www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Prelate Rebuked for Receiving Catholic Communion

As to the conditions regarding Eastern Orthodox Christians receiving Holy Communion (and other Holy Mysteries) from the Catholic Church, it is not necessarily true that any Orthodox hierarch must surely have preached against Catholic doctrine. To offer only one example, the thrice-blessed Archbishop Vsevolod of Chicago and Scopelos honored me with this close friendship, and lived and died in good standing in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. I never knew him to preach against the Catholic Church or any of her teachings.

I could go on with other cases, but I trust that the point is made.

The notion that the matter of an Orthodox hierarch receiving Holy Communion from Catholics is properly of interest only to the Orthodox Church is both absurd and offensive. The Catholic Church can and does regulate the question of who may receive the Holy Mysteries at her altars and from her hands. It would be easy to name certain Protestant ecclesial communities which have no particular objection to their members receiving Communion at a Catholic Mass - but the Catholic Church does not admit Protestants to Holy Communion save in a few highly exceptional circumstances, and with the assurance that the individual requesting Holy Communion shares the Catholic Faith regarding the Eucharist.

Fr. Serge

My point was that I both like and do not like the Catholic position on sharing the table. I like it because we are reaching out to the Orthodox and respecting them, but I do not like it because it makes situations like this possible. Anyway, I also respect the reasons that the Orthodox do not want to share with us at the table.
But my post was actually trying to show respect for the Orthodox and the fact that if they do not want their members receiving communion with us, I am not quite sure why we offer it to them.
I wonder why we can not say that we would offer it to them on the condition that they were only allowed to accept it by their Church; but we can not offer it (unless permission is granted in certain cases), because even though we find them worthy, we do not want them to cause scandal to one another and we respect their views.

Robster,

I echo Father Serge's remarks here, only adding that being "rigorous" does not always equate to being "faithful". In certain matters, economia and charity do play an important and providential role.

While recognizing that this was not the case with the good Orthodox Metropolitan, would such rigor, for instance, preclude you from receiving Last Rites and Viaticum from an Orthodox clergyman on your death bed if no Catholic priest was available? Or would you refuse, if you were a Latin priest, to extend Last Rites and Viaticum to a sincerely believing Orthodox Christian on his or her death bed no Orthodox priest was available?

I recall a similar point being made by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in a talk given to clergy in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. He was asked if, such as in the case of 9/11, Catholic firemen requested an Orthodox priest to grant them prayers of absolution before ascending the Towers to their doom the Orthodox priest should offer such a thing. He seemed somewhat shocked by the question, and replied "But of course!" (or words to that effect)

In ICXC,

Father Deacon Daniel

One remembers Metropolitan Nikodim of, er, Saint Petersburg and Novgorod - who received the final absolution and annointing from no less than Pope Paul VI, who then gave him a funeral in Saint Anne's Church in Vatican City, before sending the Metropolitan's mortal remains back to Saint Petersburg where Patriarch Pimen served the Russian Orthodox funeral and interred the Metropolitan.

Does anyone care to argue that Pope Paul VI should have gazed on the rapidly-dying Metropolitan (who was the Pope's guest at that point) and just allowed him to die on the floor, without the anointing and absolution?

Fr. Serge

searching east:

This matter of extending Communion to those who are deprived of the ministrations of their own clergy is something spoken of in the Vatican II documents. There have been many posts and threads that have touched on this topic here in the six years I have been a member.

This is, and continues to be, a matter of case-by-case charity to those Christians who are of the same belief as Catholics and who approach of their own volition, being isolated and feeling in spiritual need. It is not a blanket advertisement of open communion--something the Church has never practiced. It does not extend broadly across the board. The instructions found in the inside cover of missalettes found in almost every Catholic parish outline the Church's practice in the United States. They explicitly state that the members of the Orthodox Churches are welcome, but that they should adhere to the discipline of their Church.

The history of this permission comes out of the persecutions of the 20th century when believers of every stripe found themselves isolated from their own communities and of their own volition approached clergy of other Churches. Our brother Alexandr posted some time ago a conversation he had with Metropolitan Laurus of thrice blessed memory in which the latter revealed that this practice went on with the Orthodox and Catholics in the gulag. I found it profound when he editorialized that "when you are facing the firing squad in the morning" somehow these questions become lost in the necessity of the moment.

Maybe I'm getting a bit old, but the over exuberance of people new to this question, this practice, and this extension of basic Christian charity who have not bothered to research the reasons for this decision but who then get their backs up over it annoys me to no end. Maybe it's having been in this type of situation myself that I have sympathy for others in similar straits. I will say that I consider it absolutely immoral and a violation of Catholic teaching to ask people to convert in order to receive what they need spiritually. Vatican II in the document about religious liberty and respecting the conscience of others makes this crystal clear. Those who want to roll back the clock to the early days when every community was a fortress unto itself are clearly standing against the movement of the Holy Spirit--and there are plenty of my Catholic brethren who are in this trap. And they are clearly standing against the explicit will of Christ Who wishes ut unum sint.

