Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m not disagreeing. I’m saying it didn’t negate the schism that still exists.

Then JPII also said in that doc

1. 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

One must be nuanced though in how one formulates what one says on these issues because of the underlying theological and ecclesiological implications. That is why theologians and ecclesiologists weigh carefully the nuanced terms that they use and avoid broad or ill considered terms. It is not a matter of simple niceness in the name of ecumenism or a courtesy of etiquette…no, it is profoundly expressive of the truth. A truth whose complexity requires a subtle nuance precisely to be faithful to the truth’s complexity.

That said, the mutual excommunications are indeed the “symbol” – but seeing in the term the Pope used the reflection of its use as a term from sacramental theology that is in distinction of and in juxtaposition to “sign” – of the events before, during, and after a moment that ruptured full communion among particular Churches of the East and West. The image of the moment of the mutual excommunications truly and well symbolizes the culmination and aftermath and is, to use a contemporary term, a snapshot of a great tragedy.

Heresy and schism are topics respectively for canon law and for moral theology. In both instances, they must be applied only with a precise and appropriate deliberation…especially when postulated of persons or groups of people remote from distant acts and decisions, when different standards prevailed. There are many volumes written about this and exposition would require far more than 6000 characters. But being “in communion”, excommunication, and ecclesiastical governance are very fraught topics when one is using terms that have differing meanings and applications across centuries, evolving usage, as well as differing hermeneutics between groupings of the particular Churches…all of which has to be taken into account.

It is a grave disservice to imply there is not good faith among both Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops when each say they are seeking to preserve and protect an apostolic patrimony which is their heritage. Both sides of the dialogue well know and appreciate that simplistic propositions and reductionistic reasoning provides no real service.

The reason theologians continue to work for decades to resolve these issues (which arose, and then became institutional for more than a millennium) is because the answers sought are as enormously complex as the questions they must answer for both sides…and the answers can have implications that are much more far reaching than first blush suggests.

To reduce complex realities to blunt terms that are also profoundly emotive is not to act with the dispassion that should mark the work which is, after all, confessed as an imperative from the Holy Spirit Himself.

Frankly, I am at a loss as to why anyone who would present himself or herself as a Christian who defines oneself by utter fidelity to Rome would choose to use terms which Rome itself has chosen not to even evoke.

There are words and there are gestures. Sometimes a gesture will “speak” more eloquently than words. This was true when Pope Paul VI and Athenagoras embraced in Jerusalem. This was true when Paul VI gave his own episcopal ring, from when he was archbishop of Milan, to Dr. Michael Ramsay, archbishop of Canterbury. It was also true when Pope Francis bowed to the Ecumenical Patriarch and asked him, as his brother, to bless him and the Church of Rome.

Schism is defined in canon 751 of the Latin code of canon law as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. That is an interesting juxtaposition to Pope Francis’ gesture and the Patriarch’s response which was neither a demand for submission by the one or a refusal by the other. The Patriarch, deeply moved by the gesture and all it wordlessly conveyed, blessed his brother, the Pope. Like the embrace of Paul and Athenagoras, it is a gesture that will be remembered and talked about also in 50 years as something very important on the journey back to full communion.

The Pope and the Patriarch are looking to heal communion between East and West. As Pope Saint John Paul II has requested, theologians are seeking a way ahead also by which the Petrine office can be reformed to better serve the cause of unity and not hinder the cause of unity.

The terminology that the popes use today, as opposed to terminology they have quite specifically and deliberately left to the past, are more expressive of what actually is.

 

[Augustine]

It might be better said that it perhaps became implicit by the 15th Century, but only became ***explicit ***at Vatican I.

Methinks that the jury is still out with regards to implicit claims. Supporters of ultramontanism refer to events which were hardly so, more like fine examples of Petrine Supremacy, what the Orthodox don’t deny in general.

Popes started to claim universal supremacy explicitly before the Enlightenment, as early as the decades following the Great Schism and as late as at the Council of Florence. I wonder what the Council of Trent stated about it, but at Vatican I it became a dogmatic statement.

Christus natus est!

 

[malphono]

Methinks that the jury is still out with regards to implicit claims. Supporters of ultramontanism refer to events which were hardly so, more like fine examples of Petrine Supremacy, what the Orthodox don’t deny in general.

Popes started to claim universal supremacy explicitly before the Enlightenment, as early as the decades following the Great Schism and as late as at the Council of Florence. I wonder what the Council of Trent stated about it, but at Vatican I it became a dogmatic statement.

