www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Have We Received the Schism?

I have also heard that there is intercommunion overseas, and this I heard from a cradle Antiochian AMERICAN girl--who commented that such recent immigrants thought that they could intercommune in Antiochian Orthodox churches here as well, and that her priest always had a problem informing them otherwise.

I wonder why Heracleides is so scandalized...
Is this really so horrible? I do not think so. Christians tend to cease being self loving of their particular faith traditions, denominations and/or confessions when placed in adverse circumstances and environments like being in the Muslim Middle East or the former Soviet Union. The emphasis in these adverse circumstances tend to be on Christ and nothing else.

Why would anyone doubt the truthfulness behind a comment made by such an esteemed, brilliant and widely published member of the clergy such as Father Serge?

Alice, Moderator

Why? Because in asking for factual evidence as to Fr. Serge's claim, he has remained silent. This in itself leads one to question any such claim. As originally requested in my initial post - who, what, when and where is this happening? If such intercommunion were indeed happening as claimed, one would think such a request for facts could and would be easily supplied.

That was a quick banning.

Yes, as I explained in a previous warning last week, and the administrator admonished him just yesterday in another thread, we are not putting up with uncharitable behavior. The bannings will be swift and public.

So with the post above, we wave good-bye permanently to Heracleides.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

While Heracleides posted in an uncharitable way, I believe that his question is valid and I would like to pursue it myself, albeit in a more charitable tone.

I, too, have heard the claim of intercommunion repeated in the past, but never by anyone with any first hand knowledge of it, but only as something they heard from someone else, who heard it from someone else, etc.

I do, however, have several personal friends from the Middle East who have denied it, aside from saying that it may happen from time to time with a parishioner who is ignorant and who goes to the wrong Church accidentally. However, they say that it is not officially allowed by any means.

If this were the case, Heracleides would be right to be scandalized. Sharing in the Mysteries is most certainly only for Orthodox Christians, from the perspective of Orthodox theology. Even in cases of suffering or persecution, the fundamental ecclesiological realities that lead to closed communion remain the same. By refusing someone the mysteries, we aren't saying that we don't love them or don't care for them. But we are recognizing that, sadly, division still exists. Pretending that division doesn't exist and engaging in an inappropriate intimacy, through the sharing of the Mysteries, is not being charitable. Nor is refusing someone the Eucharist being uncharitable.

While I respect Fr. Serge and believe that he is well read and well published, I would tend to believe that this particular claim that he made is a case of him repeating something that he has heard, without having any first hand knowledge or experience or evidence.

And so, with respect and with charity, I would repeat Heracleides request that Fr. Serge provide some evidence of his claim. If not, with all respect, I would request that he withdraw the claim or acknowledge it as doubtful.

Grace and peace,
John

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

I think where we get into the hot button area in this thread and in others is the point at which we confuse terminology.

Intercommunion is a situation where Churches or ecclesial bodies serve or celebrate the Mysteries together. In other words, the clergy serve together regardless of their theological or other differences. This happens at times among our Protestant brethren, but probably does not occur among the Apostolic Churches, though I am open to being corrected. When the laity receive the Mysteries in a Church not their own, we are not talking about intercommunion. We may be talking about economia in individual cases or ignorance of the rules and discipline concerning the Mysteries in another Church, but we are not talking about intercommunion. In fact, my Webster's dictionary defines this word in this specific way.

I would, with all due respect, give clergy such as Father Serge, who have traveled in areas where this is reported or who have other clergy contacts in the same areas, the benefit of the doubt as to the truth of their statements. That people cut off from their own clergy for periods of time would approach others not of their own Church ought not to seem unusual. As I asked in another thread, what would those who consider this such a hot button issue do if they themselves were in such a situation. If we are so incensed about single souls being given the life-giving Mysteries and would prefer that they be lost instead, I believe we need to go back to the beginning and start over in our Christian walk. Christ came to seek out each of us as precious beyond price--to the last drop of His Own Blood. The question He will pose is whether we think our own doctrinal purity is so much more valuable than that one soul He has called to make a leap of faith to seek out the clergy of a Church not his own. This doesn't call for anyone to become indifferent or syncretistic. It calls for us to look at the isolated and lost as Christ would do.

I don't have the answer. I'm just working out my own pilgrimage in fear and trembling. I know what I would do.

In Christ,

BOB

If Fr. Serge has first hand experience, he is certainly welcome to post it. It's not failing to give him the benefit of the doubt to ask him to speak about his experiences.

