Sharing Holy Eucharist with Orthodox

[damooster]

I was checking out the websites of nearby Eastern Catholic churches (because I want to attend the DL this Sunday) and I came across this:

Who may come to our church? Anyone who wants to share the Divine Life with us. Roman Catholics who are baptized and confirmed may share the Holy Eucharist with us, as can Orthodox Christians. We are always ready to share with those who come to the faith once given to the Apostles lived and guarded and preserved by us until now.

Is this correct? Can Orthodox Christians receive Holy Eucharist at Eastern Catholic churches?

 

[malphono]

Yes. And, for that matter, in Roman churches as well. From the CIC (emphasis added)

Can. 844 §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.

 

[The_Idiot]

The very simple answer to that is - yes .

According to the Catholic Church Orthodox Christians may indeed Receive in a Catholic Church - BUT they are asked to abide by the traditions of their own Church and none of the Orthodox Churches will permit this except for certain very very special circumstances .

 

[TrueLight]

The very simple answer to that is - yes .

According to the Catholic Church Orthodox Christians may indeed Receive in a Catholic Church - BUT they are asked to abide by the traditions of their own Church and none of the Orthodox Churches will permit this except for certain very very special circumstances .

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

Isn’t ecumenism great?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Isn’t ecumenism great?

Correct path in charity. Obviously the EO dsagree’s.

 

[twf]

Catholic theology tells us that all of those churches that have preserved apostolic succession have valid sacraments - including a valid eucharist. By definition, the sacraments exist only in the Church - for the Church is the mystical extension of the Incarnation, and it is from this central mystery that the grace of all the sacraments flows. The only logical conclusion is that the Orthodox must, in some way, be intimately connected to the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches enjoy an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church…they are not perfectly united to her, as they lack formal unity with the successor of St. Peter, but a mystical union is still present by virtue of the one baptism and the one eucharistic sacrifice that we both share.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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

Isn’t ecumenism great?

Correct path in charity. Obviously the EO dsagree’s.

To be fair and balanced:

This is a relatively recent decision of the Catholic Church and was not made lightly, nor for purely ecumenical purposes. To suggest that ecumenism was a motive or purpose would also suggest that the Catholic Church has taken a very different position on the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, which in the end would actually permanently ruin any chance of full communion with the Orthodox Churches and would have profound implications within Catholicism.

Notwithstanding the Catholic Church’s position and “open invitation”, individual Orthodox Christians are not free to receive the Holy Eucharist in a Catholic Church, in obedience to their own canonical Church’s directives. There are limited and exceptional circumstances where this may be permitted, and permission is required. From experience, I would share that our Eastern Catholic priests often make this invitation known when it is likely that we have Orthodox Christians in our midst, yet always do so by qualifying that the invitation is subject to obedience to the norms and directives of their own canonical Church (you are welcome to do so, but we know that you probably cannot).

The Orthodox Churches fairly interpret intercommunion as the ultimate expression of unity in faith, perfected through Christ Himself. Thus they do not take intercommunion likely. The only difference is that the Catholic Church sees few if any impediments at this time to prevent full communion, yet the Orthodox have reservations remaining. It would be unfair to say that they see the Catholic position as unsubstantiable, or more simply that they disagree with the rationale of the Catholic Church in reaching its conclusion. Rather, they feel strongly that impediments do remain that need to be addressed before full communion is restored, and thus would likely see the invitation of the Catholic Church as premature.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

Isn’t ecumenism great?

Jesus said, “do to others what you want others to do unto you.” He didn’t say, “do unto other only what they do to you.”

 

[Peter_J]

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

Interesting, but not surprising, if you look at the big picture. For examples, Anglicans permit Catholics to receive communion, even though Catholics don’t permit it.

 

[Matt_V]

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

Isn’t ecumenism great?

Do you mean to imply that the Catholic Church (“we”) permits its faithful to freely take communion in Eastern Orthodox churches - if it were offered?

When I was Catholic, I never heard that notion taught or suggested. Where in Catholic teaching can one find that idea?

 

[gus]

This always bothered me.
But our (CC) invitatation to share in Communion can only be accomplished if there is communion. Its actually an invitation to reunify.
With the high church Protestants the conditions for communion are much different.

 

[Ghosty]

Do you mean to imply that the Catholic Church (“we”) permits its faithful to freely take communion in Eastern Orthodox churches - if it were offered?

When I was Catholic, I never heard that notion taught or suggested. Where in Catholic teaching can one find that idea?

As a matter of fact the Catholic Church does allow this.

Canon 844:

§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.

In the case of ambiguity the Canons are intended to be understood with the most generous interpretation. Now this Canon is for the Latin Church, but similar ones, and more lenient ones in some cases, exist for all the Catholic Churches.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

Do you mean to imply that the Catholic Church (“we”) permits its faithful to freely take communion in Eastern Orthodox churches - if it were offered?

I see Ghosty has already quoted the Canon 844,

§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.

