Synod Reflects on a Key Ecumenical Question

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."

Outstanding commentary and I thank you.

"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."

As are eastern Catholics. The turnaround started with Vatican II, and has had some success. But that's only a generation ago and change happens slowly and depends on the church. My own parish is headed by a very conservative priest and the latinizations are pretty much excluded. But it's a constant battle. Conservative Roman Catholics tend to migrate to the eastern churches in reaction to the heterodoxy seen in so many RCC parishes, but then those same people have a tendency to want to convert the eastern parishes into traditional RCC parishes.

The tragedies experienced by the Maronites are well known and have been discussed on FR repeatedly.

"Some Orthodox view some Eastern Rite Catholics as a sort of Fifth Column of the Papacy..."

I saw your revised comment. I've seen this belief expressed before. To me, it's laughable. If the eastern Catholics are a fifth column, then we've proven to be an inept one. Simply take a look at the history of the Byzantine Catholic church in the U.S. as an example. A schism in the early part of the 20th century provided the OCA with many of it's priests and parishes.

This is part of the reason why I find some of the more disdainful comments so puzzling. The Orthodox seem to view the eastern Catholics as "siphoning off" Orthodox into the Catholic church. I think that the opposite is probably more true in reality.

"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!"

Yup. I think that most of the eastern Catholics have made it clear that were there Catholic communion with the Orthodox churches, the eastern Catholics would join the Orthodox.

Eastern Catholics are quite disturbed at what they see happening in the western church. As we are Catholic as well as eastern, it would be foolhardy to deny that we catch a cold when the western church contracts pneumonia.

"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."

Your prediction is not too far off in my view, although I don't think it would play out that way so much in the U.S. churches. But you never know.

I shudder at the thought of a heterodox Papacy; someone in the Jadot or Mahony model. Or even someone who is a traditionalist, but who would try to reimpose latinizations on the eastern churches.

"I saw your revised comment. I've seen this belief expressed before. To me, it's laughable. If the eastern Catholics are a fifth column, then we've proven to be an inept one. Simply take a look at the history of the Byzantine Catholic church in the U.S. as an example. A schism in the early part of the 20th century provided the OCA with many of it's priests and parishes."

I think I phrased my comment inartfully. The observation is of a present belief, the origin of which lies in an historical reality virtually all of which lay in Eastern Europe. Your points about the experience of Eastern Rite Catholicism in the US are of course absolutlely on the money and the trend here is certainly towards, rather than away from Orthodoxy. There are similar things happening in the Middle East.

"But it's a constant battle. Conservative Roman Catholics tend to migrate to the eastern churches in reaction to the heterodoxy seen in so many RCC parishes, but then those same people have a tendency to want to convert the eastern parishes into traditional RCC parishes."

I've seen evidence of that here on FR. Many traditional Latin Rite types seem to think that their idea of Latin ecclesiology and discipline are preserved in Eastern Rite Churches so they show up with their Western/Latin phronema and, as you say, immediately try to change things. We've seen it in Orthodoxy from the same people. As you know, the inculcation of an Orthodox phronema takes years. I've also heard these stories directly from a Melkite friend and a Maronite one. The Maronite is a woman who married an Orthodox fellow in our parish. As is traditional in the old country, she simply came over to us, but in so doing she told be she was glad to leave her old parish because, as she put it, it was "overrun" with "angry, conservative Latin Rite types" who want to drive the Maronite Church back to a pre-Vatican II state of total subjegation to an imperial papacy.

Interesting discussion. I have no experience with the Byzantine Churches but my guess is they bear a closer resemblance to the GOC than other Traditions.

I think that most of the eastern Catholics have made it clear that were there Catholic communion with the Orthodox churches, the eastern Catholics would join the Orthodox.

Most assuredly not true for the Maronites, who were never part of the Orthodox Churches and hold great allegiance to the Holy Father. In his remarks delivered at the National Apostolic Maronites NAM Convention in Orlando, Florida on July 18, 2004, Professor Walid Phares addressed His Beatitude and Excellency Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir on the identity of the Maronites.

"All World Maronite Congresses and seminars have openly and clealy stated that the historical identity of the Maronites, and the Maronite Church is Antiochian Syriac

.As related by main historians and experts, particularly past Maronite historians, including the Church's chronicles, the historic identity of the Maronite people is Aramaic, Syriac and Eastern. This identity, as a national community was born in Mount Lebanon as of the 7th century AD. It has since survived, florished and never abdicated. From ibn al Qalai, to Patriarch Estefan al Duaihi, Paul Noujaim, Fuad Afram al Bustani, and Father Butros Daw, the overwhelming majority of Maronites intellectuals and historians have underlined this reality.

The Maronites themselves used Syriac as a language, then transformed it into a cultural and spiritual language. Their spoken modern Language, the Lebanese, is a form of a Syriac in its structure.

Maronites, particularly the national community that lived in Mount Lebanon and its peripheries for 13 centuries, have maintained their historical identity despite attempts by regional powers, including Arab and Ottoman empires to impose an alien identity. The Maronites defended their culture and identity while many among them excelled in other languages and even participated in the renaissance of other nations languages such as Arabic.

The Maronite Diaspora of more than 8 million around the world declare clearly that it is attached to its historical identity, the Syriac Aramaic Eastern and Catholic identity. As ciitzens of many countries, Maronites around the world are organically linked with this identity."

