www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholics attending Orthodox services

>>>However, in certain locales where Catholic and Orthodox communtieis have a strong and common social and cultural tie
suggesting a single community, the canonical norms are sometimes not observed. This would not be the case for most
Anglophone Americans.<<<

Nice use of the superfluous ethnic dig, Kurt. But you are mistaken--it is also common among Anglophone Americans, particularly in Ukrainian parishes where, of course, blood remains much thicker than water.

>>>The thing is there were many opponents to this policy of Metropolitan Andrew's.<<<

Darn tootin'. You see, the 1917 Code of Canons specifically prohibited Catholics (and since the concept of ecclesia sui juris did not exist, that meant all Roman Catholics of whatever "rite") from attending or participating in the services of heretics and schismatics. No exceptions! Chorbishop John Farris gave a very interesting presentation at Orientale Lumen IV on the changes between the 1917 Code and the CCEO. He quoted extensively from both, and it is quite clear from the applicable canons that Metropolitan Andrew (may his memory be eternal!) very bravely placed himself in opposition to the magisterium of the Catholic Church in this matter--and ultimately found vindication. Let that be a lesson to us all.

Actually, you are quite mistaken here. Intercommunion in English speaking North American parishes as a matter of common practice does not exist. One example is the pastor of a suburban New Jersey orthodox pastor who publicly bemound the fact his jurisdiction did not allow him to offer communion to Catholics.

K.

I am a Byzantine Catholic and my husband is Orthodox. We both have no problem attending the others liturgy. I see NO difference other than they say Barthomew and I say John Paul. No we do not receive in each others church beacause we do not want to scandalize. Since people know us in both churches. L

>>>Actually, you are quite mistaken here. Intercommunion in English speaking North American parishes as a matter of common
practice does not exist. One example is the pastor of a suburban New Jersey orthodox pastor who publicly bemound the fact
his jurisdiction did not allow him to offer communion to Catholics.<<<

Depends on what you mean by common practice. What is admitted publicly and what is allowed privately are two entirely different matters, and a great deal goes on about which the laity know (blessedly) little. I could give specific examples, but to do so would scandalize many and perhaps jeopardize arrangements that people have made with their pastors and hierarchs.

Suffice it to say, however, that intercommunion occurs far more often than people on either side believe, and while it is not as universal as it is in, say, Lebanon or Syria (where the hierarchy have no choice but to turn a blind eye to it), there are many Byzantine Catholics in Orthodox parishes who are fully accepted in those parishes and have never renounced their Catholic affiliation (the same thing, inter alia, occurs in the other direction, too). That is not to say that there are Orthodox pastors who extend the Chalice to Catholics no questions asked. All the Orthodox priests I know who do this always insist on knowing the person in question very intimately indeed, in order to understand their spiritual formation and disposition, and they consider each case individually, as would be expected. As a general rule, they are far more sympathetic to Byzantine than Latin Catholics, particularly if the former are either married to an Orthodox Christian, or are stranded far from a parish of their own jurisdiction. Ukrainians are, of course, the main offenders, if you like. But I suspect that this is increasingly the situation between Ruthenians and the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox, especially as the old wounds heal. It should be more common between Melkites and Antiochean Orthodox, but the fact that more than half of the latter jurisdiction's members (and three-fourths of its clergy) in this country are now former Evangelical Protestant converts tends to mitigate against the kind of intercommunion which occurs in the Middle East. Romanian Greek Catholics are, of course, as scarce as hen's teeth in this country (I believe there are only about 5000 in the Exarchate), but they have of late been very closely engaged with the Romanian Orthodox Diocese within the OCA. In Boston, they share a building, have joint Vespers and Orthros, and a pot-luck after their respective Divine Liturgies--but it defies credibility that in such a small community the kind of sacramental sharing that was common in Transylvania prior to 1947 does not occur on a regular basis.

Yes, my understanding is the same. Some communities have a lot of "wink and nod" intercommunion, but as you say, you wouldn't give names and places because of scandal. Outside the Anglophone world, however, you have locales where no scandal is involved and intercommunion is public.

K.

>>>Yes, my understanding is the same. Some communities have a lot of "wink and nod" intercommunion, but as you say, you
wouldn't give names and places because of scandal. Outside the Anglophone world, however, you have locales where no
scandal is involved and intercommunion is public.<<<

We pretty much agree then, though even in the Middle East, the hierarchy still formally prohibit intercommunion with the full knowlege that it is going to happen anyway. This is done mostly to keep other particular Churches in their respective communions happy.

"I am shocked, Rick! Shocked! To discover gambling on your premises!"

"Your winnings, Captain Reynaud".

Since all the ordinary people are in on the game, it does no harm, and possibly quite a lot of good.

Dear Stuart,

Bingo! Excellent point!

I have been received to Communion in Ukrainian Orthodox parishes because of our common faith tradition - Ukrainian Christian culture and identity.

That's just the way it is. My Ukrainian Jewish uncle has, by now, quite a collection of Icons of Jewish Old Testament Saints. I am now looking for a medal of Moses the Prophet for him!

Alex

Dear Kurt,

Please note Stuart's reference to the Ukrainians.

Catholic or Orthodox, they don't fit into any neat categorization.

They tend to like each other despite their religious differences and I, for one, have attended Communion on the express invitation of the pastor in UO parishes on more than one occasion.

Recently, a Russian bishop called all Ukrainians, Catholic or Orthodox, "Uniates" for wanting to receive the Pope.

Suddenly, being a Uniate isn't so bad . . .

Alex

Suppose that a Catholic (either Roman or Eastern) prefers the Orthodox service he or she is attending to the Catholic service and decides to convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church in order to receive the sacraments there regularly. Some Churches allow a simple profession of faith, while others may require either conditional Baptism or Chrismation. Is that Catholic who converts to E. Orthodoxy thereby excommunicated from the Catholic Church or not?

