posted 02-14-2001 03:38 PM               

The forum response was "For starters, an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty of exommunication (sic)."

I thought I heard once that the "excommunicated" are "banned" from the Holy Mysteries until they are reconciled with the Church. (I suppose part of the reconciliation would include the Holy Mystery of Penance.)

posted 02-14-2001 03:52 PM               

Brendan,

If the Byzantine Code of Canon law does not specify that a person becoming Orthodox = schism, they cannot incur latae sentae excommunication-- however a Latin could because it is explicit in their code. (If it says something in the Byzantine Code that I am not aware of, someone please notify me).

If someone becomes Orthodox by confession/communion, how have they left communion with Rome? Now perhaps if they are rebaptised, that would be one thing and I'd say they are schismatic according to Rome. But if someone does what you did, what Rusnak did, or what I might do, then that would not be schismatic b/c there is no formal and public act of breaking union.

I think we should both refrain from saying that our view is the "Catholic" view since there is too different regulations in canon law, etc. until we determine who's right. So from now until then I will simply say that it is "my understanding that the Catholic Church says..." on this issue.

posted 02-14-2001 03:56 PM            

Well, the first and worst consequence of schism is being responsible for violence against the Church, the Bride of Christ.

>The forum response was "For starters, an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty of exommunication (sic)."
I thought I heard once that the "excommunicated" are "banned" from the Holy Mysteries until they are reconciled with the Church. (I suppose part of the reconciliation would include the Holy Mystery of Penance.)<

Yes, but from what I know the normal way of being reconciled to the Church from a state of excommunication is through a bishop. Now there are instances where this is not necessary (I believe in the case of abortion one can be reconciled via confession). However it seems that normally one goes to the bishop and is reconciled, via a profession of faith, and then goes to confession to have the sin forgiven.

>If this is so, how can the Orthodox, SSPX, and others be banned from the Holy Mysteries when the Church recognizes and affirms the validity of the Holy Mysteries celebrated in their Divine Liturgies/Masses?<

Because be entering schism and being excommunicated the priest in question has lost the right to exercise his sacramental ministry. Doing so flies in the face of the divine authority that Christ gave His Church. By administering the Sacraments while in schism (and excommunicated) it seems that the person in question is actually guilty of the sin of disobedience. This doesn’t mean that the sacraments are ineffective in and of themselves, however. For a layman receiving the sacrament(s) in question, one must consider if they are KNOWINGLY in schism or not.

Let me end by saying that CONVERSION to Orthodoxy by a Catholic is different from being BORN into Orthodoxy, at least from the Catholic Church’s view (and I would assume the same is true from the Orthodox perspective regarding an Orthodox who became Catholic).

posted 02-14-2001 03:59 PM               

That's why Rusnak and I have stated here that the position of the Catholic Church towards folks like us who used to be Catholic and are now Orthodox should be that we are in need of reconciliation with the Catholic Church before receiving Eucharist there (different from cradle Orthodox). Otherwise, the idea that one has committed a sin of schism is denigrated.

However, as a practical matter my best guess is that pastorally, a very lenient approach would be taken for someone who is considering rejoining the Catholic Church -- particularly if one has been a regular Orthodox communicant. I can see many priests not worrying about the formalities of a formal confession of the sin of schism before allowing such a person to receive the Eucharist.

"If this is so, how can the Orthodox, SSPX, and others be banned from the Holy Mysteries when the Church recognizes and affirms the validity of the Holy Mysteries celebrated in their Divine Liturgies/Masses?"

Cradle Orthodox are not banned -- they're invited (but also advised to respect Orthodox discipline, which frowns on this act and considers it to be an act of excommunication from Orthodoxy).

The tension is there, though, in that Rome simultaneously considers Orthodoxy to be grace-filled ("valid sacraments" using Roman terminology) but at the same time "deficient" in the words of the recent CDF document "Dominus Iesus". One is entitled to wonder aloud what deficiencies they could have if they have Christ Himself -- but technically, the Catholic response would be that in spite of the presence of sacramental grace there, the Orthodox Churches are not complete, not full, not in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church is. Specifically, Dominus Iesus seems to take a parsing approach whereby those elements of Orthodoxy which are legitimate are seen as deriving from the Catholic Church (such as sacramental life, hierarchical order, etc.), but that because some elements of Catholicism (ie, Papacy) are not present in Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy is not full.

