S
- Status
R
RyanBlack
Guest
The term “imperfect communion” comes from Pope St. John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint.
A
Augustine
Guest
Never mind, some commenters in this thread are more ultramontanist than popes.
Let me just irritate them a little with this schismatic celebration: bit.ly/1RcOOwj
Christus natus est!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Levels of ultramontanicity are extremely hard to measure (chemist emoticon not found) but I agree that some of it can be found here. Hence why I try to be in the forum but not of the forum.Never mind, some commenters in this thread are more ultramontanist than popes.
But regardless, Steve b is right that the CCC defines schism as “refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” – which in turn may relate to the fact that the term isn’t used very much.
S
steve_b
Guest
I’m not disagreeing. I’m saying it didn’t negate the schism that still exists.
Then JPII also said in that doc
- With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. *The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby “there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church” *84 the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion."
The excommunication was removed. We all know that. Did that act complete reconciliation? No. The schism still remains
That’s all I’m saying
G
Ghosty
Guest
This depends greatly on the Orthodox Church, and especially the Orthodox Communion, in question. In generally I think it would be quite rare in Eastern Orthodox churches to be allowed to receive Communion outside of special circumstances.I don’t know a single Catholic who was permitted to receive Communion at a Orthodox church once they made it known to the Priest prior to commencement that they were Catholic, myself included.
Perhaps others have had different experiences.
It could be that they have their criteria to fulfill before allowing it as we do.
The Oriental Orthodox Communion (distinct from the Eastern Orthodox) have varying policies. Some Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic, will be more like the Eastern Orthodox. Others, such as the Syriac and Armenian, actually have standing agreements with the Catholic Communion with regards to sharing certain Sacraments (already addressed above by another poster); I actually had an Armenian priest invite me to receive Eucharist knowing that I was Catholic, without my even asking.
This doesn’t mean we should go and pester every Orthodox priest we find about sharing the Sacraments with us. In God’s time we will be fully reunited, and in the mean time there are moments where it is appropriate and beneficial to share, but patience and humility is the best course at this time.
Peace and God bless!
R
RyanBlack
Guest
And I’m not saying that full communion has been restored, and that there is not still an objective state of schism. However, the highest leadership of the Church, for several decades now, rather than choosing to emphasize schism, has chosen to emphasize the sacramental bonds that exist between us, as well as the objective state of real, though imperfect, communion that exists. Why should we not follow their example?
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
My experience was at a Greek Orthodox Church here.This depends greatly on the Orthodox Church, and especially the Orthodox Communion, in question. In generally I think it would be quite rare in Eastern Orthodox churches to be allowed to receive Communion outside of special circumstances.
The Oriental Orthodox Communion (distinct from the Eastern Orthodox) have varying policies. Some Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic, will be more like the Eastern Orthodox. Others, such as the Syriac and Armenian, actually have standing agreements with the Catholic Communion with regards to sharing certain Sacraments (already addressed above by another poster); I actually had an Armenian priest invite me to receive Eucharist knowing that I was Catholic, without my even asking.
This doesn’t mean we should go and pester every Orthodox priest we find about sharing the Sacraments with us. In God’s time we will be fully reunited, and in the mean time there are moments where it is appropriate and beneficial to share, but patience and humility is the best course at this time.
Peace and God bless!
Thank you for the info regarding the Syriac and Armenians. I just assumed like us they have a governing body which decides on matters like this and apply across the globe to all Orthodox churches. Obvious misconception on my part, they appear to be run separately along national lines or some other criteria.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Not national lines, but individual diocesan bishop - it should be noted that Latin diocesan bishops have the same authority historically, although many have conceded this to Rome for uniformity’s sake. Latin Church Catholics often forget that a Metropolitan bishop (diocesan or eparchial) is king in his diocese. This means if he chooses to commune a non-Catholic, for example, he has that authority without necessarily being intervened by Rome (although many will choose to have the Roman Pontiff decide this for uniformity and convenience); on the flip side, if he wants to have every priest celebrate facing East and exclude altar girls and communion via hand, that is also his right.
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Interesting, thank you for the clarification.
The Bishop can decide for communion via hand however those who choose to receive on the tongue or receive kneeling must still be allowed to freely do so.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
Re: “schism”
“We are all schismatics”- The late Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Melkite Catholic.
“We are all schismatics”- The late Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Melkite Catholic.
