Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Hermann the Cherusker; kosta50; annalex; donbosco74; Dionysiusdecordealcis
"Similarly, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are Catholic by profession of faith, shared sacramental rites, obedience to lawful Bishops, and common identity. This is why we speak of our lack of full communion with them (an historical oddity only dating from 1729, when the Holy Office forbid it) as properly a matter between the Pope and their Bishops, where those two parties need to come to an understanding regarding the limits of power and authority in the Church held by various persons. If it were an issue between Latin and Eastern laity, Rome would never permit any exceptions to our having communion with them, receiving penance and extreme unction from them, etc."

Thanks for mentioning this as the concept of "communion" is often loosely applied down to the level of the laity. Communion is in fact a matter of relationships between and among bishops (or abbots) to whom we laity, monastics and lower clergy owe obedience. It is for that reason that issues of reunion and/or intercommunion in the sense of receiving the sacraments, must be resolved initially between and among the hierarchs even if as a matter of ecclesiology in the Eastern Church and as a matter of practicality in the Western Church, the laity, monastics and lower clergy will have to recognize and accept any reunion which may come about.

I see much to recommend the approach of the Latin Church to the question of intercommunion by economia under certain circumstances. On the other hand, the virtually universal rejection of that exercise of economia by the Orthodox hierarchs to me makes good sense as reception of the Eucharist is the ultimate symbol of a real unity which doesn't exist. This of course raises the question of why apparently an intercommunion with the Oriental Orthodox is allowed by a limited economia. As Kosta has pointed out, at least historically, the theological differences between the non Chalcedonian and Orthodox Churches are more profound than those between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church.

Final point on intercommunion. When that concept or economia was first proclaimed by Rome in the 1960s, it was made very clear that on a diocese by diocese basis this should only be allowed after consultation and agreement with the local Orthodox hierarch. In this country that was not done and it made for some bad feelings just as Rome predicted. I understand that at least some Latin Rite Ordinaries have consulted with their Orthodox counterparts and when told that Orthodoxy will not accept the idea, the little statements contained in most missalettes about intercommunion with the Orthodox have been removed. Unfortunately some priests and bishops, despite complaints from the Orthodox hierarchs, are still preaching this to the confusion of the laity and lower clergy. We've seen examples of it right here on FR with Roman Catholics who think that Orthodoxy and the Latin Church are "in communion".
213 posted on 02/07/2006 3:49:28 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]


To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; annalex; donbosco74; Dionysiusdecordealcis
When that concept or economia was first proclaimed by Rome in the 1960s, it was made very clear that on a diocese by diocese basis this should only be allowed after consultation and agreement with the local Orthodox hierarch.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly allowed intercommunion in certain limited circumstances (i.e. danger of death). So the current Catholic position predates the 1960's. The 1960's saw what was tantamount to a total lifting of the ban of 1729.

From the Catholic perspective, the problems with the East have always centered around the Bishops. As far as we are concerned, the lay Orthodox are fully Catholic provided that they hold no heresies. Their Bishops may or may not be involved in some level of schism or even heresy from our POV depending on their own position on various disputed matters. But just because one's Bishop is possibly in error, does not mean that his laity are also in error, and until the Church removes him from office by declaring him deposed if he is actually disobedient, the Bishop's lay faithful owe him reverent submission on all things not contrary to divine and natural and ecclesial law. Last I checked, the Pope hasn't removed any Eastern Bishops.

216 posted on 02/07/2006 6:03:23 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson