It may seem an odd forum in which to post this, but it concerns the pastoral care of Coptic Catholic communities in the diaspora.

An August article from the newspaper of the Nashville Latin Diocese, on the occasion of Patriarch Antonios' visit to the community there.

Nashville’s Coptic Catholics celebrate visit by patriarch

Many years,

Neil

Just appoint one, and tell Rome about it . . .later. Nothing will happen. I guarantee it.

Perhaps they're concerned with honoring the wishes and norms of the community that is hosting them. The cardinal certainly mentioned his gratitude for their assistance.

Yes, the local Coptic Catholic community should be grateful - but their gratitude ought not include exclusion of a married priest from serving their community. I should hope their host community would not condition their support by obliging the Copts to set aside their tradition of married clergy.

"The wheels on the bus go round and round...." Sigh, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its errors.

Frankly, when I read stuff like this,I tend to sigh, think about the struggles of my grandparents and give a nod to the Orthodox hard-liners. For all of the mutual understanding and attempts to reduce the issues which separate us by commissions etc... I read things like this and I honestly don't know what to say.

This in the face of the reality that the BCC and UGCC churches here are quietly using married clergy.

That should not matter. What a handful of Copts do will not affect celibacy among the Latin clergy--especially as the married Latin priests in this country (100+ and rising) outnumber all the Eastern Catholic priests in any Eastern Catholic jurisdiction.

Don't forget the Melkites, who started it all--and are not that quiet about it. In reading the first Encyclical of Archbishop Nicholas, our pastor amplified on the Archbishop's statement, "We need priests" by adding, "This includes married men, too. Look at Father Ephrem, who has a wife and family. Being married does not exclude you from becoming a priest".

I think I would die of shock to hear such words from the mouth of a Ruthenian priest speaking from the Ambo.

Sorry, I do forget about you Melkites, as we have none nearby.

And I have to say that if the new pastor at Holy Spirit BCC here in Binghamton would say anything to the contrary, his people would think him nuts. (He's married, with a Pani and a son.)

By the way, my son, an Orthodox seminarian, recently attended the Presov concert. He is knowledgeable about the history of the schisms and his grandparents etc... He asked me a great question.

How can you give an HONEST answer to a young American Greek Catholic boy with a vocation about celibacy when, with his own eyes he sees Seminarians of the same faith from Europe NOT confronted with this problem and he sees, hears and learns from married, albeit of European origin, priests in his own home parish? How do you convince such a boy that this is neither arbitrary or defensible in the historical context of the unions and the concept of 'sui juris' and local church canons? I had no answer for my son, I suggested he ask a BCC priest next time he struck up a conversation with him. Any takers?

I can speak to the local community. The Latin diocese of Nashville has been very open to accommodating St. Nicholas Ukrainian Greek Catholic mission here, and we are served entirely by married clergy. To my knowledge there has never been a complaint or concern about the fact that the clergy that fly/drive into Nashville are married. As an additional data point, there is at least one married Latin priest in the diocese of Nashville, maybe more.

Furthermore the current pastor (Fr. David Perkin) was the pastor when St. Nicholas regularly met at that Church (St. Patrick's), and he seemed to get along great with the married clergy, and even concelebrated once or twice. I highly doubt it is a parish issue either.

In short, I highly doubt the issues, whatever they are, stem from the Nashville community.

Justin

That is great to hear. Thanks!

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Why do the Copts not have an Exarch now. If they have 5 parishes here in the U.S. and a couple in Canada. They have the same numbers as the Syriac Catholic do who have an Eparchy. One of the weaknesses with our Churches is that we wait for Rome's permission to organize and serve our people. It should be even with one Church we should have exarchs and eparchs to serve our people.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Stuart,

Dying to read this encyclical! Where can we find it?!

Then for whatever reason, the limitation must be self imposed.

It was read from the Ambo and then distributed after Liturgy last Sunday. It is not yet up on the website for the Eparchy of Newton. Wait a week or so.

Let's keep a few things in mind. Not that I particularly want to do so, but reality is reality ...

Neither the Diocese of Nashville nor any other Latin diocese in the US has any say over whether a UGCC mission set up w/in its georgraphic bounds is served by a married or celibate priest. If a US-based eparch sees a need to establish a mission for his faithful, he advises the local Latin hierarch of his intent. End of story.

When the mission involved is that of a Church w/o a jurisdiction in the US - Copts, Ethiopians, Italo-Greek Albanians, Russians, or even Malankara (an exarch lacks the authority of an eparch), the Latin bishop does have a say - b/c, whether we like it or not, that mission is canonically responsible to him and the priest assigned to it, on loan or whatever, will be his responsibility. And, I offer that comment w/ no intention of disparaging the Bishop of Nashville who, from all reports, is supportive of this community, as he has been of others before it.

However, I've no doubt that - if the question arose - he would likely consider it politic to have the blessing of higher authority to accept such a priest into his jurisdiction - because it would be into his jurisdiction - not the Patriarch's.

