From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I am Latin Catholic and my wife is Ukrainian Greek Catholic.
Our fourth child was born recently. We would have liked to have our child be baptized utilizing the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, but despite the desire of our pastor and the chancery to grant this to our family, they feel that Traditionis Custodes too severely restricts the sacraments in this regard.
We are going to have the child baptized (though, not confirmed or communed) utilizing the Rite in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church but not have the child be Ukrainian Greek Catholic and remain Latin Catholic.
My question is: how do we get the baptismal records to reflect that the child is Latin Catholic and for that record to be stored at the Latin Rite parish?
The sooner we are emancipated from that dreadful act of cruelty that is Taurina cacata the better.
Since the promulgation of the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), some things which were murky have become clearer. One of those things is what canon law refers to as “ritual Church ascription.”
Every Catholic is, at the time of his or her baptism, ascribed to a Church sui iuris. In the old days, they were sometimes called “Rites” but the new terminology is clearer. A rite is way of celebrating the liturgy. A Church is an institution with its own laws, customs, and practices. There can be multiple rites within one Church sui iuris (for example, the Latin Church has the Roman Rite, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites Etc.) There can be multiple Churches which use the same or (same-ish) rite (for example the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church both use the Byzantine Rite).
But I digress.
The CCEO states (can. 29) that a child under the age of 14 is
“ascribed in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father, or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic, or if both parents by agreement freely request it.”
The default position – regardless of what ritual is used for the baptism – is that the child is ascribed to the father’s Church.
The parents could, by mutual agreement, if both are Catholic (as in your case) choose to have their children ascribed to the mother’s Church.
The CCEO doesn’t give specifics of how this is to be recorded. Falling back on the ancient axiom “scripta manet” is probably best to have it in writing.
You can perhaps do this. Both of you, father and mother, sign a note stating your desire to have little “Eusebius” ascribed to the Latin Church. Ask the Ukrainian pastor to note that in the baptismal register of the Ukrainian parish. The record would be kept at the Ukrainian parish where the baptism took place, not at the Latin parish. It would be possible, if the pastor agrees, to make a notation in the Latin register along the lines of this:
BORGIA, Eusebius, born 4 July 2025 to Rodrigo Borgia and Sophia (née) Kravchenka, was baptized on 29 September 2025 at St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Church in Pigs’s Eye, Minnesota, by Msgr. Stephen Knapp. By agreement of the parents and in accord with can. 29 of the CCEO the child is ascribed to the Latin Church of his father.
Loading ...
Do the Ukrainians do baptism without chrismation? I thought the two usually went together. And in that case, the child would not (should not) receive confirmation in the Latin Rite since chrismation is confirmation.
I feel for the question submitter – it has become commonplace in our TLM community to go to the ICKSP parishes around us for baptism and confirmation. Ends up further isolating the TLM community from the broader parish, and asking newly postpartum moms to sit in a car with their newborn for an hour to recieve baptism is a real suffering.
Also has the weird effect of giving the administrator types who look at parish statistics some ammo to argue there are no more baptisms in the TLM community as other parishes… despite the fact that the narthex of the TLM is a veritable zoo on Sunday (I say that with a smile as parent of 2 of the worst-offending “animals” and another 4 impecably-behaved older kids :D).
“We are going to have the child baptized (though, not confirmed or communed) utilizing the Rite in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.”
This can’t be done. Chrismation (confirmation) is an intrinsic part of the Byzantine Rite baptismal rite, and cannot be omitted for any reason whatsoever. I suppose one might omit immediate post-Baptismal first Holy Communion – it was done for the past couple of centuries to show “we’re not Orthodox” – but it has been restored to it, and I don’t see why anybody, cleric or layman, would wish to would mangle the rite (or “initiatory process”) in this way. There is certainly a risk in such circumstances for a child to be confirmed twice, one at Baptism and once in the Latin Church years latter. There is also the fact that a baptized and christmated infant is fully entitled to receive communion from that point onward from a sacramental perspective, which would no doubt cause needless confusion in a Latin Catholic context.
I share Quodscripsi61’s curiosity.
In the East, chrismation (confirmation) and communion are integral parts of the singular initiation rite. They are all done together, one after the other. With all the progress the Eastern Churches have made against Latinization in the last century, I would find it surprising if a priest was permitted — much less desired — to only do half the initiation rite. I am not sure how this would even be done from a liturgical standpoint.
While the West deserves to have its historical rites restored to their historical forms and proper contents, I would find it equally scandalous if the Eastern rites were — pardon me — bastardized in order to conform to Western ways of doing things. Methinks it would be better to join the sui juris church for the love of the thing itself, not to change the rites that others love and value in order to get around some unwanted other thing.