It's a complicated thing. The bottom line answers to your questions are that (1) there should be at least a theoretical distinction between cradle Orthodox and those who joined Orthodoxy from Catholicism and (2) Catholicism's view of Orthodoxy is definitely subject to some tension.

Brendan

posted 02-14-2001 04:11 PM               

So is there a canonist we can ask about this?"

Okay, I agree, except it's not strictly a canonical issue. Can one of the clergy answer our dilemma here?

posted 02-14-2001 04:14 PM               

While there are differences of opinion about Catholicism among individual Orthodoxy , the Orthodox view of Catholisism doesn't mirror exactly the Catholic view of Orthodoxy.

posted 02-14-2001 04:19 PM               

I do understand the viewpoint on "Catholics turned Orthodox" and the Holy Mysteries to a fair degree (as well as the viewpoint of the Orthodox Church on Orthodox communicating in the Catholic Church).

Cradle Orthodox are allowed and encouraged to communicate in the Catholic Church, but should not communicate in their own Church?

posted 02-14-2001 04:21 PM               

With respect to Rome's view of Greek Catholics becoming Orthodox, there are the views of those, like Professor Bilaniuk, (+eternal memory) but many others, who say that the "Unia" was and still is a temporary arrangement, and that Uniates, Eastern Catholics, cradle or otherwise, have the right to return to their Mother Church.

This view differs according to who you speak to in the Catholic Church.

My former parish priest, a strict canonist who doesn't ever want to hear about the Orthodox, considers Orthodoxy to be in severe schism since they "are deliberately refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff whom they know to be the Vicar of Christ on earth."

O.K. now let's go on to another view.

Some say the view that the Orthodox are not in schism is an "economic" view. Those who are born Orthodox cannot be charged with the schism of their ancestors. But Eastern CAtholics who go over to the schism can be so charged.

One of the great assumptions among some ecumenical theologians is that the Papal way is the norm and somehow "invincible ignorance" or something has prevented others from seeing that.

So the Society of St. Pius X and others are in schism. They have committed a sin in separating from what they know is the True Church. Therefore, they cannot be received to the Mysteries in the Roman Church as such until they make amends. The same is true of the Eastern Catholics and others who leave Rome for Orthodoxy. They, in short, should have known better.

This is also why intercommunion before full ecclesial communion is reached is wrong.

Both sides, all things being equal, believe that they and they alone are the True Church. From the Roman point of view, the East will always be "deficient" and "Churches in rebellion." From the Orthodox side, Rome is simply "out there."

This reminds me of St Thomas More. As one commentator said of his battle with King Henry VIII, "for More, when it came to the Church and defining doctrine, the Pope was first and the King was . . . nowhere!"

Let's make no mistake about it. Rome and Orthodoxy are separated, no matter how ecumenical theology would like to warm things over.

posted 02-14-2001 04:26 PM               

Nope. I don't see that anywhere. If a Catholic cleric becomes Orthodox, that is a personal act of schism, and his serving of the Mysteries there is a personal act of disobedience and is illicit (according to Catholicism). Cradle Orthodox are not doing anything illicit, according to Catholicism, by serving the mystreries in the Orthodox Churches.

"Cradle Orthodox are allowed"

Yes.

"and encouraged to communicate in the Catholic Church"

Not really encouraged. The NCCB language says that the Catholic Church does not object to their approaching the Eucharist, but urges them to respect the disciplines of their own Churches (which every Orthodox knows provides for excommunication). So it's not really "encouragement" -- it's more like saying "As far as we're concerned, you can partake, but we don't really want you to do anything that violates the discipline of your own Church".

"but should not communicate in their own Church?"

