Some questions about Eastern Catholic Church

[Paul_theApostle]

Hi,i have some questions about the Eastern Catholics-

1. Can a Latin Catholic attend an Eastern Cath. Liturgy here and there or as a once off thing and recieve Communion or have confession there?
2. Were the original Bishops or members of the Eastern Catholics originally Eastern Orthodox Christians (united to the Orthodox Churches)?
3. Are the Daily/Sunday Scripture readings the same as Rome or the Orthodox Church?
4. on the Calender of saints (Church calender) are there +1054 Latin Saints ,and +1054 Eastern Orthodox Saints? Or Both?
5. And do East Cath Churches have icons or images of +1054 latin Saints and +1054 Orthodox saints in their Churches?

Thanks

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hi,i have some questions about the Eastern Catholics-

1. Can a Latin Catholic attend an Eastern Cath. Liturgy here and there or as a once off thing and recieve Communion or have confession there?

Yes, any Catholic may attend any Catholic rite.

From the Code of Canon Law;
Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

1. Were the original Bishops or members of the Eastern Catholics originally Eastern Orthodox Christians (united to the Orthodox Churches)?

Each of the Eastern Catholic Churches, except for the Maronite, were part of an Orthodox Church and reunited at different times.

1. Are the Daily/Sunday Scripture readings the same as Rome or the Orthodox Church?

No.

1. on the Calender of saints (Church calender) are there +1054 Latin Saints ,and +1054 Eastern Orthodox Saints? Or Both?

No, the calendar of Saints particular according to the Church and may have saints that are not found on the Latin Church calendar but saints from the corresponding Orthodox Church that have been named after the date of reunion of the Eastern Catholic Church will most likely not be on the Eastern Catholic Church’s calendar.

1. And do East Cath Churches have icons or images of +1054 latin Saints and +1054 Orthodox saints in their Churches?

They may have saints that are on their calendar but most likely will not have any for public adoration of saints not on their calendar but do not dissuade the faithful from private veneration of Orthodox saints.

Thanks

Hope I was of some help.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Thanks
,just with question 1,i heard that a latin Catholic must get some kind of transfer or blessing from the Church or bishop if he wanted to join the Eastern Cath Church,but im just thinking of going for a once off liturgy,i dont need a transfer for one visit there do i,and to be able to take Communion.

and with the Sunday gospel,is it different to both the Latins and the Orthodox?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thanks
,just with question 1,i heard that a latin Catholic must get some kind of transfer or blessing from the Church or bishop if he wanted to join the Eastern Cath Church,but im just thinking of going for a once off liturgy,i dont need a transfer for one visit there do i,and to be able to take Communion.

You would only need a transfer if you chose to change church membership. You do not need to do so to attend the Liturgy once or many times.

and with the Sunday gospel,is it different to both the Latins and the Orthodox?

The Lectionary is closer to what the Orthodox use but not identical in some cases.

 

[Vico]

Hi,i have some questions about the Eastern Catholics-

1. Can a Latin Catholic attend an Eastern Cath. Liturgy here and there or as a once off thing and recieve Communion or have confession there?
2. Were the original Bishops or members of the Eastern Catholics originally Eastern Orthodox Christians (united to the Orthodox Churches)?
3. Are the Daily/Sunday Scripture readings the same as Rome or the Orthodox Church?
4. on the Calender of saints (Church calender) are there +1054 Latin Saints ,and +1054 Eastern Orthodox Saints? Or Both?
5. And do East Cath Churches have icons or images of +1054 latin Saints and +1054 Orthodox saints in their Churches?

Thanks

Read here:

cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=123&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

and for the lectionary:

byzcath.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1383&Itemid=1

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I read there about the Catholic Church uniting with the Armenians and Coptics,i know that the Orthodox are not in union with them because they are “monophosites”,

Was this "monophosite’ belief a non-issue with the Catholics who accepted union with them?

I read that the unions didnt suceed.

Are the Coptics and Armenians in union now with Rome breakaways from the original Copt and Armenian church and are they still "monophosites’?

sorry ,sometimes i cant understand properly when i read things.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi,i have some questions about the Eastern Catholics-

1. Can a Latin Catholic attend an Eastern Cath. Liturgy here and there or as a once off thing and recieve Communion or have confession there?

Yes. Canon Law supports this saying any Roman Catholic can fulfill their Sunday Obligation in any “Mass of any Catholic Rite”. By Mass they mean Eucharistic Liturgy, so this is the Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine Catholics, but not Vespers nor Matins.

1. Were the original Bishops or members of the Eastern Catholics originally Eastern Orthodox Christians (united to the Orthodox Churches)?

Today, no. But those that came into union, some of them are. Others were just laity and perhaps some priest, and they were assigned a Latin Bishop to oversee them.