Ukrainian Greek-Catholic priest here. At least according to the Slavonic liturgical books (I am not sure about various more modern editions and usages), there appears to be no rubric which allows the priest the ability to impart baptism without also necessarily imparting Chrismation. The former is necessarily connected with the latter. In the case given here, without the faculty to chrismate/confirm a Latin subject, the priest is normatively obliged to direct the family, which seeks canonical ascription in the Latin Church, to receive baptism from their proper (Latin) pastor.
“I suppose one might omit immediate post-Baptismal first Holy Communion”
Usually on the first Sunday after the Baptism, or, if the Baptism takes place during the Sunday Liturgy, at communion during that Liturgy (the neophyte usually being the first one to be communed at that Liturgy).
Father Z, this entry in your blog illustrates your desire and determination to be a real Priest.
I was wondering about Father Matlak’s point. I have a cousin who years ago adopted a little Russian girl who of course had been baptized and confirmed and had been regularly receiving Holy Communion while at an orphanage in Russia.
It caused a lot of problems so they left the Church. (She did not believe anyway.) It seems the priest would not allow her to participate with her friends in first communion, which upset the little girl who probably had not received in The Catholic Church anyway. It just seems to me a good priest could find a way to work around this. If Father Matlak is correct and I don’t doubt he is, then the child could have this sticky, but in my opinion small problem in the future.
Perhaps in the glow of the post-Conciliar SplendorOfTheRenewal™ they’d have found a way to do this without batting an eye… but now that the hangover’s worn-off and the Orientals have seen through the smoke… not so much. It is a hazard of being Catholics – regardless of Rite or geography – that we don’t get to make it up as we go along ;-)
All this reminds me that during Covid, live streamed Masses with no congregations were broadcast from behind locked doors with the sacra-pop tune “All Are Welcome” sung unironically. But ironic it was.
And today, all are welcome, except those icky traddies…
A disturbing issue has come about in recent years among Traditional Orders. Some Traditional Order not accepting the baptism of other Traditional orders.
I find this ridiculous. Some young Men entering the Priesthood are taken to task because their
Baptism wasn’t done by an “regularized” Order. Priest were all valid and given Faculties by local Bishop.
I’ve never heard anything about that. It seems dubious.
Another option could be to invite a priest from the Fraternity of Saint Peter or Institute of Christ the King — assuming the family is within some sort of driving distance to host such clergy for a day or two — and receive consent from the chancery and pastor for that priest to administer the baptism at your parish. Lots of coordination in that package, but it is a route that would check all the boxes.
In the case given here, without the faculty to chrismate/confirm a Latin subject, the priest is normatively obliged to direct the family, which seeks canonical ascription in the Latin Church, to receive baptism from their proper (Latin) pastor.
Could one just not be ascribed into the Eastern Rite, and then later on request to be ascribed into the Latin Rite?
Many thanks for this post – and comments!
Are there Latin Bishops who do not recognize Ukrainian Greek Catholic or other “Eastern” Churchs’ – or, for that matter, Greek, Russian, etc. Orthodox – Chrismation as a form of Confirmatio?
In cases like that discussed by ProfessorCover, might not participation in a “First Communion” by such a child be treated as effectively a “Solemn Communion” in line with Quam singulari?
“Could one just not be ascribed into the Eastern Rite, and then later on request to be ascribed into the Latin Rite?”
No, in general bishops will only entertain one canonical transfer in your lifetime. The exception being if you were transfered away from the church of your baptism in your childhood (under 14) because your father transferred. In this case, you are allowed to transfer back to the church of your baptism as an adult. So if one petitions to become Eastern Catholic and it is accepted, this is a permanant decision unless some extraordinary circumstance presents itself. “I didn’t like Novus Ordo baptisms” isn’t even close to the entertained list of exceptions.
To the question asker: As others as said, wishing to have an Eastern/Byzantine Catholic priest baptize your child and NOT chrismate them is a grave abuse. They are not to be seperated in the Byzantine rites. If we say the black and do the red in the Latin rite, then we need to respect the Eastern churches as well and not ask them to break their own laws.
No Eastern priest should agree to this. And if the priest is so Latinized that he does agree to it, that man’s bishop should be contacted so the priest can be corrected.
The sacraments are not ours to pick and choose from. If you are a Latin Catholic then a Latin priest should baptize the child if you want it done according to the Latin laws. If you don’t want the child chrismated/confirmed as an infant, then one should not ask a Byzantine priest to do it.
If a Novus Ordo baptism is so off-putting to you that you want the Ukranian priest to do it, then accept that they will be christmated. They will still be ascribed to the Latin church if the father is canonically Latin.
“Are there Latin Bishops who do not recognize Ukrainian Greek Catholic or other “Eastern” Churchs’ – or, for that matter, Greek, Russian, etc. Orthodox – Chrismation as a form of Confirmatio?”
Not to my knowledge. All Eastern Catholic and Orthodox sacraments are accepted by the Latin church unless there is proof that they were invalid.