Note: I am posting this VIS article since it addresses the Eucharist as the source of unity in the Church. While the article does not provide much information for discussion it would be interesting if someone had the time to research the Holy Father's writings on the Eucharist as a model of unity for a greater discussion of this model for the reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The Eucharist: Source of Unity in The Church

VATICAN CITY, NOV 6, 2002 (VIS) - Early last evening the Holy Father received participants in the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses, who have been reflecting upon the theme of the next congress, "The Eucharist, Light and Life of the New Millennium," which will take place in October of 2004 in Guadalajara, Mexico.

The Pope recalled that the main objective of the committee is "'to make the Lord Jesus known and loved better in His Eucharistic mystery, center of the life of the Church and its mission for the salvation of the world'," as well as to promote international Eucharistic congresses periodically and to foster initiatives to increased devotion to the Eucharist.

The Eucharistic congresses are, he said, "a celebration of faith centered on Eucharistic Christ, in which the faithful, not only from a particular Church or one nation but also from many parts of the world, participate. The Church gathers around her Lord and her God."

In this sense, John Paul II continued, "the work of national delegates, who have been appointed by the respective authorities of Churches in the East and West, is more important than ever. They are called to sensitize their Churches to the theme of the international congress, especially
during the period of preparation, so that it may be a source from which the fruits of life and communion flow in the specific Churches."

After emphasizing that the "Eucharist is a source of unity in the Church," the Pope said that the participation of the faithful from different places at an international Eucharistic congress "symbolizes unity and communion."

"The Eucharistic apostolate to which you dedicate yourselves with all your energies," he concluded, "is surely a response to the Lord's invitation: 'Duc in altum!' Persevere in it with commitment and passion, encouraging and spreading Eucharistic devotion in all your expressions."

AC/EUCHARISTIC CONGRESSES/... VIS 20021106 (310)

It's a good topic to raise...as the Eucharist being the source of unity.

Now...exactly what and who is Eucharist? It is God...He is God Jesus Christ.

It just makes me ill to see both Catholic and Orthodox Churches, bishops and priests NOT allowing to receive at each other's Churches.

It is as if the Church (including bishops and priests) "OWN" Jesus Christ. NOBODY OWNS Jesus Christ as if He is a "property." COME ON!

I always ask the priest of the Orthodox Church...do you "OWN" Jesus as a property? He'd say, "NO." Then I say, "Why then aren't you giving Him to me in Communion." They never answer me.

NOBODY on Earth have that right to do that. If one is in state of grace, fully confessed all his/her sins...then one is qualified for Holy Communion provided that he/she is baptized in a valid Sacrament (which Both Catholic and Orthodox have..not Protestants).

COME ON! Of course it is THROUGH Jesus Christ...IN Jesus Christ in the form of earthly bread and wine...is the TRUE HEALING of a 1,000 year old schism!!! If we would allow each other to receive Jesus in each others Churches...then it is PROMISED that the schism will be healed! As Jesus Christ is the true healer and He is the true Groom whom He will heal His Bride.

But noooooooo....we allow our human pride get in the way!!! There are lack of love and forgiveness from each other!!!

Oh Please! I'm just trying to think positive as my stomach is turning sour thinking about it.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

I have two differing opinions on the matter.

Firstly, the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and since the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are separated, it would be deceitful for them to dispense the Eucharist to the other Church's faithful; almost pretending that a unity is there when it truly is not.

Secondly, perhaps if both Churches would offer communion to the other's faithful, the grace that is given in the Eucharist would lead to mutual understanding and reconciliation. Who knows?

I know that this has been oft repeated before, but the division of Christiniaty is a mockery of God, pure and simple. If we could reunite, imagine what HUGE numbers would convert to Christianity! Putting myself in a non-Christian's shoes and looking in on our glorious religion, I find Christian division very distasteful and unattractive, but that should go without saying.

Let us all pray earnestly for all of Christendom to be reunited.

ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen:

I might have misunderstood you but I wish to re-iterate here what I have posted a while ago on intercommunion:

The (Roman) Catholic Church does not object to the reception of communion (from catholic priests)by Christians of ALL the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church.(Based on Section 3 of Canon 844, 1983 Code of Canons of the Catholic Church.)

