I have been quietly reading the many posts in this forum - sometimes with wonder and awe, sometimes with anger and frustration especially when ideas presented don't match one's own - But over all, quite interesting and enlightening.

It is quite interesting to note that some still take the position that Orthodox and Roman Catholics are at odds with one another. While others, emphasize the close bond that exists between them. Except perhaps for the Filioque question (if there is any indication on where the Catholic Church is with regards to this question: The preamble of the document Iesus Dominus - a document which the Pope recently defended)and the exercise of the primacy of Peter, what else of importance that is preventing us from being one church? It is this close bond that we should promote and celebrate at all times - especially in the Eucharistic Table. It may come as a surprise to some that in the NCCB answer to the question of who could receive communion, NCCB says, "members of the Orthodox Churches and the Polish National Catholic Churches share a more intimate bond with us, however. They may receive the Eucharist when they ask for it and they are properly disposed (cf. Canon 844)." And again, "The Eastern Churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy. A certain communion in sacris...is not only merely possible but is encouraged." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1399) Certainly, there is much to be desired - much education is needed. I wonder if the Orthodox Church have a similar position.

Dear Brother, Mark

Christ is with us!

As far as I understand it, Orthodox are not allowed by Orthodox Bishops to partake of the Divine Mysteries in the Roman Catholic or Byzantine Catholic Churchws at this time. The Eastern Orthodox feel that until there is complete agreement about the matters of faith, there can not yet be full communion of the cup. The discussions as the Orthodox view them are a point by point dtermination of agreement---when all points of faith are in agreement, then there will be intercommunion with the churches now in communion with the Pope, as Patriarch of Rome, as there is intercommunion among all the Orthodox Christians falling under the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs.

A priest once told me that one can not sit together at the table of the Lord until one is in full agreement as to what it means---that is what full communion or union means. This does not mean that eastern Orthodox Christians are not working towards that union but that we are not at that point yet.

We pray at every service that we may all be one, as the Father and the Son are one.

I remain your brother in Christ,
Thomas

I think we all pray for the time when we can eat at the same Table.

Meantime, that inconvenient business about being in one accord... That we profane the Eucharist if we receive and are not at peace with one another... How many of us and our parishes have a "little problem" there??

CERTAINLY not MY parish!


Dang that plank, can't seem to see straight..


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com


BTW - nice to see you again, Fr. Mark. It's lovely when you pop in.



[This message has been edited by Sharon Mech (edited 10-09-2000).]

Am I alone in the belief that intercommunion is as much about love, as 'agreement'? Our minds are such finite and puzzling things, agreement is not a biblical precept, in the way that love is.

Though some Orthodox Churches have been in 'more or less' official schism for centuries, and the regulation of communion 'more or less emphatically instructed upon the faithful; this is a discipline which has never been (and still is not) observed completely. For me, I give thanks.

Elias, monk

[This message has been edited by Monk Elias (edited 10-09-2000).]

Dear Monk Elias,
Intercommunion is true between your church and the Roman Catholic Church. You call it love! I don't see an "agreement" on the unity of the faith. You have what I would call Organizational Unity in contrast to Unity in the Faith. Why aren't the Orthodox on their knees begging for communion with Rome? Is it because they are arrogant or stubborn or misguided or fanatical? I would be interested in hearing your response as to why there is no communion with the Orthodox. Are the Orthodox wrong from abstaining from communion with Rome? Does anyone think it is or should be that easy to take communion when there is no unity in the Faith? What would be the basis for communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church? Love? What kind of love? Is it based on the unity of the Faith? If it is not based on the unity of the Faith there cannot be true & complete love. Reading Ephesians 4 should provide the answer should you have another answer.

>Why aren't the Orthodox on their knees begging for communion with Rome? <

All of us, Orthodox and Catholic, should be on our knees begging Christ for the forgiveness of our sins which continue to keep us apart. Unity of faith cannot be separated from knowledge of the Son of God.

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving to all of you!

Thanks Sharon for your words of welcome. I wasn't really away...I have been silently and prayerfully reading all the postings in this forum. I have learned so much. Thanks for all your contributions.

