www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Old-Ritualists Forum Old Orthodox Communing in Roman Catholic Church

As a bezpopovtsy (no priests) Old Orthodox Christian, I was curious as to what would happen (from the Catholic standpoint) if I were to commune in a Roman Catholic Church.

Could I, as the other EO Christians are able, or does the fact that Bezpopovsy reject priesthood authority after Patriarch Nikon annul this option? Just curious...

I guess that's an "I don't know?"

I guess I would say "I don't know" ... but we do know that we have an obligation to withhold communion from someone who doesn't believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ (even if he/she wanted to receive out of politeness or whatever). Do you believe that Catholic communion is is the Body and Blood of Christ?

You are a Bezpopovetz? I've never met one before!

May I ask - how do you establish your Saints? Like the Saints of the Vyg Community, Denisenko and the others? I have a copy of their picture on my icon corner.

You are, of course, welcome to approach Holy Communinon in the Catholic Churches. However, does not your church deny the validity of the Latin and EC sacraments? Your church also, I believe, even denies the validity of the Western, one-bar Latin Cross etc. (And it goes without saying that your group denies the validity of anything Nikonian).

So if you don't acknowledge their validity, why is this even a question for you?

Alex

perplexedstepan

you had said
I have underlined the bit that struck me .

The Latin Church [ Roman Catholic Church ] does indeed allow Eastern Orthodox Christians to approach their priests for Communion - but - it does ask them to respect the views of their own Church. I cannot imagine that many Orthodox Priests would permit their parishioners to Receive Communion in a Latin Catholic Church. I can't answer for your circumstances .

stan,

To be perfectly honest, and with no intent to be disrespectful, I doubt that the Catholic Church has given any thought to the question of whether bezpopovtsy might be communed because it seems so contrary to the praxis and theology of any of the bezpopovtsy Concords that it likely never rose to the level of discussion.

Interpretations of the Catholic Codes of Canon Law consider the Eastern (Constantinoplian/Byzantine) Churches in the aggregate - not generally citing them as individual ecclesial identities. (The Oriental Orthodox, being more jurisdictionally distinct, are occasionally 'listed' individually and the Assyrian Church of the East and Polish National Catholic Church are specifically identified inasmuch as neither fits neatly or otherwise into either of the Orthodox Communions.)

The comments/queries posed by Peter, Alex, and Anhelyna are all generally on point but there are historic instances of bezpopovtsy occasionally (and, in a few instances, periodically) participating in accepting/receiving some Mysteries from popovotsy presbyters. It's most commonly encountered among Concords which have a history as what were once termed Begolopopovtsy or 'sometimes priested'. The 'best known' (and that's a stretch) of these are the Luzhkovskoe Soglasie (Luzhkov's Compact), a/k/a Luzhkovtsy, Luzhkane, and Louzhkane and Makeevtsy (Makeev's Confession). These were bodies which have lost their priesthood, but reject the notion of being considered Bespopovtsy. Both survive only in scattered remnant pockets.

'True' bezpopovotsy who have occasionally been known to accept such ministrations most commonly do so in very limited circumstances. The Sepychie Bespopovtsy (Sepych Priestless) were Pomortsy who ultimately divided into the Demenskie (Demenskie Concord) and Maksimovskie (Maksimov's Concord). Both seek only the Mysteries of Initiation from popovotsy presbyters, rejecting all other sacramental ministry.

The Chasovennoe Dvizhenie (Chapel Movement), a/k/a Chapelists, the Melkhisedeki (Melchisedecian Confession), and the Semeyskie (Churched) all began as popovotsy but transitioned to bespopovotsy due to lack of clergy. They could all be described as 'high church' in their worship and a very few sources suggest that some among them are amenable to priestly ministrations when the opportunity presents. There was a group in PA at one time, referred to as 'Wall People', who would attend Divine Liturgy but remain outside the temple listening at wall and window but declined to enter and aren't known to have accepted Mysteries from clergy.