Since I didn’t mean the implicit to indicate it was fact, I suppose I should have bolded the “perhaps” as well. A claim by whatever Bishop of Rome is just that. I could claim to be a Martian but that doesn’t make it so. In any case, the claims made by certain Bishops of Rome, and the apparent acceptance of those claims (for whatever reason), can be said to mean the “universal supremacy” was implicit. And again, I don’t mean to suggest it was, but merely that it “can be said” to be such. Nonetheless, it certainly didn’t become explicit until the matter was"settled" so-to-speak, (at least in the eyes of the Roman Church), with Pius IX’s supreme ultramontanist victory.

And with that, I think it’s time for me to exit this thread.

 

[fhansen]

This might help, from the CCC:

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”**

 

[steve_b]

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. *It is these Catholic archbishops who were concelebrating with the pope.*Typically, the archbishops would bring with them to Rome a pilgrimage of clergy, religious and faithful from their archdioceses. 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.

Thanks for the clarification. The reference I used was a fuzzy written statement at best. Only 1 name was mentioned concelebrating with JPII… Bartholomew . Hence my question
D:

I have no idea what the initialism IMV means in English or what it is qualifying relative to schism.

Sorry about that.

IMV = In my view

writing in acronyms doesn’t always work as expected

 

[steve_b]

One must be nuanced though in how one formulates what one says on these issues because of the underlying theological and ecclesiological implications. That is why theologians and ecclesiologists weigh carefully the nuanced terms that they use and avoid broad or ill considered terms. It is not a matter of simple niceness in the name of ecumenism or a courtesy of etiquette…no, it is profoundly expressive of the truth.

What is wrong with using correct terms and definitions? If we disguise ANY sin, with cozy terms because we want to be “nice”, does that change anything?

I used terms from then JPII’s CCC,(Catechism of the Catholic Church) .
2089 , schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

THAT is a clear definition and requires no explanation, would you agree?

Schism is a mortal sin. Have the consequences for this sin somehow been suspended by God for all those in it, till all the theologians and ecclesiologists finally fix this problem?
D:

Heresy and schism are topics respectively for canon law and for moral theology. In both instances,they must be applied only with a precise and appropriate deliberation… especially when postulated of persons or groups of people remote from distant acts and decisions, when different standards prevailed.

What is so difficult with the following definitions?
2089 , "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

2089 , schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

That doesn’t take a lawyer or PHD or a genius to understand that…would you agree?
D:

But being “in communion”, excommunication, and ecclesiastical governance are very fraught topics when one is using terms that have differing meanings and applications across centuries, evolving usage, as well as differing hermeneutics between groupings of the particular Churches…all of which has to be taken into account.

Then pope Benedict suggested (for purposes of discussion) to the Orthodox they go back to the 1st millenium and use that dynamic of understanding the papacy in terms of authority. As far as I know that suggestion didn’t have legs. Maybe you have a different take on that.
D:

it is a grave disservice to imply there is not good faith among both Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops when each say they are seeking to preserve and protect an apostolic patrimony which is their heritage.

Bishops arguing with each other over who is the greatest among THEM…. or even arguing that no one of THEM is greatest among THEM, has already been played out. Jesus solved that in the upper room #153 Case solved.

Note: Satan started the argument. Satan keeps it going. Jesus settled the argument.
Peter is the greatest among THEM. That is the hierarchy of the Church Jesus established, and moving forward, THAT isn’t going to change.
D:

To reduce complex realities to blunt terms that are also profoundly emotive is not to act with the dispassion that should mark the work which is, after all, confessed as an imperative from the Holy Spirit Himself.

Sin is not complicated. People make sin complex because they don’t want to be guilty of anything.
D:

Frankly, I am at a loss as to why anyone who would present himself or herself as a Christian who defines oneself by utter fidelity to Rome would choose to use terms which Rome itself has chosen not to even evoke.

Isn’t that a little like saying we should drop the terms fornication and adultery for example, for those in those sins because it isn’t nice to use those terms. It might offend them.?
D:

Schism is defined in canon 751 of the Latin code of canon law as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. That is an interesting juxtaposition to Pope Francis’ gesture and the Patriarch’s response which was neither a demand for submission by the one or a refusal by the other. The Patriarch, deeply moved by the gesture and all it wordlessly conveyed, blessed his brother, the Pope. Like the embrace of Paul and Athenagoras,

the “Orthodox” aren’t one Church. NO ONE unifies them. NO ONE speaks for them, NO ONE is over the other. They are all independent and have their own individual absolute voices. Does THAT sound and look like what Jesus prayed for? John 17:20-23

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What is wrong with using correct terms and definitions? If we disguise ANY sin, with cozy terms because we want to be “nice”, does that change anything?