I have to admit my seminary formation was very much wanting. The Eastern Church was rarely mentioned - and even in those rare moments - it was always in passing. When one comes from a country that is 85% Roman Catholic, I guess there was no need to do so. But of course, this is not right. My first encounter of the Eastern Church was in Toronto. My uncle and I were driving around the city when we decided to stop at a Ukrainian Catholic Church. There was a sense of familiarity and a sense of strangeness to the whole experience inside that beautiful church. As a curious tourist, I peeped into the sacristy where I saw a priest go in. To my utter surprise was a picture of Pope John Paul II. God surprised me that day, I tell you.

Then I met someone who was kind enough to invite me to their parish feast day. The Eparch was coming to preside at the Divine Liturgy. Thank God, I went. The liturgy left a very deep impression. I am actually amazed how I was able to stand for almost three hours considering Sunday is always a long day for me. I usually preside and preach at three Holy Masses for a community of twenty five hundred registered families.

I went back to that parish church one saturday afternoon. It was Vespers. The experience was magnificent. I congratulate the pastor of that church. He really did a fine job in teaching his congregation to chant - considering too that most of the people I encountered there that day were young men and women. The church by the way had no pews and seems to have no electricity. The books were on two huge stands one for the women and another for the men. They were singing vespers with just the candles flickering while the sun was setting. Reminds me of the days I was in the monastery when I thought I had the vocation of a monk.

But the crowning moment of my introduction to the church of the east is when I was invited to concelebrate at the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Vested in my own tradition celebrating the Eucharist with a brother of another tradition. Thank God for the brother-priest who was so hospitable to me - showing me the ropes as we went along celebrating the Divine Liturgy. He even encouraged me to chant the intercessions - even though I was unfamiliar with Byzantine Chants.

As God was opening new horizons for me, I began to meet people in my own parish who are either married to Byzantine Catholics, Byzantine Catholics who have chosen to worship with us, and even Orthodox Christians (new immigrants who came to our church on sundays temporarily while looking for a place to settle down)...even my housekeeper was a Macedonian Orthodox. Too bad, I lost her because of a surgery gone awry. She was a beautiful soul. I will never forget those times at the dinner table when she crossed herself in the Byzantine manner.

A mother came me to one day asking me if I could baptize her baby. She was a Russian Orthodox. I immediately told her to go to her own church. Proselytism, to my mind, is my greatest nightmare. At first, she tried to persuade me that it is the same thing. Of course, I knew that. But then after further conversation, I discovered that she wanted so much to send her child to a catholic school and in Ontario, our catholic schools are subsidized by the government. It is in principle a school only for Catholics in communion with Rome. I did what I though was best - have the child baptized at her own Russian church and registered him also in the books of my parish (with the consent of the mother of course)- should any question arise later on. I am not at all certain whether this is the right thing to do but I did it any way (hopefully, it wouldn't cost me my job). Then I wrote the school asking them to accept the child as a Catholic. What else should I have done? This is just one of the pastoral questions that I am faced with in my parish community these days. Pray and counsel me.

Fr. Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark Villanueva (edited 10-09-2000).]

Father Mark,

From your description, I am assuming that you innocently found yourself surrounded by the glories of Byzantium at St. Elias in Brampton, where Fr. Roman Galadza is pastor?? Hooo boy! Sounds like the Holy Spirit's been taking you on a little tour... (He's the best guide, ya know.) Enjoy. BTW, we had a couple Russian and Greek Orthodox families in our parish for awhile. As has been stated earlier, it doesn't appear to be a problem from the Catholic POV, but as our brother Robert will remind us, the Orthodox Churches do not necessarily agree. It sounds as though you handled the baptism & school issue with great sensitivity and charity.

Fr. Elias - If it isn't about love, our faith is counterfeit. Somehow I'm reminded of marriage. Been married 16 years so far. We agree on most things, but we've never shared a pizza, nor ever will. He seems to think the lovely food I eat is toxic, and I sure ain't gonna touch the icky stuff he likes. Hasn't been a problem. There are lots more important things.


Cheers,


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

[This message has been edited by Sharon Mech (edited 10-10-2000).]

