Sharing Holy Eucharist with Orthodox

[ConstantineTG]

I also am not saying the Orthodox asked for or caused it. I’m simply pointing out how ironic it is.

I do not see any irony in it. We set our own disciplines and we follow our own understanding of the faith. What others do it their problem, not ours. Our problem is what we do.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I do not see any irony in it. We set our own disciplines and we follow our own understanding of the faith. What others do it their problem, not ours. Our problem is what we do.

Well, the irony is in commenting on the irony, you explained it in ironically similar fashion to the Orthodox response to the Catholic position on this subject.

Pretty much, what the Catholics decide to do (permit Orthodox to freely receive the Holy Eucharist) is their problem, not ours. We still have our view on the subject (the Orthodox cannot accept), and that is what we do (continue to remain close to the immediate possibility of intercommunion).

 

[JoeBowen7]

I always found it interesting that we permit it and they don’t.

But isn’t this to some extent, similar to the case of some Protestant Churches? I.e., they permit Catholics to receive their communion, but the Catholic Church does not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But isn’t this to some extent, similar to the case of some Protestant Churches? I.e., they permit Catholics to receive their communion, but the Catholic Church does not.

Maybe. But Protestants do it to proselytize. Catholics do it because of our Eucharistic theology. Our Eucharistic theology states that one must be baptized, which the Orthodox are. One must believe in the reality in the Eucharist, which is the Real Presence. And the Orthodox do. And if they have been to confession recently, which by Latin standards they are in a state of grace, then they have passed all qualifications the Latin Church has set to receive Communion.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I also am not saying the Orthodox asked for or caused it. I’m simply pointing out how ironic it is.

I respectfully disagree: it’s not ironic at all. It would be ironic if they asked to be permitted and then, once we agreed, refused to do the same themselves.

But the Orthodox didn’t ask for such permission. The fact that we decided, based on our own principles, to invite them - in the right circumstances - to partake of the Holy Eucharist at Catholic Masses in no way obliges them to make us a similar offer.

Perhaps I’m misreading the tone of your replies, but their flavor calls to my mind the way some of those Protestants who offer their communion to all Christians sometimes feel a bit hurt, gipped, or double-crossed when they find that they are not permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist at Mass.

 

[Peter_J]

I respectfully disagree: it’s not ironic at all. It would be ironic if they asked to be permitted and then, once we agreed, refused to do the same themselves.

But the Orthodox didn’t ask for such permission. The fact that we decided, based on our own principles, to invite them - in the right circumstances - to partake of the Holy Eucharist at Catholic Masses in no way obliges them to make us a similar offer.

True. I think the only reason it seems strange – to us Catholics living in the West – is that we are so accustomed to saying (to Protestants) “Sorry, I know you’d like to receive communion in our masses, but we don’t allow that” etc., that we don’t stop to think that they could be Christians out there who wouldn’t allow us to receive in their parishes. (Maybe there is some irony there after all. )

 

[Pork_Roll]

I don’t like this discipline of allowing EO to receive communion. For one, it doesn’t respect the Bishops of the EO who don’t allow their faithful to do this. Also, we are not in communion with one another. It almost seems to be a disguised way of proselytizing.

But it must also imply that rejection of papal supremacy isn’t a big deal–which it might not be.

 

[JoeBowen7]

Some Orthodox accept Catholic Sacraments as valid, while others do not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t like this discipline of allowing EO to receive communion.

As much as I love the Orthodox, I do not agree with it too. By removing the command on the Sacraments from the Church and placing it on individual ministers who may be heretics (I am not saying the Orthodox are heretics, but a case in example is someone like Fr. Cutie who left the CC and became Episcopalian, but the Church still recognizes his valid priesthood and thus he is able to give valid Sacraments if done in the right formula) then we have allowed the Sacraments to be at the mercy of those who do not profess the belief we profess. I think the Orthodox got it right, and we should follow suit.

For one, it doesn’t respect the Bishops of the EO who don’t allow their faithful to do this.

Do you respect OUR bishops for not allowing us to receive Anglican, Lutheran, and other Protestant “Communion”?

Also, we are not in communion with one another. It almost seems to be a disguised way of proselytizing.