This forms part of the "Guidelines for the Reception of Communion" printed in all misallettes in use throughout the U.S., and throughout the world.

AmdG

Dear Amado:

These "Guidelines for the Reception of Communion", I do not care who edited them, are contrary to the II Vatican Council and the Canon Law (of the eastern catholic Churches):

DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES
OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM

RELATIONS WITH THE BRETHREN OF THE SEPARATED CHURCHES

24. The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have a special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, in accordance with the principles of the decree, "About Ecumenism," of this Sacred Council, by prayer in the first place, and by the example of their lives, by religious fidelity to the ancient Eastern traditions, by a greater knowledge of each other, by collaboration and a brotherly regard for objects and feelings.(29)

25. If any separated Eastern Christian should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands. Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority.(30)

26. Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.(32) On the other hand, pastoral experience shows clearly that, as regards our Eastern brethren, there should be taken into consideration the different cases of individuals, where neither the unity of the Church is hurt nor are verified the dangers that must be avoided, but where the needs of the salvation of souls and their spiritual good are impelling motives. For that reason the Catholic Church has always adopted and now adopts rather a mild policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians, through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and things. With this in mind, "lest because of the harshness of our judgment we be an obstacle to those seeking salvation" (31) and in order more and more to promote union with the Eastern Churches separated from us, the Sacred Council lays down the following policy.

27. Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible.(33)

28. Further, given the same principles, common participation by Catholics with their Eastern separated brethren in sacred functions, things and places is allowed for a just cause.(34)

29. This conciliatory policy with regard to "communicatio in sacris" (participation in things sacred) with the brethren of the separated Eastern Churches is put into the care and control of the local hierarchs, in order that, by combined counsel among themselves and, if need be, after consultation also with the hierarchs of the separated churches, they may by timely and effective regulations and norms direct the relations among Christians.

CODE OF CANON LAW EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES
Can. 670 - § 1. Christifideles catholici iusta de causa adesse possunt cultui divino aliorum christianorum et in eo partem habere servatis eis, quae habita ratione gradus communionis cum Ecclesia catholica ab Episcopo eparchiali aut ab auctoritate superiore statuta sunt. § 2. Si christianis acatholicis desunt loca, in quibus cultum divinum digne celebrent, Episcopus eparchialis usum aedificii catholici vel coemeterii vel ecclesiae concedere potest ad normam iuris particularis propriae Ecclesiae sui iuris.

Can. 671 - § 1. Ministri catholici sacramenta licite solis christifidelibus catholicis ministrant, qui pariter eadem a solis ministris catholicis licite suscipiunt. § 2. Si vero necessitas id postulat aut vera spiritualis utilitas id suadet et dummodo periculum vitetur erroris vel indifferentismi licet, christifidelibus catholicis, quibus physice aut moraliter impossibile est accedere ad ministrum catholicum, sacramenta paenitentiae, Eucharistiae et unctionis infirmorum suscipere a ministris acatholicis, in quorum Ecclesiis valida exsistunt praedicta sacramenta. § 3. Item ministri catholici licite sacramenta paenitentiae, Eucharistiae et unctionis infirmorum ministrant christifidelibus Ecclesiarum orientalium, quae plenam communionem cum Ecclesia catholica non habent, si sua sponte id petunt et rite sunt dipositi; quod etiam valet circa christifideles aliarum Ecclesiarum, quae iudicio Sedis Apostolicae, ad sacramenta quod attinet, in pari condicione ac praedictae Ecclesiae orientales versantur. § 4. Si vero adest periculum mortis aut de iudicio Episcopi eparchialis aut Synodi Episcoporum Ecclesiae patriarchalis vel Consilii Hierarcharum alia urget gravis necessitas, ministri catholici licite eadem sacramenta ministrant ceteris quoque christianis plenam communionem cum Ecclesia catholica non habentibus, qui ad ministrum propriae Communitatis ecclesialis accedere non possunt atque sua sponte id petunt, dummodo circa eadem sacramenta fidem manifestent fidei Ecclesiae catholicae consentaneam et rite sint dispositi. § 5. Pro casibus, de quibus in §§ 2, 3 et 4, normae iuris particularis ne ferantur nisi post consultationem cum auctoritate competenti saltem locali Ecclesiae vel Communitatis ecclesialis acatholicae, cuius interest.

