Catholic rectory at the parish you attend, or from a Ukrainian Catholic rectory at the parish you attend. Either way depending on where you attend.

I have done this, and it is unnecessarily complicating. You should ask for a blessing to follow one calendar and get on with the business of living a normal Christian life and growing in it.

Ok, thanks for the help. You know I think the situation is so bad nowadays that priests are just happy that people are going to church…period. I grew up going to “Catholic” schools and only TWO of my classmates that I have met over the years from grade and high school even go to church anymore. I have come to the conclusion that it most latin rite novus ordo parishes are spiritually and psychologically harmful, not to mention the confession schedules are pathetic.

So am I going there to avoid the latin rite’s bad liturgies and teaching? That is a big part of it… after all I have to focus on saving my soul first. But I do actually prefer the DL to the TLM. Let’s put it like this…if there were a TLM chapel and a Ukrainian Church right next door to each other…I would go to the Ukrainian Church.

I also know a bit of Ukrainian (at least I can read the alphabet and understand the prayers) and have read the lives of Blessed Leonid Feodorov, Metropolitan Andrew, and Patriarch Josef Slipyj. Not to mention I have been to Lviv…:thumbsup:

Luckily the priests at this Ukrainian parish are young, dynamic and really cool. One even told me in confession that I need to get out to adoration and rebuked me for neglecting my daily Rosary. :thumbsup:

I agree with the SSPX in the sense that I do there is an “emergency situation” in the Church. To me though the emergency situation does not make it okay to ordain priests without papal mandate or to go to priests without jurisdiction…which is why the SSPX is not an option for me. I would never go to a priest that is not in good standing with Rome…even if a lot of what is going on in Rome is messed up.

Huh. Then I take it either registration in a parish is not linked to membership in that parish or else membership in a parish is not linked to membership in a diocese?

As another poster has already said, you may do it, and it should not cause any problems. But keep in mind that by “registering” in a UGCC parish (or any parish, even a Latin one, for that matter), one does not become a parishioner in the canonical sense. Someone of the Latin Church canonically remains a parishioner for of his/her geographical (aka territorial) parish, unless (a) the person moves to another geographical jurisdiction or (b) the person enrolls in a “personal parish” or © the person officially becomes a member of another Church “sui juris” (it was so much easier before “Rite” was declared to be politically incorrect but I digress). That’s not to say that a person remains obligated to the territorial parish, but the person is still under the canonical jurisdiction of that parish in matter such as Matrimony and Holy Orders. The only way to canonically become a member of the UGCC parish would be to transfer Churches.

I realize that some “armchair canonists” will disagree, but as it has been explained to me (by real canoists), when a person adopts the practice of another Church (even without an official transfer of Churches), he/she is bound by the rules of the Church which he/she has adopted. IOW, for example, a Latin who is “enrolled” in and habitually frequents a UGCC parish is bound by the rules of the UGCC. He/she need not worry about “two sets of rules” as long as those of the adopted Church are followed.

Canon law notes that participation in a particular ritual church, no matter how long-standing, does not confer canonical membership in that ritual church. Only a specific request does so.

One remains subject to one’s canonical bishop until that request is made.

Likewise, if you reside in, say, Talkeetna (Archdiocese of Anchorage), but due to work, attend and register in Nenanna (Diocese of Fairbanks), you’re still subject to the Archdiocese, not the Diocese of Fairbanks. (I knew a Trucker who resided in Eagle River, but was registered in Fairbanks - Saturdays were drive up to fairbanks, sundays drive back, but he was able to make morning mass before leaving.)

I realize that some “armchair canonists” will disagree, but as it has been explained to me (by real canoists), when a person adopts the practice of another Church (even without an official transfer of Churches), he/she is bound by the rules of the Church which he/she has adopted. IOW, for example, a Latin who is “enrolled” in and habitually frequents a UGCC parish is bound by the rules of the UGCC. He/she need not worry about “two sets of rules” as long as those of the adopted Church are followed.

Ok, but the question is…I can still follow my latin rite days of obligation and fast days and be okay right? In a sense I am not really “adopting the practice of the sui juris Church” but really just wanting to support officially the priests who give me sacraments as well as have a parish that can vouch for me that I am a practicing Catholic in the case that I someday get married. My territorial parish has ecumenical Thanksgiving day services with Muslims…sorry I am not giving a CENT to that Church.

