Places where Catholics and Orthodox share Communion

[DL82]

In a previous thread (which sadly got derailed by uncharitable posts) there was an ignored post in which someone pointed to places in the world where Catholics and Orthodox already do share communion. I believe the examples were the Assyrians and Chaldeans, who are invited to fulfil their Sunday worship in one anothers’ churches where they cannot find a church of their own communion, and are also, I believe, invited to communion there. There may be other examples in parts of the world where Catholic and/or Orthodox churches are rare.

There is also the widely accepted practice of Catholic and Orthodox priests administering final Sacraments (confession, communion, anointing) to members of eachothers’ communions in danger of death. Surely such a practice is acknowledgement by both communions that believers in either communion can posess sufficient grace to have true contrition, and thus enter into their final communion with God.

Would this be a possible first step to dialogue - not a formal reunion, but an understanding (in Eastern terms in terms of oekonomia, in Latin terms, as an indulgence for the remission of venial sin) that, where it is impossible for someone to attend Mass/DL in their own communion, they should be encouraged to fulfil their Sunday obligation in one anothers’ churches, and while there allowed, not only when in immediate danger of death, but all the time, to receive confession and communion. So long as this was understood as a concession, not a reunification, and was subject to local bishops’ agreements in places where such a situation is likely (I am thinking in particular of our persecuted bretheren in the Middle East, suffering a shortage of priests and an exodus of believers in all communions). As I understand it, this already happens among the Assyrians and Catholics in Iran/Iraq. Might it be a solution with a wider applicability for the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

Of course, I can see how it would be open to abuses, with people turning to their local Orthodox Church to avoid a Catholic parish where the music was not to their taste, or priests proselytizing from the pulpit in areas where they had a ‘mixed’ congregation. Provided it was handled well, however, could this be a practical step to dialogue?

 

[Tim_McCoy]

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. We have learned from Quantum physics over the last hundred years or so the world is not fragmented. It is one. Our fragmentation then is an aberration of creation. We created it and it is out of alignment with God’s creation. We are also learning that mankind’s DNA is wired for cooperation, collaboration and love. We live in the culmination of the ages, the reconciliation of all things to God through Christ. Not to be reconciled to our brothers and sisters again goes against alignment. The danger of well intended religion is to self-perpetuate itself and forget it is a means to God’s ends (Love). Sharing communion seems a simple idea after that. Peace.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have heard occasional stories about the Melkites and the Antiochians giving communion to the laity of the other Church (of course, never stories of clergy communing together). Similarly, the EO patriarch of Alexandria and the OO patriarch of Alexandria have some sort of agreement that allows the laity to intercommune under certain circumstances, as do the Antiochians and the Syriac Orthodox. I think in all three cases, it probably has something to do with being part of a Christian minority in Muslim countries which often persecute Christians.

 

[runningdude]

I think you idea has merit. From a Catholic perspective, this has already been done (at least on paper). Orthodox Christians may receive communion and most likely confession from a Catholic priest provided it doesn’t put them at odds with their home churches, or cause scandal or indifference. For the Orthodox, its complicated by their refusal to acknowledge the full authority of the Pope, and sometimes even the validity of Catholic sacraments altogether.

From the Orthodox perspective, I recall reading somewhere that they experimented with Episcopalians providing limited services to Orthodox members in the United States where they’re were no priests available. This however led to misunderstandings (including confusion about Anglican orders), and was abandoned.

They may be hesitant to begin such experiments with Catholic priests, but may be more open to allowing Catholics to participate in Orthodox liturgies when no Catholic priests are available. Russia’s clergy, for instance, were insulted when the Catholic Church proposed raising the apostolic vicarite to a full diocese, because they consider the Russian Orthodox bishops to be sole Ordinary for each Russian eparchy.