While I appreciate the charitable intent behind your post, and your concern for the salvation of souls, I believe the conclusions you are reaching to be misguided. Indeed, to say that anyone who would have a problem with the sacred Mysteries being administered to those outside the canonical boundaries of the Church should "start his Christian walk over again," is most uncharitable.

There are very sound theological reasons for practicing closed communion and those of us who hold to the Patristic teaching on the administration of the Eucharist do so both because we believe it to be right and true, and also out of concern for the health and well-being of souls. Not all receiving of the Eucharist is good and helpful to the soul. Receiving the Eucharist unprepared or in the wrong context can also lead to judgment and condemnation. This is why our priests, as "stewards of the Mysteries of Christ," have an important responsibility before God in how they administer those Mysteries.

The Eucharist is analogous to marital intimacy, although greater and more intimate indeed. Marital intimacy, while a great gift and blessing towards the unity of the spouses in Christ, is only meant for a certain relationship and a certain context. Outside of that context, the sexual act is harmful to the soul and mind of those engaging in it.

If, because of traveling, or war, or for whatever reason, a person is separated from their spouse, that doesn't mean that it is right for them to approach someone else for sexual relations, nor that it would be charitable for someone to provide that for them. What is intended for a blessing would, in this case, become something harmful and detrimental to both.

The same is true of the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, we receive Christ Himself, as a Bridegroom coming to His Bride, the Church. It is as members of the Bride that we receive our Heavenly Bridegroom. Participating in the same Eucharistic table is a confession of being members of the same organic body, confessing the same faith. If someone is not a member in good standing of the Church, no matter how much they might desire the Eucharist, it should not be given to them, for their own sake as much as anything.

The gifts that God gives us are all good, and all meant for our sanctification and unity with Him. But those gifts, like all gifts, exist in a certain context. This is what the Fathers taught and the Church has always practiced. It is neither wise, loving, nor charitable for us to presume to move the boundaries that our Fathers have set and to administer His gifts in a way that violates the unity and the sanctity of His body.

Grace and peace,
John

Bob, I actually would call clergy serving together concelebration and the sharing of the mysteries with members of other bodies to be intercommunion. Intercommunion in my mind is a form of ekonomia where it occurs.

I think overall this may be a hot button issue because some people want to portray it as an inconsistency in the Orthodox Church which proves some point that somebody may or may not want to make. Hopefully that is vague enough for you!

I ran across what I think is one of the better explanations I have read of the common perspective on what I would call "intercommunion":


http://www.uocc.ca/en-ca/faith/beliefs/

Dear Bob,

Christos Anesti! Alithos Anesti!

I agree with your post.

In humility and obedience, I obey the directive of my Orthodox Church which says that we are not in communion with the Roman Catholic church, and therefore, we are not allowed to commune with them.

However, in a desperate situation, where there was no possible way that I or a child of mine could commune in an Orthodox church or by an Orthodox priest, I believe that I would think differently. I believe that if I were to die after that, that the sin I would be culpable for would certainly not be that I received Roman Catholic Communion, but, perhaps, that I was not obedient to the directive of my spiritual father and my Orthodox discipline.

I do not think there is a schism in Heaven! I pray that this schism will one day heal...and it looks as if the EP and the Pope are slowly and carefully working on that. I remain hopeful...for Christ is ONE.

Respectful Regards,
Alice

I have to chuckle at people thinking this is merely hearsay because this woman is dead set AGAINST intercommunion and union with the Catholic Church, and making it up would certainly not serve her purpose at all! LOL!

I also somehow doubt that if I e-mail her to tell me the exact dates of those experiences of her earlier years in the church she belonged to as an unmarried person, that she would remember the dates!! I know that I can get the name of the Church and the Priest-- but why would I divulge such a thing on the internet, and get someone, including myself and my acquaintance into a possible awkward situation... I am sure that Father Serge is not answering for this reason, and I respect him for that.

I mean, seriously, I find this mentality of being put on the defensive, and not being able to discuss anything in conversation unless it is properly documented and sealed with some hypothetical seal of authenticity, seriously ridiculous.

Please forgive me for saying this, but it has to be said, because it seems to be a tactic used only when something has been said that does not suit the person.

Alice

Alice,

If you read your post, you will see that you are the one making assumptions and assertions about the people who disagree with you and posting in a less than charitable manner.