The person has professed membership in a community that is not in communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore the individual has taken him/herself out of communionwith the Catholic Church. It is an action of the individual, not an action of the Catholic Church.

As the matter here concerns Christians, I won't entertain the possibility that the individual is being dishonest to his Orthodox community.

On the issue of preference for Orthodox services, if you prefered the externals of your neighbor's wife to your own, but couldn't take her "sacraments" (if ya know what mean!), could you marry her without excommunicating yourself from your current wife and ......Oh, let's not continue this line of thought.

K.

Charles --

The Catholic canon law has narrow exceptions for both attending Orthodox liturgies and for receiving sacraments there. The key words to remember are "occasional" and "necessary".

If one is rformally eceived into the Orthodox Church, by whatever means, one accepts the Orthodox view, which is an implicit rejection of those points on which Orthodoxy and Catholicism today regrettably continue to differ. It's not a question of becoming Orthodox because one likes the Orthodox aesthetic better -- it's a question of belief, faith. Becoming Orthodox -- regardless of the means by which one does so -- implies an acceptance of the Orthodox view on these matters (just as joining Catholicism implies acceptance of the Catholic view on a number of matters which a catechumen may not utter when she is received into Catholicism).

The act of being formally received into Orthodoxy is a formal act of schism from Catholicism, in any case. Some would argue that it is a heresy as well, because one is rejecting things that Catholicism teaches are dogmatic.

Brendan

>>>Is that Catholic who converts to E. Orthodoxy thereby excommunicated from the Catholic Church
or not?<<<

Since he would have surrendered his affiliation, he would be outside of the Catholic communion, and thus "excommunicated" in that narrow, ecclesial sense. The more pertinent question then would be, "Is he therefore outside of the Church of God?", and the answer in my opinion, is no. Both the Catholic and Orthodox communions, as well as the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East communions, TOGETHER comprise the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. By allowing Orthodox Christians (to say nothing of non-Chalecdonians) to receive communion from Catholic ministers, and by allowing Catholics to receive the sacraments from ministers of those Churches, the Catholic communion has admitted as much. As to whether the former Catholic in question would be allowed to receive communion in a Catholic Church, I believe that current canon law does not permit that (I assume as a means of preventing scandal), but canon law may be waived for pastoral reasons.

�Is that Catholic who converts to E. Orthodoxy thereby excommunicated from the Catholic Church or not?�

Best question yet on this site. So irresistable I will again risk losing my lurking status.

A few prefatory remarks. I can�t applaud you folks enough for your contributions to truly Christian dialogue. You all are a �de facto� ecumenical synod of the laity, albeit an electronic one. I can see the Holy Spirit quite frequently dropping in to guide the discussion. (Contrary to the protestations of some, His is not a part-time job that experienced a plant closing after the �seven� ecumenical councils.)

Why do some of us stay lurkers? Because you all are too smart for some of us. I don�t have the time to look up all the relevant documentation or scriptural quotes that you all seem to have at your finger tips.
On this one I more than vaguely remember St. Paul saying something like �don�t say that I am with Timothy or I am with Barnabas........�

The power of the Sacraments of initiation to unite does not, repeat �not,� yield to the power of man to divide. In the words of Christ, �What God has joined together.........�

KEY QUESTION: How can an RC who accepts all of the essential teachings of E. Orthodoxy be excommunicated, when the RCC invites those very same E. Orthodox to communicate at our RC Divine Liturgy? Seems like I would be walking out the door an RC and then re-entering the same door, kneeling in the same pew, and joining the same Communion line as a welcomed Orthodox.


...Baptism and the Eucharist have already made me a member of all four communions that have valid sacraments as well as apostolic succession. Even though I have not received the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church, I am still a member of that Church.

...I don�t �surrender my affiliation� to Timothy, when I say that I am with Barnabas. If I say I am with Timothy, it is without denying that I am also with Barnabas.

...Union will come when we all wake up to the fact that we are in union. Nothing else need be changed. For sure, we will then look at how to express our beliefs in words that do not offend, or that are less ambiguous, or that are properly identified as theological opinion versus dogma. A lot of sorting out would be appropriate.

...In the days of the Evangelists, there was more theological diversity than now exists in our �four� communions.

...We need to recognize that we are all members of a dysfunctional family in need of therapy and not distinct bodies negotiating enough common ground for a marriage.

...We are lucky to have a Pope who appreciates our sacramental unity and is setting an example for future Popes. This Pope is taking to heart Jesus� words: Feed my sheep. And he is doing it without lording it over anyone. Hence, he is already acting as a shepherd should act when �visible� union will be attained. (Unfortunately, there are still �maximalists� in the Curia, who haven�t gotten the Good News.)

By now I have reached the point where St. Paul�s injunction (Titus 3:9) rears its head and is tugging at my intellectual vanity -- "avoid stupid arguments." He also said pretty much the same in his first letter to Timothy (6:20) "guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge," again as in Titus, after urging devotion to good works and generosity.

In the Awesome Three,

[This message has been edited by Latin Lurker (edited 08-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Latin Lurker (edited 08-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Latin Lurker (edited 08-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Latin Lurker (edited 08-10-2001).]

I think it would be best phrased that baptism does not make one a member of every particular church, but baptism (Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox) makes one a member of the Universal Church and a member of a particular church.

Secondly, Catholics are not to invite Orthodox to receive communion. it inivtes them to follow the discipline and canons of their church, but allows them to receive, if they so choose.

Since reception into Orthodoxy requires rejection of Catholic communion, the person is declaring by entering Orthodoxy they indend to "ex- communicate" themselves from Catholicism. The Church is simply noted their own statement, not making one of her own.

K.