Receiving Communion within the Orthodox church?

[Stephentlig]

Dear brothers and sisters, with the canon cited below, I am under the understanding that the Christian faitful from Eastern churches as Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in our church, but how about Catholics receiving Holy Communion within the Orthodox Church? do the Orthodox allow Catholics to come and receive communion in their church also?

God bless you
Stephen
844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ? can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

 

[Cluny]

For the most part, the Orthodox will not give Communion to a non-Orthodox Christian, except in danger of death.

In such a case, the communicant should understand that by so doing, s/he joins the Orthodox Church.

That’s the Orthodox rule on the matter.

 

[palmas85]

Dear brothers and sisters, with the canon cited below, I am under the understanding that the Christian faitful from Eastern churches as Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in our church, but how about Catholics receiving Holy Communion within the Orthodox Church? do the Orthodox allow Catholics to come and receive communion in their church also?

God bless you
Stephen
844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ? can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

As a general rule no, the Orthodox do not allow non Orthodox to receive Communion at ther Churches.

The reason, very simple. They actually believe that communion with the Church is necessary in order to receive.

There are of course exceptions but generally speaking you would be hard pressed to find an Orthodx Priest willing to give a non Orthodox communion.

 

[FrDavid96]

Dear brothers and sisters, with the canon cited below, I am under the understanding that the Christian faitful from Eastern churches as Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in our church, but how about Catholics receiving Holy Communion within the Orthodox Church? do the Orthodox allow Catholics to come and receive communion in their church also?

God bless you
Stephen
…

Stephen,

That depends very much on which Orthodox jurisdiction one is speaking about. The Orthodox do not have a single code of canon law as do Catholics (who actually have 2 complementary codes), but a “collection” of canons and a long tradition of interpreting and applying them (as did Catholics until 1917–a single code of canons is a relatively new thing).

In some parts of the world, inter-communion between Catholics and Orthodox is taken for granted (such as places in the Middle East where Christians are persecuted). Likewise, that was the case in the old Soviet Union (on a local level).

In the US & Canada there is a wide variety of Orthodox jurisdictions with varying laws. In general most Orthodox cannot admit Catholics to the Eucharist except under certain conditions–some not at all. So while from the Catholic perspective, a Catholic may receive, there is still an obligation to respect the Orthodox canons, and therefore this might not be possible.

Some Orthodox Churches do not allow even members of other Orthodox Churches to receive.

In general, practical terms, it’s usually not possible for a Catholic to receive from an Orthodox priest.

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephen,

That depends very much on which Orthodox jurisdiction one is speaking about. The Orthodox do not have a single code of canon law as do Catholics (who actually have 2 complementary codes), but a “collection” of canons and a long tradition of interpreting and applying them (as did Catholics until 1917–a single code of canons is a relatively new thing).

In some parts of the world, inter-communion between Catholics and Orthodox is taken for granted (such as places in the Middle East where Christians are persecuted). Likewise, that was the case in the old Soviet Union (on a local level).

In the US & Canada there is a wide variety of Orthodox jurisdictions with varying laws. In general most Orthodox cannot admit Catholics to the Eucharist except under certain conditions–some not at all. So while from the Catholic perspective, a Catholic may receive, there is still an obligation to respect the Orthodox canons, and therefore this might not be possible.

Some Orthodox Churches do not allow even members of other Orthodox Churches to receive.

In general, practical terms, it’s usually not possible for a Catholic to receive from an Orthodox priest.

So therefore, what your saying is that,

A) it is ok for a Catholic to receive communion in the Orthodox church.

B) In practical terms, although it is usually not possible for a Catholic to receive from an Orthodox Priest it is still not Impossible to do so?

C) that intercommunion is not against Catholic teaching?

God bless you
Stephen.

 

[FrDavid96]

So therefore, what your saying is that,

A) it is ok for a Catholic to receive communion in the Orthodox church.

B) In practical terms, although it is usually not possible for a Catholic to receive from an Orthodox Priest it is still not Impossible to do so?

C) that intercommunion is not against Catholic teaching?

God bless you
Stephen.

