What are the most well known religious orders in Eastern Catholicism?

[ciero]

Is it really a Latinization? The Coptic Orthodox Church today has several “orders” of celibate men and women which seem to mirror the specific charisms of the Western religious orders. Granted, this movement was established only in the past century.

Also, there are three traditional forms of monasticism in Coptic Orthodoxy, each form having a different rule, as is the case in the Western Orders. For instance, there is the St. Antony Monastery in California following the Rule of St. Antony (hermitic) and there is the St. Shenouda Monastery in New York following the Rule of St. Pachomius (coenobitic).

Blessings

As a frequent visitor to St. Anthony’s Yermo CA, they are NOT hermitic, but cenobitic. Acording to Fr. Anastasi the abbot, they follow the rule of St Pachomius as do ALL the Coptic monasteries in Egypt.

 

[ag_vn]

The religious orders in the Bulgarian Byzantine Catholic Church

The Bulgarian Byzantine Catholic Church has a local religious community based in Sofia, called Sisters of the Holy Eucharist or Eucharistines. It also has province in FYROM. The community was founded in Thessaloniki* in 1889.
kae-bg.org/?act=content&rec=161

*At that time Bulgarian Eastern Catholics were not in the present territory of Bulgaria, but in Thrace with see in Adrianople and in Macedonia with see in Thessaloniki. They were expelled to the modern territory of Bulgaria after the Balkan wars (1912-1913).

There are also Byzantine Discalced Carmelite nuns with a Carmel dedicated to the Holy Spirit in Sofia, founded in 1935 at the request of the then Exarch Bishop Kyrill Kourtev, they are the first Byzantine Carmelites in the world.
kae-bg.org/?act=content&rec=163
Documentary about them - www.youtube.com/watch?v=La3jTW5zKY0

There is also a small community of the Oblates of the Assumption in Plovdiv.
kae-bg.org/?act=content&rec=162

Since 2002 there is also a male monastery of Byzantine Discalced Carmelites in Sofia.

The previous Exarch Archbishop Methodius Stratiev was Augustinian of the Assumption.
Bishop Ivan Garoufalov who was Exarch from 1942 to 1951 was Resurrectionist.

At present the majority of priests are actually non-Bulgarians and belong to Latin rite orders, but in Bulgaria they follow the Byzantine rite - Resurrectionists, Augustinians of the Assumption and Salesians of don Bosco.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ciero,

As a frequent visitor to St. Anthony’s Yermo CA, they are NOT hermitic, but cenobitic. Acording to Fr. Anastasi the abbot, they follow the rule of St Pachomius as do ALL the Coptic monasteries in Egypt.

All monks that live in communities follow the rule of St. Pachomius (otherwise they wouldn’t be in a “community”). But each community allows focus of a more solitary or a more communal life for each monk, according to the monk’s choice with the permission of the abbot. AFAIK, St. Anthony’s permits a more hermitic lifestyle than other monasteries.

As far as Egypt is concerned, as stated any community of monks inherently follows the rule of St. Pachomius (coenobitic). Again, within that community, the monks are permitted different foci, some following monarchism (anchorite), the rule of St. Antony (eremitic or, more properly, semi-eremitic) or the rule of St. Pachomius (coenobitic). This is, again, with the permission of the abbot (archimandrite).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It would seem to both a latinization and not a latinization.

The “yes” is insofar as central authority resides outside the monastery proper. But this applies far less to monks than it does to “active” religious (whether of the few canonically recognized Orders or of the various congregations and societies (aka “religious institutes”). In the case of the latter, Priors and other local superiors are subject to an “immediate superior” (the Provincial) who is in turn subject to an “immediate superior” (the General).

The “no” is insofar as central authority resides within the monastery proper. It is true that even independent monasteries are linked by a commonality of rule which is not a new concept at all, but that’s not the same thing as above. The Benedictines are a good example: abbey are sui juris, but are linked by the Rule of S Benedict. In more recent times, groups of abbeys are also linked within the various Congregations that reflect varying foci (or, if one prefers, charisms"). But even there, notice that they are “linked” to, rather than “subject” to, the Congregation. [NB: I suppose an abbey could be expelled from its Congregation for having changed its primary focus from, say, teaching to growing peaches, but that expulsion would not affect the status of the abbey itself.] The same (without the Copngregations) would apply to all true monks in the Latin Church.

Interesting distinction, brother.

I’m interested in your reference to “outside authorities.” In the CO Tradition, every community or order is directly answerable to a bishop. Some are termed “independent” but that is only in relation to the local bishop. For instance, St. Anthony’s in California is considered “independent,” but it is really under the omophorion of HH Pope Shenoute himself, instead of the local bishop.

I wonder if this is the same in the Eastern Byzantine Tradition(?).

