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.