The term “cozy” has no meaning to me, neither when I am doing a theological analysis or a canonical analysis. “Precision”, in the application of nuanced terms in assessing human actions or inactions against a theological or canonical standard, does.

I used terms from then JPII’s CCC,(Catechism of the Catholic Church),
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

THAT is a clear definition and requires no explanation, would you agree?

The definition is clear for the purpose of catechesis. It is also adequately distilled for a non-theologian and a non-canonist, just as a dictionary entry provides a definition of a pathology without conveying how to provide remedy for one afflicted with said pathology. Applying the defined term, and the extent to which it applies in concrete circumstances, is an assessment beyond the scope of catechesis as it is not the work of catechesis or the catechist. It is the work theologians and canonists.

Schism is a mortal sin. Have the consequences for this sin somehow been suspended by God for all those in it, till all the theologians and ecclesiologists finally fix this problem?

*Schism is grave matter. The imputing of subjective moral guilt in the presence of objective grave matter requires its own assessment. The presence of grave matter is not synonymous with saying it “is a mortal sin.” That is a basic premise in fundamental moral theology.

Schism is also a canonical reality, with its own mechanisms of assessment and determination.*

What is so difficult with the following definitions?

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

That doesn’t take a lawyer or PHD or a genius to understand that…would you agree?

No. Setting aside your hyperbole as unworthy of comment, I don’t agree with your assertion, since you leave the word “understand” unqualified. What the definitions state is certainly correct and straightforward…in so far as they’re a distilled and authoritative definition of a term. The principles for assessment and application of the term by a theologian or a canonist, however, exceeds mere definition. A simplistic methodology in the attribution of terms all too often results in erroneously applying them where they do not properly belong, as I think this thread has repeatedly demonstrated.

Then pope Benedict suggested (for purposes of discussion) to the Orthodox they go back to the 1st millenium and use that dynamic of understanding the papacy in terms of authority. As far as I know that suggestion didn’t have legs. Maybe you have a different take on that.

*As far as you know? How closely are you following the dialogue? Have you not analysed the results coming from the plenary sessions following Pope Benedict’s statements? Which follow St. John Paul’s mandate to theologians to propose new models for the exercise of the Petrine ministry in the Church so that it could better serve unity rather than hinder unity – the essence of HIS words in HIS mandate.

I would have assumed you are acquainted with the outcomes of the Joint Commission addressing your point…noting the work of the plenary sessions of 2009 and 2010, particularly:

• “The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church; Conciliarity and Authority in the Church at Three Levels of Ecclesial Life: Local, Regional and Universal” (2006)
• “The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church – Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority” (2007)
• “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium” (2009)
• “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium” (2010) [A continuation from the work of the previous year.]
• “Primacy and synodality in the Church” (2014)

Bishops arguing with each other over who is the greatest among THEM…. or even arguing that no one of THEM is greatest among THEM, has already been played out. Jesus solved that in the upper room.

*If you think the theological dialogue between East and West is an argument of bishops over who is greatest among them, you are so badly informed and what you posit is actually so absurd that there is really no point in my continuing to answer such…postulations. *

Isn’t that a little like saying we should drop the terms fornication and adultery for example, for those in those sins because it isn’t nice to use those terms. It might offend them.?

As I would have said in the lecture hall: “That is an analogy so poor as to be undeserving of remark.”

the “Orthodox” aren’t one Church. NO ONE unifies them. NO ONE speaks for them, NO ONE is over the other. They are all independent and have their own individual absolute voices. Does THAT sound and look like what Jesus prayed for?

Thank you…but I do actually understand the nature of the concept of the autocephalous. I also seem to have a fair enough understanding of the ecclesiology of the Orthodox to engage my peers in discussions deemed mutually thoughtful and useful. You seem to have a very limited and limiting concept of koinonia, which actually is a fulfillment of what Jesus prayed for.

 

[Peter_J]

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church is also made up of particular churches (notwithstanding the fact that one of them is 49 times the size of the rest).

I think this conversation has gotten us back on the same treadmill we have been on many times in the past several years. Sigh.

 

[steve_b]

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church is also made up of particular churches (notwithstanding the fact that one of them is 49 times the size of the rest).