A. Yes, (but not an absolute yes, but a very qualified yes)
B Again, yes. Usually not possible, but sometimes possible.
C Here, it depends upon the meaning of “intercommunion” Catholics do not believe in “intercommunion” as such but the situation of the Orthodox Churches requires a very subtle approach. Catholics and Orthodox are still in a certain “imperfect communion” so from the Catholic perspective, it isn’t “inter-communion” but more of an “intra-communion” Also, the term “intercommunion” implies that this sort of thing can happen on a regular basis. From both the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, this only happens in certain circumstances. That’s an important distinction. So, no the Church does not believe in intercommunion, but instead the Church says that exceptions may sometimes be made.

 

[Cluny]

The Orthodox do not have a single code of canon law as do Catholics (who actually have 2 complementary codes), but a “collection” of canons and a long tradition of interpreting and applying them (as did Catholics until 1917–a single code of canons is a relatively new thing).

Not true.

There are two books of Canon Law, each received in the various Orthodox Churches. Their contents are the same, but are arranged differently.

1. The Nomocanon (as in the Russian Church), where canons are arranged according to subjects.
2. The Pedalion, or Rudder (especially in the Greek Churches), in which canons are arranged in chronological order according to the Ecumenical Council or local synod that decreed them.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Orthodox do not have a single code of canon law as do Catholics (who actually have 2 complementary codes), but a “collection” of canons and a long tradition of interpreting and applying them (as did Catholics until 1917–a single code of canons is a relatively new thing).

Not true.

There are two books of Canon Law, each received in the various Orthodox Churches. Their contents are the same, but are arranged differently.

1. The Nomocanon (as in the Russian Church), where canons are arranged according to subjects.
2. The Pedalion, or Rudder (especially in the Greek Churches), in which canons are arranged in chronological order according to the Ecumenical Council or local synod that decreed them.

Yes, but…

The concepts are different. The Catholic codes (West and East) were promulgated as a single body of legislation all at the same time, and all by the same authority (Pope John Paul II in both cases). The Orthodox canons are a collection of canon law from various sources and various time periods which are collected into a single printing. The two are not the same thing.

 

[Dauphin]

Unless you want to join an Orthodox Church and express disapproval of Catholic doctrine, there’s no legitimate reason to receive Holy Communion there. That Canon is truly scandalous and destructive.

 

[Cluny]

The Catholic codes (West and East) were promulgated as a single body of legislation all at the same time, and all by the same authority (Pope John Paul II in both cases).

My understanding is that several years elapsed between the promulgation of the CCL and CECL.

The former was in 1983, the latter in 1990.

The Orthodox canons are a collection of canon law from various sources and various time periods which are collected into a single printing. The two are not the same thing.

I have read that the Catholic Canon Law was in much the same condition until 1917 or so.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has several times said that if the Eighth Ecumenical Council meets, one of its tasks may well the the codification of the Canons.

 

[Sina]

I never really understood why Orthodox members are allowed to receive communion in a Catholic church when we don’t really have the same means of repentance, and we don’t have the same catechism.

ie, birth control. I don’t think it is a mortal sin to use birth control in the orthodox church. So if someone was guilty of this, should they be receiving communion in a Catholic church? Perhaps only because they aren’t aware that it is a mortal sin? Also, as far as I know, Orthodox don’t have the sacrament of reconciliation the way we do.

Was always confused on this one…

My one orthodox friend doesn’t receive communion in my church we he visits for these reasons as well.

 

[FrDavid96]

I never really understood why Orthodox members are allowed to receive communion in a Catholic church when we don’t really have the same means of repentance, and we don’t have the same catechism.

ie, birth control. I don’t think it is a mortal sin to use birth control in the orthodox church. So if someone was guilty of this, should they be receiving communion in a Catholic church? Perhaps only because they aren’t aware that it is a mortal sin? Also, as far as I know, Orthodox don’t have the sacrament of reconciliation the way we do.

Was always confused on this one…

My one orthodox friend doesn’t receive communion in my church we he visits for these reasons as well.

The reason is that we do have the same priesthood (the one Priesthood which is the Apostolic Succession), and therefore have the same Eucharist. We also have the same Sacrament/Mystery of Confession, which also comes through the priesthood. Even though the ritual might be different, the Sacrament is still the same.

As far as sin goes, God defines what a sin is, so a sin for a Catholic is the same as a sin for an Orthodox (although some sins against order or discipline might be different).