When have the Orthodox, Assyrian and Polish National Churches come into the communion with the Roman See? That is real Ecumenism or are they pulling our and their legs?

Yours in Christ,
Francisco

I disagree, Francisco. I do not see how the Guidelines are contrary to either Canon Law or Vatican II. I believe it is an honest and canonical attempt to start the healing process with ligitimate Apostolic congregations.

Dmitri

I believe the guidelines that Amado posted are appended, as well, with something like "Christians of these confessions should follow the guidelines of their own church".

Dear Francisco:

I believe you misunderstood me.

My post was about receiving the Holy Eucharist, physically, during Communion in a Roman Mass.

I am not talking about the re-union among the Apostolic churches.

I am just pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church allows, or does not object, for Christians of Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church to receive the Holy Eucharist during communion in a Latin Mass.

The reverse is not true as far as many Orthodox Churches are concerned. We, Catholics, cannot just go and receive the Holy Eucharist during communion in a Divine Liturgy, although the Catholic Church allows us to do so where there is no Catholic Church around.

In sum, Catholics are more "ecumenical" as far as the reception of the Holy Eucharist by non-Catholics is concerned.

Intiendes, Sr. Don Francisco?

AmdG

Dear Dmitri, Dear Amado Guerrero,

The Canon Law (of the Eastern Catholic Churches) clearly states that "Ministri catholici sacramenta licite solis christifidelibus catholicis ministrant, qui pariter eadem a solis ministris catholicis licite suscipiunt” i. e. “Catholic ministers are allowed (licite) to administrate the sacraments only to the Catholic Christian faithful, who in the same way are allowed (licite) to receive the same sacraments only from the Catholic ministers”. That's the expression of the ecclesiology and canonical tradition of both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism”. The “communio in sacris” is the expression of the perfect ecclesiastic communion not a way to achieve it. Did the “communion in sacris” drive our Protestant brothers (Anglicans, Lutherans) to the unity? Certainly, not. Ecclesiastic Communion>Eucharistic Communion and not Eucharistic Communion> Ecclesiastic Communion used to be the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church but things change too quickly in Rome. Who knows? I understand that when the Catholic Church allows our Orthodox brothers to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church although the Orthodox Church does not allow her members to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Churches she is allowing or driving our Orthodox brothers to disobey their Church. “Disobedience” and “indifferentism” are two powerful proselytistic means (the II Vatican Council with its “healthy” ecclesiology did strongly condemn both “indifferentism” and “disbedience”: “Common participation in worship which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law”). What is, then, the different between “Eucharistic hospitality“ and “Eucharistic hospitality used with proselytistic purposes“? I consider that it is not only possible but also a good thing to allow our Orthodox brothers to receive the holy sacraments in the Catholic Church only when it is physically or morally impossible for them to receive these sacraments from an Orthodox priest after telling them about the official teaching of their Church about “communio in sacris” and after giving them the address and telephone number of the nearest Orthodox priest. If we do not do so we are not being loyal with our “Sister Church”. In sum, I desagree with Amado's statement that “Catholics are more "ecumenical" as far as the reception of the Holy Eucharist by non-Catholics is concerned” for two reasons:1) the Catholic Church strongly condemn the “communio in sacris”
“which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism” and allows the members of the Orthodox Church to receive the sacramnts in the Catholic Church only under special circunstances and for pastoral reasons (not theological not canonical); and 2) I do not if these “new rules” about “communio in sacris” in the Catholic Church have got “ecumenical” or “proselytistic” purposes.

