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

Dear Brendan,

Your friend Alex is happy that you think my statement is correct . (How is your summer coming along?)

Yes, and I think your statement is correct as well.

The Orthodox priest in question was simply telling me that, were I to join you and our dear friend Bob in Holy Orthodoxy, I would not have to enumerate the errors of Roman Catholicism in public one by one and abjure them out loud. It had to do with the Rite of reception.

Of course, if I WERE to join Orthodoxy, then I would really want the whole nine yards.

I would want to scream out some anathemas against the popes, papal doctrines etc. Could I burn a papal flag, perhaps after coffee outside the hall? And how about using a picture of the Papal tiara as a backdrop for a dart-board?

Some things to look forward to, I guess .

It's a good thing you don't take me seriously, Friend, or else the Schism of 1054 might be prolonged indefinitely ...

When you see Bob Tallick at Church, could you please thank him for his vote of confidence in me in telling me to stay in my Uniate Communion? I appreciated that . . .

God bless you Orthodox Christians!

Alex

Perhaps it's the hour (I just got off a plane from Atlanta and I'm a bit giddy), but I am still having problems with what is supposedly the "Church" and the role of "beliefs".

If the excommunications have been mutually lifted by the legitimate, canonical successors of the original excommunicators, then why and where is there a canonical barrier? If the "official" abjuration of the excommunications has been accomplished, shouldn't this have meaning?

As to the faith aspects of the 'argument', it seems to me that the only REAL distinction is as to the role of the Bishop of Rome vis-a-vis the universal church. This, of course, is not really a faith issue (like the Creeds, the Scriptures and the Sacraments). While Catholicism has tended, since the Middle Ages, to move more or less lock-step into history, Orthodoxy has been both influenced by and divided by varying spiritual and theological schools and pathways, many of which are somewhat more distinct than the supposed variations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Russians, for example, enjoy a wealth of mystical theologies -- especially from the 18th and 19th centuries based upon the writings of the Russian mystics. The Greeks and the Arabs each developed quite different theologies during this period as a result of their particular and unique historical and political situations. Should this mean that the Russians are 'separated' from the rest of Orthodoxy because of their peculiar development of mystical approaches that are, to be honest, 'unusual'? I don't think so; it is their unique genius. My question is: if Orthodoxy allows this type of latitude in spiritual development among the varying ethnic groups, is it anything other than sour grapes or whatever that hurls condemnations against the Western churches for developing theologies that responded to Western needs?

The cult of the Eucharist in the West, for example, developed out of a real need to counter the 'trans-signification' of the Protestants, which the East did not have to face. To condemn this particular theology as being 'untraditional' or an 'innovation' is less than kind. The church of the West could as easily come along and condemn the latter-day 'innovation' of hyper-repetitive chanting (120 Lord have mercy-s) as a Christian response to Sufi Moslem repetitive practices, a la the 'whirling dervishes'. (There's scriptual basis for 'not repeating prayers')

My major concern is that some folks are so intent upon 'preserving traditional Orthodoxy' that the basic principles that guide our understanding of LEGITIMATE development are simply discarded when confronted with folks 'from the other camp'.

Brendan writes: "I think we have to distinguish, however, between (1) born Orthodox (or converts to Orthodoxy from another non-Catholic communion) and (2) ex-Catholic Orthodox. The former have not rejected Catholicism by their own choice, whereas the latter (if truly converts) do -- and so it is the latter who are "excommunicated" from Catholicism -- in a sense, they have "excommunicated themselves" by voluntarily breaking communion with the Catholic Church. Someone in that position ought not approach the Catholic chalice and receive communion."

This latter stuff is, legally speaking, nonsense. Since the excommunications have been lifted MUTUALLY and not by force, then the separation is 'de facto' no more. So, you can't 'excommunicate yourself' by moving from one group in the Church to another group in the Church that are legally no longer separated. Is there, perchance, some codicil in the documents that says we are still supposed to be hurling brickbats at one another over jurisdictions?

I just see the whole thing as a type of power struggle.

