Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Kylominch]

I was responding to your portrayal of the EO position.

We have the same position toward you that you have toward Protestants. They do not share the faith so you do not allow intercommunion when they offer it (and they do). Our position is the same.

I thought that We Catholics cannot receive communion in Protestant churches because it is not the Eucharist and not because Protestants don’t share the faith. That seems so general. Protestants share faith of the Christian creeds. Individual Protestants can receive catholic Eucharist and confession under special circumstances without accepting whole body of catholic teaching but expressing personal belief in the two sacraments. Pope Benedict and pope St. John Paul II regularly gave communion to a Lutheran man in Rome for many years whom they both personally knew and was a good personal friend and remained Lutheran. The few Protestants who truly don’t share the faith and are not Christians, like Mormons, we baptize them like any pagans and convert them but never share Eucharist or any sacrament with them under any circumstances before that.

I believe that Anglicans and Lutherans had maintained holy orders and true Eucharist, but all other Protestant positions we would be allowed to receive the Eucharist in their church when no Catholic Church is close by if they permitted it. I also am convinced that if disbelief in real presence was not so widespread among Protestants, the circumstances under which individual Protestants can participate in catholic communion by catholic rules would be much broader than they are now. Catholic attitude reflected in catholic rules about participating in non-catholic communion and non-Catholics sharing our communion reflects approach more to do with the reality of Eucharist in a certain church than about other doctrines that have nothing to do with Eucharist like pope primacy. I believe Protestants share Christian faith and Catholic Church accepts their baptism because church also believes so. If not, then would reject their baptism but we don’t.

 

[malphono]

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?

While I’m not exactly rejoining this thread, I will offer one small comment and pose a question of sorts.

My position on the inextricably linked issues of primacy, infallibility, and universal jurisdiction is not a big secret in this forum and I fully understand (and actually agree) that those issues are problematic to say the least. It seems to me, though, that the matter of ecclesiology itself is two-fold, in that it comprises **internal **and **external **elements.

That raises a question about rejection of ecclesiology. The Roman Church has, obviously, adopted a hierarchical model, whereas the Oriental and Eastern Churches have retained the Synodal model. Is it not in Rome’s claim of those inextricably linked issues, and the resulting imposition of that hierarchical model beyond the internal, (IOW, rather than what Rome does internally), that is the real problem?

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. Ambrose,

If you study your history, you will find that the Latins were forcing Byzantine Churches in Italy to adopt the Latin Rite. Patriarch Michael I simply responded by closing the Latin Rite parishes in Constantinople, something that he had right to do as the Archbishop of Constantinople.

In the Pope’s Letter to Patriarch Cerularius, he does not contest that.

Closing the Latin Churches -fine.

Desecrating the Eucharist of the Latins and mobbing the Latin Catholics - not fine at all, but in fact reprehensible.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

Just a clarification. Rome does not offer intercommunion to anyone. What is offered is called pastoral provision. Every apostolic Church offers pastoral provision to members of other Churches - in other words, particular members are allowed to receive communion in rare, extenuating circumstances. This is not intercommunion. “Intercommunion” refers to a normative practice.

There has been no intercommunion between the Churches since the historic schisms. The closest thing was between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Latin Catholic Church for about a 100 year period in the 17th-18th centuries. During that time. Latins and Copts in Egypt regularly communed with each other, with the knowledge of the hierarchies in both Churches. The Pope of Rome eventually ended the unique situation at the beginning of the 18th century.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, Rome offers intercommunion right now, thus without forcing the EO Patriarchs to accept Rome’s understanding of the Petrine primacy. Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive communion from Catholic priests; it’s the Eastern Orthodox bishops who restrain their faithful from receiving such communion, apparently on the notion that the RCC is not a legitimate Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother malphono,

This is a worthwhile analysis (something that I was planning to bring up in the Petrine Views thread). There is a definite difference (not merely a distinction) between the Latin Canon Law and the Eastern Canon Law in the matter of ecclesiology. In the Latin Code, other head bishops in the Latin Catholic Church, and episcopal conferences at that, have no proper authority in their regional jurisdictions - it is all delegated from the Pope. In the Eastern Code, on the other hand, the head bishops in the Eastern and Oriental Churches are affirmed to have ordinary and proper authority in their own regional jurisdictions.

Blessings,
Marduk

While I’m not exactly rejoining this thread, I will offer one small comment and pose a question of sorts.

My position on the inextricably linked issues of primacy, infallibility, and universal jurisdiction is not a big secret in this forum and I fully understand (and actually agree) that those issues are problematic to say the least. It seems to me, though, that the matter of ecclesiology itself is two-fold, in that it comprises **internal **and **external **elements.

