Catholic stance on Eastern communioin

[Cybophonia]

I meant to say

How is it that Jesus allows someone in the Eastern Church to take communion and by evidence it is very powerful for them, but does not in the Catholic Church?

Because Jesus was Eastern.

 

[otjm]

I think this is a good point-- however my interest here is in comparative theology specifically concerning Eucharist regulations on who can and cant take it.

Okay, we have a defined starting point.

Why would either deny the Truth?

I did not suggest any would-- only that it would seem to be the only resolution to the dilemma which is that the real presence of Christ is allowed a person in church A but denied in church B under similar circumstances.

This seems to be the source of the issue.

One could say that “denying the Truth” is the issue - and if I am reading the conversation correctly, that would mean that either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox would be denying (to some extent) the Real Presence.

However, while disciplinary matters are often flowing from a doctrinal matter (here, the sacramental theology of the Eucharist and of Marriage), it is both a bit difficult and a bit hazardous to say that where there is a significant difference (here, whether married, divorced, and remarried couples may receive the Eucharist), that such difference is due to a denial of the sacramental theology.

I can’t source why some of the Orthodox may allow someone who has divorced and remarried to receive. For those Orthodox) who do, it appears to me that they require the one to go through some extended period of penance (which presumably requires the individual to have approached the Church over the matter), rather than go through a tribunal process of determining if the first marriage was valid.

That decision is really a series of decisions, and without someone being able to detail where that started and how we arrive at todays approach, we are really wandering around in opinion-land.

Sacred and powerful when worthy. Judgment and condemnation when unworthy.

This. This exactly. I cant think of a better reason to look into this.

You are not alone; currently there is an active discussion going on within the Catholic Church over this very matter - who, and under what circumstances, may someone who has been divorced, receive the Eucharist.

My point is that the real presence of Christ is allowed in one Church under certain circumstances and not allowed in another under the same circumstances.

This is where we are having a problem. The Real Presence is not “allowed in one and not in the other”. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches believe in and accept the Real Presence. The issue is, rather, under what circumstances has an individual removed themselves from communion (meaning unity) and because of that, may not receive Communion (the Eucharist). That is really what gets down to the issue.

Another way of looking at it is that both Churches accept the concept that one can commit a sin, serious enough that the individual should not approach reception of the Eucharist until one has reconciled with Christ and the Church. How that reconciliation occurs goes to the heart of this question - divorce. That, in turn, goes to how each Church looks at the issue of the validity of a marriage and the resolution of that question. So the real issue at hand is how does each Church look at the validity of the first marriage, and if a divorce occurs, how do they respond to it?

We can answer how they respond to it; I cannot answer why the Orthodox respond as they do. And presuming for a minute that the Orthodox response is simply wrong, The next question is whether or not either the priest or the individual approach reception of the Eucharist are morally culpable, and that is a completely different discussion involving conscience. That, in itself, is probably worth a semester class in moral theology.

I am amazed more people aren’t interested and I really don’t get the hostility toward this line of questioning. Is Christ divided?

Many, if not most people do not have a curiosity about theology. I am sorry if you perceive the answers to be hostile (I don’t); perhaps abrupt might be closer. And no, Christ is not divided, but certainly those who profess Christ are. That has less to do with Christ than it does to the issues of what causes dissention within the ranks. And that is worth a lot more than just a semester class… And again, I don’t think there has been contempt. You are in a forum of people who tend towards a very clear understanding of the Catholic Church, and may not have patience for someone who does not have the same level of understanding. Their response too often may be given as “final statements” rather than as an on-going discussion. Exchanges tend to be didactic rather than exploratory.

I hope this is a bit more helpful.

 

[franklinstower]

^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the reply. It has given me some very useful information to digest.

We will have to agree to disagree on the tone of many people on this forum regarding issues that don’t square with official teachings I did not mean only in this thread and apologize if it seems I am shifting goalposts. I have encountered lots of downright meanness, intellectual bullying, and dishonest tactics most often from the truest of believers. Check my PM inbox for apologies from Catholics for the misbehavior of other Catholics. It has caused me to wonder “Just what do the supposed “true believers” have that they cannot answer honest genuine questions charitably and without edge?” “Can they really have more love as a result of being “Right” when that love doesn’t show when there is the slightest bit of disagreement?” “Is edginess, rudeness and impatience the result of aligning fully with Church authority?”