As for the Eastern Catholics, Rome doesn't want us to disappear from 'communion' because we symbolize the 'ecumenicity' of the Roman patriarchate and Papacy. (They would just prefer that we be quiet. Ever met a 'quiet' Ukrainian?) Some Orthodox think that we are a 5th column trying to seduce uneducated Orthodox into joining with the 'alien power' and deserting Orthodoxy.

A good many (ethnic) folks in this country (and I suspect in Canada too) don't really concern themselves that much one way or the other: the "Wow! They're just like us!" response.

I admit freely that I get hot under the collar when folks get on their high horses and start hurling condemnations. I fear that they, for some reason, are more intersted in throwing gasoline on the fire rather than racing after extinguishers.

Why?

Blessings!

Dr John --

"This latter stuff is, legally speaking, nonsense. Since the excommunications have been lifted MUTUALLY and not by force, then the separation is 'de facto' no more. So, you can't 'excommunicate yourself' by moving from one group in the Church to another group in the Church that are legally no longer separated. Is there, perchance, some codicil in the documents that says we are still supposed to be hurling brickbats at one another over jurisdictions?"

Let's have a look at the canons.

CIC Can. 209 �1 Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions.

CIC Can. 1364 �1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication

CIC Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

I have accurately stated the substance of the Catholic canon concerned - to wit, if you are Catholic and you break communion with Rome you thereby incur a 'latae sententiae' excommunmication, which bars you canonically from receiving communion. There is a canonical distinction between born Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy and other Orthodox.

You're free to disagree with the substance of the canon, of course, but don't say that it's "legally speaking, nonsense", because it clearly isn't nonsense.

Brendan

As to the original post...

My priest told me to go to an Orthodox parish if I can't get to one our (Ruthenian) services. If I can't make it to ours or an Orthodox service, then I go to a Roman service. I don't have a copy of Eastern canon law, and even if I did, I'm not qualified to judge it--only a bishop or canon lawyer is. So, I just take my priests advice. According to Vatican II, Orthodox liturgies build up the body of Christ, so I'm there to participate in the building up of the body of Christ.

Dear Moronikus,

I agree with you, and the Catholic Church, totally .

I think the "nonsense," as Dr. John says, is when we don't recognize that their are different theologies touching these points that we need to respect.

The Orthodox deserve respect for what they believe, have always believed, in this area.

It may not sit well with us, but there we have it.

Brendan, do I have your vote of confidence? Or is that asking for too much ?


Alex

Brendan appropriately provides the proper canon law citations.

An unresolved, theoretical issue remains. If the Orthodox Church woudl recieve a Catholic into its communion without the stated or implied rejection of Catholic communion, do these canons bar that action?

To that we do not have an answer and our (Catholic) pastoral leaders wisely avoid speaking offically on theoreticals.

Also, while the Church has her canonical rules, pastoral good always prevails. If a monolingual Ukrainian person is living in France or the UK or the USA and has a choice of a latin parish in a language he or she does not understand or a Ukrainian Orthodox parish, go Orthodox.

"I have accurately stated the substance of the Catholic canon concerned - to wit, if you are Catholic and you break communion with Rome you thereby incur a 'latae sententiae' excommunmication, which bars you canonically from receiving communion."

Without questioning the accuracy of your quotes, how do these cannons apply to a person who "joins" the Orthodox Church without breaking communion with the Roman Church?

Moreover, when did the Holy Spirit inspire man to decide that the two belief systems, complementary long before they were competitive, to be incompatible? If we are to join Jesus in His prayer "that all be one," then we need spend more time exploring how our differences can be reconciled (in the sense of made integral).

These may be stupid questions, but there's a lot I don't understand -- hey, what's the Orthodox take on why Judas was allowed to participate fully in the first Eucharist (Luke) after Jesus washed his feet along with the other apostles (John)?

[This message has been edited by Latin Lurker (edited 08-14-2001).]

Not to be the 'lawyer' on this one, but:

CIC Can. 209 �1 Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions.

Granted.

Is Orthodoxy part of the Church?