Catholic missions are accepted to provide services for foreigners and small domestic populations. However, the Orthodox there consider themselves to be fullness of Christianity, with a specific mission to serve the Russian people. Having two diocesan bishops serving the same area to them doesn’t make sense how can Christianity compete with Christianity? They consider such encroachment an undermining of the deep cultural connections that Russians have to Orthodoxy, and to Christianity itself.

The bottom line is that the Orthodox have reservations about Catholicism in general, as we have conflicting views about the nature of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We Catholics eagerly want to embrace the Orthodox, but we are unwilling to dilute our claim to authority. The Orthodox are similarly unwillingly, and are hesitant to possibly dilute their authority by admitting Catholics.

 

[sasg]

In a previous thread (which sadly got derailed by uncharitable posts) there was an ignored post in which someone pointed to places in the world where Catholics and Orthodox already do share communion. I believe the examples were the Assyrians and Chaldeans, who are invited to fulfil their Sunday worship in one anothers’ churches where they cannot find a church of their own communion, and are also, I believe, invited to communion there. There may be other examples in parts of the world where Catholic and/or Orthodox churches are rare.

There is also the widely accepted practice of Catholic and Orthodox priests administering final Sacraments (confession, communion, anointing) to members of eachothers’ communions in danger of death. Surely such a practice is acknowledgement by both communions that believers in either communion can posess sufficient grace to have true contrition, and thus enter into their final communion with God.

For Catholic priests, I know it is absolutely allowed (and probably required) to administer these sacraments to the Orthodox in grave circumstances as long as they are freely asked for; it is both valid and licit, in Roman terminology. But I did not realize the Orthodox also do this for Catholics (Eastern or Western) in grave necessity–is this actually allowed by Orthodox Bishops? Or is this an example of some priests simply figuring it’s okay and doing so without authorization of their Bishop? What we would consider valid but illicit.

Would this be a possible first step to dialogue - not a formal reunion, but an understanding (in Eastern terms in terms of oekonomia, in Latin terms, as an indulgence for the remission of venial sin) that, where it is impossible for someone to attend Mass/DL in their own communion, they should be encouraged to fulfil their Sunday obligation in one anothers’ churches, and while there allowed, not only when in immediate danger of death, but all the time, to receive confession and communion. So long as this was understood as a concession, not a reunification, and was subject to local bishops’ agreements in places where such a situation is likely (I am thinking in particular of our persecuted bretheren in the Middle East, suffering a shortage of priests and an exodus of believers in all communions). As I understand it, this already happens among the Assyrians and Catholics in Iran/Iraq. Might it be a solution with a wider applicability for the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

Already it is allowed for Catholics to participate in most Orthodox Divine Liturgies–I have never known a church to kick somebody out simply because they are not Orthodox. You simply cannot take the Eucharist, and it does not fulfill your Sunday obligation. I would argue strongly against allowing such intercommunion except under the direst of circumstances–where one or both Churches face great persecution or are otherwise unable to care for the faithful on an ongoing basis (the Middle East, maybe in China, for example). Otherwise you will open the floodgates of indifferentism. (On a side note, do any Orthodox Churches still follow the ancient practice of allowing only the baptized to be present during the consecration of the Eucharist?)

I could also see allowing Catholics to fulfill their Sunday obligation in an Orthodox church under slightly less limited circumstances (and vice versa), while still not allowing intercommunion. This would allow people to opt to attend Divine Liturgy/Mass at a nearby church if there were no churches of their own nearby, and to consider their obligation fulfilled; however it would not require such participation. So for example, if there is no Catholic Church within 200mi but I live next door to a stridently anti-Papist Orthodox church, I would not be committing sin by refusing to attend that Orthodox church. If I wanted to, however, my obligation would be considered fulfilled. And again, this would have to be limited to cases where it is simply not possible to attend a Catholic church regularly – it would still be sinful to attend only an Orthodox church if there were a Catholic church within any reasonable distance. Allowing Confession under these circumstances strictly in the case of grave sin may also be reasonable. To limit the abuses you cite below, perhaps this could be a general dispensation that Bishops would be empowered to grant on a diocese-by-diocese basis. (One practical example I can think of is rural Alaska.)