Of course it is the internet and we all may be a bit jaded due to our real and lived experience on it, myself included… I can see why someone might assume that I was methodically and covertly trying to build up to some kind of wholesale questioning of the validity of the Catholic Church. Couple that with my unwise choice in labeling of religious affiliation and a lot of it is understandable if regrettable.

More questions for you though, realizing that we are just discussing things and that as you said it would take some serious theology to really get to the bottom of this.

When considering the disagreement on who and who cannot take Communion across churches. Is it the Catholic stance then that when there is disagreement or incongruity between the Catholic Church and some other church whose Eucharist is recognized by the Catholic Church that the other Church is simply wrong in their actions? How does the Church deal with positive and not negative effects of reception of Communion by the unqualified?

People keep trying to frame this as simply a matter of discrepancies in philosophical approach. I cannot understand that stance at all because in this case we are dealing with Christs physical presence in the world-- a completely unique situation. It cannot be framed in terms of differences of approach because it gets right to the heart of Christ and his physical presence. I think there is a very rare opportunity to investigate Christs real presence and effects within approaches by testing the real effects of Communion in the individuals receiving it. * The sin of schism resulting in a genuinely rare opportunity to evaluate our approaches.
*
I cannot believe that the effects of Communion (something I have benefited greatly from in the past, and something I watch greatly and positively effect people I know and love now) can have effects so subtle that they are impossible to measure by qualified holy people.

***If anyone has a link to material on this topic I would be very ***grateful.

.

 

[otjm]

When considering the disagreement on who and who cannot take Communion across churches. Is it the Catholic stance then that when there is disagreement or incongruity between the Catholic Church and some other church whose Eucharist is recognized by the Catholic Church that the other Church is simply wrong in their actions? How does the Church deal with positive and not negative effects of reception of Communion by the unqualified?

You are getting too far above my pay grade ( ). Our local seminary offers a Fall and Spring “class” taught by various professors. Several years ago one of them was on conscience, taught by a monk with, if I recall, a PhD. He also happened to be a previous abbot. a bright man, not given to woolly thinking. Some of what he taught seems to be related to your issue.

As best I can answer it, I don’t think that one can say, except in a very cursory and minimalistic way, that the Church “simply” says that the other Church is wrong. The answer, because that would be given on a level of one of the dicasteries in Rome, would be a tad bit more complex than that.

However, for the vast majority of “pew sitters”, “simply” might get used, if for no other reason than that pew sitters by and large are not interested in higher level sacramental theology, nor higher level discussions on the issue of conscience.

I don’t think we will have a very thoroughly documented and extensive answer on the question, if my watching what has been occurring in and about the Synod on the Family is any indication.

Cardinal Kasper, from Germany, has basically proposed the adoption of the Orthodox method of dealing with prior marriage/divorce/remarriage/Eucharist. There has been at least one book written to counter his position. I have not read it, and most likely won’t simply because from my day-to-day world, I have too many practical issues, and this one is not, for me, a practical matter in my day-to-day world. It may be an excellent book concerning the RC position, but my guess is that it is not going to get into the other side of the coin - the OC position in any depth. And that, for no reason other than that it was written as a defensive work rather than an exploratory or investigative work.

Which does not make it wrong in the least; but it leaves other question not answered, mainly why do some of the OC churches follow the path they do, where did that start, how does it fit or not fit with a wide survey of other OC Churches, why do they not follow a model similar to the RC - and the list can go on. And on.

Let me make another observation. In the 1960’s, a group of Protestants basically said, after reading the NT, that if the Holy Spirit could act as I the Acts, why could not the Holy Spirit act the same now; and they set out to make serious From that was born the Charismatic Movement.

There are plenty of Catholics today who flat out reject any possibility that the Holy Spirit could act so in the lives of Protestants .

The Catholic Church does not appear to agree with them, but the issue does not get pushed.

So how does Christ deal with the issue (presuming that the OC’s who practice the method of a penitential period to resolve 2nd marriage/Eucharist issues are “simply wrong”)? I don’t know, but I strongly suspect that a significant part of that is that Christ takes people where they are. As it has been said that just as natural law, and the sacraments, bind man but they do not bind God, so also a wrong approach to resolving the marriage/Eucharist issue does not bind Christ to someone who, in good faith, seeks Him. That does not make the wrong approach correct, or less wrong. But the wrong is not necessarily imputed to the one seeking reception of the Eucharist.

And ultimately, that is God’s problem. But assuming that God is bound by our understanding is getting things more than slightly out of order.