Someone who is practicing artificial birth control should not be receiving Communion.

Saying that Orthodox sometimes may receive Communion in a Catholic Mass does not mean that this can be done anytime for any reason–certain conditions have to be met first, although these conditions are much less strict for Orthodox than for Protestants. Orthodox Christians are generally not allowed by their own Church discipline to receive Communion in a Catholic church–so most Orthodox do not do so out of respect/obedience to their own laws.

 

[Dauphin]

The reason is that we do have the same priesthood (the one Priesthood which is the Apostolic Succession), and therefore have the same Eucharist. We also have the same Sacrament/Mystery of Confession, which also comes through the priesthood. Even though the ritual might be different, the Sacrament is still the same.

As far as sin goes, God defines what a sin is, so a sin for a Catholic is the same as a sin for an Orthodox (although some sins against order or discipline might be different).

Someone who is practicing artificial birth control should not be receiving Communion.

Father, is it a sin to reject Catholic doctrine or to remain out of communion with the Pope (ie. heresy and schism)?

If so, I can’t imagine how Canon 844 is justified. That even merely material heretics and schismatics should be permitted to receive Holy Communion seems deeply scandalous.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, is it a sin to reject Catholic doctrine or to remain out of communion with the Pope (ie. heresy and schism)?

If so, I can’t imagine how Canon 844 is justified. That even merely material heretics and schismatics should be permitted to receive Holy Communion seems deeply scandalous.

Yes.
But that’s a superficial answer to a complex question.

The situation of the Orthodox Churches a very complicated and sensitive one. The Orthodox Churches never actually went into schism. Bear with me here. Over a period of several centuries, the Eastern and Western Churches drifted apart. Political events (especially the disintegration of the Roman Empire) meant that contact between them was minimal. There was no “moment” of schism. What happened in reality is that the two halves of the Church gradually came to the realization that somehow/somewhen they had seperated. Church historians and theologians then looked back at history and sought to establish the “moment” when this happened (1054 and 1204 are given as possible dates, but even here the difference of a full 150 years is an indication that no formal or definate act of schism happened). From the perspectives of both East and West, they considered themselves to still be in communion with each other at the time, even though later historians would look back and say that the schism happened. By the time both sides realized what had happened, it was so far in the past that it was too late to *simply *reconcile. The Orthodox Churches never espoused heresy (yes, there were heretics and heretical sects in the East but that’s a different topic). They have never abandoned the faith, and have never lost the Apostolic Succession. Two very important points. Many matters of Church discipline, but most importantly, the development of the understanding of Papal primacy occured after the historical moment of seperation.
I could go on and on about this, but I’ll exercise some restraint. Suffice to say that with regard to the Orthodox, their situation is worlds apart from that of the ecclesial communities which have their origins in the heresies of Martin Luther.

That brings us to your second paragraph.

God is merciful, forgiving, and compasionate. His Church must be as well. Canon 844 is not meant to be invoked except in extreme circumstances when the very salvation of an individual’s soul is at stake (Ecclesia de Eucharistia #45). The Church in her mercy allows for the possibility that even those in heresy and schism might be reconciled and draw from the abundant treasury of God’s mercy and graces. 844 is not to be taken lightly (although admittedly, some do). The conditions required BEFORE canon 844 might be invoked present a very high standard. And here I’m typing strictly in regard to #4 (members of ecclesial communities). There must be danger of death (periculum mortis) or an urgent grave necessity (urgeat gravis necessitas) not simply a need, not simply a good reason, not even an extremely good reason, not even an urgent necessity, but an urgent grave necessity.
The other pre-condition which is often not given due attention is the requirement that the person requesting Communion (or Unction or Confession) must express complete belief in every teaching of the Church with regard to the sacrament requested. Complete belief, including the necessity (note the word “necessity”) that such a one believe in the need for the valid ministerial priesthood for the sacrament to occur. If anything is lacking in the person’s belief about the sacrament being requested, then such a one may NOT be admitted to that sacrament. The denial of any ONE truth about the sacrament renders the one asking incapable of receiving it. See Ecclesia de Eucharistia #46.