Nope, I haven't seen that anywhere. The Catholic Church sees nothing wrong with cradle Orthodox communicating in the Orthodox Church.

posted 02-14-2001 04:57 PM               

And yet, sacramental sharing is a reality, and always has been. It is fairly common in the Middle East, and was also common in parts of the Carpathians prior to the Communist suppression. It was common in the Middle Ages, particularly in the Agean, where Greeks and Latins lived cheek-by-jowl. Repeated ecclesial broadsides from both Churches inveighing against it indicates that it was happening with sufficient frequency as to come to the notice of the hierarchy.

Today we have an interesting situation, where the canons of the Catholic Church allow the free extension of the Chalice to any Orthodox Christian who is properly disposed and presents himself of his own free will. We have canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches that allow Eastern Catholics to receive the Sacraments from any other Eastern Church, if it will allow him (and quite a few do). Today, in Eastern Catholic parishes across America, you will find Orthodox Christians who, for various reasons, attend the Liturgy, receive the sacraments, baptize their children, and in short, become integral parts of the faith community--and never formally repudiate their Orthodox affiliation. Likewise, in Orthodox parishes across this country, there are Eastern Catholics who attend the Liturgy, receive the sacraments, and become full members of the faith community, without ever repudiating their Catholic affiliation. It's not like they're hiding; everybody in the parish knows who they are, and nobody seems to care (in parishes where people DO care, such visitors are not welcome in the first place).

The we have the tragic but illustrative example of the Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe, who in 1947-48, were forcibly integrated into the Orthodox Church. Most never actually repudiated their Catholic identity, and continued to think of themselves as Catholics, but a the same time, they did not abstain from the Sacraments, and life in their parishes went on as before, "under new management". In 1989, these people, and their children, rose up and resumed the Catholic affiliation they had never voluntarily renounced. Many of those people were formally baptized into the Orthodox Church (all those born after 1948, at least), and as far as I know, they have never been required to make so much as a profession of faith, let alone be rechrismated.

This creates an conundrum, since we have the Churches formally and informally allowing members of the other Church to receive the Eucharist at their altars. One can quibble as to whether this is a matter of "special circumstances" or "oikonomia". The fact remains, the Church is the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is the Church. Recognize the other guy's, and you are admitting that he is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Eucharist cannot have grace under one set of circumstances, and not have grace under others. It either is, or is not, the Body and Blood of Christ. Say that the Eucharist of a particular Church is valid, and you tacitly say that you are in communion with that Church.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies suffer from bad cases of cognitive dissonance, or schizophrenia. On the one hand, they admit that under SOME circumstances, the faithful of one Church can receive from the other, but not under GENERAL circumstances. This is nothing less than an attempt to have your cake and eat it, too. The recognize the pastoral reality and necessity of intercommunion, but are too butt-headed to take the implications to their logical conclusions. One can only assume that this is due to a combination of pride and spritual delusion.

posted 02-14-2001 07:41 PM               

What in God's name happened to you, my friend? Now we are PIGS? And we are losing it? Hmmmm..... You were beginning to be very pleasant and fairminded.

Robert, knowledge of history shows that intercommunion in history happened often. As far as now, well it seems that a Melkite priest concelebrated with your patriarch and other priests about 2 years ago!

Why does your church practive intercommunion with the NON CHALCEDONIANS before it does with the Melkites?! This is illogical since we are both Byznantines, they are not.

Robert, the Assyrian Church of the East has the best policy: all Christians that believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ should be invited. This will bring union. God I am so relativist becuase I believe us to be both right!!! We are just all psychos!!!

posted 02-14-2001 08:57 PM            

This is a very different situation from that of 'heretics' who were considered totally outside the Church because of a denial of one or more elements of the deposit of the faith.

Orthodox have always been considered 'schismatics' because they were not part of the administrative structure of the 'Catholic Church', but not heretics. Thus, a Catholic person who was in danger of death (for some reason, it was always: 'in periculo mortis') could confess to an Orthodox priest, receive Eucharist, and accept the 'last rites' both licitly and validly. And not jeopardize his chance of making it into heaven.

Thus, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., because they were doctrinally separate and heretical, were not admitted to Catholic sacraments, ever. For Orthodox, being 'merely' schismatic, the rule was different: they could receive the sacraments because they were considered 'members of the Church in an irregular status'.