This is different from the Latin catholic system where the highest authority in certain orders or communities is not a bishop, but the abbot or the superior general. The Latin groups seem to have more ecclesiastical independence than their CO (or Orthodox in general) counterparts. So it would seem that “central authority residing in the monastery proper” is more a feature of the Western Tradition, contrary to your assessment(?).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Interesting distinction, brother.

I’m interested in your reference to “outside authorities.” In the CO Tradition, every community or order is directly answerable to a bishop. Some are termed “independent” but that is only in relation to the local bishop. For instance, St. Anthony’s in California is considered “independent,” but it is really under the omophorion of HH Pope Shenoute himself, instead of the local bishop.

In my earlier post I used the word “independent” in the sense of not subject to a “chain of command” as is the case with (non-monastic) Orders and Institutes in the Latin Church. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

But anyway, yes, of course, a monastery is normally dependent on a bishop in one way or another. (In the Orient & East that dependence is somewhat minimized by the fact that bishops are – technically, at least – monks themselves, and so would be more sensitive to monastic life than might otherwise be the case. And in some cases, in the past, at least, the abbot is himself a bishop, occasionally having territorial jurisdiction outside the monastery as well). But given that dependence on a bishop, how much direct control of the internal affairs of the monastery would such a bishop (assuming that he is not also the abbot) have? Even in the Latin Church, a bishop cannot directly interfere in the internal affairs of an abbey.

I wonder if this is the same in the Eastern Byzantine Tradition(?).

I seem to think so, but I’d have to defer to one of our Byzantine members.

This is different from the Latin catholic system where the highest authority in certain orders or communities is not a bishop, but the abbot or the superior general. The Latin groups seem to have more ecclesiastical independence than their CO (or Orthodox in general) counterparts. So it would seem that “central authority residing in the monastery proper” is more a feature of the Western Tradition, contrary to your assessment(?).

Partially yes, but that’s why I made the distinction between true monks and other religious (of Pontifical Right) in the Latin Church. In the case of real monks, it’s essentially the same in the West as in the Orient. It’s the other religious that differ markedly in that they have a true hierarchical structure. But even with that structure, there is a certain type of dependence on a bishop, albeit that, again, the bishop is restricted from direct interference in their internal affairs.

 

[Vico]

Maronite:
Lebanese Maronite Order (Baladites) O.L.M. established 1695
Mariamite Maronite Order (Aleppians) O.M.M. established 1695
Antonin Maronite Order O.A.M. established 1700
Congregation of the Lebanese Maronite Missionaries L.M. established 1865

Melkite:
Basilian Salvatorian Order B.S. established 1684
Basilian Alepian Order B.A. established 1697
Basilian Chouerite Order of Saint John the Baptist B.C. established 1697
Society of Missionaries of Saint Paul M.S.P.

Armenian:
Benedictine Congregation of the Mechitarists C.A.M. (Mechitarists) established 1701
Patriarchal Clergy Institute of Bzommar I.C.P.B. established 1749

Syro-Malabar:
Carmelites of Mary Immaculate C.M.I. established 1855
Vincentian Congregation C.V. established 1927
Congregation of Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus “Little Flower” C.S.T. established 1931
Missionary Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament M.C.B.S. established 1933
Missionary Society of Saint Thomas the Apostle M.S.T. established 1968

Syro-Malankara:
Order of Imitation of Christ O.I.C established 1919

Ukrainian:
Ukrainian Studite Monks M.S.U. established 1900

 

[Formosus]

This is different from the Latin catholic system where the highest authority in certain orders or communities is not a bishop, but the abbot or the superior general. The Latin groups seem to have more ecclesiastical independence than their CO (or Orthodox in general) counterparts. So it would seem that “central authority residing in the monastery proper” is more a feature of the Western Tradition, contrary to your assessment(?).

Blessings,
Marduk

The Abbot in western monastic communities (the Benedictines) is fully subject to the local Bishop. It is the orders and congregations that developed during and after the High Middle Ages which have superior generals who answer directly to the Pope rather then local Abbots who answer to the local Bishop.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

The Abbot in western monastic communities (the Benedictines) is fully subject to the local Bishop. It is the orders and congregations that developed during and after the High Middle Ages which have superior generals who answer directly to the Pope rather then local Abbots who answer to the local Bishop.

Thank you for the info. This is in line with brother Malphono’s insightful distinction between monastic and religious orders. I think I was making too much of the “ecclesiastical independence” angle.

BTW, I took a glance at the Latin Code, and it states that only new institutes come under the omophor of the Supreme Pontiff (which has some analogy in Coptic Orthodoxy). Since monastic orders are generally of ancient origin, that would mean the traditional system of being answerable to the local bishop would prevail.