Maybe we ought to reread Hosea 6:6 before we jump on this: I desire mercy (over ritual purity).



Not every human being is absolutely focused in every situation and at every moment. Things happen. People step outside the lines.
I'd rather let the Lord sort that out than take the position of the Pharisees--all rules and no mercy.

In Christ,

BOB

PS: I've repeated time and again the people I have been privileged to know who have been in parishes I've lived in--Greek Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox--who have been hundreds of miles from their own parishes. What are we to do--tell them "tough luck"?

Thank you for your answer. Admittedly I was feeling guilty to some extent for openly questioning my Church's policy. I feel it wrong to be too critical of things I do not understand or church policy when I believe in Her charism to teach accurately. I am sorry and do trust the Church and abide by what they declare.

Perhaps my problem is that the details sometimes are not always mentioned. For instance, I am aware of the instructions you speak of in the missalettes and they alone settle my mind on the matter. My problem is that when the matter gets mentioned in certain conversation or written material sometimes it seems like someone just says that we offer the Orthodox communion but they do not reciprocate and leave it at that.

I think that if the matter is to be mentioned one should note all the reasons why they could or should or why they should not receive. I trust that the church has done this as clearly as necessary in the documents you mention, but I think sometimes the matter perhaps is simplified to an open invitation the way I hear it mentioned. So my problem may not be the actual policy so much as the perception I was left of it. But I am just trying to learn.

If I were explaining it to a visiting Orthodox who did not know either Churches policy I would tell them that we do offer them Communion but their Church most likely does not want them to receive and he/she may want to learn what their Church tells them regarding the matter and any exceptions allowed for and abide by that. If this is what we essentially do, then I have no problem or question with that.

The Catholics seem more confident to me in the validity of the Orthodox sacraments, and I am not sure if the Orthodox say much as to whether they view our sacraments as valid, or if they simply are silent on the matter? But I am curious as to how many Orthodox peoples miles away from their home parish and in adverse conditions would want to receive Communion from a Catholic. If they do not accept its validity then what good would they receive from it anyway according to their perception?

I probably would not receive from a mainline protestant denomination if I was on my deathbed. Because the Catholic Church seems to tell me that it is not the same reality to receive. But I would welcome their prayers and any other service they could offer me.

So then do the Orthodox see Catholic communion as just another imitation, or because of our history do they tend to have a more legitimate respect for the potential of the reality that Jesus is truly present in our Eucharist moreso than than they grant other Christian bodies?

I thought they did not because they see Communion as a matter of complete unity and that any departure from this makes the Eucharistic celebration less than authentic. Perhaps I should not speak for the Orthodox. I am not trying to so much as inquire. Perhaps I would get different answers from different Orthodox people. I am just curious what the view is. I have heard at least one Orthodox deny they validity of our Eucharist due to a lack of complete theological and ecclesial unity with them. It would seem confusing that the Orthodox Church would both say that the Catholic Communion is not valid, but that her members can receive it in dire circumstances, or that an Orthodox person could believe that our Eucharist is not valid and still want to receive it in any circumstance. It would seem to be a denial of a truth taught by the Church they are supposed to believe to not be in error. Forgive me once more if I am being technical. I am willing to admit that never having been in such a situation that I have any right to speak on the matter and can not possibly understand. But I do think that my question is valid.

Perhaps you are saying that in life and death situations the heart of the matter is what counts. Being merciful and not by the book so much. Charity and unity. I like what you are saying, but I thought that Orthodox have severe penances or consequences for receiving non-Orthodox Communion. If that is true I would think that the Orthodox would want to be sure that they were acting as their Church would allow them to act regarding exceptions to the norm and receiving from Catholics due to significant duress.

Of course, I am happy to hear of the absolution granted in such dire situations between the two. It is nice to think that if I were dying an Orthodox Priest might not refuse to bless me, or if an Orthodox were dying he may be able to be ministered to by a Catholic. I agree that in such situations it does not seem right to just walk away or refuse but I am not sure if it is right to rewrite the rule books as no individual has authority to do that. Perhaps, there is enough in what both churches declare to say that these situations are so unique that it is understandable that humans must cling together and not push each other away in their hour of deepest need.
Forgive my ignorance.

I am not a theologian, and like the rest of us in this thread, I do hope for that day when we do have true unity in faith and in love.

When I was a Roman Catholic in Los Angeles, due to the common liturgical abuses there, I did not receive communion especially when the priest would ad lib the words of the Mass or would use a loaf of bread that contained honey, sugar, or eggs. Moreover, I had been advised by a devout priest not to attend Mass if I could not get to a parish where I felt no abuses were taking place. To make matters worse, when I would call a parish to find out who was saying what mass, they would refuse to release that information. No joke -- this was happening regularly. It was this doubt that finally drove me into the Holy Orthodox Church and made my conversion to Orthodoxy difficult because I had to regain my faith in the Holy Eucharist and in priests.

On the other hand, I do know two Orthodox Christians from my own parish (who are not converts from Catholicism) who do frequent Catholic parishes and who do receive communion there. They like the large anonymous gatherings there because small Orthodox parishes can sometimes be difficult with the personal politics involved at parish council meetings. So I pray for them and do not condemn them. At least they are praying on Sundays.