Of course, I can see how it would be open to abuses, with people turning to their local Orthodox Church to avoid a Catholic parish where the music was not to their taste, or priests proselytizing from the pulpit in areas where they had a ‘mixed’ congregation. Provided it was handled well, however, could this be a practical step to dialogue?

 

[jmj1984]

In a previous thread (which sadly got derailed by uncharitable posts) there was an ignored post in which someone pointed to places in the world where Catholics and Orthodox already do share communion. I believe the examples were the Assyrians and Chaldeans, who are invited to fulfil their Sunday worship in one anothers’ churches where they cannot find a church of their own communion, and are also, I believe, invited to communion there. There may be other examples in parts of the world where Catholic and/or Orthodox churches are rare.

Could someone provide some authority for this?

There is also the widely accepted practice of Catholic and Orthodox priests administering final Sacraments (confession, communion, anointing) to members of eachothers’ communions in danger of death. Surely such a practice is acknowledgement by both communions that believers in either communion can posess sufficient grace to have true contrition, and thus enter into their final communion with God.

So far as I know its a one way street with most catholic priests doing so on a case by case i.e not carte blanche basis, but Orthodox generally do not do so.

Would this be a possible first step to dialogue - not a formal reunion, but an understanding (in Eastern terms in terms of oekonomia, in Latin terms, as an indulgence for the remission of venial sin) that, where it is impossible for someone to attend Mass/DL in their own communion, they should be encouraged to fulfil their Sunday obligation in one anothers’ churches, and while there allowed, not only when in immediate danger of death, but all the time, to receive confession and communion. So long as this was understood as a concession, not a reunification, and was subject to local bishops’ agreements in places where such a situation is likely (I am thinking in particular of our persecuted bretheren in the Middle East, suffering a shortage of priests and an exodus of believers in all communions). As I understand it, this already happens among the Assyrians and Catholics in Iran/Iraq. Might it be a solution with a wider applicability for the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

Catholics should only attend or at least only actively participate Catholic services of worship because to do otherwise is testamant to a disbelief in the creed i.e that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ. Further communion requires 'One Faith’, it is clear that in many matters the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not agree therefore it cannot normally be permitted to receive communion because this declares a union which does not exists and an assent to faiths which are in fact not held. Until these issues are resolved I cannot see how it would be possible for this sort of communion sharing to become common place.

Also dealing with the issue of spiritual advantage and receiving the sacraments from Orthodox priests, it should be pointed out that it is a general principle of Catholic theology that it is never permitted to do a wrong in order to achieve some good, in other words the end does not justify the means. Applying this principle to the issue of receiving the sacraments, the spiritual benefits of sacramental grace do not outweigh the wrong of actively participating in the common worship and declaring union with those who are not in union with the church in submission to its head on earth, the Pope.

Of course, I can see how it would be open to abuses, with people turning to their local Orthodox Church to avoid a Catholic parish where the music was not to their taste, or priests proselytizing from the pulpit in areas where they had a ‘mixed’ congregation. Provided it was handled well, however, could this be a practical step to dialogue?

For the reasons I have said above no, the dialogue and reconciliation must come first before one declares the sharing of communion. This is dictated by common sense one cannot share communion if one does not have one faith or if one group does not obey the head of the church on earth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Could someone provide some authority for this?

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

So far as I know its a one way street with most catholic priests doing so on a case by case i.e not carte blanche basis, but Orthodox generally do not do so.

People here have shared instances where they have witnessed intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox in an Orthodox Church. Thankfully, reality is not “as far as you know”

Catholics should only attend or at least only actively participate Catholic services of worship because to do otherwise is testamant to a disbelief in the creed i.e that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ. Further communion requires 'One Faith’, it is clear that in many matters the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not agree therefore it cannot normally be permitted to receive communion because this declares a union which does not exists and an assent to faiths which are in fact not held. Until these issues are resolved I cannot see how it would be possible for this sort of communion sharing to become common place.

