www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Armenian Apostolic Church

I am a Roman Catholic who is interested in attending an Armenian Liturgy.
The closest parish is Armenian Apostolic. If I attend I would like to
receive Eucharist. I heard from someone that all baptized Christians
whether they are Catholic, Protestant, etc. are allowed by the Armenians
to receive the Eucharist. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, I
believe it is good. I am just wondering how the Armenians permit this when
the Copts who are in communion with them won't allow a Catholic to
approach the Eucharist unless they are re-baptized and
re-confirmed/chrismated into the Coptic Church. Thank you for any info.


In Christ,


Anthony

Dear Anthony,

The best thing would be to approach the Reverend Father Pastor and put this question to him.

One Orthodox bishop I approached on this issue spent some time in conversation with me.

He not only allowed me to go to Communion, he blessed me to do so in his Church whenever I wanted to.

Brendan, I believe, can give you the definitive answer.

God bless,

Alex

I have received communion from an Armenian Bishop here in the US. That should settle it. As far as Copts are concerned, an Armenian once jokinly said to a Slavic priest I know, "Copts? They're our Greeks." the joke is they are the most conservative.

The Copts don't really like the fact that the Armenians do things so "differently" but since they agree on the faith, they stay together.

anastasios

It helps if you know an Armenian or have some informed interest in Armenia. Having said that, they are more open than the Orthodox are. Many will require, however, that you have followed the Armenian fast (which is identical to the Orthodox fast -- no food or drink from midnight Saturday).

When we have attended Armenian apostolic liturgies (as Catholics) we never approached the chalice. We didn't think it was appropriate, given the separation that exists.

Brendan

>>>When we have attended Armenian apostolic liturgies (as Catholics) we never approached the chalice. We didn't think it was appropriate, given the separation that exists.

The point of view that you espouse I understand, but disagree with. I agree with the Assyrian Church of the East that once there is a common faith re:the Eucharist, sharing will bring the unity; I don't believe we should put the sharing off until the agreement. If we don't receive together, I don't think we can ever be one. But I recognize this is my opinion.

anastasios

Dustin --

I understand your opinion. It is a respectable one.

My own opinion is that this is premature where there is an existing separation. To me, both parties have to have the pre-existing commitment to the one same faith in order for common Eucharistic celebrations, not to mention Eucharistic sharing, to be appropriate. The Eucharist creates unity, reinforces it, but it also reflects unity -- that is, there must be unity before we can join together and celebrate the one Eucharist together, we must be in unity for the manifestation of this unity, for its perfection, to be, in fact, true.

I think that, regardless of our opinions, it's largely an academic issue, really, because Orthodoxy will never allow intercommunion generally until there is at least dogmatic unity. Surely there may be pastoral exceptions made, rarely and quietly -- but generally the answer will be "no" until we have reached substantial dogmatic unity.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Am I correct in understanding that Intercommunion, as it is understood by Holy Orthodoxy, is based not only on dogmatic unity, but on actual unity between Churches?

In other words, the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox may agree, on the level of theology, on everything.

Yet, until a mutual act of reconciliation is made between the Churches, effectively uniting them, they are still separate, even though they may come to believe in the same faith beforehand.

Some might argue that such substantial dogmatic unity already exists between some Churches or some members of Churches.

There are Byzantine Catholics I know and who post on this Forum who would regard themselves already in substantial dogmatic agreement with Orthodoxy - then what is barring them from going to Communion regularly in an Orthodox Church? Is it not that they are not formally Orthodox?

God bless,

Alex

"Am I correct in understanding that Intercommunion, as it is understood by Holy Orthodoxy, is based not only on dogmatic unity, but on actual unity between Churches?"

Yes, that's right. My point was that we're not going to be close to intercommunion until Rome and Orthodoxy are as dogmatically close as Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy presently are. And on that last point, there are a number of Orthodox who would, today, communicate Oriental Orthodox openly. Many more than would communicate Roman Catholics or Eastern Catholics.

"There are Byzantine Catholics I know and who post on this Forum who would regard themselves already in substantial dogmatic agreement with Orthodoxy - then what is barring them from going to Communion regularly in an Orthodox Church? Is it not that they are not formally Orthodox?"

In answering this legitimate question, I always revert back to a fascinating passage in Bishop Kallistos conversion story. He relates that when he was an Orthodox-leaning Anglican, regularly attending Orthodox liturgies, reading the Holy Fathers and Orthodox theology, etc., he once asked Fr. Lev Gillet, who sometimes spoke at gatherings of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, what was required in order to be Orthodox. Fr. Lev (a former Greek Catholic himself) responded that adherence to the Orthodox faith *and* living that faith in communion with an Orthodox Bishop were necessary. I always found this interesting, because Fr. Lev was, of course, anything but anti-ecumenical.

Brendan