Sigo sin entender

Yours in Christ,
Francisco

Francisco,

Again, although I understand your point, I do not think that the exception was done for the reasons you state. By allowing the Orthodox to receive in our Churches (if they choose and based on their beliefs) it is not proselytising unless there is an honest attempt to teach the Catholic Faith over that of the Orthodox in that communion.
As I see it, it opens up a situation such as is had by the Italo-Albanese. They are welcome to the Holy Mysteries in both Catholic and Orthodox churches although they are very much Catholic. On the other hand, Catholics are permitted by the Episcapalians (Anglicans) to receive in their churches yet few would dare.
Personnally, I don't see many Orthodox running to the local Catholic Church (Byzantine or otherwise) to receive anyway. I must say, however, that I do feel it is an insult to the Orthodox at some level as I do not believe they were consulted in this decision.
Perhaps, the Vatican and the EP and others should really sit down to talk about this. I could be the starting point of a new dialogue.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us and protect us from strife.

Dmitri

Dear Dmitri,

I am very happy that you can see my point (to promote “indifferentism” and “disobedience” among our Orthodox brothers towards the teaching and the canon law of their Church about “communio in sacris” is not “ecumenical” at all and it is clearly contrary to a healthy ecclesiology and Christian charity) as you say “I do feel it is an insult to the Orthodox at some level as I do not believe they were consulted in this decision”.

You say “They (Italo-Albanese) are welcome to the Holy Mysteries in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches although they are very much Catholic”. As far as I know the Orthodox Church does not practice the “communion in sacris” with the Italo-Albanese Byzantine Catholics). Historically speaking “intercommunion” between Catholics and Orthodox was practiced also in the Greek islands under Venetian domination (during these periods our Orthodox brothers were under the jurisdiction of the Latin bishops as far as they have not the right to elect bishops for themselves so that tha is was a compulsory and not a free “communio in sacris”) and among the Eastern Slavs under Polish and Lithuanian domination.

You say “Catholics are permitted by the Episcapalians (Anglicans) to receive in their churches yet few would dare”. So that the Catholic Church refuse the “communion in sacris” that our Anglican brothers offers us, why should not the Orthodox Church do the same with the “communion in sacris” we are offering to them? Have the “communion in sacris” with the Anglicans (practiced by our Anglican brothers) dive us to the Union of the catholic and the Aglican Church? Certainly, not.

You say “Personnally, I don't see many Orthodox running to the local Catholic Church (Byzantine or otherwise) to receive anyway”. Well can not give you details but I have seen many many times Orthodox receiving Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. Many Orthodox think: “It is so easy to receive Communion in the Roman Catholic Church, you do not need to fast for days (oil included), to confess yours sins to the priest, to recite the “Office of Holy Communion” and to wake up early in the morning to go to the Orthodox Church . You just go to the Roman Catholic church and you get up when they give the Holy Communion!!!”. Unfortunately there are a lot of Orthodox Christians unaware of the teachings of their own Church as like as the teaching of the Catholic Church. The solution for them it is not to give them Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, something that could drive them and us to the "inddiferentism" (the Orthodox and the catholic Church are the same and they believe the same things) but to send them to a good, tolerant and capable Orthodox spiritual father.

Yours in Christ,
Francisco

Yes, I think we can both agree that education is needed on both Catholic and Orthodox sides. I think the greatest harm to true unity is ignorance by the individual laity (and some clergy)about their own Church.

Wisdom! Let us be attentive!

Dmitri

Hi:

Are you sure you're quoting the COMPLETE canon?

The corresponding canon for the Latin Canon Law is Canon 844. Please notice that the first paragraph is virtually identical to what you are quoting, but there is more to this Canon. I quote the whole thing:

Canon 861 refers exclusively to Baptism, so I will not quote it as it is irrelevant to this discussion.

So, when communicatio in sacris poses danger of error or indifferentism, then it is to be avoided.

But, when that danger is prevented, such expressions of communion are allowed.

The Catholic Church doesn't have an open Communion policy as some Protestant denominations do and no, we don't think that Ecclesial Unity can be derived from Eucharistic Unity.

Catholic Ecclesiology is indeed Catholic, Universal. Read "Lumen Gentium" and you will find that all human beings are in one way or another related to the Church.

In particular, all baptized Christians have a membership relationship with the Catholic Church, even if they are not in full communion with her.