It was Pope John Paul I, not Paul VI, who shrove Metropolitan Nikodim.

Pope John Paul I followed his erstwhile guest just a few days later.

searching:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

Let me say in your defense that your problem is with our "sound bite" culture. We have become accustomed to taking a few things out of context and not communicating the full story which would take time and require lengthy explanations. Some time ago I remember it being said that my bishop had communicated to our clergy that in the usual circumstance in the United States these special situations would not occur on a regular basis. So the few examples I tell you about are the extreme cases that the special extension of charity were meant to address. Nothing and no one has ever said people should go back and forth as a matter of convenience or just because they happened to be present.



I think there is a bit of diversity among the Orthodox Churches about this matter and I would ask the clergy of the different local Churches what the official stance of their Church is. As far as people go, it probably depends on the level of catechesis they have received and how much they have internalized--but that can be said for any "in the pew" Christian from any Church or ecclesial community. You'd be surprised to hear Catholics who don't understand the difference between Anglicans, Lutherans, and some United Methodists, and the Catholic Church. The question comes to me frequently from people too embarrassed to ask a priest if they can go to Communion in one of these churches when they are at a wedding or funeral and everyone who is a baptized Christian is invited to partake.



You might find the Catechism of the Catholic Church a good place to clarify all this.



I hope you realize that your sincere questions don't even appear on the radar of most people. So you are bound to get as many answers as there are "people in the pew." Most Catholics don't even get this far in their quest. Blame it on the poor catechesis of the past 40 years, but most would not know the difference in Communion doctrine amongst the Churches and the ecclesial communities. Most would, in my experience, take the "any port in a storm" approach--if it looks like Communion, let's get some.


Again, what you say here is true. And it is also true that some of the exact opposite has gone on in extreme circumstances. I think the problem is that of age. Let me be the example. Half a lifetime ago there was no one on the face of this planet who was more rigid, doctrinaire, and "by the book" than yours truly. I had not time for people and their problems--they could conform or hit the highway. I was by my own admission today insufferable.

But I got some life experience under my belt. I got to know people in some tough situations who were caught in the rule book and who had abandoned the whole process because they could not conform. I got to know them after they'd had a lifetime of struggling to be who they were and who simply could not measure up to the rule book. I'm not saying that this should be reason or excuse, I'm just showing how I got softened up. I learned to surrender the judgment of things and circumstances to Christ. And I firmly believe that part of this was in my own moving from knowing ABOUT Him to knowing Him. There is a vast difference.

Currently I have a ministry that may be said to be part of the Church but which functions without clergy. I reach out to people who, for one reason or other, want nothing to do with the Church or clergy or anything related to either. I'm just there to listen and offer my own example and some encouragement. I let people know that Christ loves them for who they are and where they are, without condition. What happens after that, I don't know. I let the Lord have that to finish. I could not do that half a lifetime ago; I'd have been too judgmental.

So I can let these types of things happen in the Church and not be scandalized. The Vatican II documents pointed the way, lawful authroity has fleshed out the specifics, and the practice is in place whether it is abused or not. BTW, I read 1 Cor 11:23-32 before receiving myself. There are those in the fold who receive a condemnation for their approach and it won't come to light until Judgment Day. OTOH, a sincere person who appraoches with the right intentions who don't. The Lord sees into the reins and the heart, discerning the most hidden thoughts and attitudes. ISTM that we ought to spend less time worrying about the fact that someone not of our company has "snuck in" than the state of our own pilgrim walk.



I have a good friend who is an Orthodox priest and he told me he couldn't give me absolution under any circumstance, even if I were dying. So I'd make no general assumptions. Learn to live with ambiguity.

In Christ,

BOB

Hi,


... Metropolitan Nicolae followed the guidelines for the reception of Holy Communion by the Orthodox faithful as given by the Catholic Church.

I think those are the words you were looking for.

Shalom,
Memo

Yes, the ambiguity remains. Before I converted to Orthodoxy, my Catholic Spiritual Father told me that he would not hear my confession again unless it were a sincere conversion back to Catholicism. Once I did convert to Orthodoxy, he told me that the Balamand Agreement, which forbids members from switching back and forth from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and vice versa, would muddy the water. So, ultimately, the Bishop would have to decide.

I knew a Catholic lady who switched to the Orthodox Church in order to have her second marriage validated. Within a year, she was having second thoughts. When she decided to go back to the Catholic Church two years later, she was told that she could not join the Byzantine Church because of the Balamand Agreement. When she visited a Roman Catholic parish, they would not give her communion because she was told that she needed to get an annulment from her first marriage. She did not want to go through an annulment process. So, she left her husband in order to receive communion in the Roman Catholic Church and became celibate. Her husband no longer believes in God and is now very bitter. It is strange how the Byzantine and Catholic Churches seem to differ in their practices. Yes, the ambiguity remains.

The Balamand Statement has no authority to forbid anyone to do anything.

Fr. Serge