 

[Peter_J]

I meant to say

How is it that Jesus allows someone in the Eastern Church to take communion and by evidence it is very powerful for them, but does not in the Catholic Church?

^^^^^

My post is not dripping with sarcasm.

When I read the above question, it didn’t strike me as being sarcastic (but, now that it has been brought up, I can definitely see how someone might think that).

It did strike me as extreme over-spiritualizing, as if God micromanages people’s actions, e.g. decides “Such-and-such priest is going to give communion to so-and-so, and this other priest is going to deny communion to so-and-so, and then after mass he’s going to approach her to explain and try to comfort her” and so on and so forth.

P.S. I’m reminded of something a teacher of mine asked 20 or so years ago: If your teeth hurt, does that mean that they sinner and are now punished?

 

[franklinstower]

You are getting too far above my pay grade ( ). Our local seminary offers a Fall and Spring “class” taught by various professors. Several years ago one of them was on conscience, taught by a monk with, if I recall, a PhD. He also happened to be a previous abbot. a bright man, not given to woolly thinking. Some of what he taught seems to be related to your issue.

As best I can answer it, I don’t think that one can say, except in a very cursory and minimalistic way, that the Church “simply” says that the other Church is wrong. The answer, because that would be given on a level of one of the dicasteries in Rome, would be a tad bit more complex than that.

However, for the vast majority of “pew sitters”, “simply” might get used, if for no other reason than that pew sitters by and large are not interested in higher level sacramental theology, nor higher level discussions on the issue of conscience.

I don’t think we will have a very thoroughly documented and extensive answer on the question, if my watching what has been occurring in and about the Synod on the Family is any indication.

Cardinal Kasper, from Germany, has basically proposed the adoption of the Orthodox method of dealing with prior marriage/divorce/remarriage/Eucharist. There has been at least one book written to counter his position. I have not read it, and most likely won’t simply because from my day-to-day world, I have too many practical issues, and this one is not, for me, a practical matter in my day-to-day world. It may be an excellent book concerning the RC position, but my guess is that it is not going to get into the other side of the coin - the OC position in any depth. And that, for no reason other than that it was written as a defensive work rather than an exploratory or investigative work.

Which does not make it wrong in the least; but it leaves other question not answered, mainly why do some of the OC churches follow the path they do, where did that start, how does it fit or not fit with a wide survey of other OC Churches, why do they not follow a model similar to the RC - and the list can go on. And on.

Let me make another observation. In the 1960’s, a group of Protestants basically said, after reading the NT, that if the Holy Spirit could act as I the Acts, why could not the Holy Spirit act the same now; and they set out to make serious From that was born the Charismatic Movement.

There are plenty of Catholics today who flat out reject any possibility that the Holy Spirit could act so in the lives of Protestants .

The Catholic Church does not appear to agree with them, but the issue does not get pushed.

So how does Christ deal with the issue (presuming that the OC’s who practice the method of a penitential period to resolve 2nd marriage/Eucharist issues are “simply wrong”)? I don’t know, but I strongly suspect that a significant part of that is that Christ takes people where they are. As it has been said that just as natural law, and the sacraments, bind man but they do not bind God, so also a wrong approach to resolving the marriage/Eucharist issue does not bind Christ to someone who, in good faith, seeks Him. That does not make the wrong approach correct, or less wrong. But the wrong is not necessarily imputed to the one seeking reception of the Eucharist.

And ultimately, that is God’s problem. But assuming that God is bound by our understanding is getting things more than slightly out of order.

I apologize for the late reply-- busy end of week for me. I love theology and naturally find myself thinking about theological subjects constantly. It is just a natural interest. Before I found Catholicism I used to think that there was something wrong with me for not being able to figure out many different theological problems. When I was taught about 'Mystery" by a priest and later discovered the apophatic approach it changed my whole world profoundly. I have never been the same again. I discovered that no one had all of the answers even those who had been able to figure out much more than me. I learned of a God that was incomprehensible by its very nature, and not just due to my limitations. This allowed me to relax and focus on Gods presence in my life and not strive so hard to get answers.

Thank you for the great post. It seems I will not find the kind of comparative theology I have been hoping to find on this subject from either Church in question. You said-- “As it has been said that just as natural law, and the sacraments, bind man but they do not bind God.” Is that a Catholic saying? I had never heard that before and I really appreciate it. I think it gets to the heart of how I feel about this whole issue although I am certain I would take that to far according to Catholicism. This principle that you have just stated is useful within this whole line of questioning on the subject of discrepancies of approach between these two Churches and even when just considering Catholicism.

