The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Randy Danielson, TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream, CA_Avgvstinus
5,768 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Randy Danielson), 94 guests, and 41 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,056
Posts414,078
Members5,768
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Quote
Communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians. One of the principle reasons is that communion is not an isolated sacrament, but linked to all the others.


Really? Might I suggest a visit to Damascus?

Fr. Serge

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
Quote
Communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians. One of the principle reasons is that communion is not an isolated sacrament, but linked to all the others.


Really? Might I suggest a visit to Damascus?

Fr. Serge


Christos Voskrese!

I have not been to Syria or Lebanon. What I do know is the dual communion proposal of the Melkites was rejected by both sides for what I think are well founded reasons. Ekonomia may well be exercised at the local level there however, which is true not only of the Melkites but of the Syriac Church. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch actually has a policy in print with the latter group. It has also been noted before that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada for a long time was fairly lax in this regard.

I'm am not going to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do in regards to communion. What I believe is that communion is unity of faith, and it is linked directly to the sacraments of initiation and repentance. Were somebody to tell me they believed what the Orthodox Church teaches, I would not suggest communion, I would repeat the same advice given by Fr. John Matusiak in the link I posted.

What I said earlier is I believe correct; communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians for the reasons I outlined above and most likely some others as well. There are at least three Orthodox priests who post here that I can think of, and any of them are free to step in and correct me.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Originally Posted by AMM
Quote
What I have been saying all along is are we keeping the sheep from the cup of the blood of the Lord because the shepherds can read the fine print on the well? Do you think the fine print should restrict thirsty sheep during a drought? Do you think the sheep understand or care about the fine print?


My wife was at an Episcopal church on Thursday. They offer communion to everyone, no questions asked.


All well and good. Are we comparing Catholic & Orthodox sacraments/mysteries (and their attendant theologies) to Episcopalianism? Where are you going with this one?

For all the possible Anglican theologies that can alternatively (and somewhat conflictingly) be held, as much lip service may be paid to a general concept of "the real presense" or as quick as some to point out that their copy of the BCP has an office of confession (which how many use? which is actually mandated when?) or as much effort is made to claim that their ministers are the same - no different no less - than priests of Catholic or Orthodox churches... Well the comparison seems to fall a bit short. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the idea that not having closed communion in the sense we are talking about here is not exactly one quick short step away from just adopting an Anglican indifferentist status or an attempt at "comprehensiveness" as they might say.

Originally Posted by AMM

Communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians. One of the principle reasons is that communion is not an isolated sacrament, but linked to all the others.

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=107&SID=3


Except for when it is not. For the longest time ACROD pastors were acting under the directive that Greek Catholics at their parishes with family were welcomed to recieve. Antiochian parishes heavily made of up Syrian & Lebanese families with many ties to Melkite, Maronite, or Oriental Orthodox family members frequently don't (or at least did not used to) withhold the chalice from Catholics...

NOTE: WE seem to have been writing at the same time. You hit the "send button" a minute or so before I did.

Last edited by A Simple Sinner; 05/05/08 12:10 PM.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510
X. B!
C. I. X!
Excuse me. Are you saying unlike Western custom of directives coming from the top down in the East this particular decision here come from the local pastor to his territorial parish? If so I can agree. If you are saying the blood of the Lamb is restricted to jurisdictional affiliation not orthodox belief (keeping the fine print for the theologians) then we are discussing clubs not churches.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Quote
All well and good. Are we comparing Catholic & Orthodox sacraments/mysteries (and their attendant theologies) to Episcopalianism? Where are you going with this one?


Christ is Risen!

I think Mykhayl's post was hinting at the idea that the problem of conflicting conciliar traditions regarding the Filioque was a matter of wording and that it does not contribute to the overall scheme of salvation of individuals, and that priority should to go sharing of sacraments which does. Apologies if I misread him.

I was just counterposing with an example of people who believe that any form of dogma or individual disposition (including baptism itself) should never stand in the way of receiving communion, because to them receiving communion is simply the highest priority and trumps all other concerns. I was giving an extreme example, not comparing Catholics to Anglicans.

I myself believe that things like the Filioque, and the conciliar traditions of the church surrounding it, do form a core set of the churches teaching in which there must be agreement in order to have a basis of unified faith, and therefore communion. I may be the Grinch who stole communion for believing this, but it is still my belief.

Quote
Except for when it is not.


I fully acknowledge there are exceptions and local variance, but I don't think anyone would deny that the dispensation of Ekonomia (in this or any other matter) is by nature a deviation or relaxation of accepted or canonical norms. That is why Ekonomia exists though, because the church is a human institution.

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by Epiphanius

Here, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but surely you're not suggesting that the union of Church and state was a phenomenon unique to the West?

Peace,
Deacon Richard


Right. It was not unique to the West. Co-regency of government and religion ... was the way things had been done since Adam.

The Byzantine Empire and church - is another example of co-regency.

When the Roman empire broke up - each fragment considered itself to be the legitimate remains of the empire. Each smaller empire retained co-regency. The Byzantine empire for one ... Russia (with its holy royal family of the Czar) for another, etc... and of course the Western empire (Europe) where one king was appointed (by the Pope) to be the Holy Roman Emperor, etc...

The Dutch were the first (in the West) to tire and be disgusted of wars of religion ... and so to separate government from religion - granting all Dutch real religious freedom. That is why the Dutch revolt against any threats made by any religion. Think ... Mohamed cartoons smile if they didn't give in to the Catholics threats nor the Protestant - what make anyone think they will toe the line for Islamic threats? Nope. Ya just piss em off that way.

So it seems to me.

-ray

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510
X. B!
C. I. X!
Ray,
Are you alluding to the German Pope?