It is a very open and direct way that we are stating that we are ready for a reunion. That we do not question any of their beliefs. Unfortunately for us, they still have a lot of questions on our beliefs.

But it must also imply that rejection of papal supremacy isn’t a big deal–which it might not be.

It is. According to Pastor Aeternus, rejection of papal supremacy carries the penalty of anathema.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Pork Roll
For one, it doesn’t respect the Bishops of the EO who don’t allow their faithful to do this.

I’m not sure I follow your question, but I think I see what Pork Roll means. Catholics encourage Orthodox to follow the rules of their own church in this matter; but ultimately, a Catholic priest could give communion to an Orthodox who requests it, even if it is completely against the advice of his/her priest, bishop and church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t like this discipline of allowing EO to receive communion.

Clearly and understandably, there are mixed feelings about this, but I would speculate that those who object the most may not be looking at in in light of the ecumenical progress made in the last 50 years.

The biggest problem perhaps with the unilateral approach, that is the Catholic Church opening up the possibility first and separately, is that it can be seen as an “unOrthodox” position in and of itself.

That said, if Catholics truly believe the Holy Father to be successor to St. Peter and as such to be entrusted with the unity of the Church as well as defense of the True Faith, then the rationale should be fairly plain and obvious.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not sure I follow your question, but I think I see what Pork Roll means. Catholics encourage Orthodox to follow the rules of their own church in this matter; but ultimately, a Catholic priest could give communion to an Orthodox who requests it, even if it is completely against the advice of his/her priest, bishop and church.

Well he said he doesn’t respect the Orthodox bishops for not allowing their faithful to receive in the Catholic Church. But in the same light, our own bishops do not allow us to receive from the Anglicans. So I want to know if this lack-of-respect applies to both instances.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t like this discipline of allowing EO to receive communion. For one, it doesn’t respect the Bishops of the EO who don’t allow their faithful to do this. Also, we are not in communion with one another. It almost seems to be a disguised way of proselytizing.

You have a point. The one discipline that holds the communion together is, communion! Sharing communion is indeed what a communion is all about, and that is only possible with common belief.

The comparable discipline in Roman Catholicism is obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium. It holds the Papal communion together.

For another church to offer communion to Orthodox can be seen as a way of undermining the church (if it became a widespread accepted practice among Orthodox laity the discipline of the church could unravel). It is the equivalent of encouraging Roman Catholics to dis-obey the Pope.

But it must also imply that rejection of papal supremacy isn’t a big deal–which it might not be.

It is a contradiction. Roman Catholics who do not believe in the Papal dogmas are not free to commune (that many do anyway is another matter), yet their own non-Roman Catholic neighbors who also do not believe in the Papal dogmas are accepted at the table. It is not a consistent practice.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t like this discipline of allowing EO to receive communion. For one, it doesn’t respect the Bishops of the EO who don’t allow their faithful to do this.

That’s not true. The relevant canons explicitly stress the need for Christians to obey the rules of their own churches, regardless of what we invite them to do. When such an exhortation is written into the very permission to receive, it makes no sense to say that such permission constitutes a lack of respect for EO bishops.

Also, we are not in communion with one another. It almost seems to be a disguised way of proselytizing.

No, it’s essentially an exercise of what eastern Christians call economy. The flexibility of which economy is capable often surprises Latin Catholics.

But it must also imply that rejection of papal supremacy isn’t a big deal–which it might not be.

See my reply to Hesychios below.

It’s not a flawed comparison at all:

the Orthodox have valid Sacraments from a Catholic viewpoint, so the latter have provisions permitting the former to receive communion from them.

the Catholics have valid Sacraments from an Anglican viewpoint, so the latter have provisions permitting the former to receive communion from them.

Well said.

As much as I love the Orthodox, I do not agree with it too. By removing the command on the Sacraments from the Church and placing it on individual ministers who may be heretics (I am not saying the Orthodox are heretics, but a case in example is someone like Fr. Cutie who left the CC and became Episcopalian, but the Church still recognizes his valid priesthood and thus he is able to give valid Sacraments if done in the right formula) then we have allowed the Sacraments to be at the mercy of those who do not profess the belief we profess. I think the Orthodox got it right, and we should follow suit.