Can you (or the Catholic Church) imagine a scenario where someone within Catholicism was taking communion but who in reality, according to Church rules should not be, but who was having real authentic spiritual blessings from taking it? They might be taking it because of ignorance of the prohibition, or because their priest happens to be rebellious and liberal and encourages it (something quite common). It sounds like you could imagine a scenario where the person was not morally culpable for taking it but what about the possibility of authentic blessing coming from it?

Thanks again- I am wrapping up-- not baiting you into something here.

 

[franklinstower]

When I read the above question, it didn’t strike me as being sarcastic (but, now that it has been brought up, I can definitely see how someone might think that).

It did strike me as extreme over-spiritualizing, as if God micromanages people’s actions, e.g. decides “Such-and-such priest is going to give communion to so-and-so, and this other priest is going to deny communion to so-and-so, and then after mass he’s going to approach her to explain and try to comfort her” and so on and so forth.

P.S. I’m reminded of something a teacher of mine asked 20 or so years ago: If your teeth hurt, does that mean that they sinner and are now punished?

I cannot figure out what you are trying to say here but I assure you I was not being sarcastic as I have gone to great lengths on this thread to show. I think the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist makes this a special case not reducible to your example.

What I am finding out and did not know is that the kinds of questions I am asking are more common for people with an interest in theology. I definitely have that interest, and it sounds like I have to take certain courses to get what I am looking for. There are places where these questions would be welcomed and celebrated-- but it sounds like that would be in college courses more often than not.

 

[otjm]

You said-- “As it has been said that just as natural law, and the sacraments, bind man but they do not bind God.” Is that a Catholic saying?

It is a saying I have come across more than once either in reading, or in a lecture. No idea as to it’s source, but it simply makes sense. I have heard it most often, in connection with issues concerning God and non-Christians.

Can you (or the Catholic Church) imagine a scenario where someone within Catholicism was taking communion but who in reality, according to Church rules should not be, but who was having real authentic spiritual blessings from taking it? They might be taking it because of ignorance of the prohibition, or because their priest happens to be rebellious and liberal and encourages it (something quite common). It sounds like you could imagine a scenario where the person was not morally culpable for taking it but what about the possibility of authentic blessing coming from it?

This goes to the area of conscience. If someone has either not been taught a moral issue or has been taught it incorrectly, then as best I understand it, they are judged in their moral choices as to that issue, based on their understanding.

So: for the issue of the indissolubility of marriage, if one has not been taught that marriage is indissoluble, then one is judged differently than one who has been correctly taught.

Matters such as this have been a topic, or a sub topic, in these forums, and there often has been a response to the effect either that people “couldn’t be that ignorant”, or that, essentially, if they had even heard it, then they have sufficient information. Given that those who express opinions on the matter are neither theologians nor confessors, that is perhaps a less than complete analysis of what the Church teaches.

On the other hand, the Church also teaches that while one is judged based on their conscience, they also have a moral duty to seek a correctly formed conscience. In other words, one cannot simply drift through life making choices; one has a duty to seek out Truth.

So yes, it may be possible that one could be in an irregular marriage situation and be approaching the Eucharist innocently, at least in theory. In practice, I leave the matter to them, their confessor, and God.

And as a caveat, I would be a bit careful about positing how many “liberal” priests there are, either in the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches. Too often, matters are not absolutely black and white, and too often, we make “determinations” of where a priest comes down on our spectrum based on perceptions. Orthodoxy, as understood in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches is not necessarily as proscribed as some would have it; nor is it as flexible or amorphous as others would have it.

 

[franklinstower]

I will be careful about the liberal priest thing. On the other hand my ex priest who is still my wife’s priest preaches on purpose and regularly many many doctrines that are not compatible with Catholic teachings. He does not believe in confession before Eucharist and tells everyone that there is no reason whatsoever that everyone should not be taking Communion. He is in touch with a large number of priests who feel the same way.

I actually did not know what the Church actually taught for a long while as a result of this…

 

[otjm]

I will be careful about the liberal priest thing. On the other hand my ex priest who is still my wife’s priest preaches on purpose and regularly many many doctrines that are not compatible with Catholic teachings. He does not believe in confession before Eucharist and tells everyone that there is no reason whatsoever that everyone should not be taking Communion. He is in touch with a large number of priests who feel the same way.

I actually did not know what the Church actually taught for a long while as a result of this…

Understood.