But I think that Stuart is right; the regulations and canons were more honored in the breach. Folks living cheek-to-jowl have a tendency to not harbor rancor. This was true with the Greeks in Italy or in the Near East, and with the Syrians in the Near East. When you're living in an Ottoman state, your Christian neighbors become less of a threat. Venice, for example, harbored a very large Greek population, especially in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries; it was the one 'nearby' place where they could get an education and live in peace without the T-- people being all over them. (In fact, most of the Greek Orthodox service books over these centuries were printed in Venice.)

So, the Orthodox hold a special place in Roman Catholic theology: schismatics, not heretics.

For erstwhile Roman Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy, it appears that they are considered to be leaving the fullness of the Church. But they are NOT leaving the Church -- 'late dictum'.

The new Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches makes this quite clear: "A member of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church is to be received into the Catholic Church with only the profession of the Catholic faith, after doctrinal and spiritual preparation accoring to each one's condition." Canon 897.

For clergy, Canon 899: "The cleric of an Eastern non-Catholic Church entering into full communion with the Catholic Church can exercise his own sacred order according to the norms established by the competent authority; a bishop cannot validly exercise the power of governance except with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops."

Notice "entering into FULL communion....", and there is no question of re-doing the sacraments, including holy orders. Thus, schismatics are a totally different breed of cat from heretics. From the Roman perspective, Orthodox ARE members of the Church, but in a special status.

Excommunicated from 'valid' sacraments, their own or 'ours'. NO. Excommunicated from 'licit' Catholic sacraments, sorta-kinda, but in reality of circumstances, no.

From the Orthodox perspective, it appears to me that a very similar circumstance is true. Especially among the ethnics in the old countries. Some of the 'newly arrived' in America, by using Western models of ecclesiology, have serious problems with this concept. They seem to believe that unless one is 'administratively' Orthodox, then one is heretical and doomed to an eternity in hell. Thankfully, there are more of the 'ethnic types' around in America than the 'newly arrived'.

posted 02-15-2001 01:53 AM            

Anastasios is correct on one point. Speaking from my own experience, non-chalcedonians are permitted by the Orthodox to take communion. In Lebanon, many hire Ethiopians for housework and a local Orthodox church I know of was half packed with Ethiopians who were permitted to receive the Mystery, while the priests would not have been so leniant with the Melkites. Ya eib'ish'uum aleikum ya rum :-)

Some Melkites and Orthodox do have a tendency to practice intercommunion (especially in Syria where the Byzantine Rites predominate and intermarrying is much more common), though I'm sure this would be unknown to most priests. It's the Maronites (special emphasis) and members of other Eastern churches that wouldn't think of communing with the Orthodox, even if they were given the chance and permission to do so.

posted 02-15-2001 06:13 AM            

>Especially for jurisdiction invasion

This coming from the fellow who has a liking for Patriarch Sabah more than I do. :-)

The Latin Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch were unwarranted and provocative to say the least, and had no business being established. What a certain crusader did in torturing the Patriarch of Antioch is reminder enough of what the Eastern Church had to go through.

>and for the creation of the Melkites and >Marionites.

While both of our churches do well to reflect on the time and circumstances of the split, as a Melkite, I don't harbor such a sentiment, though relations with Rome was no ideal bed of roses.

"The type of intercommunion that occurs in Syria/Lebanon between the Syrian and Antiochian Orthodox has not been proclaimed officially yet. But that is where I hear about this intercommunion only."

In all cases, whether such activity is official or unofficial, the question that still presents itself is why such an emerging disposition towards the members of these churches continues to grow more prominent. I can't begin to fathom how the question of the papacy presents a barrier that is more difficult to breach or that poses as an obstacle of more serious consequence than that of a denial of Chalcedon and subsequent Oecuminical Councils. As Antiochian and Jerusalemite Orthodox and Catholic Byzantines, aside from participating in the same spiritual patrimony, we in meaning share the common title "Melkite", in that we upheld Chalcedon and fought against those churches that not only rejected the Council, but that sided with the Muslims. I find it quite paradoxical how there can be any consideration on behalf of the Orthodox to deem non-C's fraternally close enough to take communion while we "Rum Katoleek" are strictly prohibited. That to me is the epitome of irony.