Thankfully, the Popes do not agree with you on this one. We already believe that the Orthodox bears the same truths that we do. We believe that they are bearers of genuine Christian Tradition. We believe there is only little left to attain full communion with them. Besides, is the Eucharist about Christ or about the Church on earth? We don’t receive from Protestants because we know they do not have a valid Eucharist nor that they even believe in the Eucharist the same way we do. That is not a problem with the Orthodox.

Also dealing with the issue of spiritual advantage and receiving the sacraments from Orthodox priests, it should be pointed out that it is a general principle of Catholic theology that it is never permitted to do a wrong in order to achieve some good, in other words the end does not justify the means. Applying this principle to the issue of receiving the sacraments, the spiritual benefits of sacramental grace do not outweigh the wrong of actively participating in the common worship and declaring union with those who are not in union with the church in submission to its head on earth, the Pope.

And where does it say its wrong to receive Sacraments from the Orthodox? Can you provide some authority to this?

For the reasons I have said above no, the dialogue and reconciliation must come first before one declares the sharing of communion. This is dictated by common sense one cannot share communion if one does not have one faith or if one group does not obey the head of the church on earth.

If we believe that Christ is one, then who are we to declare His body as split?

 

[jmj1984]

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Before addressing the document its worth pointing out three things:

1)It is an extremely controversial document, many do no accept the conclusions it has come to
2)It is not an infallible document but potentially belongs to the ordinary magisterium, nor for that matter was it issued or confirmed by the CDF
3)It contradicts previous church teaching on the matter

For those reasons one may legitmately question the conclusions the document comes to.

Addressing the document itself we see that
’
**1. When necessity requires, Assyrian faithful are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in a Chaldean celebration of the Holy Eucharist; in the same way, Chaldean faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

1. In both cases, Assyrian and Chaldean ministers celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the liturgical prescriptions and customs of their own tradition.
2. When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East.
3. The above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the present guidelines for admission to the Eucharist, are intended exclusively in relation to the Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, in view of the pastoral necessity and ecumenical context mentioned above.**’

It is not therefore a carte blanche permission to share communion nor is it applicable to other situations, rather it is based on necessity and the uniqueness of the situation. It would therefore be wrong to look at this document as a ‘prototype’ or ‘a prefirugurement’ of later documents which would permit carte blanche intercommunion between the two churches.

People here have shared instances where they have witnessed intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox in an Orthodox Church. Thankfully, reality is not “as far as you know”

Nor did I deny this it is still however an extremely rare and controversial occurence within the Orthodox churche’s as a whole.

Thankfully, the Popes do not agree with you on this one. We already believe that the Orthodox bears the same truths that we do. We believe that they are bearers of genuine Christian Tradition. We believe there is only little left to attain full communion with them. Besides, is the Eucharist about Christ or about the Church on earth? We don’t receive from Protestants because we know they do not have a valid Eucharist nor that they even believe in the Eucharist the same way we do. That is not a problem with the Orthodox.

Actually I’m afraid they do or the Orthodox churche’s would already be part of the Catholic Church and accept the Holy Father as their head and supreme authority, they are not and don’t. That reason alone condemns this view.

There is no division between the Church Militant, the Church suffering and the Church Glorious, they are all part of the communion of saints. However that Church is the Catholic Church and Solely the Catholic church. Individual members of other churches may belong to it though not visibly but the Body of Christ is not split into several churches which together form one Church but One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as Catholics we believe that this church is the Church with the Pope as its head (on earth, if one must be pedantic). Therefore we can only say with any certainty that Catholics belong to this church not members of other churches or in the case of protestants sects, as in this world they are visibly outside The Church. It may well be that they are united to the church without us knowing and that we will recognise them in the next life, but we cannot say so with any degree of certainty.