Fr. Mark,

Thank you for your beautiful reflections. My own journey has been somewhat similar. Born and raised as a Latin Catholic, I first encountered the Eastern Church through a man I met in a computer club. As a Russian Orthodox priest (ROCOR) he opened my eyes to the beauty of the east, even inviting me to visit his church. One on occasion he offered me his pulpit! Although we never shared the Eucharist (a great tragedy in itself), we shared a love of God and a respect for each other that spoke volumes to the people of his parish. Sadly, he transferred back east to be near his wife's family, and then she divirced him. His bishop offered him a new assignment, but he wanted to stay near his children so turned it down. He has since remarried, and is therefore no longer able to function as a priest.

Several years ago the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress offered the Divine Liturgy celebrated by the Ruthenians. I was interpreting it for the deaf, and had to learn more about it in order to interpret effectively.

I continued to attend the Divine Liturgy whenever possible (not often due to my load at my Latin parish). Last year, about a year after a Melkite parish moved to my city, they invited our parish to participate in the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul. Dicovering we had a deacon, I was asked to come early to "walk through" the deacon's role!

Well, I guess Fr. James decided I was trainable because he asked me to consider helping him. After prayer and discernment as well as discussion with my pastor and my Latin bishop I agreed. Bishop John (Elya) granted me bi-ritual faculties (it's really easy for deacons!) and I've been serving there ever since. Normally I serve there two Sunday's a month, but this month I'm there every Sunday because the priest who had been assisting is unavailable.

God works in strange and mysterious ways to lead us where He wants us!

Monk Elias:

The Church has always been careful about sharing the Eucharist. Both Catholic and Orthodox see it as a sign of unity rather than a means to unity. Is this the right approach? In humility I cannot answer that and must submit to the judgement of the Church.

Yet, unity is available to us. In terms of the faith, there are virtually no significant differences at all. Those that appear significant are really just opposite sides of the same coin, and can be reconciled. The filioque is clearly not a stumbling block since I would guess it is in the process of disappearing. Cdl. Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus contained the Creed without the filioque, it is omitted in most of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the Holy Father never uses it when he celebrates with the Orthodox or the Eastern Catholic Churches. Even in joint prayer services among Latin Catholics, it tends to be omitted when Protestants are present since this creedal statement is part of their heritage as well.

When our pride ceases to separate us, when we can find ways to understand the differing use of identical terms, then we can begin to heal the wounds of sin and division that separate us.

Jesus was clear that we cannot come to the Eucharist if we have something against our brother. Until reconciliation is achieved, we probably shouldn't be receiving the eucharist in either Catholic or Orthodox Church! However, in our neediness, Jesus feeds and sustains us, even as we refuse to honor his prayer for unity.

Edward, deacon and sinner

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 10-10-2000).]

This is a complicated question and one which can lead to a lot of hurt feelings, I think.

Although this sounds somewhat off the wall, I have heard this issue (i.e., intercommunion before full unity of faith) compared with premarital sex -- if the commitment isn't there, the full and total, *sacramental* commitment to become fully one, actions shouldn't be taken that are really only appropriate if the sacramental commitment is there. Sex prior to marriage is like consummating a union that does not yet exist in reality -- despite one's "love" for one another, one's feelings for one another, one's devotion for one another, etc., prior to marriage one is not sacramentally united to the other in a way such that sexuality is the legitimate and proper fruit, the sign, of that unity, and its consummation.

Intercommunion at a time when each Church teaches that different things are the will of God would be like premarital sex in that it would place the fruits, the sign, the consummation of the union (the Eucharist) before the unity itself which is the source and foundation of the Eucharist. Until such time as the two churches are fully united, fully committed to being one, and of one mind, intercommunion would be premature.

When I first heard that analogy, it ticked me off a good deal. But over time it has made more and more sense to me. It's not about being a "stickler" or being "mean-spirited" as much as it is about being serious about what communion really means, and the unity that we are trying to manifest.

Brendan

I think the "premarital sex" analogy is flawed.

Sex without the covenant of marriage is wrong. Who is there that would say Orthodox and Catholics are not in a covenantal relationship in the Church?

Does the Eucharist in Catholic Churches belong to Rome? In Orthodox Churches does it belong to Constantinople, or Moscow, or Antioch, etc? When I visit Orthodox parishes I respect their discipline--but I do not agree with it. The Eucharist is not theirs.