I personally do not favor intercommunion for the simple reason that I recognize it to be a sign of a restored full unity that has yet to be realized, and for which we have yet to acquire sufficient charity to successfully accomplish.

As for the Maronites (unique in their Roman zealotry) and other Oriental Orthodox and Catholics, the anti-Orthodox sympathy that characterizes them can't be pinned down entirely on Rome either. Half of the Maronites' history is dependant on their allegiance with the papacy, but their Catholic pride is matched, probably even surpassed by their nationalist and ethnic
loyalty and fervor. This wholesale dedication to country, history, and past is so extreme that non-Maronites, even Catholics, consider them an annoying prejudiced lot. (Syrians naturally can't stand them.) As for the other churches' cases, their anti-Greek, anti-Byzantine impulses stem from a distant past we are all familiar with, harboring enough contempt to have helped the Muslims, become relieved with the arrivals of the Crusaders and the start of their reign, and to have even aided them as the Armenians and the Maronites did.
These churches long had a bone to pick with us since before Roman proselytism stepped into the picture.

In IC XC
Samer

posted 02-15-2001 09:25 AM               

I wanted to address StuartK's initial posting regarding the situation in Ukraine in the aftermath of 1946 when the Ukrainian Catholic Church was integrated with the Russian Orthodox Church.

It is true that those Priests who signed the 1946 union document were able to return to their parishes where they continued to minister to their faithful.

Many Ukrainian Catholics went over to the Roman Catholic Church and, over the generations, the Roman Rite became their home. Today, the Ukrainian Roman Catholics continue and would not consider "returning" to the Eastern Catholic Church.

As my grandfather told me, people in his village would, obviously, take Holy Communion from him. But they often refused to go to Communion to the visiting Russian Orthodox bishop.

Also, the fact is that many people brought up under communism saw a Church as a Church, regardless of the underground Church and other forms of resistance. The same is true today. For many young people it is not that the arguments among Catholics and Orthodox upset them. It is simply because confessional differences are largely irrelevant to them. Having a Church that is fully "Ukrainian" rather than anything else may be more of a concern for some.

I also have a cousin who is an Orthodox Priest in Russia and holds a doctorate from the Moscow Academy. He does consider himself a Catholic though.

Throughout the pre-Gorbachev years, he said that his motto was always, "I don't teach that the Pope is or is not the Head of the Church. I know I must watch out for my own head . . ."

Ultimately, local practices notwithstanding, intercommunion represents a falling away from the Scriptural view that those participating in Communion are One in the One Body of Christ they receive. Anything less than this ideal is wrong and our Orthodox Brothers are absolutely correct in maintaining what is the historic position of the One Holy Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

My Orthodox Friends, I love you!

Alex

posted 02-15-2001 12:56 PM            

I on the other hand am so parched for the union of the Church that I wouldn't want to intercommune and drink from the same chalice with our Orthodox brethren except on that day when we are finally in a state of full and true unity. I would rather drink from that genuinely sweet cup regardless of the time it takes us or successive generations to wait, than surrender to a mirage and acknowledge a oneness that does not yet exist. This prohibition, contrary to the view of most, is a confession of love and a proclamation of rightful aspirations to continue to work for and attain a full reunion. I see all this as a unique Lenten period preceding the time when that divinely-ordained quest will finally be completed.

Alex, your trove of Christian charity is a precious grace, my friend. I echo your final sentiments of love to our Orthodox brethren.

posted 02-15-2001 01:03 PM               

May our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ unite us all in intimate union with Him, the Father and the Holy Spirit!

posted 02-15-2001 02:25 PM               

And how, precisely, are the Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholics NOT one? Do we not profess the same Lord, God, and Savior? Do we not share the same spirituality, theology and liturgy? Do we not recognize the Chalice as bearing the Body and Blood of Christ? Other than what can only be described as a POLITICAL dispute about ecclesial precedence, on WHAT, pray tell, do we disagree that is fundamental to the Apostolic Faith?

posted 02-15-2001 02:31 PM               

The question you raise is very interesting.