By allowing properly disposed baptized Christians with a Catholic Eucharistic theology to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister we are not going beyond the boundaries of the Church, because the Church still subsists in the particular Churches, even if they are not in full communion with Rome.

I understand your concern about proselytism, but please do notice that the Catholic discipline requires that the non-Catholic requesting the sacraments to "spontaneously ask for them", therefore, it is against the law to offer the sacraments as "bait" for basket-fishing.

Let me insist, I don't say it doesn't happen, I just say that if and when it happens, it is wrong and against the Catholic discipline.

Making the sacraments available to non-Catholics is because of concern for their spiritual needs, not to seek their conversion.

Shalom,
Memo.

The idea that the eucharist as a source of unity is foreign to both Orthodox and traditional Catholic thought. As has been rightly pointed out, it is the visible expression of unity of the people of God.

As I have pointed out before, the creed in the Eastern liturgy is prefaced by the words, 'let us love oneanother that with one mind we may confess, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, consubstantial and undivided.'

This presupposes total unanimity in matters of faith: not 99% - not 99.99%, but 100%.

Now the ecumenists would use the Eucharist, not as a source of grace, since many of them don't admit that concept, but as a tool to 'unite'.

I passed an Anglican church a few weeks ago and on its notice board it offered holy communion to all Christians regardless of denomination. How sad! A nice idea, yes, but what a travesty. It makes dogma optional, eliminating any idea of truth, of error and of right belief.

The Early Undivided Church was even stricter than now. Let's remember that the catechumens and penitents were dismissed before the anaphora. Since they were divided from the fulness of community-life by lack of baptism or by an unfulfilled penance, even they could not be present for the eucharistic liturgy.

In the priestless congregations of the Old Rite a penitent must stand at the back and cannot even receive a blessing with the censer.

All of this is not designed to hurt or exclude, but to remind us that the bond of faith lies at the centre of community. Our expression of this unity is the Liturgy, whether this is the Eucharist or any other act of communal worship.

The Church does not require political correctness, but faithfulness to Tradition. The Orthodox Church requires Orthodoxy of those who approach the Holy Gifts, not only in matters of dogma, but also in terms of belonging to the community of faith, holding no views contrary to Holy Tradition - belonging in an organic and living relationship of faith.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

In Catholicism, if one has not confessed mortal sins and is therefore still in a state of mortal sin, one should never receive communion. This goes for people who are in disaccord with the Church, as well.

ChristTeen287

Hmmm….. When I started this thread I was thinking that it might lead to a discussion on the Eucharist itself rather than one on Eucharistic sharing.

Fr. Mark has spoken with great wisdom. There is one point on which I would seek clarification but even here I think I would agree with what Fr. Mark has said if it were put into a different context. If the Eucharist is the source of life that it can also be considered to be the source of unity since true unity only comes from Christ Himself. I do not think there is anything un-Orthodox about such a statement and I believe that Orthodox theologians have discussed this in the past (I seem to remember Lossky and Schmemman addressing this, as well as St. Basil, but each in a different context). In considering this, however, one must be clear in stating that, while the Eucharist is the source of unity, Eucharistic sharing is not the road to unity.

As to Eucharistic sharing, one must understand that, from the Catholic viewpoint, allowing Orthodox to partake of the Holy Mysteries in Catholic Churches is not a statement of a fullness of unity that does not yet exist between the two Churches. It is, rather, a pastoral decision based upon recognizing and respecting the spiritual needs of specific individuals. This decision only applies to those Churches “with whom we hold almost everything in common” (as Pope John Paul II has often stated). Again, the Catholic bishops have been clear to recommend that these individuals should seek out pastors in their own Orthodox Churches but they only wished to allow Catholic priests to minister to those who seek it. One may legitimately disagree with this decision but we should keep in mind that it was not a decision to further unity but rather one of providing for pastoral ministry.

Fr. Mark’s comments about the customs in the early Church are most enlightening. It seems that they had a better understanding of true Christian charity with their balance of proclaiming the love of God with the need to approach Him in fear and trembling. I do not necessarily advocate a return to those customs but it is clear that they speak to us.

