SYNOD OF BISHOPS - 10OCT05 - Intercommunion (with Orthodox Church among topics)

Vatican Press Office ^ | October 10, 2005

[NYer]

Below are the summaries of the interventions:

- H. Em. Card. Lubomyr HUSAR, M.S.U., Archbishop Major of, President of the Synodm of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (Kyiv-Halych, UKRAINE)

I believe, first of all, I must express my gratitude to the Secretary General and to the Preparatory Commission who took into account the observations made by the Oriental Churches both in the Lineamenta and in the Instrumentum Laboris.

I would like also to intervene on the Eucharistic practice (no. 22. 23. 24) in the Tradition of the Greek Ukrainian catholic Church, but, wanting to focus the present intervention on another problem, I will postpone this aspect to an in scriptis intervention.

The problem that I face as a Hierarch of a sui iuris Oriental Church refers to numbers 85, 86 and 87 of the Instrumentum Laboris. I express myself in interrogative terms. My preface is that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the life and the mission of the Church. But this is also true for Oriental Churches!

- If the Liturgy is a regula fidei (lex orandi, lex credendi)

- if the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Oriental Churches in communion with the See of Rome and by the Orthodox or Apostolical Churches is identical for both,

-if there is mutual recognition of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops and, consequently, of priests that celebrate it, then my question is: what more is required for unity?

Is there maybe another fons or another culmen superior to the Eucharist? And if not, why isn’t con-celebration permitted?

A final proposal. In order to grow also in Catholic intraecclesial communion I would like to propose that the next Synod be dedicated to the Oriental Churches.

[00087-02.03] [IN081] [Original text: Italian]

* * * * *

- H.E. Most. Rev. Djura DZUDZAR, Titular Bishop of Acrasso, Apostolic Exarch of Serbia e Montenegro for the Catholics of Byzantine Rite (SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO)

I will now refer to the fourth chapter of Instrumentum Laboris: “The Eucharist and Inculturation” (Nos. 80 and 81), “The Eucharist and Ecumenism” (No. 86), “The Eucharist and Intercommunion” (No. 87).

Inculturation

The constant meetings between East and West leads to confrontation between the two Christian liturgical traditions. The Eastern liturgy is “accused’ of incomprehensibility and archaism, which make the celebration moments “heavy”, but there is good reason for it to be very involving and mystical. Latin simplification instead brings about “liturgical impoverishment”.

To allow our celebration to be a sign of recognition and identity for non Catholics, it is necessary to stress this formation in all the categories of the people of God, with priority for the education institutes, priest-liturgists, deacons, animators and ministrants. In a word, regular pastoral care and an adequate ordinary liturgical catechesis must take precedence.

The Eucharist and Ecumenism

The common celebration can become a strong message in daily life. However, what is necessary are clear premises which indicate up to where it is possible to operate at a liturgical level with the churches and Christian communities which make up the ecumenical mosaic. Therefore, we propose a liturgical guide which helps to make sure that communion, not yet reached, is invoked in the prayer and not taken for granted, and even as an “instrument” of dialogue. The Eucharist and Intercommunion

I underline two possible threats: prejudice, as a first danger, or relativism. Here we also call for clarity and truth; opening up but without disregarding our identity. Even in this sector, the Eucharist cannot be the means for communion, not even the means for building a generic human community. The Eucharist is not even a starting point. It is the ministry of Christ who in the gift of the Eucharist gives us his Body. It is the gift given to he who belongs to Christ and must become a saint for this and therefore, thanks to this fundamental preoccupation, also the seed of unity in the Church and in the world.

The most urgent request to this Synod is: to revisit the Eucharistic mystery in relation to the other Sacraments, especially in relation to the sacramentality of marriage in mixed marriages and offer essential guidance, although to lower it into the local context on the part of the bishops concerned. It is a challenge which we consider involves other areas which are always vaster, and strongly pertinent in the European continent.

[00156-02.06] [IN127] [Original text: Italian]

* * * * *

- H.E. Most. Rev. Menghisteab TESFAMARIAM, M.C.C.I., Bishop of Asmara (ERITREA)

I come from an area of Eastern African Christian Tradition where, among non Catholics, daily celebration of the Eucharist, frequent reception of Holy Communion, reservation of the Sacred Speces in the Tabernacle, and adoration of the Eucharist outside Holy Mass are not practiced.

Does this mean there is less celebration of the Sacred Mysteries? Or, does it mean there is less adoration in these Churches? Not at all. There is only a different approach and different theological sensibilities. As a Catholic minority we do have all the above mentioned traditional Latin Catholic practices. But we feel we need to embed them better within an Eastern Christian Spirituality.

