www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Melkite Catholic and Antiochian Orthodox Unity?

Andrew,

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree, but I think one has to consider the circumstances. In Birmingham, where there are Baptist churches on every block, there are only 4 Eastern churches - 1 each: Melkite, Maronite, GO, and OCA. I'm guessing, because I don't know the make-up of Saint George's (Melkite), Rose's parish, but I suspect that many of the Orthodox "parishioners" are Syrian or Lebanese who were of the Antiochian or Syrian Orthodox Churches and unserved.

That they would gravitate to a church of their own ethnicity is not new news. It was the story of many of our churches (EC and EO) a century ago and for some time afterwards. Whichever Church built first became everyone's parish, at least until their counterparts arrived.

The history of the Middle Eastern Churches in particular is rife with this type of informal mixing. I recently read the history of a Melkite parish (which one escapes me at the moment) which spoke of the diverse (Melkite, Maronite, and Syriac Catholic, Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox) population that it served for many years, as the sole parish of Arab ethnicity in the area. This history was in a program book for some special occasion, of the type in which ads are sold. Sure enough, among the ads were 3 - from Antiochan and Syrian Orthodox, and Maronite parishes - wishing the Melkite parish well and two referring to it as their "mother parish".

Many years,

Neil

Marduk,

Actually, the PNCC was never formally a member of the Utrecht Confession and never considered itself to be an Old Catholic Church, although it originally obtained its episcopal orders from Utrecht. The determination by Rome that the PNCC has valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments (made at the behest of the USCCB) applies solely to the PNCC�s US jurisdictions.

Rome made no finding with respect to the PNCC jurisdictions that were exported back to Poland. (And is unlikely to do so, unless a circumstance arises where it considers it necessary to do so - like the US Supreme Court, Rome generally chooses only to pass on questions presented to it that it considers to be of import to the welfare of the Church, in part because doing otherwise encourages episcopi vagante and gives added credence to the so-called �independent� Catholic Churches).

The PNCC ruling presumably applies also to the Czech, Lithuanian, and Slovak jurisdictions that were for varying periods separate NCCs, but are now constituent jurisdictions of the PNCC. The Polish National Catholic Church of America (PNCCA), and another schismatic PNCC offshoot (I forget how it styles itself), were not dealt with in Rome's determination, but would be unlikely to be looked on favorably, as I believe their episcopal orders were obtained from dubious sources.

Rome did, however, make a finding of validity as to the sacraments and orders of the Old Catholic Church � Utrecht Confession. I believe the review was conducted because it was essential to making a determination as to the PNCC�s orders and sacraments, rather than having been undertaken for the specific purpose of assessing the OCC-Utrecht�s apostolic succession. If it was accomplished solely for purposes of making a finding vis-�-vis the PNCC, then the findings with respect to the OCC-Utrecht likely cease at the point in time (early 20th century) when the OCC-Utrecht last conferred episcopal orders for the PNCC - but indications are that it didn't stop at that point.

Rome has made no formal determination (for the same reasons discussed above) as to any of the OCCs in the US and, as you suggest, the future validity of most such apostolic successions and sacraments is clearly at risk, due to the theological and disciplinary tangents on which most have embarked. However, keep in mind that ordination of practicing homosexuals, ordination of women, celebration of same-sex unions, and many other departures from mainstream Catholic thinking will not in itself invalidate their apostolic succession, which is dependent on the validity of episcopal lineage, form, and intent, not on the theological miasma that may surround the episcopal throne.

Consequently, some (perhaps many) of the older, more established OCCs would likely be found to have to have maintained validity through some (sometimes recent) point in time, particularly given the once common practice of collecting multiple consecrations (on the precept that at least one would hopefully be found valid). These often involved bishops at least some of whom themselves had valid episcopal antecedents (e.g., Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, Bishop Eduardo Sanchez Camacho, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and some EO and OO hierarchs), as well as the OCC-Utrecht hierarchs.

As far as I know, none of the US-based OCCs presently have any direct relationship to the OCC-Utrecht. Some of the pioneer OCC hierarchs (e.g., Berghes, Carfora, Vilatte) emigrated to the US from Europe, but many of them originated here and went to Utrecht, seeking consecration.

Among these, a common practice was to do so on the premise of establishing a US jurisdiction or at least of maintaining communion. Inevitably, though, on returning to the US, the new bishops would either cease communication with Utrecht, feeling an urge for independence, or strike out on such arcane theological courses that Utrecht (with a relatively conservative ecclesiastical bent) would shortly distance itself from them. The frequency with which this scenario was repeated was often enough that I think Utrecht, for the most part, ceased ordaining the cross-Atlantic travelers. Offhand, I can only identify two North American clerics ordained to the episcopacy in Utrecht during the past forty years � anyone in the US or Canada claiming Utrecht succession after that, as far as I can ascertain, is relying on orders that are second, third or more generations removed from the actual imposition of hands by hierarchs of the OCC-Utrecht.

