Posted on 10/05/2005 6:09:23 PM PDT by NYer
Communion for Christian of Other Confessions
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Several interventions at the Synod of Bishops over the first three days have focused on intercommunion, namely, the possibility of Christians of other confessions receiving the Eucharist.
Among those who have addressed the issue are Cardinal Georges Cottier, theologian of the Pontifical Household, who invited the synod fathers to study the argument, when he spoke Tuesday during the session of free interventions.
Archbishop John Dew of Wellington, New Zealand, observed, "There are Catholics married to people baptized in other Christian faiths. We acknowledge them to be baptized in Christ in the sacrament of marriage, but not in the reception of the Eucharist."
Cardinal Julián Herranz, president of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, illustrated the canonical exceptions on the topic of intercommunion, reminding the synod fathers of what the assembly's working document indicates. Participants base their interventions on the working document.
In No. 45 of the encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia," quoted in the synod's working document, Pope John Paul II mentioned these exceptions.
"While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist, under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church," the Polish Pontiff wrote.
"In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an 'intercommunion' which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established," he affirmed.
Canon law
Paragraph 2 of Canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law explains that "[w]henever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."
Paragraph 3 of the canon states that Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed.
This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
Finally, Paragraph 4 of the same canon states that "[i]f the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed."
The synod's working document acknowledges that "the manner of presenting the mystery of the Eucharist in ecumenical dialogue still needs clarification, so as to avoid two opposite extremes: complete exclusion beforehand and a relativism."
In the Maronite Catholic Church, adherents of the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church, are allowed to take communion with the congregation. It is my understanding, however, that the reverse is not true.
In our small Maronite Catholic parish, there is a GOC couple (he is a convert from the ECUSA and she is from Jordan), occasionally show up at liturgy. Abouna administers the Holy Eucharist to them and blesses their beautiful daughter, Gabriella, with the communion cup. There is a very large and active GOC congregation nearby but this couple chooses to attend our divine liuturgy because of its adherence to the Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic languages. Other ME parishioners have assured me that in Lebanon, there is much interchange of individuals baptized into Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean and GOC rites, attending services in the different churches. Perhaps we can learn from them.
In the Maronite Catholic Church, adherents of the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church, are allowed to take communion with the congregation. It is my understanding, however, that the reverse is not true.
In our small Maronite Catholic parish, there is a GOC couple (he is a convert from the ECUSA and she is from Jordan), occasionally show up at liturgy. Abouna administers the Holy Eucharist to them and blesses their beautiful daughter, Gabriella, with the communion cup. There is a very large and active GOC congregation nearby but this couple chooses to attend our divine liuturgy because of its adherence to the Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic languages. Other ME parishioners have assured me that in Lebanon, there is much interchange of individuals baptized into Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean and GOC rites, attending services in the different churches. Perhaps we can learn from them.
"In our small Maronite Catholic parish, there is a GOC couple (he is a convert from the ECUSA and she is from Jordan), occasionally show up at liturgy. Abouna administers the Holy Eucharist to them and blesses their beautiful daughter, Gabriella, with the communion cup."
I suspect that its because she is from Jordan that the couple does this. It is distinctly possible that what we know is going on in Lebanon is going on in Jordan too. I should note however that the Greek orthodox Archdiocese has given positive instructions to the Faithful here not to do this. I note that the new Latin bishop here has removed all former referneces to this practice from the misselettes in this diocese. As I understand it, the directives from Rome require the local ordinary to confer with his Orthodox counterpart before allowing this.
We took advantage of 844 (4) when we first began attending the Catholic church (with Monsignor's permission of course).
That is correct.
the Greek orthodox Archdiocese has given positive instructions to the Faithful here not to do this.
Kolokotronis, I will ask you to search your own heart in response to this question. Do you believe that the hosts Consecrated by catholic priests are invalid? Is that the rationale behind this admonition from the GOC?
The Catholics and Orthodox are only marginally separated. We both trace our ancestry back to Christ. I know from personal experience that the hosts consecrated in the Catholic Church are authentic. Why would a GOC Patriarch admonish a practicing member from celebrating liturgy in an authentic setting wih the Real Presence of our Lord? This, I do not understand, other than for political reasons.
"I will ask you to search your own heart in response to this question. Do you believe that the hosts Consecrated by catholic priests are invalid?"
Absolutely not!
"Is that the rationale behind this admonition from the GOC?"
No. Though I must say that from an Orthodox pov, the Latin Rite faithful, and to an extent the clergy and hierarchy, have an appalling lack of respect for the Eucharist.
"Why would a GOC Patriarch admonish a practicing member from celebrating liturgy in an authentic setting wih the Real Presence of our Lord?"
Here's why:
"In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an 'intercommunion' which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established," he (JP II) affirmed."
Absolutely not!
Please elaborate.
Though I must say that from an Orthodox pov, the Latin Rite faithful, and to an extent the clergy and hierarchy, have an appalling lack of respect for the Eucharist.
Again, I would ask that you please elaborate.
Here's why:
"In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an 'intercommunion' which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established," he (JP II) affirmed."
If the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, then where is the problem? Consecration by a validly ordained priest, comes from Christ. In the Maronite Church, the priest intincts the consecrated host, and places it on the tongue of the recipient with the words: "The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is given to you for the remission of sin and eternal salvation". Where's the problem?
Many Orthodox deny the validity of Catholic sacraments: baptisms, eucharists, ordinations, etc.
" Please elaborate."
What's to elaborate? I believe they are valid. Do you want me to give you a theological explanation of why your sacraments are valid?
"Though I must say that from an Orthodox pov, the Latin Rite faithful, and to an extent the clergy and hierarchy, have an appalling lack of respect for the Eucharist.