IMO, the idea that `we can't have intercommunion until we have complete agreement in faith' is more rooted in the `we don't know if your mysteries have grace' mindset than any other reason. It is refreshing to hear Orthodox like Brendan acknowledge the validity of Catholic sacraments (all too infrequent in public forums such as this one). Is there something tainted about the Eucharist in Catholic Churches?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 10-17-2000).]

DTBrown,
It is best that you stay in your own church if you do not appreciate the discipline enforced by the Orthodox on not giving communion to non-Orthodox. It is a closed communion. On the the issue of the Eucharist, then who does it belong to if it does not belong in and to the Orthodox Church? Swines and heretics? It is only the Orthodox Church who has preserved and safeguarded the Traditions that have been handed-down without additions, subtractions and alterations. Especially when it comes to the Eucharist.

>>>IMO, the idea that `we can't have intercommunion until we have complete agreement in faith' is more
rooted in the `we don't know if your mysteries have grace' mindset than any other reason. It is refreshing
to hear Orthodox like Brendan acknowledge the validity of Catholic sacraments (all to infrequent in public
forums such as this). Is there something tainted about the Eucharist in Catholic Churches?<<<

You have hit upon a very important point, which is frequently overlooked in this discussion. That is, if "complete agreement in faith" is taken as the prerequisite for communion, then the Church would never have had communion in the first place. There were always significant differences in emphasis and expression, and sometimes even in the content of faith, among the five ancient Churches. Sometimes these reached the point where ecclesial communion could not be maintained, but more often, such communion continued because the Church of the Fathers had the wisdom to recognize that agreement in faith referred not to the chrome trim of theology, but to the essential chassis and frame--"Who is God? Who is Christ? What is the Eucharist?" Agreement on these broad points was considered sufficient, and great latitude was permitted in filling in the empty spaces according to the Tradition of each particular Church. Thus, e.g., the West's understanding of original sin took on its own unique flavor as far back as the Council of Carthage in 245 (and probably half a century earlier); its understanding of the Trinity was formed by Augustine in the fifth century. These were not insignificant differences, but the Church in its collective wisdom agreed to allow such diversity, recognizing the inadequacy of human thought and language in explaining the awesome mysteries of God.

As long as there was frequent communication between the East and the West, the common basis of the various particular expressions of doctrine could be maintained. Like Maximos the Confessor, an Eastern Christian would know what a Western Christian meant when he said that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son was consistent with the East's expression of procession from the Father, through the Son.

But when communications were interrupted in the 7th century, and contacts became less frequent, mutual comprehension declined, and the Churches actually started to speak different languages (not just in the sense of Latin vs. Greek, but in the sense that words and terms took on different meanings). This led, inevitably, to the kind of estrangement and lack of familiarity with the other that caused all diversity to be labeled as heresy.

Now, talking again after more than 800 years, East and West have to relearn the common language of the Fathers. They have to learn to look beyond the particular expression of doctrine to the basic truths that doctrine attempts to put into words. And they have to agree on where the boundaries lie between what constitutes fundamental unity in faith, and needless uniformity in expression. Can the Catholic Church accept a theology, spirituality and doctrine that are not fundamentally Latin? Can Orthodoxy accept a theology, spirituality and doctrine that are not fundamentally Byzantine? If the answer is yes, then there is hope for the future; if the answer is no, one has to ask whether any Church with so constrained a vision can make any claims to ecumenicity at all.

To Robert,

I would never try to receive the Eucharist in an Orthodox parish unless I was expressly invited to do so. I did receive once in an Assyrian Church (with the blessing of my Catholic pastor and with the express invitation of the Assyrian pastor and his Bishop.)

I will not here take up your challenge that `only Orthodoxy has preserved the Eucharist' and that it belongs (in your view) exclusively to the Orthodox Church. Sadly, I think it does confirm what I was saying in my earlier post about the mindset many Orthodox have.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

DTBrown,
Is the Assyrian Church you took communion a rite of the Roman Church? If not, you cannot see the heresy of relativism at its best. Whether you like it or not, it has been the Orthodox Church who has preserved the Eucharist. It's a fact you should not try to deny. I have no business saying that the Latin's Eucharist embodies grace or not. History and the Catechism are quite clear on who has preserved the Eucharist being "more complete when given under both kinds"(#1390). Think about it before you begin to refute my statement. Vatican II proclaimed the restoration of the Eucharist under both the Body and Blood. BREAD ALONE has been de facto for several centuries. Did something happen five hundred years prior to Vatican II for a Eucharistic restoration to take place in our century? Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church communions to her adherents with the words,"The Body of Christ" only, and people have the option to drink the Blood as if its up to the individual. Explain to me the unity of the Faith between the Byzantine Catholic and Roman Catholic in this odd situation. I await your reply.