1. Are the Daily/Sunday Scripture readings the same as Rome or the Orthodox Church?

Most probably the Orthodox Church. Its also subject to what calendar is followed, as some are following the revised Julian Calendar, and others the Gregorian Calendar.

1. on the Calender of saints (Church calender) are there +1054 Latin Saints ,and +1054 Eastern Orthodox Saints? Or Both?

Some Orthodox, some saints are popular to a particular Church (there are a number of Ukrainian Catholic saints) and some of the really popular Latin saints will also find their way into Eastern Catholic calendars. We have a number of Popes there. I also wouldn’t be surprised of Blessed Pope John Paul II gets a place in the Ukrainian Catholic Calendar (or maybe he’s already there, I’m not updated on this matter).

1. And do East Cath Churches have icons or images of +1054 latin Saints and +1054 Orthodox saints in their Churches?

Thanks

Yes. Note that many Eastern Catholics were not Catholics for a few centuries. Only the Maronites have never broken communion. Everyone else were 100% Orthodox for a time. So there will be some saints from 1054-whenever the reunion carried over. Moreover, more holy men and women, Catholic or Orthodox, are recognized even at the time the Eastern Church has split into two, one Catholic and one Orthodox. But because of their holiness, they are recognized by both sides of the Church. Usually this is a result of veneration by the faithful of the “homeland”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I read there about the Catholic Church uniting with the Armenians and Coptics,i know that the Orthodox are not in union with them because they are “monophosites”,

Was this "monophosite’ belief a non-issue with the Catholics who accepted union with them?

I read that the unions didnt suceed.

Are the Coptics and Armenians in union now with Rome breakaways from the original Copt and Armenian church and are they still "monophosites’?

sorry ,sometimes i cant understand properly when i read things.

From what I read, the Coptic Catholics are heavily Latinized as a result of Latin Bishops trying to proselytize Coptic Orthodox into the Catholic Church. So they got some lay people and I think some priests, but no bishops. The results was the Latin Bishops influencing the theology and Liturgy heavily. I could be wrong here.

 

[Rolltide]

Yes. Note that many Eastern Catholics were not Catholics for a few centuries. Only the Maronites have never broken communion. Everyone else were 100% Orthodox for a time.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church also never broke communion. But you are correct, all of the others had.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church also never broke communion. But you are correct, all of the others had.

I don’t know. But I heard they might break soon (I hope not). There’s this issue with Roman Catholic Bishops of Italy forcing them to comply with Roman Catholic discipline (priestly celibacy) because they are in Roman Catholic territory. I heard that some parishes are already coming into communion with the Greek Orthodox.

 

[5Loaves]

1. Are the Daily/Sunday Scripture readings the same as Rome or the Orthodox Church?

Just a reminder that the 3 cycles of readings, A, B,C, in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite are different from the cycle of readings for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

 

[5Loaves]

Yes, any Catholic may attend any Catholic rite.

True, although I think the issue is attending any Catholic Church, and those Churches may have the same or different rites.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Constantine,

I don’t know. But I heard they might break soon (I hope not). There’s this issue with Roman Catholic Bishops of Italy forcing them to comply with Roman Catholic discipline (priestly celibacy) because they are in Roman Catholic territory.

I might be mistaken, but I think you are confusing the matter of the Romanian Catholic Chruch with the Italo-Greek Catholic Churches. There are two Italo-Greek dioceses in Italy that legitimately and always have had the right the ordain married men into the priesthood.

I heard that some parishes are already coming into communion with the Greek Orthodox.

Can you give a link to this? I’ve never heard of it (though I’m not exactly your resident expert on things Eastern - I’m Oriental ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother Constantine,

I might be mistaken, but I think you are confusing the matter of the Romanian Catholic Chruch with the Italo-Greek Catholic Churches. There are two Italo-Greek dioceses in Italy that legitimately and always have had the right the ordain married men into the priesthood.

Oh right, I was thinking it was in Italy then I assumed

Can you give a link to this? I’ve never heard of it (though I’m not exactly your resident expert on things Eastern - I’m Oriental ).

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m working off a rumor here, not really confirmed. But given the sad state of the decision, I can understand why their faith in their communion with Rome may be shaken.

 

[mardukm]

Was this "monophosite’ belief a non-issue with the Catholics who accepted union with them?

I read that the unions didnt suceed.

There were several issues, but the absolutely main reason the original unions did not succeed was because of excessive claims to authority by the papacy. Papal claims in those days were always styled in the language of “submission,” which the Orientals could not accept. On the Coptic side, there have been many attempts at reunion with the Catholic Church over the centuries (at one point, there was actually intercommunion in Egypt between the Catholic missionaries and the COC for about a hundred years in the 17th-18th centuries), but the issue of what was perceived to be papal absolutism was always the main killing stroke.