Frankly, the Copts could probably import a married priest from the Old Country and have no issue b/c Cum Data Fuerit was not ever applicable to them specifically, even if it were able to be argued that it was still in force. However, I doubt that there are a lot of married Coptic priests in Egypt who are prepared or able to be transplanted w/ family in tow. Note that what HB would like to do is ordain a married Copt already living here - someone who has the language skills and a way to support his family and that is what he feels that he cannot do.

Why? Who knows? Maybe b/c he has been told that he cannot do so - and it is no secret that the Patriarchs and hierarchs of the Oriental Churches, with all due respect, are more beholden to Rome than their Byzantine counterparts. It is all well and good for those here who do not have to function in that role to opine on what the incumbents should or should not do - but, none of us is privy to why they think or do or say what they do. So, ...

It's also rather easy to say 'just appoint one' - it smacks of the SSPX and would likely see the same consequences. So, let's be realistic. This is a Church of 163,000 - only the Syriacs have fewer faithful among the patriarchal Churches and among the non-patriarchal Byzantine Churches only the Greeks, Croats, Italo-Albanians, and Albanians (the latter of whom will likely be of blessed memory in the next 50 years) have less.

Shawn,

The Copts do not have 5 parishes in the US - they have 2 parishes: Resurrection in Brooklyn; and, St Mary's in LA.

There are 3 - perhaps 4, 'communities'. Last I was able to determine, those in NJ are served by Brooklyn - to which they travel for Divine Liturgy - they do not have any services on their home ground. The priest from Brooklyn travels to Nashville once every two to three months to serve a Divine Liturgy.

I'm still trying to track down the reference made to Boston. Although I won't be surprised to find a community here, as there is a large Coptic Orthodox community with a couple of parishes, I am unaware of any Coptic Catholic mission or parish. I suspect that the priest from Resurrection in Brooklyn is, likewise, traveling here once every two or three months.

At the time of the last Patriarchal visit to the US, Chicago was one of the stops and a plea was made for a priest to be sent. My recollection is that the Patriarch indicated that he was unable to do so, but offered no detail. I think it is telling that Chicago was not referenced this time as being one of the major US locations for Catholic Copts, suggesting that the community may have been subsumed into the Coptic Orthodox Church.

So, the short of it is that there are 4 parishes between the US and Canada - barely less than the Syriacs? Yes, but it took the Syriacs and Armenians a century before they had a hierarch in the US. It took the Melkites and Maronites 75 years to do so. All of them lost faithful in that time - to the Orthodox Churches, to the Latins, to the Protestants, even to one another (there are significant numbers of persons with historically Syriac surnames in Melkite parishes to this day).

Will the Copts do likewise? Yes. Have they? I am sure they have. The Ethiopians and Eritreans certainly have - and the latter also have no hierarch, despite having more parishes/missions and decidely more communities in the US and Canada than the Copts, Syriacs, or Armenians.

Many years,

Neil

The Copts dont sound to be experienced in setting up Exarchates outside the Patriarchate and may benefit from some co working with those churches to whom this is old hat. I feel that Rome would set up one as soon as one was requested from the Patriarchate. Only good things will flow on from that one act.

You're right on that count, Paul - they have no jurisdictions outside the patriarchate except a vicar in Lebanon, as I recollect - and I can't remember if it's a presbyter or a bishop. I agree that nothing is going to happen w/o a request by them to Rome - doubt very much that Rome will act on its own initiative.

Many years,

Neil

The Coptic Catholics in America should ask to have themselves put under the omophorion of the Melkite Archbishop of Newton.

Yes, they should. I wish that Ruthenian Catholics in America were under the omophorion of the Melkite Archbishop of Newton.

Why in the world the Copts in the US should, would, or could be placed under the omophorion of the Melkite Eparch is beyond me. There is no ritual tie and the epachy is already stretched thin as regards staffing and resources. The premise makes no sense.

If one suggested placing the Russians formally under the Melkite Eparchy - and the Italo-Greek-Albanians likewise - both ecclesia with which the Melkites share Rite and to which they have ties, I could understand that. (We have, as memory serves, one priest - possibly two - who speak Egyptian Arabic. That's as close a connection as one can manage to make.)

To suggest that the Copts or Ethiopians would be well-served by such is fantasy based on a premise that we have all the answers and can be all things to all people. Neither is the case.

Many years,

Neil

Because (a) the Copts and the Melkites share a common culture; (b) though they are of different rites, the Copts and the Melkites are both Eastern Christians, sharing certain common beliefs, assumptions and practices; (c) the Melkite Patriarchate had a strong presence in Egypt until the 1960s (and there may still be Melkite communities there today). Though Egyptian Arabic is different from Syrian Arabic, they are still closer than Egyptian Arabic and English.

(a) We don't
(b) So are those of 19 other Churches
(c) There are (the Patriarch has a vicar in Alexandria) - but we're not talking Egypt, we're talking the USA)
(d) I'll give you that one, but there is a single Chaldean Jesuit eparch in the Middle East who serves in Arabic - should he be placed under the Melkite patriarchal omophorion?
(e) I'll also give you the fact that, IIRC, one Melkite hieromonk in the US entered communion with Antioch from Coptic Orthodoxy - maybe we should trade him and a deacon to be named later for ... I dunno, an Egyptian menu item at the next food fair?