Almost correct. The people have the option if the priest gives them the option. The priest can decide not to give wine if he doesn't want to like if there's not enough EMs and it will take too long. I was recently at a Sunday mass at the cathedral downtown and it was bread alone.

Glory to Jesus Christ.

I understand the logic of both sides re: intercommunion and while I like the Catholic approach I respect the Orthodox one too. Just obey your church’s rules wherever you are. If you are at the other side’s Eucharist and hold the belief It has grace, do as traditional Roman Catholics do and make a ‘spiritual Communion’, offering a prayer as if you were receiving.

Arguments about one vs. both species at Communion strike me as, sorry, silly anti-Catholic rhetoric lifted from the Protestants. The Catholic argument of concomitance has this covered. One can hold that the Orthodox way of both species is better (fuller symbolism, as RC documents promoting both-species Communion say) but that doesn’t mean western Catholics have been without the fullness of grace in the Blessed Sacrament for centuries.

Differences like Communion for the laity under one species or leavened vs. unleavened bread aren’t worth perpetuating a schism.

What really bugs me about the attempted reintroduction of both species in the Roman Rite is the way it’s done at too many Novus Ordo churches. Ditto Communion in the hand. The Anglicans, who objectively don’t even have the real Eucharist, do both these things beautifully. Rather than taking the Host in their fingers like a Ritz cracker, they kneel at the altar rail and make a throne for Our Lord with their right palm with the left holding the right hand up, then draw the hands, palms up, to their mouths. The priest or deacon (or sometimes a vested altar server) holds the cup while the communicant sips; the people don’t grab it with both hands and commune themselves. Beautiful and certainly analogous to the reverent Byzantine Rite practice.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus’</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 10-18-2000).]

My dear fellow Rusnak,
The argument I posed "about one vs both species at Communion" is as important as the words that proceeded out of Christ's lips in John 6:53-56. You are playing with fire by bypassing this injunction! Rome, not in union with Orthodoxy, unilaterally decided for BREAD ALONE until the coming of Vatican II. You think it is plain rhetoric but the fact remains that Rome furthered the schism. The issue of azymes is still a serious issue to be dealt with and is far from being moot. However, you would have the audacity to accuse a person as myself of perpetuating division on serious issues. Are you that blind or are you posing as a Roman Catholic in heart & mind? I am the last person to be perpetuating a schism. Then why doesn't Rome do what is right and return to Orthodoxy and practice the Faith as was revealed in the early Church? However, you continue to perpetuate unacceptable justifications on behalf of Rome on the issues I recently raised. Speak the truth or refrain from unjustifiable remarks.
Interestingly enough you mention and compare the Anglicans and Roman Catholics handling of the Eucharist. Maybe the Anglicans believe in the grace of the Eucharist but do not call it transubstantation. Maybe they are right! Or maybe the Reformed and Lutheran Churches are right! Maybe we should confuse the people by inviting them to an open communion and forget the essentials and requirements to being a member of the Christian faith. Watered-down Christianity may be the way to go since its an open & popular market! Okay, I'll stop for now with the foolishness.
Question: where is the unity of the faith in terms of administering the Eucharist when Rome deviated by using Sola Azymes and the Orthodox continued to use artos and wine? Please, I do not want to hear the lame excuse that the lines are too long to administer the Blood in the Roman Church or about illegitimate Eucharistic ministers or the shortages of priests. Keep in mind John 6:53-56.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert Sweiss:
[B]My dear fellow Rusnak,
The argument I posed "about one vs both species at Communion" is as important as ...

