Catholic and Orthodox reunion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anthony86 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Loaded question. Saying that “the Orthodox are correct in refusing” implies that accepting would be incorrect. (The not a pure hypothetical: the Assyrian Church of the East accepts our invitation, as does the PNCC.)
 
Anthony86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the EO is not telling the RC that it is wrong to offer the intercommunion! It’s telling ITS OWN MEMBERS not to accept it! You’re saying that the EO should be required to accept intercommunion when they consider that to be wrong? I just can’t understand that kind of reasoning. :confused:

Here’s an excellent explanation of this from the OCA (Orthodox Church in America):
“For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, not the means by which unity is achieved.”
Click to expand...
In other words, the Orthodox do not believe in using the Eucharist as a tool to bring about a unity that does not yet exist. Which makes total sense to me, as a Catholic, because that’s exactly the reason that I, as a Catholic, should not accept the Eucharist from a Protestant Church just because they think we **should **be able to.
 
Anthony86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
To extend the analogy further, could we not say that your posts on the matter are like someone coming in and saying “Can you believe that your so-called friend didn’t accept your offer?” ?
 
Peter_J said:
Loaded question. Saying that “the Orthodox are correct in refusing” implies that accepting would be incorrect. (The not a pure hypothetical: the Assyrian Church of the East accepts our invitation, as does the PNCC.)
Click to expand...
How is it a loaded question? Isn’t it the position of the Orthodox that accepting it would be incorrect? That the Assyrian Church of the East and the PNCC share Rome’s understanding, doesn’t really shed light on the nature of the disagreement between Rome and the EO - does it?
 
frjohnmorris said:
Orthodox laity cannot receive Communion from any Priest whose Bishop is not in Communion with their Bishop. It is really that simple. Sharing Communion can only take place once Communion is actually achieved between our two Churches.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Click to expand...
Thank you, Father, but I was already well aware of this. My point had nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Orthodox permit their faithful from receiving communion outside of their own communion.
 
theistgal said:
But the EO is not telling the RC that it is wrong to offer the intercommunion! It’s telling ITS OWN MEMBERS not to accept it! You’re saying that the EO should be required to accept intercommunion when they consider that to be wrong? I just can’t understand that kind of reasoning. :confused:
Click to expand...
There was a fairly recent post (you may have seen it, but I’ll mention it since some readers may not have) about an Anglican going up to an Orthodox priest and saying “My bishop said you have no right to refuse me communion!”

At the risk of sounding cliche, I’m going to say i52.photobucket.com/albums/g4/Crystal_Aerith/sign-smiley-7161.gif
 
Peter_J said:
To extend the analogy further, could we not say that your posts on the matter are like someone coming in and saying “Can you believe that your so-called friend didn’t accept your offer?” ?
Click to expand...
That’s part of it, I suppose. The other part, however, is about trying to clarify why the friend did not accept, and why that does not prevent us from offering. This seems important when the friend doesn’t just refuse based on prudential reasons, but as a matter of principle.

It just seems to me that some Catholics are so bent on Catholic-Orthodox reunion, that they are willing to sweep a lot of (potentially) important issues under the rug. When the EO tell us that we shouldn’t be offering each other sacraments, shouldn’t we take that point seriously? This position is based on their ecclesiology and sacramental theology, after all; that’s not minor. It seems a little condescending to just ignore it, and file it with other Orthodox objections under ‘things the EO just don’t get yet, but will if we just explain it slowly yet again’.
 
Anthony86 said:
That’s part of it, I suppose. The other part, however, is about trying to clarify why the friend did not accept, and why that does not prevent us from offering. This seems important when the friend doesn’t just refuse based on prudential reasons, but as a matter of principle.

It just seems to me that some Catholics are so bent on Catholic-Orthodox reunion, that they are willing to sweep a lot of (potentially) important issues under the rug. When the EO tell us that we shouldn’t be offering each other sacraments, shouldn’t we take that point seriously? This position is based on their ecclesiology and sacramental theology, after all; that’s not minor. It seems a little condescending to just ignore it, and file it with other Orthodox objections under ‘things the EO just don’t get yet, but will if we just explain it slowly yet again’.
Click to expand...
It seems to disturb you that the EO have a different view of the sacraments than the RC do. You seem to think they should not. What is it you think they believe about the Eucharist that they do not have a right to believe?
 
theistgal said:
But the EO is not telling the RC that it is wrong to offer the intercommunion! It’s telling ITS OWN MEMBERS not to accept it! You’re saying that the EO should be required to accept intercommunion when they consider that to be wrong? I just can’t understand that kind of reasoning. :confused:
Click to expand...
Maybe part of the problem is that I’m expressing myself rather poorly, as English is my third language, but at no point did I mean to say “the EO should be required to accept intercommunion when they consider that to be wrong.” That is not at all what I’m saying.
In other words, the Orthodox do not believe in using the Eucharist as a tool to bring about a unity that does not yet exist. Which makes total sense to me, as a Catholic, because that’s exactly the reason that I, as a Catholic, should not accept the Eucharist from a Protestant Church just because they think we **should **be able to.
Click to expand...
And my question would then be: are we then not wrong in offering the Eucharist? How can you at one moment say the Eucharist should only be offered once full communion has been achieved, and then go on to offer it to those not in full communion?
 