I just highlighted a few words.

in Eastern Orthodox churches

Also the PNCC and ACoE.

 

[TrueLight]

To be fair and balanced:

This is a relatively recent decision of the Catholic Church and was not made lightly, nor for purely ecumenical purposes. To suggest that ecumenism was a motive or purpose would also suggest that the Catholic Church has taken a very different position on the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, which in the end would actually permanently ruin any chance of full communion with the Orthodox Churches and would have profound implications within Catholicism.

Notwithstanding the Catholic Church’s position and “open invitation”, individual Orthodox Christians are not free to receive the Holy Eucharist in a Catholic Church, in obedience to their own canonical Church’s directives. There are limited and exceptional circumstances where this may be permitted, and permission is required. From experience, I would share that our Eastern Catholic priests often make this invitation known when it is likely that we have Orthodox Christians in our midst, yet always do so by qualifying that the invitation is subject to obedience to the norms and directives of their own canonical Church (you are welcome to do so, but we know that you probably cannot).

The Orthodox Churches fairly interpret intercommunion as the ultimate expression of unity in faith, perfected through Christ Himself. Thus they do not take intercommunion likely. The only difference is that the Catholic Church sees few if any impediments at this time to prevent full communion, yet the Orthodox have reservations remaining. It would be unfair to say that they see the Catholic position as unsubstantiable, or more simply that they disagree with the rationale of the Catholic Church in reaching its conclusion. Rather, they feel strongly that impediments do remain that need to be addressed before full communion is restored, and thus would likely see the invitation of the Catholic Church as premature.

Byz, I appreciate the nice explanation but those beautiful words still amount to the fact that we are allowed to receive while Orthodox forbid their members.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying they should. After all they consider Catholics to be heterodox.

And I disagree this new decision is not based on ecumenism - from the Catholic side of course.

 

[TrueLight]

Jesus said, “do to others what you want others to do unto you.” He didn’t say, “do unto other only what they do to you.”

This is about belief, not charity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is about belief, not charity.

Well, there you have your answer. From the Catholic perspective, anyone with the right belief regarding the Eucharist is worthy to receive the Eucharist. Would you say that the Orthodox believe anything heretical about the Eucharist? They believe in the Real Presence, they believe in all the symbolism and spiritual reality of the Eucharist, there’s really nothing in their belief that is not in line with Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist. That is why they are qualified from the Catholic perspective.

From the Orthodox perspective, any Sacrament performed outside those recognized to be orthodox in faith (those who are not in communion with them) are doubtful. Peter J put it quite nicely, their view of our Communion is similar to our view of the Anglican Communion.

If you want to fault anyone here, it is the Catholic Church for defining validity of Sacraments the way it is and for determining the eligibility for Communion the way it is. And just to be clear, by fault here I am not saying the Catholic Church is wrong. I am saying it is the Catholic Church who did all these based on what she herself teaches. There are no outside influences, the Orthodox did not ask for this.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Byz, I appreciate the nice explanation but those beautiful words still amount to the fact that we are allowed to receive while Orthodox forbid their members.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying they should. After all they consider Catholics to be heterodox.

And I disagree this new decision is not based on ecumenism - from the Catholic side of course.

Thanks, TL. I was simply trying to get a few thoughts out there, but I do understand where you are coming from as well.

I would come at it another way. The Catholic Church, led by the Successor of St. Peter, felt a particular obligation to take a significant opportunity to advance the cause of reunion. Yes, it may be deemed ecumenism as a consequence (and its hard to argue otherwise), but again the Church did not do this lightly as She too holds the same basic principles as the Orthodox with respect to the conditions precedent for intercommunion.

However, to say it was an entirely ecumenical decision does imply that the Church no longer adheres to Orthodox (capital O), long-standing beliefs and tenets on reception of the Sacrament between Apostolic Churches. I hope no Catholic believes that the Church changed its view on the very nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as a condition to or consequence of this decision.

And yes, it would have been preferable if this was a mutual, reciprocal and contemporaneous decision - still hoping and praying we can get the Orthodox to come around.

 

[TrueLight]

However, to say it was an entirely ecumenical decision does imply that the Church no longer adheres to Orthodox (capital O), long-standing beliefs and tenets on reception of the Sacrament between Apostolic Churches. I hope no Catholic believes that the Church changed its view on the very nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as a condition to or consequence of this decision…

You yourself said it was a new decision. What changed?

 

[TrueLight]

. And just to be clear, by fault here I am not saying the Catholic Church is wrong. I am saying it is the Catholic Church who did all these based on what she herself teaches. There are no outside influences, the Orthodox did not ask for this.

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

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You yourself said it was a new decision. What changed?

I said it was a relatively recent decision (at least in terms of Church history), but that point doesn’t really relate to what you quoted. Sorry for any confusion - just trying to understand your question.

As for what you quoted, more simply put - the Church did not make this decision solely for the cause of ecumenism - there was some deeper thought involved. Besides, if She had, the [near-term] results were certainly not commensurate with the effort.