The Patriarch, together with delegates from around the world, have just completed a Synod. The third and final session of the Maronite synod focused on approving the 24 texts studied and reviewed in the first session, held in October 2004, and the second session, held in June. The final texts will be declared official next June.

The three-phase Maronite synod represents the most exhaustive reflection and examination of issues and suggested reforms related to the Maronite Catholic Church. The last Maronite synod was held in Lebanon in 1818; among the recommendations at this meeting was that a Maronite synod be held every five years.

" I think that most of the eastern Catholics have made it clear that were there Catholic communion with the Orthodox churches, the eastern Catholics would join the Orthodox. Most assuredly not true for the Maronites, who were never part of the Orthodox Churches and hold great allegiance to the Holy Father." I don't doubt that, under the influence of some Latin Rite Catholics today who worship in Maronite Churches having left the Latin Rite for reasons sufficient to them or in the past after the Dominicans and the Jesuits got done with their Maronite book burning, there are some Maronites who might feel this way. And undoubtedly the history you present for the Maronite Church is one "official version" of it, but the Latin Church has another version of that history. Take a look at this from a Roman Catholic source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09683c.htm

I'd appreciate your comments. It seems that back in the days when the Orthodox were still called schismatics by the Latins, the early Maronites were called downright heretics. All of the foregoing notwithstanding, the days when the Maronites were more Roman Catholic than a French monseignor are very, very fast drawing to a close and the directions of Orthodoxy, the Melkite Church and the Maronites all point to unity, with or without Rome; I'm betting without.

I'd appreciate your comments.

Thanks for the link! My comments, as you well understand, are based on my limited experience based on what I have read, experienced and discussed over the past 1 1/2 years. Even then, they are confined to one small parish, under the jurisdiction of a new bishop (an awesome and holy man whom I have had the privilege to meet). That said, my first observation is that NewAdvent needs to update the information posted at that link (and I will personally email them). According to the article:

The immediate predecessor of the present (1910) patriarch, Mgr. Hoyek, was John Peter Hadj (1890-99).

His Beatitude Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir was elected Maronite Patriarch for Antioch and all the East on April 19, 1986, nearly 20 years ago. He is the 3rd Maronite Cardinal and the 76th Patriarch of the Maronite Church.

The true founder of the Maronite nation, the patriarch St. John Maro, would have lived towards the close of the seventh century, but, unfortunately, his very existence is extremely doubtful.

Here again, there seems to be a lack of communication or questionable research. The fouder is St. John Maroun. According to everything I have read, the name Maronite points out a particular relationship with the saint monk whose name was Maroun in Syriac and Maron in Greek. He is mentioned in a letter written sometime before the year 407 by the powerful patriarch of Constantinople, John Chrysostom. He is also mentioned about thirty years later by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr (d. 466), who described the profound devotion which the monks of the monastery Beth-Maron had to their departed spiritual father Maron. If it were not for these two references, the only indication of the saint's existence would be the oral tradition of the Maronite community itself.

Invented history? Somehow I doubt that. Our eparchy is named for this saint. As Catholic and Orthodox christians, we both accept Tradition. Perhaps his history was burned along with the liturgical texts, by the Latin visitors ;-).

Without breaking down all the different elements of the NewAdvent link, these two stand out in stark contrast.

As to the "latinization" of the Maronite Church, they don't hold any grudges. According to one very respected Maronite historian, Fr. Anthony J. Salim,

For Maronites, the process (of latinization) began far back in the Tradition. Contact with the West in the earl Middle Ages (12th century), especially with the Crusaders, began the latinization process, which took its toll on Maronite traditions. On the one hand, there was pressure from Rome for Maronite Catholics to conform to a more western model of Catholicism. On the other hand, Maronites were eager to proclaim their communion with and loyalty to Rome; thus, Maronites readily embraced Rome's latinizing.

As my Abouna once explained, both benefited from the process; the Maronite texts were checked for errors and corrected. In return, they were given liturgical vestments, sacred vessels, western sacramentals and a seminary in Rome! The Maronites are resourceful. Over the centuries they have been invaded by many oppressors. In the process they have learned to take the best while rejecting the worst.

If you have the time and patience, I believe you will find the following history of the Maronites to be informative. If nothing else, it makes for an interesting read. (Note that the 'official' history is presented in segments. You will have to use the Back icon of your browser to return to the list.)

Aspects of Maronite History

And, lastly, I would suggest you return to the NewAdvent page and read up on their description of the Greek Orthodox Church. It may be necessary to point out some corrections :-)

"Most assuredly not true for the Maronites, who were never part of the Orthodox Churches and hold great allegiance to the Holy Father."

As I was typing my comments yesterday morning, the thought that was going through my mind was that the Maronites would be an exception. Their history and liturgical practices are different from the other eastern Catholic churches and, frankly, the church appears to more latinized.

The history of the eastern European churches is significantly different from that of the Maronites. There's no question as to whether the Ukranians and Ruthenians (to name 2 examples) were in schism: they were. The practices of the eastern European churches are also very similar to the Orthodox. It is much less of a liturgical leap from the practices of the eastern European churches to Orthodoxy than it would be to the practices of the western church.

Truth be known, about the only things that I see that identify my parish as a Catholic church is the actual name of our church, the huge picture of Pope Benedict just inside the entrance, and the remembrance of the church hierarchy during the liturgy.

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.