The second chapter of Part III of the Instrumentum Laboris has a beautiful title: Adoring the Lord in Mystery. The Eucharist is indeed the Mystery of our Faith. The subtitle of the same chapter is however not clear. What does" From Celebration to Adoration" mean? I hope it does not mean a temporal sequence, or an essential dichotomy between the two actions of the people of God. In the Liturgical action of the Eastern Churches celebration and adoration are two actions intrinsecally united. They are two aspects of the same reality, just as the table of the word and that of the Body and Blood of Christ are two parts of the same Eucharistic Banquet. Celebration and adoration go hand in hand. They do not follow each other. The first stresses the festive aspect, the second highlights the Greatness and Holiness of God. On one hand, we celebrate the great things God has done for us through His only Son our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ. We feel so close and familiar to Him and sing Allelujah! In our tradition there should be only the High Mass all sung and everybody involved: Priest, deacon, people. Liturgical dances prepare the people before Mass. God has become one of us and has offered His life for us. He is the Emmanuel! God with us.

On the other hand, we adore the Lord of Glory together with the angels and archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim. During the Holy Eucharistic action Heaven and Earth are in unison to prostrate themselves in adoration before pteMajesty of the Triune God, the wholly O!her. The doxologies sung during the Holy Mass are but an expression of the intense experiences of this awe inspiring presence of the Holy: "Holy, Holy Holy, God of Power and Might. Heaven and Earth are full of your Glory. Hosanna in the Highest".

Celebration and Adoration are thus two inseparable actions of the people of God gathered around the table of the Word and Christ's Body and Blood. These two actions unite Heaven and Earth. For a brief moment heaven descends and is tangible among men. It is like the experience of the disciples of Jesus, Peter John and James on Mount Tabor. The Eucharist is Mystery of Faith. It cannot be worthily celebrated without a deep sense of the Sacred. An act of adoration without a feeling of wonder and amazement may inspire only fear and despair. Hence we need to stress the unity of celebration and adoration. We have to encourage our faithful to become an adoring celebrating community, be it during Mass or outside Mass.

[00215-02.03] [IN179] [Original text: English]

[NYer]

Please keep in mind that the bishops are tossing out personal impressions from their own experiences. Nothing is cast in concrete. It's a big world - what works in one culture doesn't always work in another.

This is printed from the official Vatican transcripts. Now let's see how the media rewrites them.

[NYer]

Keep in mind that there are representatives from the Orthodox Churches, and other denominations, present at the Synod. They have no voting privilege, though.

[NYer]

Keep in mind that there are representatives from the Orthodox Churches, and other denominations, present at the Synod. They have no voting privilege, though.

[NYer]

Keep in mind that there are representatives from the Orthodox Churches, and other denominations, present at the Synod. They have no voting privilege, though.

[NYer]

Keep in mind that there are representatives from the Orthodox Churches, and other denominations, present at the Synod. They have no voting privilege, though.

[old and tired]

I had always understood that Catholics were allowed to receive Communion in an Orthodox church if they were so invited. But I've since learned here on FR that is not the case.

Dear friends of ours are Russian Orthodox. They've never received Communion in our family's Masses, though they understand they've always been invited by the priest saying the Mass. However, their church forbids them to take Communion in a Catholic Mass.

[NYer]

Dear friends of ours are Russian Orthodox. They've never received Communion in our family's Masses, though they understand they've always been invited by the priest saying the Mass. However, their church forbids them to take Communion in a Catholic Mass.

We have a Greek Orthodox family that occasionally attend Divine Liturgy at our church. Our missalettes give the guidelines for reception of communion indicating the Catholic Church's welcome to the Orthodox to receive communion. This family, from Jordan, goes up for communion. Perhaps it's cultural?

[old and tired]

This family, from Jordan, goes up for communion. Perhaps it's cultural?

Or maybe a difference between the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches? Also, I'm wondering if it may be that there is no Greek Orthodox church easily accessible to the family you know. Maybe it's ok in special circumstances? Sort of like we Catholics can go to an Orthodox priest for Confession if we believe ourselves in mortal sin and no Catholic priest is available. I really don't know.

[Kolokotronis]

Thanks for the post. Each intervention speaks to a different aspect of the Eucharist and I especially like the one from +Menghisteab of Eritrea. It is "ontologically" Orthodox.

The one from the Exarch for Serbia and Montegnegro is certainly more cautious in that he recognizes that..."the Eucharist cannot be the means for communion, not even the means for building a generic human community. The Eucharist is not even a starting point." This is a distinctly Orthodox point of view, which understands that the Eucharist is, among other things, a symbol of unity. That unity does not yet exist. I suspect he would say, at this time, that intercommunion is a fraud.

Finally, the interesting, if somewhat disingenuous, questions of +Lubomyr of Kiev. He asks:

"If the Liturgy is a regula fidei (lex orandi, lex credendi)

- if the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Oriental Churches in communion with the See of Rome and by the Orthodox or Apostolical Churches is identical for both,

-if there is mutual recognition of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops and, consequently, of priests that celebrate it, then my question is: what more is required for unity?"

Let's assume for the moment that everything he says is true. He knows the answer as well as his own name.

" Is there maybe another fons or another culmen superior to the Eucharist?"

Yes, an infallible, monarchical papacy claiming universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. + Lubomyr knows this as well as I do. he isn't speaking to the Orthodox in the hall, he's speaking to the Pope. Once again this rather odd, but very interesting and maybe brave, man is right in the face of Latin ecclesiology. He is a man to watch; from the Roman standpoint, maybe the proverbial "man on horseback".