T
twf
Guest
Greek Orthodox and Syriac / Armenian Orthodox are no more in communion with each other than either is with the Catholic Church. Greek Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox. Syriac and Armenian Orthodox are Oriental Orthodox. Completely separate communions with their own unique histories and theologies. The Oriental Orthodox have been out of communion with both Rome and Constantinople since the 5th century (500 years or so before the Great Schism between the Latins and Greeks) in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m not sure whether to call the following ‘piggybacking on what twf said’ or not, but using the phrase “all Orthodox” to encompass both EOs and OOs is equivalent to using “all Catholics” to include Old Catholics and PNCC. That is to say, even if it isn’t incorrect, it is likely to lead to misunderstandings.
A
Augustine
Guest
As others mentioned, it depends. An Eastern Orthodox bishop told me that he’d give Holy Communion to any Catholic, since we abide by the Faith of the first seven ecumenical councils.
Christus natus est!
A
Augustine
Guest
At least as defined AFTER the Great Schism. This was not even the reason for that schism… As a matter of fact, Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP mentioned that the so called Great Schism doesn’t really fully qualify as schism. Rather than throwing epithets, it’s a matter that should be approached with fear and trembling, since it concerns the Body of Christ and the Holy Mysteries/Sacraments.
Christus natus est!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, the CCC came after the schism … by nine centuries
. So I figured I could just take for granted that it was post-schism without actually saying so. 
But that aside, basically my point was: I think it is quite clear that a polemical Internet discussion forum doesn’t speak for the church … but I also don’t want to paint an uber-rosy picture of ecumenism, as if it is all smooth sailing once you get off your computer.
See also this two faces link.
A
Augustine
Guest
I don’t mean the CCC, but it’s definition. Papal supremacy cannot be claimed as the reason for the schism in 1054 because it was not a doctrine. It only came about explicitly in the late Middle Ages.Well, the CCC came after the schism … by nine centuries
Apropos: youtu.be/FoU2o1iRN0U
Christus natus est!
M
malphono
Guest
It might be better said that it perhaps became implicit by the 15th Century, but only became ***explicit ***at Vatican I.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I can’t deny that that definition preceded the publication of the CCC by … well, I don’t know how long exactly. But I think we can all agree that, whenever it first came out, it is (if you will) less ecumenical then other statements that have come out of Rome in the last 50 years or so. (Aside: A comedic Orthodox once asked his readers to find where the Orthodox claimed that “schism is the refusal of submission to the Phanar’s Pontiff”.
)
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I didn’t know you were a priest. Thanks for letting me know
My questions Fr, are to seek clarity. That’s all.
Re: concelebration,
who is it that JPII concelebrated the Eucharist with? Homily: Let No Difficulty Hinder Us
Am I reading concelebration with Bartholomew incorrectly?
**Yes. You are reading concelebration with Bartholomew incorrectly.
The Pope and the Patriarch do not concelebrate at each other’s Eucharists. They are present for them. (If you are acquainted with the vetus ordo of the Mass, you may think of it as when clergy “sat in choir,” vested in their choir dress. This was not concelebrating but the manner for clergy to be present at the Mass being offered by whoever was the celebrant.) In any event they do not receive Communion from each other, either. They do, however, exchange the sign of peace/kiss of peace.
In the case you are referencing there are two things happening at the one Eucharist. It was the Solemnity of Ss. Peter and Paul. For years now, the patriarchate in Constantinople sends a delegation to Rome to be present to celebrate the feast of the apostles of Rome. At times, the patriarch himself has come. (In turn, the Holy See correspondingly sends a delegation to Constantinople for the Feast of Saint Andrew, November 30th, the founder of that see.)
At this same Mass, Saint John Paul II established the custom that all metropolitan archbishops named in the last year would receive, from his hands, the pallium – the liturgical mark of their office as metropolitans. Typically, the archbishops would bring with them to Rome a pilgrimage of clergy, religious and faithful from their archdioceses. It is these Catholic archbishops who were concelebrating with the pope. Before Francis, this celebration would bring to a close the major ceremonies of the papal court for the Summer. In July, the pope would leave Rome for Castel Gandolfo and, normally, for a vacation in the mountains. Rome in August is often miserably hot. The pope would normally return in September. Francis remains in Rome and has chosen not to use the summer palace.**
Actually that’s not what concerns me on this topic. IMV schism also plays a part in what makes something licit vs illicit
**I have no idea what the initialism IMV means in English or what it is qualifying relative to schism.
Seldom is the canonical crime of schism involved in issues of liceity/illicitness or validity/invalidity when it comes to the sacraments.**
It’s a big subject with lots of layers and lots of effort by a whole lot of people over the years.
You are very correct.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm
%between%
- Status