It is not unreasonable to ask that a person who makes a claim be willing to provide the source for the claim. To do so is not to attack the character of the person who made the claim, but only to ensure that we can separate what is factual from what is not, especially in an era of instant communication over the internet, when stories can spread rapidly before one has had the chance to check their facts.

With regards to the young American woman and her experience with immigrants from the Middle East, I don't doubt that you know such a woman. But that, in itself, doesn't prove that intercommunion is any sort of a mass phenomenon in the Middle East. It could very well be parishioners who are more tied to their ethnicity than their faith, and are unaware of what the various Churches say about such things. That is not the same as someone having witnessed intercommunion on the ground in the middle East.

On the other hand, I have personal friends who are actually from the Middle East, and who live their currently. I even roomed with one of them for part of college, before he graduated and moved back. He was the son of an Orthodox priest and had grown up being very involved serving in the Church, as well as being active in the local Christian community in general. He denies that intercommunion is any sort of a mass phenomenon and says that the distinctions are maintained, although there is a fair amount of cooperation between the various Christian groups, in a non-liturgical sort of way, in the face of Islamic pressure.

There you have my sources. I give them freely and without any bad feelings in providing them.

To claim that asking someone to provide their sources is "a tactic used only when something has been said that does not suit the person," is uncharitable, false, and logically fallacious.

Opposing premature communion in the Holy Mysteries is not a sign of a lack of Christian charity, especially if you take the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers seriously. God grant that all schisms may one day be healed and that we may some day be united around the same Eucharistic table. Until that time, however, it is not for us to be careless in maintaining the integrity of the Church, by the grace of God.

Forgive me.

Grace and peace,
John

Dear John,

You say:



How is THAT a source? My friend's father was from the Middle East as well, and these were not random parishioners who were 'confused'. However, this was about twenty years ago. Things may have changed, but in any case, at that time, they clearly told the priest here that it was different in Lebanon, and the Priest (here) was not amused.

So, isn't the above quote simply 'hearsay' from you as well? Where are the names, the times, the dates, the churches and the priests? ....

Do you get it now? I gave just as much information as you.

I was also not addressing you directly in my post, but another poster and a mentality trend of sorts that pops up on this board through the years from time to time, and always on the same type of subjects in order to discredit those who have witnessed some type of intercommunion! Commenting on this is not making a statement regarding if it is right or wrong, but that it does happen here and there, and no debate tactic can make it disappear, wish it away, or make it not have happened.

You also say:


Did I say it was? I clearly see that I wrote that I OBEY my church's discipline and spiritual father on this:



Have a good night,
Alice, Moderator

Administrator�s note:

Some valuable insight has been given in regards to the topic at hand. Most have offered discussion points to ponder during the exchange. Unfortunately, one poster took it upon himself to attack certain posters and to be uncharitable. I want this clear now, this kind of behavior is not tolerated and those that would like to follow using that type of behavior and posting will wind up in the same fashion, banned.

I have spoken with the moderators, and we will allow this thread to continue as long bullying and discourtesy are not a part of this or any other thread. If it is, the consequences have been laid out for the poster(s) and the thread will be closed.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

This whole subject gets into a fuzzy grey area that can be difficult to delineate. I once broached the subject with +Laurus of Blessed memory. We were talking about the situation in the Gulags in Soviet Russia in the 1930's. Vladika had mentioned how the clergy, both Orthodox and Catholic were encamped together, and that pastoral duties were shared out. I believe in the memoirs of a UGCC hierarch, which one, I can't recall, there was mention made of joint services in the camps. One can rest assured that just as Catholic laymen were shepherded by Orthodox hierarchs in the camps, Orthodox laymen were equally shepherded by Catholic ones. All through the grace of economia. Does that mean that we are the same? Of course not. But we do recognize each other's Sacraments as valid, and when facing a firing squad in the morning, one gathered what spiritual armor that one could acquire.

On another Internet venue, some Orthodox were discussing the murders of Bishops Rohmza, Gojdich and the third whose name I cannot recall. I was blasted unmercifully for referring to them as martyrs. But, as I see it, were they killed for their adherence to the Orthodox faith? No. Were they killed for their faith in Jesus Christ? Most definitely.

As far as the situation in the Middle East, 3 weeks ago as Beirut was burning by the hand of Hagarene marauders, I don't think that the Marionites and Antiochian Orthodox were too concerned with the venue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. For once, they both prayed the same thing. "God, help us!"

Alexandr

"Hard cases make bad law..."