[Theophane]

Many years, Patriarch LUBOMYR!

[TruthNtegrity]

Just a FYI, in case you missed this.

[sionnsar]

Most interesting. Thank you!

[JohnRoss]

From my understanding, many Eastern Catholic academics have argued for dual communion, akin to the situation that currently exists with ROCOR.

Although, ROCOR is working to restore full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, it currently only shares communion with the Church of Serbia and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, yet those churches are also in communion with Moscow.

Prior to the establishment of the Melkite Church in 1729, intercommunion between Roman Catholics and Orthodox was not unheard of. Several 17th century Patriarchs of Antioch were in communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy. Bishop Kallistos' works include mention of Orthodox participation in Roman Catholic Corpus Christi processions in the Venetian-held islands during the 17th century.

[Kolokotronis]

"Prior to the establishment of the Melkite Church in 1729, intercommunion between Roman Catholics and Orthodox was not unheard of. Several 17th century Patriarchs of Antioch were in communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy."

Well, yes and no. After the Great Schism, Rome certainly tried hard, through the French, to get a hold of the whole Patriarchate of Antioch. The measure of its success is the present day Melkite Church which came into formal union with Rome in the 18th century.

"Bishop Kallistos' works include mention of Orthodox participation in Roman Catholic Corpus Christi processions in the Venetian-held islands during the 17th century."

There are a couple of small "Catholic" Greek Islands to this day where there are very close ties between the Orthodox and the Catholics but these ties don't amount to anything like intercommunion. That does go on in Lebanon however.

"From my understanding, many Eastern Catholic academics have argued for dual communion, akin to the situation that currently exists with ROCOR."

I've never heard of this. Looking to become a canonical anomoly like ROCOR has been, but won't be much longer, doesn't seem to me to be such a great idea. What would it accomplish? I suppose for purely nationalistic reasons, which would run right into charges of the heresy of phyletism, the Ukranian Greek Catholics might want to establish such a union in Ukraine, but the reaction in the rest of Orthodoxy would be extremely negative. For that reason alone, I suspect, Rome would also be against it.

[Teófilo]

My experience is that the Orthodox Churches will not let their faithful communicate in a Catholic Church unless it is a dire emergency; Traditionalist bodies like Old Calendar Orthodox Churches don't even consider the Church of Rome as a Catholic Church with valid sacraments; for them the Roman See has been vacant since the Great Schism and Apostolic Succession interrupted.

For the Orthodox Traditionalists, the question isn't even academic: for them to receive communion from a Catholic priest is like a Catholic receiving it from a Mormon minister, iow, "there's nothing there"--pace Mormons. Therefore they don't do it.

I don't understand these prelates agitating for intercommunion with the Orthodox when we can't even agree with them if we hold the same faith in common. The Orthodox seem to be sure of what they believe in order to justify their reluctance against intercommunion. I humbly suggest that we do the same.

-Theo

[Kolokotronis]

"I don't understand these prelates agitating for intercommunion with the Orthodox when we can't even agree with them if we hold the same faith in common. The Orthodox seem to be sure of what they believe in order to justify their reluctance against intercommunion. I humbly suggest that we do the same."

Good advice, Theo. Sometimes it seems having dialogue with the Latin Church is like trying to hit a moving target blindfolded. One Orthodox Metropolitan, a man who admires the Latin Church, once told me that he had told one of his Cardinal friends that he'd really prefer it if the Latin Church could simply settle down on what it really believes and who is really a Catholic and then it would be time to talk. In the meantime, he always enjoyed dinner and a good cigar with the Cardinal. :)

[jec1ny]

As I have noted in several other discussions on the same or similar topic, current church law does NOT permit reception of Communion by Orthodox except under highly unusual circumstances. I continue to be surprised and slightly disturbed at how widespread this abuse is.

[JohnRoss]

I understand this, and I know that Benedic XVI rejected the Melkite initiative when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger.

I think the Catholic intelligentsia are well meaning, but naive. The biggest issue is that both sides claim to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and nothing is going to change that.

[Teófilo]

Good advice, Theo. Sometimes it seems having dialogue with the Latin Church is like trying to hit a moving target blindfolded. One Orthodox Metropolitan, a man who admires the Latin Church, once told me that he had told one of his Cardinal friends that he'd really prefer it if the Latin Church could simply settle down on what it really believes and who is really a Catholic and then it would be time to talk. In the meantime, he always enjoyed dinner and a good cigar with the Cardinal.

Is not that the Orthodox lack things needing clarification themselves. The issue of the "Aerial Toll Houses" comes to mind.

Are there literal "toll houses" on the way to heaven? Is this Purgatory a la Orthodox? More things needing clarification.

-Theo

[Victoria Delsoul]

Please keep in mind that the bishops are tossing out personal impressions from their own experiences. Nothing is cast in concrete. It's a big world - what works in one culture doesn't always work in another.

Thanks for the reminder.