As a side note, does anyone know off hand the answer to this question:

Abbots and superior generals are considered “ordinaries,” which would theoretically give them a voting right in Ecumenical Councils. I know there was some debate - or perhaps some change - at V2 about the constitution of the voting body, but I forget what it was. Were abbots and superior generals permitted or not permitted a vote at V2?

Blessings.

 

[Vico]

…
As a side note, does anyone know off hand the answer to this question:

Abbots and superior generals are considered “ordinaries,” which would theoretically give them a voting right in Ecumenical Councils. I know there was some debate - or perhaps some change - at V2 about the constitution of the voting body, but I forget what it was. Were abbots and superior generals permitted or not permitted a vote at V2?

Blessings.

The law changed after Vatican II. Prior to Vatican II, the right to vote was a consequence of jurisdiction (conferred by the pope of cardinals, for example). After Vatican II the right to vote is the consequence of consecration.

1917 CIC Canon 229. Allowed unconsecrated cardinals to vote, in addition to unconsecrated bishops, abbots, and prelates nullius, abbot primates, superior generals of exempt clerics.

1983 CIC Canon 339. All bishops vote, diocese, titular, emeritus, but must fulfill consecration and hierarchical communion. (See: 1983 CIC 336, 375). But the Pope may appoint others, but it is not clear in the canons if the appointed’s votes are deliberate or consultative votes.

1983 CIC Can. 339 §1. All the bishops and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right and duty to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.
§2. Moreover, some others who are not bishops can be called to an ecumenical council by the supreme authority of the Church, to whom it belongs to determine their roles in the council.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM

1917 CIC Can 229. Si contingat Romanum Pontificem, durante Concilii celebratione, e vita decedere, ipso iure hoc intermittitur, donec novus Pontifex illud resumi et continuari iusserit.
jgray.org/codes/1917CIC.txt

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for the info, brother!

The law changed after Vatican II. Prior to Vatican II, the right to vote was a consequence of jurisdiction (conferred by the pope of cardinals, for example). After Vatican II the right to vote is the consequence of consecration.

1917 CIC Canon 229. Allowed unconsecrated cardinals to vote, in addition to unconsecrated bishops, abbots, and prelates nullius, abbot primates, superior generals of exempt clerics.

1983 CIC Canon 339. All bishops vote, diocese, titular, emeritus, but must fulfill consecration and hierarchical communion. (See: 1983 CIC 336, 375). But the Pope may appoint others, but it is not clear in the canons if the appointed’s votes are deliberate or consultative votes.

1983 CIC Can. 339 §1. All the bishops and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right and duty to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.
§2. Moreover, some others who are not bishops can be called to an ecumenical council by the supreme authority of the Church, to whom it belongs to determine their roles in the council.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM

1917 CIC Can 229. Si contingat Romanum Pontificem, durante Concilii celebratione, e vita decedere, ipso iure hoc intermittitur, donec novus Pontifex illud resumi et continuari iusserit.
jgray.org/codes/1917CIC.txt

 

[Aramis]

Is it really a Latinization? The Coptic Orthodox Church today has several “orders” of celibate men and women which seem to mirror the specific charisms of the Western religious orders. Granted, this movement was established only in the past century.

Also, there are three traditional forms of monasticism in Coptic Orthodoxy, each form having a different rule, as is the case in the Western Orders. For instance, there is the St. Antony Monastery in California following the Rule of St. Antony (hermitic) and there is the St. Shenouda Monastery in New York following the Rule of St. Pachomius (coenobitic).

Blessings

The authentic byzantine tradition, historically, was local communities answerable to the local bishop, following the schema but not in fact answering to an order; each community was and is self-contained and self-governing, tho dependent upon the bishop. It was hard, but not impossible, to switch communities.

The patriarchal and papal orders are very much western in construction, and perhaps Coptic*, but are not a bad thing… when they don’t impose other spirituality

• One of the saints feasts, we were read from a hagiography of a Coptic saint who was an abbot of a monastery he founded, but answered still to his superior from the parent monastery. It sounded more like a personal, rather than corporate, obedience.

 

[Serry]

From what I’ve heard, Orders were unknown both East and West for many centuries, till in the West the need arose for emphasis on special ministries and needs, and till it caught on, rather later, in Eastern Churches. So, the tradition is: monks and nuns are a single “monastic order” in the East, but with appreciation for the good work done by orders that arose (despite their being a latinization).
An example: Holy Transfiguration Monastery in California has it’s own Rule (“Typikon”) and is under their eparch/bishop in Chicago; it’s not part of any order.
All the same, there are in fact orders; Basilians and Studites and Sisters Servants of Mary Immaculate are the ones I’ve most heard about. I’ve heard also of some Carmelites and perhaps Franciscans, who, although in the Roman Church, celebrate Byzantinely. (I’m not sure how that works, and suppose they have special permissions or dispensations or something.)