That raises a question about rejection of ecclesiology. The Roman Church has, obviously, adopted a hierarchical model, whereas the Oriental and Eastern Churches have retained the Synodal model. Is it not in Rome’s claim of those inextricably linked issues, and the resulting imposition of that hierarchical model beyond the internal, (IOW, rather than what Rome does internally), that is the real problem?

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is a worthwhile analysis (something that I was planning to bring up in the Petrine Views thread). There is a definite difference (not merely a distinction) between the Latin Canon Law and the Eastern Canon Law in the matter of ecclesiology. In the Latin Code, other head bishops in the Latin Catholic Church, and episcopal conferences at that, have no proper authority in their regional jurisdictions - it is all delegated from the Pope. In the Eastern Code, on the other hand, the head bishops in the Eastern and Oriental Churches are affirmed to have ordinary and proper authority in their own regional jurisdictions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting point often overlooked.

 

[malphono]

This is a worthwhile analysis (something that I was planning to bring up in the Petrine Views thread). There is a definite difference (not merely a distinction) between the Latin Canon Law and the Eastern Canon Law in the matter of ecclesiology. In the Latin Code, other head bishops in the Latin Catholic Church, and episcopal conferences at that, have no proper authority in their regional jurisdictions - it is all delegated from the Pope. In the Eastern Code, on the other hand, the head bishops in the Eastern and Oriental Churches are affirmed to have ordinary and proper authority in their own regional jurisdictions.

OK, but yet the CCEO itself was (a) imposed by Rome and (b) contains the following. How can one possibly interpret this other than the way it’s written, i.e, all power ultimately resides in Rome? It’s a part of the point of my previous post.

Chapter I. The Roman Pontiff

Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 44 - §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

Canon 45 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 46 - §1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
§2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 47 - When the Roman see is vacant or entirely impeded nothing is to be innovated in the governance of the entire Church; however, special laws enacted for those circumstances are to be observed.

 

[Anthony86]

Dear brother Anthony,

Just a clarification. Rome does not offer intercommunion to anyone. What is offered is called pastoral provision. Every apostolic Church offers pastoral provision to members of other Churches - in other words, particular members are allowed to receive communion in rare, extenuating circumstances. This is not intercommunion. “Intercommunion” refers to a normative practice.

Dear brother Mardukm,

That is not quite how I read the provisions of canon law. Note the difference between Canon 844 §3 and §4. The pastoral provision for rare, extenuating circumstances is §4. I was referring to §3. The provision in §3 merely requires that the Orthodox seeks the sacrament of his own accord and is properly disposed. Members of other churches may receive the sacraments under rare, extenuating circumstances (§4). Am I misrepresenting these provisions?

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

 

[Anthony86]

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.

P.S. Perhaps it would have helped you if she had also added: there isn’t anything wrong with protestants extending the invitation to Orthodox. (Again, not that the Orthodox would have to accept.)

Dear Peter J,

I understand this perfectly well. I get why the Orthodox do not wish to participate in our sacraments, just like I understand why we are not supposed to partake of Lutheran sacraments. That is not my point. My point is that if the Orthodox are correct in refusing our ‘invitation’ in Canon 844 §3, are we not wrong in issuing that invitation?

 

[GaryTaylor]

are we not wrong in issuing that invitation?

Why do you suppose so?

 

[Anthony86]

Why do you suppose so?

As I understand it, the EO hold that it is ecclesiologically wrong to participate in each other’s sacraments as we have not entered full ecclesiastical communion, and that the EO and the RCC hold different faiths. If that is a correct judgement, it would mean the RCC is wrong in its ecclesiology regarding the distribution of the sacraments and/or in its appraisal of the EO faith; the RCC judgement that the sacraments can be licitly offered to the EO is, after all, based on the notion that we hold essentially the same faith.

It seems to me that either the RCC or the EO has to be wrong in its ecclesiology, or in its appraisal of the other party’s faith. Either the EO err in refusing our sacraments, or we err in offering them. Unless of course I’m missing something.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by theistgal
The Orthodox bishops restrain their faithful from receiving Communion in other churches for the exact same reason the Catholic Church forbids you to receive at a Lutheran Mass.

On doctrinal matters we certainly do what our Bishops tell us to do. The Pastor of a Church is the representative of the Bishop. However, the local Bishop is not an independent authority, he has to do what the Patriarch tells him to do. But the Patriarch has to do what the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate tells him to do. If an autocephalous Orthodox Church falls into heretical practices, it is answerable to the rest of the Orthodox Church.

Archpriest John Morris

Have you never heard of tongue-in-cheek? (Or are you just trying to see how many people you can annoy?)

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
So again here, you’re assuming that the default (so to speak) would be for Orthodox to go Romeward.

