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?
"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."
So far as I know, there are no circumstances under which, de jure, Orthodoxy would tell me it is OK to receive communion from a Latin Rite priest. But let me tell you, I would go to confession, receive communion and get annointed by a Latin Rite priest without hesitation if I reasonably believed I was facing the end and no Orthodox priest was available. I suspect that most Orthodox priests would do the same in reverse. I would ask for the prayers of a Protestant minister in such circumstances (and of course of a rabbi) failing the presence of an Orthodox or Latin priest, but I would never receive communion from one. In so doing I would likely be violating the canons, but under such circumstances I'd take my chances! :)
"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?"
Except with some Lutherans, so far as I know, Orthodoxy does not know if the baptisms of Protestants are truly baptisms. In my experience, Protestant converts are usually baptised into Orthodoxy. My personal opinion is that accepting Protestant baptisms is innappropriate in conversion situations. This is something of a different question of where The Church is. We know The Church is where the bishop, his clergy, monastics and laity centered on the Eucharist are because Christ is there. We don't know where He isn't. I don't think Orthodoxy subscribes to the notion that there are varying degrees of "Church". The fullness, the plene esse, of The Church is found right where +Ignatius of Antioch said it is found. Where else Christ is we don't know. He may well be in those ecclesial assemblies and if He is, then they are in some fashion connected to us, but those assemblies are not The Church.
Priest yesterday was talking about the Catechumins for Easter.
Previously baptised doesn't get doused again.
They do have to go through the examination.
Do You Renounce Satan...et. al.