During the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox conferences, it was discovered that the only thing that separated those two families of Churches was the misinterpretation of one single word regarding the Nature of Christ.

But even if two Churches, separated from one another, came to the same understanding of the faith, they would still be in schism, unless they consciously re-entered full Communion with one another.

The Conferences discussed a number of ways this could be done e.g. signing of documents simultaneously by all Churches, simultaneous lifting of anathemas on their respective teachers and Saints etc.

I'm no theologian. But it would seem that full Communion between Churches is something that is accomplished in the Sacramental sphere (and I'm not talking about intercommunion), rather than in the intellectual sphere on the level of theological agreement.

I think this is the Orthodox perspective. The other is the Roman Catholic. The two will still not meet.

God bless,

posted 02-15-2001 03:10 PM               

This is a very reasonable Byzantine Catholic point of view.

The Roman Catholics, of course, take a different view. Time and again, the Roman Catholics reaffirm that their own views on this "political dispute" are tantamount to theology. This is not an old-hat view, either, but has been restated recently on several occasions, including (1) the Melkite attempt at double-communion (based on the premise in your note) that was brushed off by Rome on the grounds that there was no unity of faith and (2) the statement in CDF's "Dominus Iesus" to the effect that the Orthodox Churches are defective because they do not confess the same truth as the Roman Catholics do regarding the Pope.

Rome says that is ecclesiological views are essential to the faith -- that they are "de fide". Orthodoxy denies that, and denies the truth of those views (at least when stated expansively, as they are in Pastor Aeternus or even the CCC, for example). Rome recognizes that disagreement exists on this, as the three curials pointed out to former Melkite Patriarch Maximos V, and itself sees this disagreement as being a disagreement about faith.

I really wish it were not so, but regrettably it is.

posted 02-15-2001 05:05 PM               

Depends on which Roman Catholics you ask. I suspect that there would be more of the laity taking that position than either clergy or trained theologians, most of whom recognize the historical-cultural roots of the schism, and the relatively tangential aspect that real theology played in it. Thus, we have a conundrum: much of the Roman Catholic hierarchy is far more advanced ecumenically than either the lower clergy or the people. And even though the Roman Church is very much a "top-down" organization, tacit recognition of this fact prevents the hierarchy from making more aggressive overtures than it otherwise might; e.g., in renunciation of the Filioque (which has largely been rendered optional in vernacular celebrations). This is just the reverse of the Byzantine Catholic situation, where the laity seem to be (on generational lines) much more open to the Orthodox than many of the hierarchy.

>>>This is not an old-hat view, either, but has been restated recently on several occasions, including (1) the
Melkite attempt at double-communion (based on the premise in your note) that was brushed off by Rome on the grounds that there was no
unity of faith and (2) the statement in CDF's "Dominus Iesus" to the effect that the Orthodox Churches are defective because they do not
confess the same truth as the Roman Catholics do regarding the Pope.<<<

What is interesting about Dominius Iesus is that it actually had NOTHING to do with the Orthodox Church, or any of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome. It was written as a rebuke to certain Roman Catholic theologians in India who, in attempting to inculturate the Church and make it more palatable to Hindus (that there are actually indigenous Indian Churches that have been doing this for years never occured to these guys!) got themselves onto some very thin Christological ice. The document was intended to be a restatement of the normative Christology of the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church, yet somehow became mired down in ecclesiology (I think to deal with the "all religions are equal" syndrome) using language that, had the CDF consulted with the Commission on Promoting Christian Unity, would not have been used. Oh, well. . . Water under the Tiber bridges, I suppose.

In regard to the Melkite initiative, it seems that His Beatitude, Patriarch Gregory III (Eis pola eti!) didn't take the hint, but restated the Melkite Church's determination to reunify the Byzantine Church of Antioch--with or without Rome's assent. So, Rome has a bit of a problem, here.

>>>Rome says that is ecclesiological views are essential to the faith -- that they are "de fide". <<<