Russian Orthodox Reject Inter-Confessional Worship

[Peter_J]

From the ByzCath and Stetson websites:

**Russian Orthodox Reject Inter-Confessional Worship **

2008-06-12

Moscow Patriarchate Confirms Intention to Refrain From Participation in Joint Services with Non-Orthodox

Portal-credo.ru, 12 May 2008

Once again it has been asserted in the Russian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate that they do not consider it possible for Orthodox persons to perform divine services jointly with representatives of other Christian confessions.

“We wish to affirm once again our intention to refrain from participation in joint worship with persons of other confessions,” a worker in the Secretariat for Inter-Christian Relations of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, the priest Alexander Vasiutin, told the “Interfax-Religion” portal.

He said that this matter has acquired new pertinence in the process of preparing for the XIII General Assembly of the Conference of European Churches which is scheduled for July 2009 in Lyons (France).

The news agency’s interlocutor, who also is a member of the assembly’s organizing committee, noted that “the position of the Russian Orthodox church, unfortunately, does not always meet with understanding among representatives of other local Orthodox churches.”

As an example, Fr Alexander told how at a recent session of the organizing committee Metropolitan of Gaul Emmanuel (Constantinople patriarchate) responded to the suggestion of refraining from performing interconfessional worship at the assembly by saying that “the position of representatives of the Moscow patriarchate on this matter reminds one of the behavior of a man who has a wife but doesn’t sleep with her.”

In addition, the representative of Constantinople posed the question, “why do representatives of the Moscow patriarchate always refuse to participate in joint worship with non-Orthodox, while Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus participated in joint worship with Catholic clergy in the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris when he was there?”

“There is no need to repeat the information disseminated by many church and secular news media that in reality an Orthodox prayer service was conducted in the Paris Notre Dame cathedral at which representatives of the Roman Catholic church were merely present, including Archbishop of Paris André Vingt-Trois. But one cannot speak of any joint service or worship in this case,” Fr Alexander stressed. (tr. by PDS, posted 6 June 2008)

Source: stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure whether this is related or not, but ByzCath also had this article …

**Moscow Patriarchate Asks Romanian Church About Reports Bishop Took Catholic Eucharist **

2008-06-10

Moscow - 2008 06 10 - There were reports in the mass media that the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae of Banat took the Holy Communion during the liturgy which took place on 25 May 2008 at the Greek Catholic Church in Timisoara, Romania, and which was attended by the Apostolic Nuncio to Romania, Francisco-Javier Lozano.

On 6 June 2008, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, sent a letter to Bishop Ciprian of Campina, vicar of His Beatitude Patriarch of Romania and head of the Romanian Patriarchate’s external relations section, asking him to explain whether the prominent hierarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church really had sacramental communion with those who do not belong to the Orthodox Church and if he did, how this incident is treated by His Holiness Patriarch Daniel of Romania and the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church.

DECR Communication Service
www.mospat.ru

 

[Peter_J]

Just look at the quotes of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev to Mikhail Serdyukov in Voices from Russia and what they are doing to Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu

Chellow,

Since the interview with Bishop Hilarion doesn’t metion Metropolitan Nicolae, I assume you’re referring to Metropolitan Kirill asking the Romanian Orthodox “to explain whether the prominent hierarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church really had sacramental communion with those who do not belong to the Orthodox Church and if he did, how this incident is treated by His Holiness Patriarch Daniel of Romania and the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church.” I don’t see anything wrong with that. (If this isn’t what you’re referring to, please clarify. Has there been a more recent development/announcement?)

 

[Chellow]

I don’t understand what you are asking, I’m only pointing out what a hard line the ROC is taking on an Orthodox Church they don’t even recognize. The extend they will go to try prevent unity with Catholics, I also though Metropolitan Kirill was more accommodating for unity to.

Just incase. The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone whose Church Officially recognizes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to partake of communion.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t understand what you are asking, I’m only pointing out what a hard line the ROC is taking on an Orthodox Church they don’t even recognize.

What is the “Orthodox Church they don’t even recognize” that you speak of? (The Estonian Church, I’m guessing?) And what “hard line”?

The extend they will go to try prevent unity with Catholics, I also though Metropolitan Kirill my accommodating for unity to.

Understand this sentence, I do not.

Just incase. The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone whose Church Officially recognizes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to partake of communion.

Incase what? (Or “In case what?” as the case may be.)

 

[Chellow]

Mistake let me rephrase. I’m only pointing out, what a hard line the ROC is taking in order to prevent unity with Catholics.

I also though Metropolitan Kirill was more accommodating for unity.

 

[mercygate]

Just incase. The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone whose Church Officially recognizes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to partake of communion.

Just for clarification, The Catholic Church does not allow Communion with people who may “believe” in the real presence but who do not have it, such as Anglicans, or certain schismatics [except in extremis].

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Orders and the validity of their sacraments.

 

[Chellow]

Just for clarification, The Catholic Church does not allow Communion with people who may “believe” in the real presence but who do not have it, such as Anglicans, or certain schismatics [except in extremis].

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Orders and the validity of their sacraments.

agree

 

[Peter_J]

Mistake let me rephrase. I’m only pointing out, what a hard line the ROC is taking in order to prevent unity with Catholics.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that a Catholic bishop should have the freedom of conscience to receive communion at an Anglican parish? (Or perhaps I should say “receive the host” rather than “receive communion”, since I don’t believe Anglicans have a valid eucharist.)