In the interim, many have intercommuned and shared episcopal lines with Anglican Churches and �independent Catholic� and/or �independent Orthodox� Churches of questionable episcopal ancestry � likely bringing closure to any valid lines which they held,

The involvement of hierarchs like Thuc, Costa, and others I named has definitely muddied the waters, requiring that many instances would now necessitate case-by-case determinations to be made, were Rome for some reason required to make such. A very few OCC jurisdictions in the US and Canada have continued a very traditional and essentially conservative outlook that suggests the possibility that they might be able to demonstrate validity in their sacraments and their apostolic succession. Notable among these are: the OCC of the United States (OCCUS), the OCC of America (OCCA), Old Roman Catholic Church � English Rite (ORCC-ER), English Catholic Church (ECC)(last true OCC in the UK, I believe), the Evangelical Catholic Church (a curious OCC-Lutheran hybrid), and the Charismatic Catholic Church of Canada (probably the last North American OCC whose hierarchs received their episcopal orders directly from the OCC-Utrecht).

Many years,

Neil

It seems quite obvious what one needs to do when in a location without a church of their own communion:

Commute, however infrequently to a location with one.

or

Join the communion of that local Church.

Receiving someone from another Apostolic Church is not a big ceremony. No catechism is necessary in most cases. Some jurisdictions receive them through reception of the eucharist alone! Does that mean that they should then maintain dual communion? No, so the bishops teach us.

Does it mean that they can never "go back?" No, although no bishop or priest is going to advise someone to leave their communion.

What this does ensure is good order and that all of the members of the communion are under the same teachings and ecclesial authority. In short, it avoids ecclesial chaos, the symptom of the Protestant movement and the devil's best friend.

We are in a dangerous time when the prevailing attitudes among the secular society and even some Protestant Christians is "anything goes" when it comes to Church life. We of the Apostolic Churches are slaves to Christ and follow the forms that He gave us: a concilliar Church led by the Councils of Bishops.

That's my main point. I sincerely apologize if anyone took my post as judgemental. I want us "to look before we leap;" before copying models that do not apply to the Churches of Apostolic faith.

In Christ,
Andrew

Well one thing that has happened at St. Georges is the Coptic Bishop comes in once a month on a Saturday and spends the day with his Church. He has been coming in for several years now, so most of the Coptics either travel or don't attend church until he comes.

For most people to travel the closest large city is Atalanta which is 2 1/2hrs, Nashville is 3 hrs but there are no Eastern Catholic Churches in Nashville, or at least Byzantine. Actually when we came down here in '86 we would drive over to Atlanta quite often to attend the Divine Liturgy at Epiphany. With three small children at the time it was quit a trip, but the main thing in commuting is the children don't learn the concept of community. Though we are Ruthenian our children have been raised in the Melkite Church and God blessed us with two wonderful commuities of faith. They are not able to participate in the life of the Church and that is not healthy for their spirituality.

Pani Rose

So does that answer your criticism?

We are only 2% Catholic in Alabama and even a lesser percentage are Orthodox. Neil is right in his assumption, it is a mixed Middle Eastern people. But, then we are also a lot of mixed Europeans also.

Like I said, people are just walking through the doors to be there. I believe the reason is, both St. George and St. Elias are Churches of prayer. Core Bishop Richard at St. Elias (Marionite) and Archimandrite Frank call their people to pray a lot as churches as well as in the domestic church and people are responding to the Holy Spirits call to deeper conversion. The more they add days of prayer, the more the people respond. That is the answer, not doing away with days because they inconveince people. People are hungry for discipline and calling the church to increased prayer life is one way of giving discipline and security in an uncertain world.

Pani Rose

I'm a bit confused about something.

1) Does the Catholic Church actually have an open communion policy with the Orthodox as sister churches?

2) If so, doesn't the responsibility to respect the Orthodox policy on inter-communion rest on the Catholic Church's shoulders, and not on individual people?

Maybe I am still way off base here. Still learning, once again......

Thanks for your kind assistance.

In Christ and the Theotokos,

Tammy

Tammy,

No. The policies allowing it that have been agreed to by both sides are, as described somewhere above, in the nature of pastoral provisions intended to provide for the care of the faithful of both Churches in areas where a lack of temples or clergy make it difficult for one or both Churches to serve the needs of their peoples. These formal agreements exist only in the Middle East, to the best of my knowledge, and are between the Melkite and Antiochian Churches, the Chaldean and Assyrian Churches, and, possibly, among the Syriac and Syrian Churches.