 

[jmj1984]

Indeed Pope Pius IX states this in his syllabus of errors when he condemns the view that '17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863’. Lest anyone should doubt that this statement also applies to the Orthodox we can refer to 'Christi Nomen’ which states '**2. From the apostolic letter “Praeclara” published last June, you know that We invited and urged all nations to the unity of the Christian faith. Thus, through Us the divine promise of “one sheepfold and one Pastor” would be realized. You have learned from Our recent apostolic letters concerning the safeguarding of the Eastern Rites that We look with special care to the East and its churches, renowned and venerated by many names. From these same letters you have learned the procedures by which, in consultation with the Eastern patriarchs, We have investigated how to bring about more readily the desired end, namely the union of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches. We do not deny that this goal involves great difficulties. To overcome them, Our strength is not sufficient; nevertheless We confidently judge that the necessary strength of trust and of constancy is found in God. For He who motivated Us to undertake this mission will in His providence certainly supply the strength and the resources to complete it. And this is what We implore from Him, and We exhort all the faithful to also pray earnestly for this. Since the divine help must necessarily be joined with human effort, it is right for Us therefore to expend special care in seeking and supporting whatever seems to contribute to the end We have in view.

1. To ensure that the Eastern Christians who have seceded will return to the one true Church, it is necessary to provide them with an abundance of holy ministers who, endowed with doctrine and piety, may persuade the others to accept the desired unity’**

Further ‘Unam Sanctam’ By Pope Boniface VIII states 'We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.
It can hardly therefore be seen to be a new idea.

And where does it say its wrong to receive Sacraments from the Orthodox? Can you provide some authority to this?

Certainly the current code of Canon law provides in certain very specific and limited circumstances that it is possible to do so. Prior to this, the 1917 Code of Canon Law listed it as a 'grave delict… punishable by excommunication’ that being if a Catholic minister gave communion to non-catholics and vice versa.

 

[jmj1984]

The underlying attitude behind wide spread intercommunion is indifferentism, the idea that it does not matter if one is Catholic or not so long as one maintains morality or in this case is similar enough to the Catholic Church for it not to matter. This view is condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical 'Mirari Vos’ where he states ‘**Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20] **’ and also by Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium Animos’ where he states ‘**10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”[26]
12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,”[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church!"[30] **’

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, the good thing is you yourself are not infallible. Despite whatever you have claimed contrary to what is practiced in the East, we continue with our God-given mandate and not petty claims on an internet forum. Shoot it down however you like, it won’t change the fact that it is happening with the blessing from the Vatican.

Besides, why does inter-communion have to be declared infallibly? To make a claim proves one’s lack of understanding of the infallible authority of the Pope. Inter-communion is not a moral teaching, it doesn’t need to be an infallible teaching. In fact, it can never be.

 

[jmj1984]

Well, the good thing is you yourself are not infallible. Despite whatever you have claimed contrary to what is practiced in the East, we continue with our God-given mandate and not petty claims on an internet forum. Shoot it down however you like, it won’t change the fact that it is happening with the blessing from the Vatican.

Besides, why does inter-communion have to be declared infallibly? To make a claim proves one’s lack of understanding of the infallible authority of the Pope. Inter-communion is not a moral teaching, it doesn’t need to be an infallible teaching. In fact, it can never be.

I don’t see anyone making petty claims I have simply presented the facts, you may take them or leave them that is it up to you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t see anyone making petty claims I have simply presented the facts, you may take them or leave them that is it up to you.

Facts of what? You’re trying to disprove a Vatican document? For what purpose is this? Intercommunion is the first step to full communion. Why even try to shoot down the idea.

The funny thing here is if its the SSPX and not the ACotE that we’re talking about, you’re rushing in to defend them and calling everyone who is against the position as going against the will and desire of the Church for unity among its faithful.

 

[jmj1984]

Facts of what? You’re trying to disprove a Vatican document? For what purpose is this? Intercommunion is the first step to full communion. Why even try to shoot down the idea.