Peter,

If you’re talking about the Latin rite and the Eastern rites, the big difference is the papacy unifies all the rites.

The Orthodox don’t have that unity of authority. And the ROC is THE elephant in the room as far as Orthodox are concerned.

 

[prodromos]

Peter,

If you’re talking about the Latin rite and the Eastern rites, the big difference is the papacy unifies all the rites.

The Orthodox don’t have that unity of authority. And the ROC is THE elephant in the room as far as Orthodox are concerned.

Another statement undeserving of remark.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,

If you’re talking about the Latin rite and the Eastern rites, the big difference is the papacy unifies all the rites.

I wasn’t, but now that we are talking about rites, may I point out that it’s not “the Latin Rite”, it’s the Roman Rite.

But that aside, why did you think I was talking about rites? (Edit: The words “church” and “rite” *don’t *mean the same, regardless of what may be posted about them on a web-forum.)

 

[steve_b]

Sorry for the confusion

Among the Orthodox Churches, The ROC as a Church is by far the biggest hands down within Orthodoxy. It is ~54% of all of Orthodoxy. All the other Orthodox Churches combined then, make up the remaining ~46% of Orthodoxy. To bring this into focus, how many different Orthodox Churches make up that 46%?

Either way, The ROC is the largest by far within Orthodoxy.
J:

By the way a rite and a Church are two rather different things and there are numerous rites even within the Latin Church although.

My point is, all Catholic rites are completely united to the pope. That is what makes them Catholic

 

[steve_b]

Another statement undeserving of remark.

This article is 14 yrs old. I keep it only because I want to someday delete it, because it is obsolete. The problem is, it’s still an open issue.

zenit.org/en/articles/the-crisis-of-ecumenism-according-to-cardinal-kasper

Not knowing which Orthodox Church you belong to, could you answer the following?

**Q: **Do you have a comment on this statement from Card Kasper? Do you agree or disagree?

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

 

[steve_b]

look how interchangeably those terms are used.

Catholic rites AND churches

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[Peter_J]

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church is also made up of particular churches (notwithstanding the fact that one of them is 49 times the size of the rest).

I think this conversation has gotten us back on the same treadmill we have been on many times in the past several years. Sigh.

Correction: it’s no longer an “I think” it’s now an “I know”. Even got the boilerplate of trying to bolster your arguments by appearing to forget that “church” doesn’t mean “rite”. (If I might make a “plug” of my own, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13043565#post13043565 .)

 

[steve_b]

Correction: it’s no longer an “I think” it’s now an “I know”. Even got the boilerplate of trying to bolster your arguments by appearing to forget that “church” doesn’t mean “rite”. (If I might make a “plug” of my own, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13043565#post13043565 .)

Peter,

Here is the first time on this thread (** I **) brought up “rite” or “rites”. #192

I was distinguishing Catholic from Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,

Here is the first time on this thread (** I **) brought up “rite” or “rites”. #192

Alright. This is my response to it:

steve b;13579310:

Peter,

If you’re talking about the Latin rite

and the Eastern rites, the big difference is the papacy unifies all the rites.
I wasn’t, but now that we are talking about rites, may I point out that it’s not “the Latin Rite”, it’s the Roman Rite.

But that aside, why did you think I was talking about rites? (Edit: The words “church” and “rite” *don’t *mean the same, regardless of what may be posted about them on a web-forum.)

 

[steve_b]

Alright. This is my response to it:

I wasn’t, but now that we are talking about rites, may I point out that it’s not “the Latin Rite”, it’s the Roman Rite.

why did you think I was talking about rites? (Edit: The words “church” and “rite” *don’t *mean the same, regardless of what may be posted about them on a web-forum.)

apparently I misunderstood you :console:
%between%

 

[Peter_J]

apparently I misunderstood you :console:
%between%

OIC. (I thought maybe you just didn’t see my response.) But as long as we’re all in agreement now that the words “church” and “rite” don’t mean the same, that’s good to my mind.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

This article is 14 yrs old. I keep it only because I want to someday delete it, because it is obsolete. The problem is, it’s still an open issue.

zenit.org/en/articles/the-crisis-of-ecumenism-according-to-cardinal-kasper

Not knowing which Orthodox Church you belong to, could you answer the following?

**Q: **Do you have a comment on this statement from Card Kasper? Do you agree or disagree?

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

All this assumes that a Church can only be unified by a single office held by one individual. The Orthodox view is that Jesus Christ is head of the Church, and that unity is maintained (imperfectly, due to human weakness) by the Holy Spirit.