Admin

Fr. Mark,

As to your faith-before-communion policy, what do you make of the Centurion's faith in Jesus as we find in our common Scriptures?

The Roman soldier was a PAGAN, but had "greater faith than all of Israel" (according to Jesus and not the scribes and Pharisees).

Can faith in Jesus actually be greater than agreeing 100.1% on all dogmas? Can 100.1% agreement ever be reached?

Can Jesus' comments about the Centurion's "greater faith" apply also to today's dogma whips?

Does FAITH = DOGMA?

Does the dogma policy also apply to infants who are baptized and haven't learned all the important points of the Ecumenical Councils or hasn't grasped the importance of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed?

Dear Friends,

How very interesting!

St Paul's words of our sharing in the One Bread seem to indicate that such sharing demonstrates our existing unity in Christ as Members of His Body, the Church.

As Fr. Mark has said, the Early Church fought with many heresies and schisms.

One issue with these was their subtlety. The Arians, for example, not only believed as they did, that Christ was more than man but less than God the Father, but they also believed that there was no real difference between themselves and the Catholic(Orthodox) Church - they readily admitted the Catholics to communion.

This tactic was of crucial significance in their being able to swing much of the Church of their day over to their heresy.

The great rhetorical ability of the Semi-Arians in using Patristic language to justify their own positions even left the great St Basil speechless at times!

This is one reason why the Early Church enforced such strict rules with respect to inter-communion - it was constantly in a struggle for the true faith.

The Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is based on the idea of separating it from the context of faith and church within which alone it is meaningful - as if one can "export" the Catholic or Orthodox understanding outside of that context.

Fr. Mark is absolutely correct - intercommunion is the logical conclusion of Latin theology in this regard.

Although Christ praised the faith of the Centurion, there is no indication that this military man was a "pagan."

A number of Romans, including high-ranking soldiers, were sympathetic to Judaism and were a kind of "catechumen" where they were not formally Jews, but studied the Hebrew scriptures, prayed the Psalms etc.

The man in question was not only sympathetic toward the Jews, but also built them a synagogue etc.

Christ was praising him as a Gentile believer-convert over the Jewish cradles.

Certainly, children who commune the Sacred Mysteries cannot understand all aspects of the faith.

But they are received for the Mysteries of Initiation not because of THEIR faith, as Alexander Schmemann wrote, but on account of the Church's faith.

Alex

Dear spDundas,

Perhaps I'm misreading the document presented by the Administrator, but where did His Holiness even mention the idea of "intercommunion?"

The unity he refers to is the unity of many peoples and cultures around the world who find their Oneness in a common faith and sharing in the Eucharist within the Catholic Church.

Intercommunion, on a psychological level, is of a more pressing matter to us as Eastern Catholics owing to our liturgical closeness to the Orthodox.

The sobering reality is that that is where the similarity ends.

No matter how "close" we are on matters of doctrine, "Communion" is not about unanimity on matters of faith.

In other words, if tomorrow the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches declare perfect harmony in their faith, including the papacy, that will not mean they are "in communion."

To be "in communion" is to be fully integrated one with another in a common sacramental act that would make us one in EVERY which way.

Participation in Holy Communion is a celebration of the fact of that Communion of the Holy Body of Christ which is the Church.

St Augustine once wrote that in Communion, "We receive ourselves."

So this thread is really about what "being in Communion" with one another is all about.

Alex

?????????? Both Catholic & Orthodox but not Protestants? Not according to the Church.

Axios

Dear Alex,

Welcome back! How goes the unpacking?

I have a question based on this part of your posting earlier today.

"The Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is based on the idea of separating it from the context of faith and church within which alone it is meaningful - as if one can "export" the Catholic or Orthodox understanding outside of that context."

I am not sure what you are saying here. What leads you to say it?

Here's why I'm asking.

I have learned in all of my religious education that one of the wonders of the Eucharist is that the Church is renewed in its being by the Sacrifice of Christ re-presented at each Eucharistic celebration.

In the Eucharist is contained the heart of the faith of each of the Church. Eucharist cannot be without the Church and its faith in the Eucharist. That faith is differently expressed and the Eucharistic rituals are peculiar expressions of a people by necessity. Both aspects are true.