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
B
ByzBob Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Guidelines for the Reception of Communion


These are the guidelines that alluded to in a previous post:

"Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)."

Does anyone know if this is particular to the United States? I would assume that the Vatican knows of the guidelines, and has not objected.


Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
H
BANNED
Junior Member
Offline
BANNED
Junior Member
H
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher


Really? Might I suggest a visit to Damascus?

Fr. Serge


An oft-made claim - but one never substantiated. Have YOU visited Damascus and witnessed such inter-communion? If so: who, what, when and where? I ask so that such deplorable disregard in protecting the Mysteries may be brought to the Patriarch's attention and those involved chastised.

Heracleides


Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 407
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by Heracleides
I ask so that such deplorable disregard in protecting the Mysteries may be brought to the Patriarch's attention and those involved chastised.

Heracleides



You mean the same Patriarch who did this?:
Quote
Ekonomia may well be exercised at the local level there however, which is true not only of the Melkites but of the Syriac Church. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch actually has a policy in print with the latter group.



Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by Mykhayl

Are you alluding to the German Pope?


No.

The west considered itself the remains of the Holy Roman empire - which had broken apart. The Holy Roman emperor held sway over all kings (that was enforced by the Pope). The Pope appointed the emperor. But when the German king appointed himself as emperor - the system was now broken and the Pope had no way to enforce things. Kings were breaking away from the Pope.

From the Holy See's directory of Popes...
Quote

"At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes."


You see bishops did not elects Popes .. the Holy Roman emperor appointed the Pope and a church council (presided over by the emperor) ratified his appointment. This is the 'historical criteria'.

Which council was legitimate?? why the one presided over by the emperor ... of course!

With the emperor now gone - there was no way to tell which council was legitimate. The question of which council was legitimate - had no answer - because with out an emperor to support his chosen Pope (with force if necessary) the bishops could not agree.

Funny how the treat of prison or death for treason ... makes people agree smile

-ray

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
H
BANNED
Junior Member
Offline
BANNED
Junior Member
H
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Mikey Stilts
Originally Posted by Heracleides
I ask so that such deplorable disregard in protecting the Mysteries may be brought to the Patriarch's attention and those involved chastised.

Heracleides



You mean the same Patriarch who did this?:
Quote
Ekonomia may well be exercised at the local level there however, which is true not only of the Melkites but of the Syriac Church. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch actually has a policy in print with the latter group.




Yes - the very same Partiarch. Developing guidelines for possible future intercommunion not yet implemented is not the same as
Fr. Serge and others hinting at unsubstantiated claims of current intercommunion. Again - where's the evidence? Names, dates, & places please.

Quote
"The current patriarch is His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV (Hazim) of Antioch and all the East, elected in 1979. Patriarch Ignatius has been particularly active in strengthening ties with other Christian communions, but particularly with those whose roots are in Antiochian Orthodoxy. To this end, on July 22, 1991, he met with the Syrian ("Jacobite") Antiochian Patriarch, Ignatius Zakka I (Iwas), and the two patriarchs signed a document which called for "complete and mutual respect between the two churches." It also forbade the passing of faithful from one church to the other, envisaged joint meetings of the two Holy Synods when appropriate, and provided (as yet unrealized) guidelines for intercommunion of the faithful and even Eucharistic concelebration by the clergy of the two churches."


Source: http://www.antiochian.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=1

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510
X. B! (Christ is risen!)
C. I. X! (Glory to Jesus Christ)

“I have long contended that the union of Church and state, while appearing to be an ideal situation, has more often than not resulted in the Church's capitulating to the state in order to maintain the illusion of unity, rather than the other way around.” Quote Epiphanius

In the Ukrainian Catholic Weekly AMERICA out of Philadelphia in its May 10 issue is a photo article UKRAINIAN LEADERS CELEBRATE EASTER. Unfortunately I do not have a scanner to share these photos, but it reads;

“On April 27, Eastern rite Christians celebrated Easter. The most revered holiday was also widely celebrated in Ukraine. President Viktor Yushchenko attended several cathedrals of Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek Catholic rites in Kyiv to celebrate with the major denominations. The president was accompanied by his family, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Raisa Bohatyriova. (UNIA/UCCA)”

The photo captions read; “The First Family, Prime Minister Yu. Tymoshenko and National Security and Defense Council Secretary R. Bohatyriova during blessing of Easter baskets (photo: www.pravda.com.ua ).”. And another photo caption read; “President Yushchenko with his [young] son Taras and Patriarch Filaret of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) during Easter services (photo: Press office of the President of Ukraine).”

By the way the First Lady is a Ukrainian Greco Catholic from the US. The President is Orthodox.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Originally Posted by Heracleides
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher


Really? Might I suggest a visit to Damascus?

Fr. Serge


An oft-made claim - but one never substantiated. Have YOU visited Damascus and witnessed such inter-communion? If so: who, what, when and where?


So in turn you could do your own due dilligence and go on a fact finding mission to get to the bottom of things?

Perhaps consider a trip to the mainland and start visiting US Antiochian & Melkite Churches and research about who the members are of each, where they were all baptized, and how they came to be members.

You may be surprised.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
H
BANNED
Junior Member
Offline
BANNED
Junior Member
H
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
I am from the 'mainland' (a term only haole "fresh off the boat" use by the way). I quite know the facts of my Church and they are certainly not as you intimate; but given your background, no surprises there.

Since Fr. Serge has chosen to conveniently remain silent in backing up his claim, perhaps you, as his obviously knowledgeable fellow Byzantine Catholic, could be so kind as to inform this ignorant Antiochian Orthodox as to dates, names, and places in Damascus (or elsewhere for that matter) where these supposed instances of intercommunion have occurred (routinely or otherwise)?

I early await your factual surprise.
.

Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5