Again, I would ask that you please elaborate."
A lack of belief in the real presence among many, touching the chalice and the host, "eucharettes", the abrogation of fasting rules, handing out communion to people who are manifestly living in sin or otherwise not living in accord with the teachings of the Church....
"If the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, then where is the problem? Consecration by a validly ordained priest, comes from Christ. In the Maronite Church, the priest intincts the consecrated host, and places it on the tongue of the recipient with the words: "The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is given to you for the remission of sin and eternal salvation". Where's the problem?"
The problem lies in the standard set in the first sentence of your question. The couple you wrote about are from a local GOA parish. Their priest is available to them, even if they have a grave spiritual need. Let me add, by the way, that of I found myself in grave spiritual need and no Orthodox priest were available, I'd find the nearest Roman priest in a heartbeat and with no qualms whatsoever.
Agreed.
"Many Orthodox deny the validity of Catholic sacraments: baptisms, eucharists, ordinations, etc."
Other than some non-canonical ecclesial assemblies which self describe as Orthodox, I am unaware of any Orthodox Church which holds this position. About whom are you speaking?
"I've only seen the Orthodox and Catholic differences as a different flavors of salt (yep, salt tastes differently around the world depending on where it comes from)."
Indeed this is true but beyond the "flavor", there are differences in discipline which have lead to some differences in our understanding of the Mysteries on a practical, if not theological, level.
By the way, your tagline is one of the truest statements I've ever seen. I remember many years ago when our youngest was born with Down Syndrome, a very dear friend from my childhood, a Roman priest, told my wife as we both were wallowing in despair and confusion, that a mother's love and prayers would conquer any hardship. He was so very right!
Bishops meet at Vatican for synod; Communion to Catholic politicians on agenda
Papal Homily at Opening of Synod - "Lord: Help Us to Be Converted!"
Briefing on Synod of Bishops (to the media)
A primer on the October Synod of Bishops in Rome
Top Cardinal Plays Down Priest Shortage (Divorcees to receive communion?)
The First Synod after the Conclave Gets Underway. The Pope Is Being Tested
Ordination of married men is raised at Vatican synod
Bishop Urges Talk of Polticians at Vatican
Abandon Eucharistic doctrine, dissidents urge Synod
Vatican clamps down on information at synod
Bishops Discussing Communion in the Hand - Also Concerned About How the Mass Is Celebrated
Synod Reflects on a Key Ecumenical Question
SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM BULLETIN (Summary of Synod Working Groups - First Session - Oct.5
Archbishop Jan Lenga of Kazakhstan: Restore Tabernacle, Stop Communion in the Hand
"No to General Absolution," Except Rarely, Says Cardinal Re
SYNOD - Report #5: Environment, social justice emerge as eucharistic themes
NYer asked: "Again, I would ask that you please elaborate."
To which Kolokotronis responded: "A lack of belief in the real presence among many, touching the chalice and the host, "eucharettes", the abrogation of fasting rules, handing out communion to people who are manifestly living in sin or otherwise not living in accord with the teachings of the Church...."
(I found your comments humorous, as I sit here eating pita and hummus in observance of the Friday fast.)
While I would consider your comment to be a fair appraisal of the status quo in many RCC parishes, that's not a fair assessment of the status quo in the eastern Catholic churches. Which makes me again wonder why certain Orthodox view the eastern Catholics with disdain (current company clearly excepted).
We worship in a very similar way to the Orthodox, we have the same creed MINUS the filioque, many of the same prayers, we celebrate the eucharist similarly, we use leavened bread, and we never, ever, ever, have "Eucharettes" in mini-skirts distributing the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So what gives? Is this strictly politics or is it the Pope as well?
Touche, my friend, touche!
"Which makes me again wonder why certain Orthodox view the eastern Catholics with disdain (current company clearly excepted)."
I suspect it has "pluriform" origins. In part some Orthodox view Eastern Rite Christians in communion with Rome as some species of apostate. From an Orthodox view point, the Papacy has a, shall we say, unhappy history, both theologically and ecclesiologically and Eastern Rite Catholics have bound themselves to that Papacy in derogation of what Orthodoxy views as proper theology and eccelsiology, while retaining the outward forms of Orthodoxy. In some other instances, that communion with Rome has meant an almost complete abandonment of their ancient Faith and liturgical forms and the utter destruction of their phronema, even to the point of accepting the destruction of their books of Holy Tradition and devotions and the imposition of Western forms and the Latin language. Orthodoxy is horrified by this.
Some Orthodox view some Eastern Rite Catholics as a sort of Fifth Column of the Papacy and certainly in some areas, in pursuit of, or at least in conjunction with, the temporal political ends of monarchs and the Eastern Church, that's exactly what they, or at least their hierarchs, were.
Let me add, on a personal note, that while I share the foregoing sentiments at least to a point, I must say that the recent opportunity presented here on FR to read the comments of the Eastern Rite bishops at the Synod in Rome, has been a real eye opener for me. Some might argue that the comments are designed to lull Orthodoxy into a false sense of security about Eastern Rite Catholicism, indeed that comment has been made elsewhere, but in all honesty I think that's complete egomania, what we sometimes call in Greek "Egwhtron". Those comments clearly are not about us, and just as clearly, and loudly and forcefully about exactly what we Orthodox often see as deficiencies in Latin ecclesiology and praxis. What is quite clear, at least to me, is that it is not only the Orthodox Church which rejects Uniatism as a model for a reunion of the Churches, but also the Eastern Rite Catholics themselves!
Now let me make a little "prediction". Unless the Latin Church hears, understands, accepts and institutes what the Eastern Rite hierarchs are saying, there will be a reunion alright, the Eastern Rite Catholics with Orthodoxy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.