Posted on 10/12/2005 10:15:23 AM PDT by NYer
I don't think that would be used for Greek Orthodox - they're not in heresy -- we and they are merely in schism. The Episcopalians on the other hand have gone stark raving mad. I cannot in good conscience receive communion from anybody who's walking with Foggy Frank Griswold and his band of heretics.
And, they have! Put it all into perspective. You are invited as an observer and given the opportunity to express your views as an 'observer'. Like the Orthodox, they have expressed their views. Tha's it! The Synod offers a forum for discussion. In the end, as has happened with all the other Synods, their voices have been raised and expressed but they have also been afforded the opportunity to hear those of the Catholic Church. The purpose? What is ecumenism? What was Christ's plan? All of these factor into this and all the other Synods - an opportunity to hear each other. Perhaps some day we will ALL fulfill the plan Christ laid out for us - to be united as one voice. Until then, these Synods keep the conversation going.
"Our missalettes still contain the invitation, but add a caution that the visitor should check with his own bishop or metropolitan before receiving and should "be in accord with the rubrics" of his own faith."
That's what it used to say here. Why, since the Roman Church is very, very aware of the fact that Orthodoxy does not allow inter-communion except in the most extreme circumstamces, would a Latin diocese publish such a thing? Its seems to me terribly disrespectful of a sister church. We have never done such a thing (except as we all know in the Middle East, but, as Kosta says, that's another story).
AAM, IF you qualify for all those then you just might be a Catholic in your heart and should convert without further delay.
I know we all have rules about "becoming" Orthodox, Catholic, etc. but no piece of paper is going to "make" you something you are not in your heart. A piece of paper is just that -- and administrative document that is not needed for one's faith, but for the Church administration and other administrative, legal issues.
Why do you suppose the Anglicans and Lutherans were invited? One would have thought that a Synod of the Roman Catholic Church would have limited its participants and even speaking guests to bishops within the Apostolic Succession, within The Church.
Dialog with ecclesial assemblies is fine, I suppose, but at a Synod?
At best, the Lutheran bishops were expressing a desire to unify in the face of the threat of secularism. For that I can't blame them. But to hold open communion diminishes the Sacrament.
GC 2003 happened in August, IIRC. We started looking for a church immediately, we joined our local Catholic parish provisionally (receiving under Canon 844) in January 2004, and we were received into the Catholic Faith on Memorial Day 2004.
We're home and hosed as they say (speaking of racehorses.)
Just out of curiosity, given my opinion of the matter, what is a Lutheran "bishop?" Where does that title come from and to which Apostles are Lutheran "bishops" connected to claim their authority?
We have a large Orthodox presence in Atlanta, both Greek and several different groups of Russians, so it's not a problem here, but if somebody lived in a very isolated area where no Orthodox priest was available, and some emergency came up, perhaps they would have been given permission ahead of time?
The invitation is so hedged about with cautions, it makes it pretty clear.
I am a bit of a rebel in this regard. As far as I am concerned, if one believes what the Church teaches, he or she is part of that Church. No one has the power to "make" you something you are not in your heart.
"As a Lutheran, I would not even think of going to communion at an Orthodox or Roman Catholic church. To do so promotes false unity and can only confuse the members of each group. The only possible reason to think of that is a end of life position where there is not time to find my own pastor, and even then it is not something I would personally feel comfortable with."
You've hit the nail on the head, precisely, my friend. And in so doing you can offend no one! The time may come, God willing, when we all believe the same things and there will be a reunion, but until then, intercommunion, except in extremis, promotes confusion and a false unity. We've been down that road before and it leads nowhere.
Zhtw Serbia!
In my parish, there is a Greek Orthodox family that occasionally attends our Divine Liturgy. The wife is from Jordan and is drawn to the Syriac, Aramaic and Arabic texts. The husband is a convert from the Episcopal Church. There is a vibrant Greek Orthodox community nearby. They follow the guidelines in our missalettes which follow those published by the USCCB.
The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, "We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).
"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . " Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).
However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:
"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3). Christians in these churches should, of course, respect their own church’s guidelines regarding when it would be permissible for them to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.
Canon law explains the parameters: "If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" (CIC 844 § 4).
It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.
The bishops of the Church of Sweden retained a belief in apostolic succession after the Protestant revolution.
The presbyters of the Swedish Lutheran state church continued to wear vestments and call the Mass a "sacrifice" despite the Lutheran confessions long after the break with Rome.
The Lutheran bodies in Finland and the Baltics claim Swedish successions.
" They follow the guidelines in our missalettes which follow those published by the USCCB."
Do they? I know for a fact that Archbishop Demetrius is absolutely against inter-communion. From whom have they gotten permission for inter-communion? In Orthodoxy this could only be given as a matter of economia and economia is the exlcusive province of a bishop. They apparently live in the Archdiocesan District. Their bishop is +Demetrius.
My suspicion is that they are confused by the remarks in your misselette and think what they are doing is OK. Tonight I've seen several comments from Roman Catholics that the Roman Church here persists in this unfortunate practice. In all honesty I think its time this become a matter for discussion by the SCOBA hierarchs or at a minimum by the Greek Orthodox Eparchal Synod so that an appropriate protest can be made to the Vatican through the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This looks like "backdoor" Uniatism to me.
When she came home and told me about it, I took it as a gesture of friendship and sharing on the part of those strangers who had been so vocal in encouraging her (and knew she was Eastern Orthodox). But she had been very offended by it, and she was almost angry when she told us about it later.
I seriously doubt that we are going to find only Orthodox and Catholics in the next world. Our boys are in a joint Orthodox-Lutheran Scout troop and I think the Lutherans are awesome Christians. I fully hope to know them after this life as well.
The difficulty lies with the next phrase of Article VII of the Confession of Augsburg (you have paraphrased the first part very well) "and the Sacraments admnistered rightly".
What constitutes "right administration?". And how is the ordering of ministry connected with such right and proper administration?
The uproar over the Lutheran-Episcopal "Called to Common Mission" agreement (an uproar which has not subsided) is precisely over that point: Is connection with the historic episcopate (which may or may not be the same thing as Apostolic succession, depending on one's point of view) a necessity in order to administer the Sacraments rightly and in a manner consistent with being the True Church?
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.