www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Zenit on the Eastern Churches

ROME, JULY 21, 2009 (Zenit [zenit.org]) - Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q1: Is there a real division/separation between Catholics of the Latin rite and Catholics of Eastern rites? Is a Catholic of the Latin rite debarred in anyway from participating in the liturgy of an Eastern-rite Catholic church? Does a Latin-rite Catholic have to follow a procedure before he can participate in the liturgy of an Eastern-rite Catholic church? -- H.W., Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

Q2: May a Catholic attend Mass in an Orthodox church? Is not the Orthodox Church schismatic? -- E.T., Mairé-L'Evescault, France

A: Since these two questions are related I will take them together.

First, there is no division or separation between the Latin rite and the more than 20 Catholic Eastern Churches. There are, however, many differences and distinctions.

These multiple distinctions give each Church its characteristic identity within the one fold which is the Catholic Church.

The most obvious distinctions are external. Each Church uses a distinct ritual for Mass, the sacraments and sacramentals.

For those Churches where there is a corresponding Orthodox Church (for example, the several Byzantine or Melkite Churches, the Coptic, and the Syro-Malankara), an outsider would be hard-put to distinguish between the two celebrations. One key difference with the Orthodox: The Eastern-rite Catholics mention the Pope in the anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer.

Compared to the Latin-rite Church, the Eastern-rite Churches differ in their internal organization. This is evident, for example, in the guiding role of the patriarch or major archbishop, the means of selecting bishops, and in some cases the presence of married priests.

None of these differences, however, constitute a separation of faith or of communion with the See of Peter.

Because of this, any Catholic may attend, receive Communion, and fulfill the holy day precept at any Catholic rite.

There is no formal procedure required before attending, but the ancient principle of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" should be diligently applied. Thus a Latin Catholic who wishes to attend one of these rites should acquaint himself with the basic practices and demands of the rite and adapt himself accordingly. For example, most Eastern rites remain standing for most of the celebration and do not kneel for the consecration; a Latin should respect this tradition. Some rites have stricter fasting rules before receiving Communion, and as far as possible a Latin should follow suit.

Frequency in attending an Eastern celebration does not inscribe a Catholic to that rite, just as an Eastern Catholic who habitually attends the Latin rite does not automatically become Latin. To formally switch rites in a permanent manner requires a formal procedure.

The question is somewhat diverse for the case of Orthodox Churches, which are not in full communion with Rome but which enjoy the apostolic succession and all seven sacraments. While full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.

From the Catholic standpoint, a member of the faithful who is unable to attend Mass because there is no Catholic celebration available, may, if he so wishes, attend and receive Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Likewise, an Orthodox Christian in a similar situation is allowed to receive Communion and some other sacraments in any Catholic rite. Such an attendance is always optional and is never obligatory, not even in order to fulfill a festive precept.

However, not all Orthodox Churches accept this, and some take a dim view of any form of intercommunion. Once more it is incumbent upon Catholics not to impinge on others' sensibilities and limit themselves to what is acceptable to each particular Church.

Nice write up and mostly accurate. But I do want to make a couple minor corrections for the sake of clarity...


In ICXC
John

While I agree fully with John's proposed changes, I give credit to the author for a presentation that is otherwise significantly more accurate than most writings on the topic that we see.

Many years,

Neil

Well, considering this is a Catholic priest writing for a Catholic publication, the author is presenting, quite accurately, the Catholic perspective about the intercommunion issue.

He does indicate that the Orthodox might think differently about the issue and urges the reader to respect the Orthodox positions.

While generally correct, I do not find a need for any of John's corrections to the article.

Shalom,
Memo

The corrections added by John are all correct and spell out the Orthodox position on Communion to the letter.

They spell out the theory of the Orthodox position, which, as in all things Orthodox, allows for significant deviation in practice. No matter how much some people yell and expostulate, the fact remains that the Orthodox Church tolerates intercommunion with Greek Catholics in many places, and has done so for centuries. Repeated admonitions against intercommunion merely point out the prevalence of the practice, and the inability of the hierarchs to suppress it. In this country, as in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the practice is not only tolerated, it is accepted as a fact of life by the bishops on both sides of the fence. And the historical record is pretty clear that this has always been the case wherever Greek Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox live side-by-side. The schism has always been rather porous on the borderlands, and only those Orthodox who have few or no Greek Catholics in their territory have the luxury of demanding absolute purity of the Chalice.

Intercommunion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics is, of course, an entirely different matter.

I would be careful in calling the Orthodox position "theory". It is the position of the church. It ultimately comes down to the conscience of the communicant. To take communion anywhere one pleases, is not taking Orthodoxy or the canons of the church seriously.

I've been Orthodox for three years and have had a few chances to commune in both the Latin and Greek Catholic churches. I would never do so. I've also seen Father turn away visiting Latins and Greek Catholics at my parish. One was very agitated that they were refused communion. Oh well...that's just how it is.

And like all such positions, is mitigated by the oikonomia of the bishop. It is always better to look at what the Orthodox Church does, rather than what it says.

Regarding canons, there are some that are inflexible, and others that are more open to interpretation. And then there are those on the books that are just ignored. Like the Romans of old, the Orthodox Church adds and amends canons, but seldom deletes them, and is content to have obsolete and contradictory ones on the books. Who among even the most rigorous of the Orthodox would defrock a priest who went to see the Sound of Music at the local dinner theater? Yet the canons insist that clergy who go to the theater are to be returned to lay status. Similarly, there are canons that prohibit the Orthodox from using the services of Jewish doctors and dentists (as Jews were, even then, outstanding in the medical professions, I doubt this one was ever strictly enforced). I don't know about you, but finding a goyische dentist in my neck of the woods is well nigh impossible.

As to what you do personally, that is indeed up to you personally. I merely point out the true situation on the ground.

In my business it is often said that the most dangerous thing in the world is a second lieutenant with a map and compass. In the Church, it might well be said the most dangerous thing is an Orthodox convert with a copy of the Pedalion.

No need to be a smart a** about my convert status in the Orthodox church. I just like to play by the rules, and point them out to others such as Ad Orientem did above.

As a convert myself, I try not to be more Catholic than the pope.

Stuart,
Your comments are frankly a bit snarky. And I believe you are greatly overstating the frequency of intercommunion. There is some officially unofficial nodding and winking about it in Lebanon and parts of Syria where for historic and cultural reasons intercommunion, mostly with Maronites, has been tolerated. But outside of that area it is rare to nonexistent. In most of the Orthodox world it is a very serious offense against the church canons. You are who you are in communion with.

My minor corrections were merely intended to fill in some important blanks left by the author. What the Catholic Church permits is not necessarily permitted within the Orthodox.

As a convert myself, I try not to be more Catholic than the pope.

Given your fairly open rejection of defined Catholic dogma I don't think there is any danger of anyone accusing you of such.

In ICXC
John

Dear John (Ad Orientem)

Or "dear me"! You should look around and see what actually goes on. You'll be amazed. But it should at least disabuse you of the attempt to argue that "it ought not to happen; therefore it does not happen".

Fr. Serge

A dogma is not a dogma if it does not bark in the night.

Isn't chasing karmas sufficient proof?



hawk

But we all know what happens to dogmas that catch up with the karma.