On a more positive note, Anthony, I believe you are entirely correct here:
Anthony86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
theistgal said:
It seems to disturb you that the EO have a different view of the sacraments than the RC do. You seem to think they should not. What is it you think they believe about the Eucharist that they do not have a right to believe?
Click to expand...
Nothing. I’m just pointing out that if the RCC and the EO indeed hold different views of the sacraments, at least one of them is mistaken. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Could you explain why you think it is right to offer the Eucharist to those who are not in full communion and, in your words, hold a different view of the sacraments? It puzzles me that at the one moment you seem to say the Eucharist shouldn’t be offered under such circumstances, and the next you approve of it. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
 
Nine_Two said:
I don’t know what that has to do with anything, but it is untrue. Just ask Elizabeth May, who recently tried that and was told the Queen had no power to interfere in Canadian Affairs.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is because the Queen’s role is strictly one of honour. She has no real power or authority in such matters and can’t even entertain an appeal. Indeed, she has to be careful in this role or aspect as any interference -especially if it turns out unpopular- could easily become grounds for a strict republicanism. She simply has no authority to act upon and, therefore, should she do so there would be something of an usurpation understood in it: and this, again, is only in the act of just entertaining an appeal. Should thee Queen entertain it and try to take some sort of action it would be immediately detected as an interference and usurpation and there would be quick mobilization against it. Red flags would go up.

The only times I have seen anything like Rome having a title of “honour” in the early Church was in reference to “honouring the memory of blessed Peter” and variants. And this expression was never empty speech: it always meant and included some practical act. It was the acknowledgement of something well known and generally understood; presumably from the Church’s custom, practice or tradition.
 
Kylominch said:
I thought that We Catholics cannot receive communion in Protestant churches because it is not the Eucharist
Click to expand...
True
K:
and-] not /-]because Protestants don’t share the faith.
Click to expand...
That too.
K:
Protestants share faith of the Christian creeds.
Click to expand...
saying a creed doesn’t mean one believes in what they are saying.

For example,

it seems silly to me for a protestant no matter the stripe to say the Nicene creed, “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” while standing in some “denominational assembly” … true? No Protestant assembly no matter the stripe or name is a “Church”, it’s certainly not “One”, it’s not “Catholic”, and it’s not “Apostolic”. So what the heck are they saying they believe?
K:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s a highly restrictive exception. Usually in the case where death is emminent or is expected.
K:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you have a name?
K:
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.
Click to expand...
Think about that. No Protestant has valid holy orders. Their chance of making a valid Eucharist happen is no better than me saying the words of consecration.
K:
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.
Click to expand...
If Protestants really believed they wouldn’t be Protestant any longer they’d be Catholic. Until there is full union there is no communion. There must be unity in commuity
K:
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.
Click to expand...
that’s confusing too many subjects in a confusing way, into one paragraph. Also bringing Protestants into this discussion derails the topic.
 
Anthony86 said:
Nothing. I’m just pointing out that if the RCC and the EO indeed hold different views of the sacraments, at least one of them is mistaken.
Click to expand...
But by your definition of “different views of the sacraments” you would also have to say that the current policy means that we present day Catholics have a different view of the sacraments than pre-Vatican II Catholics.
 
Anthony86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I already asked that as a point of clarification, but he dismissed that. As I pointed out in a much earlier post, the ancient ranking of sees (which produced the response) was

(BC = before Constantionple ;))

  1. *]Rome
    *]Alexandria
    *]Antioch
    *]Jerusalem
 
steve_b said:
I already asked that as a point of clarification, but he dismissed that. As I pointed out in a much earlier post, the ancient ranking of sees (which produced the response) was

(BC = before Constantionple ;))

  1. *]Rome
    *]Alexandria
    *]Antioch
    *]Jerusalem
Click to expand...

  1. And some of us are telling you that that is incorrect.

    Constantinople 381, Jerusalem 451.
 
steve_b said:
And I’m telling you, Constantinople can’t undo Jerusalem as an ancient see.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, for the ranking of Jerusalem as a patriarchate did not occur until the Council of Chalcedon, and it only occurred in the disputed canon 28. Before that, not only was Jerusalem not a patriarchate, but it was treated as inferior to the local metropolitan bishop, as can be seen with the Nicene canon which treats the matter of Jerusalem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top