Here is something Roman Catholics, both Western and Eastern, should think about long and hard - and that is:
Since the Roman faithful have been sold a bill of goods about the unleavened host being "both the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ", just try to convince a Roman Catholic Priest to say the Mass minus the this wine which supposedly is not necessary. I think Roman Catholics will find to their dispeasure that the priest would dismiss such heretical talk out of line.
The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command, 'Drink ye all of it,' imparted also the holy chalice to all; but the Papal Church from the ninth century downwards has made an innovation in this rite also, by depriving the laity of the holy chalice, contrary to the Lord's command and the unicversal practicve of the ancient kChurch, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient jorthodox bishops of Rome.

Just thinking out loud.

ICIX
NIKA
JoeS

Thanks for all your insights.

As you are all aware by now, I am a pastor of a Latin Parish. Many have said we, Latins, are ignorant of Byzantine faith and spirituality. How can you help us know and understand you? What concrete steps would you suggest us to take? Does anyone have a program to introduce Latin Catholics to the glories of the Eastern Church? Someone suggested to me to invite an Eastern Rite Priest to celebrate the Divine Liturgy at my Church. A kind of "Come and See" experience. This is nice but not enough. We need some sort of catechesis. Has anyone done anything along these lines?

By the way, I have tried reaching out to Eastern Catholics Parishes in my area but there seems to be no interest in reaching out to us. Any suggestions?

Fr. Mark

"Here is something Roman Catholics, both Western and Eastern, should think about long and hard - and that is:
Since the Roman faithful have been sold a bill of goods about the unleavened host being "both the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ",

Uh, no bill of goods at all. Christ is received completely, whether He is received in one specie or two. When as a Roman Catholic, I received the Host alone, I received Christ the Lord. As a Melkite, when I receive under both species, I receive Christ the Lord. No difference in the Reality received. None.

"The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command, 'Drink ye all of it,' imparted also the holy chalice to all; but the Papal Church from the ninth century downwards has made an innovation in this rite also, by depriving the laity of the holy chalice, contrary to the Lord's command and the unicversal practicve of the ancient kChurch, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient jorthodox bishops of Rome."

In which of the Orthodox Churches do the faithful actually "take and drink" from the Chalice? Whence came the spoon?

Vicki Williams (Melkite)


[This message has been edited by Victoria (edited 10-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Victoria (edited 10-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Victoria (edited 10-27-2000).]

Father Mark asks:

>By the way, I have tried reaching out to >Eastern Catholics Parishes in my area but >there seems to be no interest in reaching >out to us. Any suggestions?

Good question. Wish I had a good answer. We have the occasional gang of visitors (Roman Catholic sometimes, but more often Methodists, Lutherans or other Protestants) who come for one Divine Liturgy, ask a few polite questions afterwards, then we never see them again. I suppose that's better than nothing, but it's more like a museum field trip than a banquet of love. The only folks who come "regularly" (two or three times a year) are the seminarians from the Pontifical College Josephinum just up the rosd from us. But you know, we never go see them ('cept as individuals).

We really do need to breathe with both lungs - all of us. We need to encounter one another before we can know one another, and to know one another before we can really speak of love. I think we need to get past the notion that we are self-sufficient.

Father Mark, I don't know what the answer is, but I'm awfully glad that you care enough to ask the question. Keep trying, and most important, keep praying.


Best,


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Fr. Mark wrote:

>>>By the way, I have tried reaching out to >Eastern Catholics Parishes in my area but >there seems to be no interest in reaching >out to us. Any suggestions?<<<

A number of the Latin parishes in our area have their confirmation classes visit us for Divine Liturgy. If you asked, I think that the local Eastern pastors would find that request hard to refuse. It would expose your teenagers to the Eastern Tradition, as well as their teachers and any parents who care to come along. That might be a useful ice-breaker.

I would also suggest cooperation in various charitable and outreach efforts. Do you have a local Right to Life movement in your parish? There may be one in the local Eastern parish as well; combine resources. The same might be said of efforts to provide for the homeless, or the infirm.

Part of the problem is overcoming the feeling of "otherness"; working together is one way of doing that.

Fr. Mark, I wonder if you might be able to have a short educational series on Byzantine spirituality and the Divine Liturgy for your parish.