Otherwise, the Catholic Church permits Orthodox Christians to partake of the Holy Mysteries if they choose to do so, but recommends that they consider the discipline of their own Church in deciding whether to do so; in most cases, their Church would not permit it.

The Orthodox, as a general rule, do not permit Catholics to partake of the Holy Mysteries. Formally, that would apply even in instances of denying the Mystery of Penance in case of death, although there are clearly hierarchs and clergy who would permit it in those circumstances in the name of Christian love and charity.

Clearly, the Churches differ in this respect, as some have pointed out. While it is inherent on an Orthodox priest to inquire of those who present themselves to commune and whom he doesn't know (or suspects of not being Orthodox); the Catholic Church imposes no such requirement on its clergy. We are faulted by the Orthodox for the very obvious fence-walk we do, by saying "yes, you can, but you should consider the discipline of your Church - but, we don't demand that you obey that discipline and will commune you anyway".

Many years,

Neil

The Oriental Orthodox have the same "pastoral provision" for intercommunion with the Catholic Church. Thus, the Syrian Orthodox, being OO, definitely have such a provision, as do the Armenian Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox.

I saw an article in National Geographic earlier this year indicating that on the island of Corsica, one priest serves the needs of both the Orthodox and the Catholics. I do not doubt that such provision exists elsewhere.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

The Greek-Catholic parish on Corsica belongs, I believe, to the Byzantine Italo-Grieco-Albanian Church. It serves the Greek-Catholic community of about 300 faithful. To my memory, I don't think there is an EO church on the island - it seems to me that this is a matter more of pastoral practicality on the part of whatever EO faithful are there, rather than a true pastoral provision having been enacted. That such instances also occur elsewhere is a given.

BTW, the lovely EC church there is depicted on a website

Cargese [corseweb.fr]

Many years,

Neil

A Neill, a chara, Thanks for the Cargese web-site; most edifying - I love those icons. The parish in Corsica relates to some extent to the Exarchate in Athens but depends upon the local Latin Bishop (of Ajaccio, I believe). Alas, the parish in Lyons disappeared some time ago. I've often thought of visiting Corsica but somehow never did. CNEWA had a nice write-up about the parish in Corsica a few years ago, with good photographs.
Incognitus

Incognitus,

Ahh, I had presumed the Italo-Grieco-Albanians because of the fact that the iconostasis in the church was originally from the Exarchic Abbey at Grottaferratta.

I remember that one also. Actually, if you knew the year, you could re-visit it. The magazine's entire 30(?) year output is available on-line at

CNEWA - Past Editions [cnewa.org]

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a search mechanism devoted to those files and the main site's search engine doesn't seem to include the magazine files. One can, however, very happily sit down and enjoy leafing through a couple of past issues at a time.

Many years,

Neil

The priest serving the parish in Cargese, as I understand it, is on loan from the Eparchy of Piagna degli Albanesi (formerly Piagna degli Greci), Sicily. That is the Italo-Albanian-Greek connection.

In Christ,
Andrew

Here are the guidelines for receiving Holy Communion at our St. Stephen Protomartyr Orthodox Catholic Cathedral. (taken from our Sunday newsletter "The Protomartyr"):

The Holy Orthodox Church sets certain guidelines for her members in partaking of the Holy Mysteries of the divine Body and precious Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These are the following:
1) Attendance at church services.
2) Observance of the fasting regulation of the Church. Fasting from all food and drink after sunset on the eve of the day, we receive Holy Communion. This includes fasting from smoke[ing], eat[ing], or drink[ing]anything. It is permitted to take necessary medicines along with water or a small amount of nondairy food required for these medicines.
3) Reading the Prayers of preparation before Holy Communion.
4) Having made a [private] confession within the past month. Those who receive Holy Communion at each Divine Liturgy (except for illness) or do not received at a particular Divine Liturgy, they must come back to confession again before continuing to receive. A confessin should always be made if a person has committed any transgression against God or his neighbor that would prevent his [or her] partaking of Holy Communion.

Communion is for Eastern Orthodox members only
Only those who have been received into membership in the Holy Orthodox Church may receive Holy Communion. when we invite guests who are not Orthodox to the Divine Liturgy, we should explain lovingly that they may not partake of Holy Communion. Only members and catechumens under instruction may receive the antidoron (Bread). When we bring an Orthodox guest to the Divine Liturgy, we should inform the priest [if] he or she plans to receive Holy Communion, the parish priest must be informed of your intention to receive Holy Communion.

Women are discouraged in wearing lipstick as this would transfer to the spoon and contaminate the chalice.

So there is a lot of preparation before we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord.

The rules are strick but they are there for a good reason.

JoeS