Replies

I wouldn't say "know" about anything going on in my head about this question. My impression is that, at least as far as Communicating in non-Catholic services it's a matter of not having sacramental unity unless there's some other kind of organic structural unity as well.

I do observe that in churches like my old one, there's a kind of "open communion creep" that takes place. It used to be, if your church would allow Episcopalians and if YOU were allowed to receive in your church (and you were baptized and all that) then come on down. Now, in just my lifetime, anyone can receive, baptized or not.

So there may be some charismatic pastoral wisdom going on that I'm not aware of or that I don't understand.

Do YOU know why or have an opinion?

MD: "My impression is that, at least as far as Communicating in non-Catholic services it's a matter of not having sacramental unity unless there's some other kind of organic structural unity as well."

S: "If I'm not mistaken a Roman Catholic can receive Communion at an Orthodox Church. But as far as I know the Orthodox members do not receive Communion and a Roman Rite Church."

Why no member of The Church can receive the bread and wine (or grape juice) of an ecclesial assembly's "communion" is quite simple. There is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles; and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles; and there can be no Eucharist without the bishop or priests ordained by him.

There can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it and centered on it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteria - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.

For us Orthodox and Latins, as a general rule, reception of "communion" in a Protestant service is both a lie and a profanation of the Eucharist. Though Protestants do not generally pretend that their bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood, most do look upon it as a symbol of unity among Christians. As you point out, MD, the present day Episcopalians are a prime example of this, but "unity" in what? Clearly not the Apostolic Faith. So far as I can see, at best it is a unity of belief that in some way, or better said, in various ways, Christ is somehow "related" to God the Father. This isn't the Apostolic Faith, the unity of which is expressed by the Eucharist.

The only Protestant group where this idea may fall apart is in some Lutheran dioceses where the Apostolic Succession is intact and which profess a belief in the Real Presence.

When it comes to why Orthodox and Latins (and maybe those Lutherans)don't inter-commune, or shouldn't, the question revolves around what the Eucharist symbolizes rather than whether or not it is "real". The sacramental validity of the Eucharist in an Orthodox or Latin Church is beyond question. The bishops of the churches are in the Apostolic Succession and the priests are validly ordained. The problem lies in the fact that we do not believe the exact same things on a number of both dogmatic (very limited) and ecclesiological points. The dogmatic points, aside from those touching on the Papacy, are likely resolvable. For all intents and purposes we have resolved a major dogmatic issue with the Monophysites; there's little reason to believe we can't resolve those issues centered on, for example, the IC and that theology which gave rise to it. The ecclesiological issues are more intractable and yet in those areas where these questions of the Petrine Ministry have no real impact, for example in Lebanon among the non-Latin Churches and Orthodoxy, we see de facto if not de jure communion. At any rate, it is the fact of the schism between Orthodoxy and Rome which prevents us from inter communing. We do not have "unity" for the most part because we do not believe the same things with regard to the structure of The Church. There is really very little to it beyond that anymore. The Eucharist , contrary to Protestant opinion, is, among other things of course, a perfect symbol of unity not a means to an end of unity. It strengthens unity but does not create it. Adherence to the Apostolic Faith creates that unity.

It is for this reason that Latins and Orthodox do not and most assuredly should not, the USCB to the contrary notwithstanding, intercommune. It profanes the Eucharist to use it to pretend to a unity which does not exist.