Although it seems you may have had some challenges in communicating with the Byzantine priests, perhaps with loving persistence on your part, one of the local Eastern Rite priests might agree to give a series of talks outside of Mass to your parishioners. Then, as a "finale" to the series on Byzantine Catholicism, the priest could celebrate the Divine Liturgy at your parish or the parishioners could go to the Byzantine parish for the Divine Liturgy.

Another thought is to include information regarding Byzantine Catholicism in a regular basis in your parish bulletin. This information could range from a few sentences or an entire page, depending upon the interest and available space.

May God bless your efforts!

I like your suggestions. Stu. If I might suggest, another way to overcome the "feeling of otherness" is perhaps some social contacts between the two parishes. Perhaps some softball games or picnics? It helped alleviate some of the tensions between the local Lutheran church I used to attend and the Baptist church.

Pax Christi,
John

Dear Friends,
Glory to Jesus Christ!

On the matter of Intercommunion, I must agree with the Orthodox Church.

Communion represents more than our personal faith in the Real Presence of Christ at the Altar, as we all agree.

Communion expresses our full unity as the Church. The fact is, Catholic theology may accept Orthodox to Communion. For the Orthodox, this would mean that they are in full communion with Rome, which they are not.

We have an ecclesiology based on Vatican II that everyone doesn't accept. Byzantine Catholics are considered outside the fold of the One, Holy Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are considered heretics or else "in union with heresy."

I think that we at least need to respect the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church in this regard and its policy on Intercommunion. We don't have one Church yet and Vatican II ideas on the true Church are just that - Vatican II ideas that not everyone accepts.

The attitude of "we're all the true Church" is not only complacent, it is based on a fallacy and is offensive to Orthodox Christians.

Rather than be condescending toward them, let us respect them for their clarity of commitment. It is that clarity that draws many converts to Orthodoxy!

God bless,

Alex

I totally disagree. The only way this d*** schism is going to end is when people just start receiving in each other's churches. We (catholics and orthodox) ARE all the one true church no matter how any one wants to say we're not. Armenians allow Catholics and Orthodox to intercommune--look how close we have grown. Same with the Syrians and the Assyrians.

We are all in communion with Christ and thus in union with one another. The dogmatic differences would solve themselves if the two churches would intercommune. As long as there is no communion, there will be no dogmatic agreement.

All we have to say is: no one's decisions after the schism are infallible, let's get back together and the rest will take care of itself (or should I say Christ will take care of it).

Theology should not be placed in the service of schism.

The East and West were in communion when all of these problems existed (albeit in their infant stages). There is nothing that can justify continued existence of schism or intercommunion.

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,
Glory to Jesus Christ!

The problem is that the approach to intercommunion is totally at variance with what Orthodox Christianity believes. This understanding will definitely alienate Orthodox Christians, as any will tell you.

I personally have no real problem with your approach. But the Orthodox do and they regard it as a kind of religious relativism to boot.

On the other hand, how truly "Eastern" are we when we profess a notion of Communion that does not believe that we are expressing a fundamental unity that ALREADY exists, and won't be created in the future? The Fathers wouldn't like that very much.

More and more, I see that we Byzantine Catholics are more "Latinized" than we realize on the level of faith. Again, this is how our Orthodox brothers and sisters see us. It is wonderful to be committed to unity, but it is something totally different to be seen to somehow gloss over the real differences that still separate us.

I am just speaking out in a way that I normally don't to questions that have always troubled me.

I do not mean any offense, God forbid. Please feel free to attack at will . . .

God bless,

Alex

"I totally disagree. The only way this d*** schism is going to end is when people just start receiving in each other's churches."

I understand where you're coming from, but this is a Utopian solution. That will *never* happen. It's more constructive to work on ways that are pragmatic -- simply proposing intercommunion and "let's worry about the rest later on, guys" isn't going to work with Orthodoxy, and you know that.

"We are all in communion with Christ and thus in union with one another."

Not all Orthodox believe that, as you know.

"The dogmatic differences would solve themselves if the two churches would intercommune."

I doubt that. How does one solve dogmatic differences by entering into communion with those with whom one disagrees regarding dogma? The reality is that the Roman view would prevail (by default and sheer strength of number) in that scenario, possibly resulting in another separation at some point in time. I understand the impatience with the schism, but the schism is a serious thing and it needs to be healed the right way -- not simply in a "band-aid" sort of way. And, again, the Orthodox would never agree to intercommunion.