I doubt that bezpopovotsy would be turned away from the Mystery of the Eucharist in a Latin church, simply because the typical Latin priest hardly can be said to know that everyone present is or is not Catholic (other than in relatively small parishes which rarely have 'visitors'). In a temple of any of the Eastern Catholic Churches, I think it is even less likely that one would be turned away, as most are accepting of the occasional Orthodox visitor and are inclined to accept that the decision to commune or not is between the individual and his priest/hierarch/Church.

Of course, that begs the questions, to which Concord you belong, what you believe vis-a-vis the 'reality' of the Mystery in which you might seek to participate, and what you consider to be proper and right as regards the stance of your Church toward such. Since economia is not strongly supported among the bespopovotsy (nor among Old Ritualists generally, priested or otherwise) the answer would seem clear but the decision is your own.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you, Neil. This information was most helpful. I had no idea that different bezpopovtsy concords made an allowance for communion from certain Catholic priests.

As for the concord I am in, just fyi, it is the Chasovennye-Drevneanglijskie (or Old-English Chapelists) which is close in belief and structure to the Chasovennye you mentioned except we use both English and Slavonic. We also have close ties with the Belokrinitskoe in Russia, which are priested.

Did they?

Unless I've misunderstood, it sounded like Neil was saying that at times, they did. Or perhaps it was only popovsty?

Stan,

Only from popovotsy, that I'm aware - and I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say that they made allowance for it - at least not formally, except for the Luzhkovtsy, Makeevtsy, Demenskie, and Maksimovskie - all of which are relatively tiny bodies and limit themselves to the Mysteries of Initiation according to all the sources.

As far as the Chasovennoe, Melkhisedeki, and Semeyskie, what few sources I've seen which make reference to this are all anecdotal and, quite honestly, it's difficult to know if the reports are accurate or are speculating - seeing these particular Accords as so 'high-church'/'liturgical' that it wouldn't seem like a major leap for them to do so. Nothing I've read convinces me that this is common among any of the three or represents an institutionally accepted/endorsed praxis.

Thanks for sharing the information about your Concord. Despite collecting information on Old Ritualist Concords for many years, I've given up being surprised when I encounter one of which I've never heard before (the diversity often appears endless). The Chasovennye-Drevneanglijskie are indeed 'new' to me.

Given the liturgical bilingualism that you describe, I presume that your Concord developed from immigrant Chasovennye and that it's been represented here for some years (since it generally takes a generation or so before immigrant religious communities, particularly those without a pre-existing base here, transition to incorporating vernacular into their worship and prayer life).

Tom can likely better speak to how prevalent liturgical English usage is among Old Ritualists in current-day North America (my own knowledge is more focused on historical origins and praxis). I'll admit to having been personally unaware of it - the thought hadn't ever crossed my mind. I'll also acknowledge being a bit intrigued by your comment about close ties with Belokrinitsa. Do you know the history of those ties? Do they, in fact, reflect the fact that the Chasovennye, despite being priestless, have retained a more liturgical form of worship than the majority of Bezpopovtsy?

Many years,

Neil

I still don't understand why a priestless Old Believer would want to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. By receiving the Eucharist in a given church, you are acknowledging that the church in question has a "valid" priesthood. If the Catholics have the priesthood, then the entire notion of being "priestless" would be untenable.

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, a priestless Old Believer would not be able to commune, since that person has never receive the Mystery of Chrismation.

Fr. David

Dear Brother Neil,

If a Bezpopovtsy group became "Priested," would anyone they have venerated as a saint be allowed to be "carried over" so that they would venerate them as a priested jurisdiction?

What would you suggest in this regard?

Alex

No need to give yourself a headache. I was simply curious about the history because I wasn't even aware that there was a Catholic Old Ritualist branch. Although, it shouldn't surprise me.

Unfortunately, I can't say that I have the answers to your questions.

However, I can say that the concord is open to converts, since they accepted me. When I joined, I just anointed my forehead with olive oil because I was already baptized. I guess in that respect they accepted the priesthood that did the baptism, but just consider them to be heretical. I also had to read a personalized statement.