www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox in Communion with Rome

Dear Remie:

I think you missed my post 2 days ago (Sept. 18) under this thread that the Roman Catholic Church allows the reception by the Orthodox of communion in all parishes in the U.S., and, I am pretty certain, throughout the world.

Its the other way around that there exists certain restrictions.

Amdg

I don't want to take this thread further off topic but I would like to address Remie's point.

He is correct in stating that most Orthodox bishops do not allow their people to partake of the Eucharist in Catholic Churches. The statement by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops was specifically worded to remind the Orthodox that their own Church does not approve of them partaking of the Eucharist in Catholic Churches even though the Catholic Church does not object to their taking Eucharist at a Catholic liturgy. The reason for this statement was to address a real pastoral situation in that many Orthodox who participate in Catholic liturgies were already partaking of the Eucharist there. I remember watching the bishops conference proceedings on EWTN and they many of the bishops expressed that they did not want to offend the Orthodox but that they felt a pastoral obligation to minister to those who came to their parishes.

If anyone would like to discuss this topic please begin a new thread so that this one sticks to the original topic.

Admin

Just to put the shoe back on the other foot, "Communion with Orthodoxy is something which the Successor of Peter is lacking". Schism cuts both ways, and both communions are harmed by it. That both maintain and sustain it through a refusal to embrace Christ's self-emptying love, putting aside all prerogatives and pretenses, is both a sin and a scandal, and both Catholics and Orthodox alike have sinned in this regard.

While this is true, it must also be said that the outreach by the Catholic church, in particular its offering communion to Orthodox, makes a difference between these shoes and feet.

djs

The fact that communion with Rome is the crown of Orthodoxy has nothing to do with the fact that both sides are guilty of schism, harmed by our separation and need to work together to restore full communion so that we may all be one in Christ. In my writings here I have never suggested otherwise.

However, one must always distinguish between canonical norms and actual practice, and in actual practice, the permeability of communion is quite notable on the Orthodox side, particularly with Greek Catholics and their Orthodox counterpart Churches. There are a number of Orthodox hierarchs who openly admit to the presence of significant numbers of Greek Catholics in their parishes, and to the practice of allowing these Greek Catholics to receive the Eucharist and other sacraments in them without any renunciation of ecclesiastical affiliation. As Metropolitan Nicholas of Emissa put it, "I am not going to hang a stop sign on the Chalice". This same situation pertains in the Middle East, and used to be quite common in pre-Communist Eastern Europe.

As to who has been harmed more by the schism, I will stand by my statement that both communions have been harmed equally, and that both communions are to blame both for the initiation of the separation and for its maintenance. And I will stand by my statement that since communion is a MUTUAL state, Peter is hurt as much by being cut off from Andrew as Andrew is by being cut off from Peter.

Communion with the Orthodox East ought then to be considered the "Crown of Catholicism". Now, if both communions wish to go around with their hats off, that, I suppose is their business--but both would look much better wearing the crowns that rightfully are theirs.

Stuart,

"Now, if both communions wish to go around with their hats off, that, I suppose is their business--but both would look much better wearing the crowns that rightfully are theirs."

Quite right. This is exactly the reason I intend never to move from my Church which is "Orthodox in Communion with Rome."

Dan Lauffer

"If we aren't "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" then what the heck are we? I'm not willing to be bullied by either of our sister Churches in denying our true heritage. I'm thankful that we are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and I don't really worry about what others think about our identity." -Dan Lauffer

reply:

I agree with Dan's strong statement. For me, this is not to imply that we are the "true Orthodox" and they are the false. Nor does it mean that we have it all right and they are all wrong.

For me it means that historically we are Orthodox who worked out an agreement with Rome (no matter how imperfect that may be).

Everyday we, like our seperated Orthodox brethren, must make a decision to do our best to be faithful to our spiritual patrimony delivered from our Eastern Fathers. Our success in this endeavor does now -and will always- vary from Church to Church, parish to parish, pastor to pastor, and believer to believer.

From day to day and year to year whether we more or less fail, or are more or less successful in this quest, I still believe we are Orthodox in communion with Rome. Perhaps, "Orthodox who reunited with Rome," might be more accurately descriptive. Who cares. Titles are imperfect, human attempts to describe something as clearly as possible. They, like us, fall short of their purpose.

Therefore, I voted yes. But I would expand this a little to include not only "Byzantine" Catholics but also Armenian and other Eastern Catholics.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

Der-Ghazarian,

What parish do you attend? I'm in the Plymouth/Livonia area a few times a year and frequently attend the Sacred Heart BC Church in Livonia. Admittedly that is not an Eastern name and they have many Latinizations but it has some very fine people and the priest is a very kind and gracious man. Are you familiar with it?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Brian,

What's up, Dox?

The Administrator has asked us to move the discussion on intercommunion elsewhere.

I just wanted to say that "Communion," as you say, implies both "Church" and "Eucharist" which is a very Orthodox view to take.

From the Catholic side, intercommunion is justified when and where there is sufficient doctrinal and ecclesial "closeness" to express our union with Christ, even though our ecclesial union is still imperfect.

If our bishops won't bring us together, we have the hope that Christ will.

Perhaps, in intercommunion, Christ does what ideally the Bishop of Rome should do - intervene in stalemate situations?

Alex

Dear Cantor Joe,

You were going to say something?

I only read the "Neither here nor there" on your post.

And, by the way, is that a description of your relationship to Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Kidding, kidding . . .

Alex

Dear Dan,

I belong to St. Vartan Armenian Catholic parish. You are correct about the kindness and graciousness of the pastor of Sacred Heart BC parish. I know this becuase he has opened the use of this Temple to us Armenians. That's right, we now are sharing this beautiful house of God with them. Let me know the next time you are in town and perhaps we can share an Armenian Divine Liturgy together?

In Christ's Light,

Wm Der-Ghazarian

Link to St. Vartan Parish:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/St_Vartan.html

I voted no to this. Since the BC churches are beginning to embrace purgatory, rosaries, western devotions, immaculate conceptions, and a western view on original sin....how could the answer be anything else but no?