To my mind, it still doesn't compute.

Many years,

Neil

If you insist. On (b), I think in principle it would be better for those Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. that lack hierarchy be placed under the pastoral care of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches that does, rather than under a Latin ordinary--but that might just be my residual Ruthenian bias.

I don't quite understand (a). Yes, Syrian and Egypt are different countries that speak a different dialect of Arabic, but they are both part of the wider Arab world. Was pre-Nasser Egypt so ethnically divided that the Copts were found only in upper Egypt, and the Melkites only in Alexandria and lower Egypt? What about that famous theological school in Cairo?

On (d), the Chaldean Eparch is the hierarch of the Chaldean Catholic Eparchy in Egypt, so why would he need to be placed under another hierarch? He answers to the primate of the Chaldean Catholic Church.

This, in fact, was occurring. The late Metropolitan Basil of Pittsburgh had become the "point man" for the Vatican's Oriental Congregation in dealing with some of the non-Byzantine-but-Eastern Catholic Churches in the United States, especially those who did not have a U.S. based hierarchy.

Would be nice to have a Metropolitan again.

It would be nice to have the right Metropolitan.

Hah. I try not to ask for too much.

Stuart,

I was being a bit facetious in that response. My point was that the Eparch in question (who is not in Egypt) serves exclusively in Arabic - the sole Chaldean Eparch who does so (it is my recollection that he cannot serve in Syriac because he does not speak it).

Many years,

Neil

ACROD seconds sentiment that for itself!

Whatever the reasons, it would seem somebody doesn't want to see this mission have the best possible chances of being successful.

One must remember that the Coptic Catholic Church, as well as the Syriac and Ethiopian Catholic Churches all adopted celibacy as normative for those aspiring to the presbyterate with the Patriarch, and in the case of the Ethiopians the Metropolitan, able to dispense from this requirement. The CCEO did not abrogate the particular law of these Churches nor that of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Catholic Churches, which voluntarily adopted mandatory celibacy for the presbyterate. In addition, the Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Catholic Churches seem fine with using only celibate priests in their diaspora eparchies/exarchates. Only the Melkites, Ukrainians and Romanians have championed the issue of ordaining married candidates in the diaspora with the Ruthenians sheepishly entering the waters.

So as noted, Rome says nothing to those Eastern Catholic Churches who ordain married candidates in the diaspora but it also does nothing to encourage Eastern Catholic Churches who have adopted celibacy in whole or part to return to the tradition of a married presbyterate or to eliminate the confusion some have on whether there is or is not a ban still in force. What rebuke did the Italian Bishops Conference receive for telling the Romanian Greek Catholic Church it could not send married priests to Italy? Rome is just fine with the status quo which is the majority of Eastern Catholic Churches not having married priests outside the homeland.

It is here the Orthodox could help us. Instead of calling for our dissolution they should demand that as a condition of continued dialogue Rome unequivocally declare that the Eastern Catholic Churches can ordain married candidates anywhere and that the diaspora eparchies are immediately under the jurisdiction of their own chief Hierarch and Synod rather than the Pope through the Oriental Congregation.

Sad, but true.




Spot on Fr. Deacon Lance!!

The words of Patriarch Gregory of Antioch come to mind from his speech Ecclesiology and Ecumenism addressed to, I believe, Pope Benedict:

The problem lies in the principle, how would Rome react if the Melkites decided that no celibate Latin priest can function within their jurisdiction without the Patriarch's "dispensation"? How does this act treat all Churches as fully "in Communion"? The line "with friends like that who needs enemies" comes to mind...
The problem lies in putting up arbitrary constructs which prevent the full function of one's Church. I'd like to see the Byzantines go after Latin's in their territory for using unleavened hosts, or facing the 'wrong' way at Mass and see how Rome reacts. Just because one can does not mean one should.

This is an instance in which I think the Pope is remiss not by doing too much, but by doing too little.

Orientale Lumen was a good step in encouraging the Eastern Catholic Churches to reclaim their patrimony, but clearly some of these churches are still having a problem in that regard - my own included. That this is allowed to remain the status quo in my mind is a disservice.

Should we need the Pope in order to reclaim our patrimony? No, and there are EC churches that have done so on their own accord. But if the Pope won't correct our wayward leadership, how is he serving us?

Well, being Pope of Rome is a thankless task as well as a major pain in the toe...he has so many irons in the fire. I bet there are days when he doesn't know if he's coming or going.

Just now he has a golden opportunity to appoint an effective, Eastern-oriented "we-ain't-apologisin'-one-bit-for-who-we-are" metropolitan for the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in the USA. Sure hope he takes advantage of it but may God's Will be done. I hope we pray for the Pope not only during the Liturgy but in personal, private prayer as well.

I've discovered that God's Will often contradicts what I think is best...maybe that's because I ain't no god. DUH!

Do you know where this fantastic, mythical creature can be found?