The funny thing here is if its the SSPX and not the ACotE that we’re talking about, you’re rushing in to defend them and calling everyone who is against the position as going against the will and desire of the Church for unity among its faithful.

Because intercommunion is not the first step to full communion, communion is the result of re-union between the orthodox churches and the Catholic church, intercommunion before turns the natural order of things on its head.

And as regards your second statement I have never ever, not even once stated 'by criticising the SSPX you are going against the will and desire of the church for unity…, nor have I ever said words to that effect or in fact anything similar.

 

[Hesychios]

The underlying attitude behind wide spread intercommunion is indifferentism…

That is the point I would make.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Indifferentism to what? That we acknowledge that Christ is truly present in both our altars?

 

[jmj1984]

Indifferentism to what? That we acknowledge that Christ is truly present in both our altars?

You are missing the point. Christ may indeed be present on their altars, however the Church has long accepted that the faith of the various orthodox churches and The Catholic Church is not the same and this is indeed self-evident as they do not submit to the legitmate authority of The Pope. Therefore receiving communion on a regular basis (according to the Church’s current teaching) or at all (according to the traditional teaching) is indifferentism, as if the differences in faith didnt matter.

 

[louis91766]

So far as I know its a one way street with most catholic priests doing so on a case by case i.e not carte blanche basis, but Orthodox generally do not do so.

Orthodox do not give Catholics communion because they say that Catholics do not hold the same beliefs as Orthodox. And it is not only in one area, but in many different areas. Take for example, the Quinisext Council of 692 at Constantinople under Justinian II. The Eastern Orthodox Church of course, accepts all the decrees and canons of this council. I believe that the Catholic Church today refuses to recognize certain decrees of this council such as canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90, although it does accept the others. However, this seems to be odd because Pope Hadrian I recognized all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople.

 

[Warrenton]

That is the point I would make.

In the case of intercommunion between Orthodox and Catholics, I would suggest the result is more likely to be confusion. The people who are apt to do this probably know a fair amount about each other, anyway, and are not indifferent to the consequences. But Catholics may become confused about Catholic teaching, and Orthodox confused about ORthodox teaching.

The problem is made thornier by the modern desire to take the blessed sacrament too often. Without that need, we are left with where we go to Sunday mass, or evensong. This raises less difficult questions.

Looking into the crystal ball is inherently dangerous, however I predict that as the pressure increases against organized, episcopal churches, its members are going to turn to each other for protection and collective strength. This, in turn, will “drive” the discussion at the level of the bishops. Church history is replete with examples of the faithful deciding for themselves what is or is not holy.

I am not saying that it is good to disobey one’s bishop, rather I am just observing that change can be effected from below as well as from above. We must remember that it is not the declaration of even a pope which opens the gate of heaven to the saint.

 

[sasg]

You are missing the point. Christ may indeed be present on their altars, however the Church has long accepted that the faith of the various orthodox churches and The Catholic Church is not the same and this is indeed self-evident as they do not submit to the legitmate authority of The Pope. Therefore receiving communion on a regular basis (according to the Church’s current teaching) or at all (according to the traditional teaching) is indifferentism, as if the differences in faith didnt matter.

This is completely false, for two reasons: first, the Orthodox do not fail to submit to the legitimate authority of the Pope. All Orthodox I have met acknowledge the Primacy of Rome; that is a matter of divine law and part of their faith. What they do not recognize is the totality of the authority the Pope presently exercises over the Latin Church, and to a lesser degree the authority he exercises over the Eastern Catholic churches. This is an extremely important distinction that must be made.

Second, the Church has not “long accepted” that the faith of the Orthodox is “not the same” as ours. To the contrary, the Church has long accepted that the Orthodox are “joined to us in closest intimacy” (CCC 1399). If you continue to claim that the Church teaching is that the Orthodox do not share our faith, please cite your sources.

I suggest reading Orientalium Ecclesiarum, especially sections 24-29, to gain a true understanding of what the Church actually teaches about the Orthodox Churches.