But we know they’re not heretics… well, I admit an individual Orthodox could privately be a heretic, but so could an individual Catholic. We can only judge the public faith… and we know as Catholics that the faith of the Orthodox is, well, orthodox.

(If you’re going to ask about papal supremacy… see my comments below)

It is a very open and direct way that we are stating that we are ready for a reunion. That we do not question any of their beliefs.

Yes, I think that’s what it is, too.

Of course, it’s also essentially an exercise of economy, even if Latin Christianity lacks that concept. The fact of offering Holy Communion to those in schism from us nonetheless demonstrates that the substance of economy is absolutely present and operative in our canons on this matter.

It is a contradiction. Roman Catholics who do not believe in the Papal dogmas are not free to commune (that many do anyway is another matter), yet their own non-Roman Catholic neighbors who also do not believe in the Papal dogmas are accepted at the table. It is not a consistent practice.

From our perspective, it is not a contradiction.

Recall the following principles:

(1) Catholic teaching professes that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle - so despite “development of doctrine,” the early Church had the fullness of the Faith as much as we do.

(2) Catholic teaching, which has dogmatized papal supremacy, therefore considers it to have been present and operative all along in some form.

(3) It follows, then, that if the Orthodox profess to hold the Orthodox faith of the Fathers, they implicitly profess the Catholic dogmas they misunderstand.

Furthermore, the practical rejection of these dogmas by the Orthodox faithful most often entails some level of misunderstanding of these dogmas, anyway…

 

[JoeBowen7]

You have a point. The one discipline that holds the communion together is, communion! Sharing communion is indeed what a communion is all about, and that is only possible with common belief.

The comparable discipline in Roman Catholicism is obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium. It holds the Papal communion together.

For another church to offer communion to Orthodox can be seen as a way of undermining the church (if it became a widespread accepted practice among Orthodox laity the discipline of the church could unravel). It is the equivalent of encouraging Roman Catholics to dis-obey the Pope.

It is a contradiction. Roman Catholics who do not believe in the Papal dogmas are not free to commune (that many do anyway is another matter), yet their own non-Roman Catholic neighbors who also do not believe in the Papal dogmas are accepted at the table. It is not a consistent practice.

I think that Roman Catholics believe that there is a partial union with the Orthodox inasmuch as they both have apostolic succession and valid Sacraments. It is true that there is disagreement between RC and EO on some issues, but there is disagreement among Orthodox on the calendar issue, or on the toll house issue, or on the question of whether women are to wear headcovering in Church, or whether musical organs are allowed in Church. And between some Western rite Orthodox and EO, there is disagreement on the devotion to the Sacred Heart, and whether communion must be taken under both species. Further, some EO allow intercommunion with OO, where there is a Chalcedonian question. And in the mideast, there is in some places a more relaxed attitude between EO, OO and RC.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Well he said he doesn’t respect the Orthodox bishops for not allowing their faithful to receive in the Catholic Church. But in the same light, our own bishops do not allow us to receive from the Anglicans. So I want to know if this lack-of-respect applies to both instances.

hes saying its not respectful of the Catholic church or priests perhaps to Commune EO christians,because the Catholics should know the EO bishops/priests dont allow their people to commune there

 

[5Loaves]

Well he said he doesn’t respect the Orthodox bishops for not allowing their faithful to receive in the Catholic Church.

Where do you get that from?

 

[Peter_J]

Where do you get that from?

Possibly CTG misread “It” as “I”. Just a guess.

 

[Peter_J]

From our perspective, it is not a contradiction.

Recall the following principles:

(1) Catholic teaching professes that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle - so despite “development of doctrine,” the early Church had the fullness of the Faith as much as we do.

(2) Catholic teaching, which has dogmatized papal supremacy, therefore considers it to have been present and operative all along in some form.

(3) It follows, then, that if the Orthodox profess to hold the Orthodox faith of the Fathers, they implicitly profess the Catholic dogmas they misunderstand.

I’m not anti-ecumenical or anything, but I really have to disagree with number 3 (in general, that is, not anything against the Orthodox specifically).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m not anti-ecumenical or anything, but I really have to disagree with number 3 (in general, that is, not anything against the Orthodox specifically).

Because you don’t think such dogmas are present and operative in any way in the first millennium? Or because you don’t think the EO faith is the faith of the Fathers?