Absent any legal documentation, I find it very hard to say that it is not. Administratively separate, sure. But "outside the Church". On what basis?

CIC Can. 1364 �1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Sure. But Orthodox are not Mormons, and are not in heresy. Schism is defined as "in separation', but can the term LEGALLY still be applied to Orthodoxy through Roman Canon Law; the appropriate term would seem to be 'irregular' legal status since Orthodoxy is not administratively part of the Roman structure.

CIC Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

To excommunicate someone for participation in the life of a non-heretical, non-schismatic, church makes no sense. There is no legal foundation for it. On what documentation can one assert the 'schism' still exists? Since 'schism' is accomplished through ecclesiastical excommunication, and these have been lifted, the premise for 'schism' no longer exists in the law. (And ecclesiarchs being pissy about it doesn't count!) Interdict does not come into question here at all. And I assume that you're NOT proposing that being Orthodox comprises a person "who obstinately persist(s) in manifestly grave sin".

The legal stuff generally gives me hives, but if one is going to talk "schism" and "outside the Church" stuff, one has to either examine the foundational documents (including the lifting of the excommunications, the admissibility of sacraments, the mutual acknowledgement of baptism, etc.) or rely solely upon some peoples' personal preferences in determing the future of God's earthly Kingdom.

What Paul VI and Athenagoras did was positively earth-shattering; I can't understand why some folks are not treating it like the opening of the door that it was meant to be.

Blessings!

"how do these cannons apply to a person who "joins" the Orthodox Church without breaking communion with the Roman Church?"

That's a good question, assuming such a thing is possible. The Orthodox Churches are presently not in communion with Rome, even per Rome. Therefore entering communion with a church that is not in communion with Rome seems to be inconsistent with maintaining communion with Rome, does it not?

I would say that for someone like Lev Gillet, where there appears to be an acknowledgement by the episcopal authorities on both sides, and approval of the same, it may be possible that he did not incur an automatic excommunication. For others who are truew converts to Orthodoxy, it would seem clear that an excommunication from Catholicism is incurred -- and intended. IMO, someone who wants to embrace Orthodoxy without rejecting Catholicism has no business being Orthodox -- but if the Bishop approves, it's up to him. We ought not draw grandiose conclusions about that, though, because it is highly exceptional.

"If we are to join Jesus in His prayer "that all be one," then we need spend more time exploring how our differences can be reconciled (in the sense of made integral)."

A fine sentiment, but for the time being we find ourselves not in communion with each other. Even Rome admits that this communion is not possible without a complete unity of faith (see the curial letter to Melkite Patriarch Maximos V posted elsewhere on this website).

"Is Orthodoxy part of the Church?"

Per "Dominus Iesus" not fully so -- not fully so because it does not embrace the fulness of Catholic doctrine, and hence is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That's a very recent doctrinal statement from the Vatican and actually remarkably clear. Per the statement, Orthodox churches are "true particular churches", but the fullness of the Catholic Church is found only in the churches that are in communion with Rome at this time.

"Schism is defined as "in separation', but can the term LEGALLY still be applied to Orthodoxy through Roman Canon Law; the appropriate term would seem to be 'irregular' legal status since Orthodoxy is not administratively part of the Roman structure."

Actually, CDF, the doctrinal curial congregation that issues authoritative doctrinal statements on behalf of the Pope and therefore binding on all particular churches of the Catholic Church, has indicated clearly that, per Catholicism, the Orthodox Churches are not "fully" the Church in the same way that the Catholic Churches are because of the differences of faith. In addition, the curials pointed out to Melkite Patriarch Maximos V that there was a lack of unity of faith -- not merely administrative structure -- at this time between Rome and Orthodoxy.

Per Catholicism, Orthodoxy is certainly "in schism" from Catholicism, Dr. John, the lifting of the 1054 anathemas notwithstanding. I understand your desire to view these matters in the most eirenic terms possible, but the facts are the facts and when CDF has spoken on these matters it has made its mind clear (in spite of the fact that there are many Eastern Catholics who may disagree with CDF in this regard).

Brendan