And there lies another problem, and it highlights the gulf between us. For the Orthodox, inter-communion is the end goal. We can’t commune with you because we aren’t in Communion. The idea of inter-communion and figuring the rest out is later is perplexing. How can we share Communion with a Church whose Ecclesiology we reject?
I understand that, and if you believe we do not share the same faith, then it is a legitimate decision, of course. My point is merely that this is not the position of Rome; it is the position of the EO. It may be a legitimate position, maybe even the correct one, but it is not the case that Rome is withholding communion from the EO with a demand that the EO accept the Roman understanding of the primacy. It is the EO who do not accept Rome’s invitation to intercommunion until Rome accepts the EO understanding of the primacy. Again, that may be a legitimate position, but it is wrong to present this situation as ‘Rome is demanding x’. That’s not what’s happening here.
Offering communion to individual Orthodox is quite a different matter from the restoration of full communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
While Lutheran eucharistic theology is different from Catholic eucharistic theology, Lutherans certainly believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist.
Just speaking for myself, I cannot understand your response; whereas theistgal’s statement – to wit, that there’s nothing wrong with protestant extending the invitation to Catholics – makes complete sense to me.
Please clarify it for me then. It seems to me that either the RCC is wrong in holding that the EO hold essentially the same faith and should be allowed to receive communion in our parishes, or the EO is wrong in holding that we hold different faiths and they should not recieve communion in our parishes. Theistgal seems to argue that the RCC should grant communion to the EO, but not vice versa. I do not understand that position.Just speaking for myself, I cannot understand your response; whereas theistgal’s statement – to wit, that there’s nothing wrong with protestant extending the invitation to Catholics – makes complete sense to me.
Who are you trying to convince Randy? Us? Or yourself?
The question was rhetorical, but needless to say, weren’t the Neapolitans of the Latin rite?
It is true that Lutherans do not accept transubstantiation, but they do believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. I would say that the Lutherans who told you otherwise don’t understand their own tradition.
I am not saying what you say I am saying.
Transubstantiation is not the only way of expressing or believing in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Lutheran teaching is that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharistic elements.
I never meant to imply that it was the only impediment, however, it seems to be an issue for many Orthodox or why else bring it up during threads about Catholic/Orthodox reunion?That question doesn’t even make sense unless you assume that Orthodox go Romeward “by default”.
(Apologies to both of you if I’m offering an unwelcome perspective on your little conversation.)
Sure, I understand all that. Do you think the differences between the EO and the RCC are such, that the EO have sufficient grounds for treating Rome in this manner, however? If so, how can you support the RCC offering communion to them? If there is a divide in the faith (and the EO maintain there is), shouldn’t Rome withhold communion? I don’t see how you can hold both positions simultaneously; that Rome is right to offer the EO participation in the sacraments, but the EO right in refusing that participation. One of these parties errs, right?I am not saying what you say I am saying.
I am saying that the reason the Eastern Orthodox do not normally permit their members to receive the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic (or any other) Church is because they do not consider our sacraments to be valid. Frankly, I am surprised that you do not understand that position, because it’s exactly the same position that the RCC holds in forbidding its members from receiving the Eucharist at non-Catholic churches.
I should think you would respect the Orthodox bishops for doing what they believe is necessary to protect their members from receiving what they believe are invalid sacraments. Don’t you think that’s their responsibility?
I’ll try (although I have a bad feeling that this will be like talking to a wall). Just read what she said: “No, I don’t think they’re wrong to extend the invitation, any more than a Protestant church is wrong to extend the same invitation to Catholics.” She didn’t say that Catholics have to accept the invitation from protestants; just that they aren’t wrong to extend the invitation.
So again here, you’re assuming that the default (so to speak) would be for Orthodox to go Romeward.
Why thank you.
(So does that mean that I was, in fact, offering an unwelcome perspective on your conversation with Ryan?)