Thank you for judging me. But I’m not sure what you want less of.

Less truthfulness? Was I unkind to point out that “you’re assuming that the default (so to speak) would be for Orthodox to go Romeward”? Sorry.

 

[steve_b]

I was making a simple correction to a statement you made. Much as if you had made an argument including the statement “the sky is usually green”, if I told you “the sky is usually blue” I’m not making a comment on colours, I’m making a simple correction so that you might argue more intelligently in the future.

The fact that you have to argue about that and ascribe motives to things like that confirms what I saw earlier. Any discussion with you will be fruitless.

Constantinople came about ~330 a.d. Before that it was Byzantium. And you’re saying Jerusalem came after Constantinople. That’s what I’m asking you to expalin. It’s a simple question

 

[Anthony86]

Constantinople came about ~330 a.d. Before that it was Byzantium. And you’re saying Jerusalem came after Constantinople. That’s what I’m asking you to expalin. It’s a simple question

Jerusalem as a city is older than Constantinople. As a patriarchate, it was ranked after Constantinople, though. The Council of Nicaea mentions only Rome, Antioch and Alexandria - the three Petrine sees.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, Rome offers intercommunion right now, thus without forcing the EO Patriarchs to accept Rome’s understanding of the Petrine primacy. Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive communion from Catholic priests; it’s the Eastern Orthodox bishops who restrain their faithful from receiving such communion, apparently on the notion that the RCC is not a legitimate Church.

Could you explain?

I’ve heard it proposed the EO are to accept the 1st millenium understanding of the papacy i.e. before the actual schism.

 

[Peter_J]

Constantinople came about ~330 a.d. Before that it was Byzantium. And you’re saying Jerusalem came after Constantinople. That’s what I’m asking you to expalin. It’s a simple question

I don’t think anyone said anything about when it started being “Constantinople” (~330 a.d) but about when it became a patriarchate. Hence what was said in the first place:

Constantinople in 381, Jerusalem in 451.

 

[theistgal]

It seems to me that either the RCC or the EO has to be wrong in its ecclesiology, or in its appraisal of the other party’s faith. Either the EO err in refusing our sacraments, or we err in offering them. Unless of course I’m missing something.

False dilemma, and here’s a true-life example to explain:

I have a good friend who keeps offering her used office supplies to me. I don’t need them, so I thank her kindly but refuse. Partly because I have my own office supplies, so I don’t need them; but also because I know (from past experience!) that once I accept them, she’ll be encouraged to try to make me take all sorts of other things she thinks I need. Plus my boss will be annoyed because he thinks I already have all the office supplies I need right there in my own office.

But we’re friends, so she continues to offer them to me, hoping that someday I’ll change my mind and accept her generous offer. And I continue to politely refuse, hoping she’ll understand and not be mad at me.

So: Does my friend err in making the offer, or do I err in refusing her?

The correct answer (to save some time) is that neither of us errs. My friend has every right to offer her property to anyone she chooses to offer it to. And I have every right to refuse to accept any property that someone else offers me if I don’t need it at the time.

And we can still be friends - unless my friend starts going around telling people that I’m not really her friend because I won’t take her things. Then I may have to find a new friend.

 

[Anthony86]

Dear theistgal,

Thank you for your real life example. I don’t think it can be resolved that way, however, because your real life example is essentially a prudential judgement on both sides. In the case of the RCC or the EO, however, it seems there is a doctrinal issue at stake. It’s not like the RCC is kind enough to offer office supplies and the EO for prudential reasons decides not to accept the gift. It’s more like offering office supplies and having the other person tell you that would be theft, or tell you that the boss does not allow you to offer these office supplies in the first place. One or the other fails to correctly understand the nature of the offer. That is at least how I understand it.

 

[Anthony86]

Could you explain?

I’ve heard it proposed the EO are to accept the 1st millenium understanding of the papacy i.e. before the actual schism.

The way I understand Canon 844 §3 (and if I’m wrong, I’d be happy to be corrected), the Catholic Church already considers it lawful for Eastern Orthodox to receive sacraments (penance, Eucharist, anointing of the sick) from Catholic priests. It is not necessary for these Eastern Orthodox to affirm Vatican I or anything of the sort; they do not need to go beyond what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches at this point.

The Catholic Church thus already offers at least some intercommunion, without requiring the EO Churches to reach full ecclesiastical / canonical communion with Rome; for Rome seems to be of the opinion that, notwithstanding the issue of the papacy, the RCC and the EO hold essentially the same faith, and both possess valid apostolic succession and sound sacramental theology. The Eastern Orthodox Church considers this a mistake, and does not allow its faithful to receive these sacraments from Catholic Church. That is, at least, how I understand the current situation.