 

[Chellow]

Let me ask you this: do you believe that a Catholic bishop should have the freedom of conscience to receive communion at an Anglican parish? (Or perhaps I should say “receive the host” rather than “receive communion”, since I don’t believe Anglicans have a valid eucharist.)

You got me nooooooooo.

 

[Peter_J]

You got me nooooooooo.

I would also answer the question in the negative.

So I guess you and I are hard-liners, like the ROC.

 

[Chellow]

Well I would not see it wrong if it was an Orthodox communion, you see the Anglican Communion is a sham. While the Orthodox communion is valid.

 

[Peter_J]

Well I would not see it wrong if it was an Orthodox communion, you see the Anglican Communion is a sham. While the Orthodox communion is valid.

Exactly. You would disapprove of a Catholic bishop (or any Catholic) receiving a communion that you consider to be invalid. Similarly, the ROC disapproves of an Orthodox bishop receiving a communion that they consider to be invalid.

 

[Chellow]

I would also answer the question in the negative.

So I guess you and I are hard-liners, like the ROC.

I’m not a hard-liners with the Orthodox.

Exactly. You would disapprove of a Catholic bishop (or any Catholic) receiving a communion that you consider to be invalid. Similarly, the ROC disapproves of an Orthodox bishop receiving a communion that they consider to be invalid.

Agree

 

[Hesychios]

Exactly. You would disapprove of a Catholic bishop (or any Catholic) receiving a communion that you consider to be invalid. Similarly, the ROC disapproves of an Orthodox bishop receiving a communion that they consider to be invalid.

I don’t think that the “validity” is an issue here.

Validity is actually a Latin concept. If an Orthodox was to say the Latin Eucharist is invalid, that would mean they KNOW it is not a true Eucharist, and Orthodox do not know this.

What they do know is that the Latin church teaches things that are, essentially, not correct. Either errors or mistakes to proclaim as dogma. Since it is aparent this church has diverged from the standard Orthodox theology, they are cut off from sharing communion. (I, as an Orthodox, cannot commune at a Catholic church because that would imply that I accept the Latin theological points which trouble the church at present.)

This is the standard operating procedure that has been applied since the earliest times in the church to try and inhibit the flow of incorrect ideas through the church population. These “ideas” themselves do not definitely make the sacraments of errant the community ineffective or non-existent, one simply cannot know at this point. We try to give the benefit of the doubt in all cases concerning the Catholic communion under the Pope, which is why there is so much fruitful contact between our churches in these recent decades. Non-vested clergy have been attending Catholic liturgies (especially consecrations and funeral Masses) for centuries off and on as guests, with a rather continuous practice going on for decades of recent history.

But we have not resolved these troubling theological points, so the ban on communion between us is still important at present.
*
Michael*

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think that the “validity” is an issue here.

Validity is actually a Latin concept. If an Orthodox was to say the Latin Eucharist is invalid, that would mean they KNOW it is not a true Eucharist, and Orthodox do not know this.

So then it sounds like you accept the concept of valid vs. invalid, but that you generally wouldn’t try to say whether a non-Orthodox (or “heterodox” as some of your co-religionists like to say) eucharist is valid or invalid.

 

[Peter_J]

Just for clarification, The Catholic Church does not allow Communion with people who may “believe” in the real presence but who do not have it, such as Anglicans, or certain schismatics [except in extremis].

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Orders and the validity of their sacraments.

Then there’s also the case of the Old Catholics, which doesn’t fit into either of the usual categories. The Catholic Church has never declared Old Catholic orders to be invalid, but neither does she permit the “limited intercommunion” with Old Catholics that she permits with the Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the PNCC.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter,

So then it sounds like you accept the concept of valid vs. invalid, but that you generally wouldn’t try to say whether a non-Orthodox (or “heterodox” as some of your co-religionists like to say) eucharist is valid or invalid.

Orthodox know the concept of “is” and “is not”.

If we together visit an art museum and there are two paintings, we would not use the terms a “valid” Rembrandt and an “invalid” Rembrandt to describe them.

Either it is a Rembrandt, or it is not. No in-between.

There is no such thing as an invalid Rembrandt, no such thing as a valid but illicit Rembrandt.

Orthodox know that they have a Rembrandt. Orthodox say no more.

 

[Fuerza]

Hi Peter, Orthodox know the concept of “is” and “is not”.

If we together visit an art museum and there are two paintings, we would not use the terms a “valid” Rembrandt and an “invalid” Rembrandt to describe them.

**Either it is a Rembrandt, or it is not. No in-between. **

There is no such thing as an invalid Rembrandt, no such thing as a valid but illicit Rembrandt.

Orthodox know that they have a Rembrandt. Orthodox say no more.

Not to nitpick, but that is exactly what valid or invalid means. If the sacrament is invalid, it’s not a sacrament.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter, Orthodox know the concept of “is” and “is not”.

If we together visit an art museum and there are two paintings, we would not use the terms a “valid” Rembrandt and an “invalid” Rembrandt to describe them.

Either it is a Rembrandt, or it is not. No in-between.

The way I see it, when we Catholics say “Anglicans don’t have a valid eucharist” what we mean is simply that the Anglicans don’t have a eucharist. (I’m not really sure why we don’t say it that way. Can any of my fellow Catholics help me out here?)

So “valid” really isn’t any special “concept”. It’s like if one person said “Look there’s a Rembrandt!” and other said “No, that’s a forgery, not a real Rembrandt.”