Are the Coptics and Armenians in union now with Rome breakaways from the original Copt and Armenian church and are they still "monophosites’?

All Churches of the Oriental Tradition are currently not miaphysite. However, the Catholic Church actually determined the orthodoxy of the miaphysite expression of the Faith around the turn of the 19th/20th century. Currently, formal, official, authoritative agreements exist between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches on the orthodoxy of each others’ expressions of Christological Faith. This has led to very close relationships with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, particularly the Syriac branch of the Oriental Orthodox communion. Formal and official agreements on pastoral sharing of Sacraments exists with the Syriac Orthodox Churches (NOTE: pastoral provisions do not mean there is full communion). Informal, unofficial pastoral sharing of Sacraments also exists with the Armenian Apostolic Church. The relationship between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church was strained when the CC signed a Christological agreement with the Assyrian Church of the East back in 1994, but dialogue with the Coptic Orthodox was re-established several years ago. I am myself a miaphysite Catholic, who translated to the Catholic communion from Coptic Orthodoxy a few years ago (though I am still always learning). I have personally met five other miaphysite Catholics (the few, and the proud and all that. It’s a start:thumbsup.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church also never broke communion. But you are correct, all of the others had.

For the most part the Italo-Albanian church has roots in Orthodox immigrants from Albania.

They came to Italy as refugees after the death of Skanderbeg. The priests they brought with them were Orthodox, originally ordained by Orthodox bishops in a state of schism from Rome.

There may have been some (very few) eastern rite Greek Catholics in Italy, descended from the great church that preceded them on the site, but their bishops had ceased long before and they were regarded as part of the local Roman Catholic establishment, all of the dioceses had been converted to Roman Catholic ones and ordaining bishops (if there were any) would have had to be brought in from outside for several hundred years. It was a church (if one could call it that) with no hierarchy nor synod, no patriarch, and no Sui Iuris rights. (It’s priests would be formed under the care of Roman Catholic bishops in Roman Catholic seminaries.)

This is much like the modern Russian Catholic church in the USA, which exists only as long as the Roman Catholic bishops are willing to support it, with no bishops of it’s own.

There is no evidence I am aware of of the two groups (Albanians of Italy and the earlier Greeks) mixing, although one might assume they did if the earlier population had not already completely converted to the Latin church in some particular locale. For the most part if anything like a ‘church’ survived it did so in customs and habits of the local Roman Catholic laity who had Byzantine ancestors. Even Grottaferrata had a liturgy that was so bastardized and Latinized (and accepted local Latin Catholics from it’s territorial parishes) that if it represented anything it would be the sorry state of the small ‘Greek’ remnant.

This is hardly continuity, and the new immigrant church of Albanians had no standing hierarchy in Italy until the 20th century, when a Pope carved out a little piece for them and gave them bishops from his own line. The names for the two dioceses do not reflect anything ‘Greek’ about them, these were established to save the Albanian ethno phyletic remnant, which was fast disappearing. So the official history of the Albanian church in Italy is less than one hundred years old. Anything beyond that is embellished myth.

Today (sadly), that church has no bishops of it’s own. The Pope has not given them any and they do not have a right to name their own. They are under the care of Roman Catholic bishops once again…
… and the Italian synod of bishops has recently reaffirmed that all priests in Italy are to be celibate, I would not expect them to ordain any married men for the ‘Albanians’, and it is unclear how many married men are priests in that very small church even now.

 

[Vico]

For the most part the Italo-Albanian church has roots in Orthodox immigrants from Albania…

It was a church (if one could call it that) with no hierarchy nor synod, no patriarch, and no Sui Iuris rights. (It’s priests would be formed under the care of Roman Catholic bishops in Roman Catholic seminaries.)…

Today (sadly), that church has no bishops of it’s own. The Pope has not given them any and they do not have a right to name their own. They are under the care of Roman Catholic bishops once again…

… and the Italian synod of bishops has recently reaffirmed that all priests in Italy are to be celibate, I would not expect them to ordain any married men for the ‘Albanians’, and it is unclear how many married men are priests in that very small church even now.

It is normal for many of the ritual Churches to be in the care of an ordinary of another Church sui iuris because they do not have a hierarchy *of their own Church sui iuris, *but they do have a hierarchy. Also the Holy See is the Congregation for Eastern Churches for them.

Russian
Belarussian
Bulgarian
Krizevci (Croatia)
Macedonian
Italo-Greek/Albanian
Albanian
Greek
Ethiopian

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Vico,

It is normal for many of the ritual Churches to be in the care of an ordinary of another Church sui iuris because they do not have a hierarchy *of their own Church sui iuris, *but they do have a hierarchy. Also the Holy See is the Congregation for Eastern Churches for them.

