Replies

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.

Thank you.

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.

Well, that's clear and persuasive to me. It is reminiscent of or analagous to the whole trial marriage/intercourse before marriage matter. We profane intercourse by, inter alia, engaging in the intimate union of bodies without the antecedent covenantal union of wills. (Of course, you WILL have to burn for it, but at least you can die knowing you were clear. Which is more than Cranmer could do.)

Seriously though, what about in moments of great pastoral need?

It's interesting to me that the famously rigid and legalistic RC church would be more, ah, flexible, in this matter than, well any other body. But in the 70's when I was a Chaplain Resident at a hospital the RC guys, who were definitely NOT Vatican II wussies, said I most definitely could not receive EXCEPT if something really big was going on. Since I was under authority, I was rarely free to attend their Masses anyway, or I would have gone just to adore.

But my point is that they would sort of hand the mattter over to God in extreme circumstances.

My other question has to do with plene esse and bene esse matters, to wit:

MY understanding is that we hold that where there is valid baptism there the church subsists, though in a compromised way. Where are you all on that notion?

For kicks, and to introduce a question, I thought I'd quote part of the Didache here:

Didache 9:1
But as touching the Eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.

Didache 9:2
First, as regards the cup:
We give Thee thanks, O our Father,
for the holy vine of Thy son David,
which Thou madest known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 9:3
Then as regarding the broken bread:
We give Thee thanks, O our Father,
for the life and knowledge
which Thou didst make known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 9:4
As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains
and being gathered together became one,
so may Thy Church be gathered together
from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
for Thine is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.

Didache 9:5
But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Didache 10:1
And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:

Didache 10:2
We give Thee thanks, Holy Father,
for Thy holy name,
which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality,
which Thou hast made known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:3
Thou, Almighty Master,
didst create all things for Thy name's sake,
and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.

Didache 10:4
Before all things we give Thee thanks
that Thou art powerful;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:5
Remember, Lord, Thy Church
to deliver it from all evil
and to perfect it in Thy love;
and gather it together from the four winds - even the Church which has been sanctified -
into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:6
May grace come and may this world pass away.
Hosanna to the God of David.
If any man is holy, let him come;
if any man is not, let him repent.
Maran Atha. Amen.

So here's the question: I would say that while the Eucharist symbolizes koinonia, we also pray that it will increase or even perfect it. This is just an extremely minor quibble, but a point I thought worth noting.