"All we have to say is: no one's decisions after the schism are infallible"

Well, that's a good example of something that would be a big problem. Can you imagine the Romans *ever* saying that? I can't, frankly. I can hear them saying "things can be dicussed/developed", but I really can't hear them "officially" saying "hey, the post-schism councils aren't really infallible". You're asking them to do something that is nearly impossible -- rather than simply pursuing the more patient (and, yes, aggravating) path of trying to find ways where these things can be developed to a universal understanding. That takes time -- rushing it solves nothing, in the long run.

Brendan

Which would seem to say that in 1054 the Holy Spirit gave up on the Church and left us to our natural wits. I would hope both Catholics and Orthodox are uncomfortable with that. I know I can't accept it.

K.

Which would seem to say that in 1054 the Holy Spirit gave up on the Church and left us to our natural wits. I would hope both Catholics and Orthodox are uncomfortable with that. I know I can't accept it.

Excellent point, Kurt.

Also, since the split didn’t happen all at once in 1054, when exactly would the Holy Spirit have gone mute?

I agree (no surprise) with Brendan.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus’</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 02-06-2001).]

This is is such a rich thread. Thank you all.

As I understand it we recieive the whole Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. How is it possible to receive less or more of Jesus. The Person is real body, blood, soul, and divinity as the Latin catechism used to say.
When I'm dying, I don't think it'll matter one whit whether His form is one drop from the cup or one crumb of the bread. I will receive the Jesus that I'm going to be with only by His Mercy.

Two species or one is to me a specious argument upon which to focus. Church discipline is fine, but to argue how much of Jesus we receive and in which species seems to miss the point. Jesus is present here truly. I think a sense of wonder should be the predominant thought when we reflect on that. He made us part of His Body through Baptism, all of us. He enters ours through the Eucharist no matter which Church's priest's hands share Him.

So many of you have said as much in a better way. ISTM that we need to recognize Jesus really present in the Thanksgiving in Person and worship Him while we may among all the peoples to whom He presents Himself. "There remain then these three Faith, Hope, and Love; but the greatest of these is Love." 1Cor. 13:13 I find it difficult to see how denying Him to anyone who comes to receive Him is an example of that Love. Church discipline is not why the Church exists IMHO.

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning.

Joy!

While rationally you are pretty much right, Brendan, but I will submit one thing beyond my occasional emotional outburst (which I said in the last post) the fact is that BEFORE the Photian Reunion council, communion between Latins and Greeks was reestablished so that the council would be ecumenical for the whole church--and the Greeks certainly viewed the Latin position as heretical, while the latins viewed Photios as a usurper.

This did not happen at Florence. Perhaps the difference in outcome?

source: Fr. John Meyendorff _Rome, Constantinople, Moscow_

anastasios

Not really, Kurt. Just that all post schism dogmas are merely theological speculation and a continuation of the status quo that existed before the schism. We need to have a meeting of equals at the next council.

anastasios

"fact is that BEFORE the Photian Reunion council, communion between Latins and Greeks was reestablished so that the council would be ecumenical for the whole church--and the Greeks certainly viewed the Latin position as heretical, while the latins viewed Photios as a usurper.
This did not happen at Florence. Perhaps the difference in outcome?"

Okay, I see what you are saying. To me it's a bit of a technical issue (how can you have a council with people outside the Church, right?). I could see that kind of thing perhaps happening immediately prior to a reunion council (let's face it, given the way that this issue is presently being addressed, if and when we get to that point, there probably won't be a whole lot of suspense about what is going to happen at the council) -- but I can't see intercommunion for a long period in *lieu* of a council to definitively affirm the common faith.

Brendan

Dustin,

Can you elaborate on this? I would now read you as proposing that the Holy Spirit's protection has not left the Church but, since the schism, the need has not existed for this protection (each body has gone merrily on its way with the Truth known in 1054). Is it then that the era of Ecumencial Councils is closed. The fundementals of the Christian faith have been defined and this is a closed book?

I think that position has some merit, but I am not sure I have thought it all the way through. It certainly saves us from having to speculate on what must be done to call a new Council.

K.