I can understand that explanation, but that is really redefining ‘church’ for most of the Italo-Albanian history.

The fact is the Italo-Albanian church organization did not exist at all until modern times. There is no record of a ‘church’ for Albanians in Italy, just a history of the Roman Catholic church with some Albanians among them. If it was to be a church it had no bishops, no synods, nothing. No mind, no will, no voice, no choice.

No self determination.

It could not ‘choose’ to remain in communion with Rome, it did not exist as a separate entity. It is a creature of the 20th century, a mission child of the Papacy. Even the ethnic community that the modern diocese were organized to care for was in the Balkans as an Orthodox community for almost 500 years outside of the Papal association or obedience.

[At least the Melkites and the Ukrainians can claim to have chosen their place in the communion, and probably the Melkites alone could still choose to leave (if they had a mind to), since the synod is still mostly independent minded and the local governments in the middle east would probably recognize their rights in a court case.]

Claiming that there was some connection between the Albanian church and the older Byzantine establishment in Italy is pretty much like the Baptists and their claim to an underground history before the Reformation. It is wishful thinking and myth making.

As for thinking a church can exist without bishops of it’s own somewhere, well, to me that makes such a church a legal fiction.

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,
I can understand that explanation, but that is really redefining ‘church’ for most of the Italo-Albanian history.

The fact is the Italo-Albanian church organization did not exist at all until modern times. There is no record of a ‘church’ for Albanians in Italy, just a history of the Roman Catholic church with some Albanians among them. If it was to be a church it had no bishops, no synods, nothing. No mind, no will, no voice, no choice.

No self determination.

It could not ‘choose’ to remain in communion with Rome, it did not exist as a separate entity. It is a creature of the 20th century, a mission child of the Papacy. Even the ethnic community that the modern diocese were organized to care for was in the Balkans as an Orthodox community for almost 500 years outside of the Papal association or obedience.

[At least the Melkites and the Ukrainians can claim to have chosen their place in the communion, and probably the Melkites alone could still choose to leave (if they had a mind to), since the synod is still mostly independent minded and the local governments in the middle east would probably recognize their rights in a court case.]

Claiming that there was some connection between the Albanian church and the older Byzantine establishment in Italy is pretty much like the Baptists and their claim to an underground history before the Reformation. It is wishful thinking and myth making.

As for thinking a church can exist without bishops of it’s own somewhere, well, to me that makes such a church a legal fiction.

Then for you, the Church sui iuris is a legal fiction. According to the Catholic Church, self determination is not what constitutes a ritual Church, but they are recognized by the Apostolic See and do have their own laws, heritage, and share with all Catholics a common faith, hierarchy, and Holy Mysteries.

Church can also refer to a parish, a diocese or eparchy or exarchy, mission sui iuris, territorial abbecy, apostolic vicariate (ap. eparchy/exarchy), apostolic prefecture, etc.

 

[malphono]

The fact is the Italo-Albanian church organization did not exist at all until modern times. There is no record of a ‘church’ for Albanians in Italy, just a history of the Roman Catholic church with some Albanians among them. If it was to be a church it had no bishops, no synods, nothing. No mind, no will, no voice, no choice.

No self determination.

It could not ‘choose’ to remain in communion with Rome, it did not exist as a separate entity. It is a creature of the 20th century, a mission child of the Papacy. Even the ethnic community that the modern diocese were organized to care for was in the Balkans as an Orthodox community for almost 500 years outside of the Papal association or obedience. …

Claiming that there was some connection between the Albanian church and the older Byzantine establishment in Italy is pretty much like the Baptists and their claim to an underground history before the Reformation. It is wishful thinking and myth making.

As for thinking a church can exist without bishops of it’s own somewhere, well, to me that makes such a church a legal fiction.

No, it’s not “fiction” or anything of the like. This has been discussed before in this forum (I’m not about to spend the time to search for the old threads, nor am I about to spend hours looking for references), but in the first millennium, the reality was “one city, one bishop.” It’s only in the modern era (and this affects RC, EO (including the so-called “Western Rite” business), and the OO) that episcopal jurisdictions have multiplied like rabbits. Every group now has to have its own, and this is particularly true in the diasporal lands.

To see the “old way,” one can look at Rome itself (since there were people from all parts of the Empire living there). There were, for example, Copts among the faithful in Rome, who would worship according to the rites of their own Church while being under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The bishop was not competent to interfere in the liturgical matters of the Copts. Rather, he was there to serve. IOW, he was responsible for the care and well-being of all in his See, not just those members of his own Church.

One can say that the Italo-Greek Church fits quite nicely into that paradigm. Yes, it’s small, and yes, it’s had its ups-and-downs (I seem to recall there was one Pope who tried to suppress it) but nonetheless it has continued to exist within that very framework.