This is an unknown to most Latin Church Catholics in the US at least. :slight_smile: I would say in the Latin parish I regularly attend probably 75% of the parishioners live in the boundaries of a different geographical (aka territorial) parish, and nearly never, or never set foot in the church where they are parishioners according to the geographical (aka territorial), canonical, definition It’s certainly the case with many other Latin Church parishes, if not most, around here.

With some notable exceptions in the East and Mid-West US I doubt most diocese in the US have an EC parish. My EC parish is in the Archdiocese across the Bay. The other “local” EC parishes are likewise in two other diocese.

I would agree with your statement that you are not really “adopting the practice of the sui juris Church” if what you say here is what brings you to register as a parishioner:

  • “I can still follow my latin rite days of obligation and fast days and be okay right?”
  • “really just wanting to support officially the priests who give me sacraments”
  • “have a parish that can vouch for me that I am a practicing Catholic in the case that I someday get married”
  • “My territorial parish has ecumenical Thanksgiving day services with Muslims”
    *"One [UGCC priest] even told me in confession that I need to get out to adoration and rebuked me for neglecting my daily Rosary. :thumbsup:

To me registering as a parishioner indicates a kind of “buy in” with that Eastern Church that is more than you seem interested in. Anger and frustration with the Latin Church are not generally helpful reasons for turning to an ECC, especially when you wish to remain committed to the Latin praxis. This is of course between you and the priest at the parish you want to register in. :slight_smile:

I’m sorry, but how does that work?! :eek:

It’s not anger involved here…it is necessity. It’s not having a place that is nearby and orthodox to go to, having poor confessors, having limited to no confession times, having bad sermons, having to receive communion from “extraordinary ministers,” etc. It is hard enough to keep the faith in this modern world, why would I go to a parish where I am not getting the faith. I mean the most I can hope for from the local Novus Ordo parishes is valid sacraments.

I mean if I drive a bit I do have a place I could go to the TLM, but why bother when there is a perfectly good Ukrainian parish in close vicinity of where I live?

There should be no problem with this. I and my family have been registered for a year now. We’re having another child and we’re having him/her baptized, chrismated, communed in the Byzantine Rite even if we are canonically Latin. I already have cleared this up with our Bishop. Our intention is to stay in the UGCC, but canonical move will come later.

If you want to get married, it may be possible to get married in the Byzantine Rite if you are already practicing there for years. But like what I did for my child’s baptism, clear this up with the Bishop and make sure there are no canonical hurdles. A permission here and there may be needed but it can happen, especially if you’ve been practicing your faith in the Eastern Rite for a while.

Your problems with that church are still your problems.

It is still your church, the church you will hand off to your children some day.

The actual practice falls short of adhering to the canon laws, due to ignorance, although the Cathoic faithful, east and west, have been enjoined, including the clergy, to follow the canons that pertain to them. The late Metopolitan Basil Schott made this point in the introduction to Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics.

clsa.site-ym.com/store/view_product.asp?id=315681

Not following them can actually lead to invalidity of a sacrament, matrimony for example.

I got married to an eastern orthodox christian in a protestant church (Anglican communion) with full and proper dispensation from both the churches: Roman catholic and Orthodox.

Can you fill in the details? I am quite curious …

Who presided? Were you crowned? Did either the Orthodox and/or Catholic bishops give you a letter or something?

The reason I ask is because the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox have two different ideas about how a marriage is confected.

I see that you are in India. Perhaps the Orthodox you are referring to is the St Thomas Oriental Orthodox churches? Was the Catholic church actually a Latin rite church, or the Syro-Malabar or Syro-Malankara church?

What church do you attend now since you have been through that experience?

Thanks

If you cannot do this, then our Communion means nothing.

Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholics are in full Communion and therefore this should be no problem. We are all Catholic.:thumbsup:

For your information, the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara are not churches but break away factions that merged with the Roman catholic Church in the past and allowed to retain their eastern rite. Yes, I belong to Latin rite in the Roman Catholic church which I continue to attend and my wife as well as other members of her church are allowed to attend and receive Holy communion in our church.

My wife’s church is the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church whose Metropolitan signed an agreement with our Pope in June 1984 (interchurchfamilies.org/journal/94su06.shtm). Because of this agreement I could easily obtain written dispensation from my Bishop.

My wife’s church also has separate agreements with Protestant churches for using their ‘church premises’; this is because they have few ‘church premises’ to cater to the needs of their sizable flock. By virtue of this agreement our wedding could be solemnised in a Protestant cathedral.

The only objection came from my mother who insisted that the church must venerate Mother Mary. To our pleasant surprise the Protestant cathedral had a large picture of Mother Mary at a prominent place inside the church.

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.