These conditions are very specific and they do not compromise the Church’s faith. Remember the power of the Keys includes both binding and loosing. The Vicar of Christ is able to use that power of loosing (and delegate it to priests and bishops) when there is a genuine need. But at the same time, if the genuine need isn’t there, then neither is the permission to admit a non-Catholic to the sacraments.

I daresay that the real difficulty lies not in the canon itself (which is meant to be generous and merciful) but in the misapplication and outright abuse of it, which manifests itself when the conditions have not been satisfied, yet the sacrament is still administered.

Personally, I have a different approach to this canon than the one which you expressed. What I cannot bring myself to understand is how it might be possible (logically possible) for one to have complete faith in every doctrine of the Sacrament and yet still choose to remain non-Catholic; a fallen-away Catholic I can understand. But I cannot bring myself to reconcile the two opposing notions of total belief in the Eucharist and yet remaining non-Catholic. To me, that’s the real enigma. This is a strange way of phrasing it, but to put it bluntly, if one realy does believe in the Eucharist, he would choose first to join the Church.

 

[Dauphin]

Many matters of Church discipline, but most importantly, the development of the understanding of Papal primacy occured after the historical moment of seperation.

Still, is it nevertheless necessary for them to accept dogmatic definitions which followed the schism? Would this not include the definition of Papal Infallibility?

Would an obstinate failure to accept these dogmatic definitions not constitute heresy? If we look at the wording of the definition of Papal Infallibility, it seems extremely clear:

"So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

How, then, can anyone say that there’s some sort of exception for the Eastern Orthodox? How can people who “have the temerity” to reject Papal Infallibility, and have been anathematized, be admitted to Holy Communion? Even if their heresy is merely material, would this not be a cause of scandal?

To say that the Eastern Orthodox need not accept Catholic dogma before receiving Holy Communion in a Catholic Church would seem to be an implicit rejection of the authority of post-schism councils.

 

[FrDavid96]

Still, is it nevertheless necessary for them to accept dogmatic definitions which followed the schism? Would this not include the definition of Papal Infallibility?

Would an obstinate failure to accept these dogmatic definitions not constitute heresy? If we look at the wording of the definition of Papal Infallibility, it seems extremely clear:

"So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

How, then, can anyone say that there’s some sort of exception for the Eastern Orthodox? How can people who “have the temerity” to reject Papal Infallibility, and have been anathematized, be admitted to Holy Communion? Even if their heresy is merely material, would this not be a cause of scandal?

To say that the Eastern Orthodox need not accept Catholic dogma before receiving Holy Communion in a Catholic Church would seem to be an implicit rejection of the authority of post-schism councils.

I’m not going to disagree with anything there, when I post the following:

What’s necessary is the belief in that particular sacrament which is being requested. Complete belief in the doctrine of the Church, strictly, and as-such, is not required in order to be admitted to Communion in extreme circumstances.

Remember again that when this does happen, it’s an act of Christ’s mercy through the Church. The Church is not saying “one need not believe in the Church” but instead is saying “in spite of the fact that you do not have complete belief in the Church…”

 

[Cluny]

**Also, as far as I know, Orthodox don’t have the sacrament of reconciliation the way we do. **

Orthodox indeed have the Sacrament of Confession. Where did you get the idea that we didn’t?

 

[Volodymyr]

Yes.

The situation of the Orthodox Churches a very complicated and sensitive one. The Orthodox Churches never actually went into schism; the Orthodox have never abandoned the faith, and have never lost the Apostolic Succession. Two very important points. Many matters of Church discipline, but most importantly, the development of the understanding of Papal primacy occured after the historical moment of separation.

This is most forthright truthful statement, Father David96. Many Catolics from Litva with whom I was in Red Army helped me with faith-confession and helpled many including Orthodox priests serving in Army to baptize children and find places to make such mystery. Catolic Church is for us also complicated, sensitive one.

 

[sdtouchton]

Please read the importance of eucharist here
John 6:53-55, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 1 Corinthians 11:27, 1 Samuel 21:4, Psalm 104:15, Matthew 14:19-21, Matthew 26:26, 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, 1 Corinthians 10:17, Proverbs 4:17, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 4:14

 

[greggy53]

I remember when a good sister of the IHM who took our 8th grade class to mass at St Mary’s Byzantine church. We all took communion including the Sister. She addressed the priest as father. This took place back in 1966.