So, I find what you have said to be puzzling. Especially puzzling is the idea that the Roman Catholic understanding can be interpreted to include the notion that it can export the Catholic or Orthodox understanding of it outside of that context. The whole idea is perplexing.

I know that you're quite busy, but I'd like to understand what you mean.

Thanks!

Steve

Dear Steve,
Entirely off the subject, but -- what does "Inawe" mean and where does it come from? Just curious. Meanwhile, I still haven't managed to read this thread -- but will do so when I can!

Dear Communion of Saints,

Good to talk with you!

When I joined the Forum, it appeared to be the custom to choose a "screen" name. I was and am still quite amazed by the ways in which God has worked with and dealt in my life. Truly He has led me where I would not go.

I'm quite certain that His ways are not my ways and his understanding above mine! I'm definitely out of my depth! Thank God, He's not and He's merciful to boot.

So I choose In Awe. It came up Inawe on the screen. (I've never been an extremely competent typist and I'm quite imperfect, and that's reflected there too. :rolleyes: ) So, I left it that way.

Thanks for asking. How did you come to be Communion of Saints?

Steve

Dear Steve,
Yes, I too am glad that God is God and I am not (to somewhat paraphrase Saint Catherine of Siena).
I have answered your question by starting a new topic in the Town Hall section ...
Meanwhile, now, back to the ongoing discussion of the Eucharist ...

Joe raises a very good point.

The Gospels do throw up some awkward scenarios at times.

However, the logical outcome of the centurion's faith was sacramental incorporation into the community of faith - that is the Church. The Eucharist only makes sense within the community of faith beacause it is an act of sharing and uniting in and through the partaking of the Lord's body and blood, and through the Holy Spirit whom we invoke to transform the gifts. I cannot see any clash between the centurion's faith and communion only within the Church. If we read the Pauline Epistles we see an insistance on doctrinal orthodoxy and sacramental unity. The Church of the new Testament does not countenance the admittance of the unbaptised to the Eucharist, no matter how great their faith. As my posting recalled, even the catechumens, whose faith had led them to prepare for baptism were excluded from the eucharistic liturgy - not for lack of faith, but for lack of baptism into the Lord and His Church. There is no clash here.

Nobody can deny the centurion's faith, but John the Baptist also showed great faith in God-Incarnate and yet, because he was not of the New Covenant, we see him in the icon of Pascha being raised with the righteous of the Old Testament. Unlike the centurion he did not have the chance to come to Christian baptism and take his part in the community of Christian believers.

Also, the Church, throughout her history has made it clear that there is a true understanding and a true teaching about who and what Christ is. These matters dominate the Oecumenical Councils. These dogmatic points do matter. We are not called upon to be canonists and theologians, but we are expected to accept the teachings of the Church. The Church has not invented them, they are TRUTH. Also, they are part and parcel of faith.

We cannot say we have 100% faith in Jesus, then attack the Orthodox or Catholic teachings of the Eucharist, attack the veneration of the Mother of God and the saints, oppose the piety of the Church and then say - oh it's alright, don't panic - I have 100% faith in Jesus!

Faith matters - dogma matters - and obedience to the Church matters. This isn't an ecumenical pick-and-mix free for all.

In Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Several years ago I wrote a monograph on the Eucharist for a Latin group. I'll cite that part that is relevant to this discussion: Edward, deacon and sinner

Memo Rodriguez asks if Francisco has cited all of canon 671 from the Eastern Canons. No, he has not. Here is the full citation of that canon: As you can see, this is identical to that of the Latin Church. I fail to see how this forms a violation of the principles of ecumenism as enumerated by Vatican II.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Fr Mark,

how does your statement above square with the following:

"Unity, or communion, between the particular Churches in the universal Church, is rooted not only in the same faith and in the common Baptism, but above all in the Eucharist and the Episcopate.

It is rooted in the Eucharist because the eucharistic Sacrifice, while always performed in a particular community, is never a celebration of that community alone. In fact, the community, in receiving the eucharistic presence of the Lord, receives the entire gift of salvation and shows, even in its lasting visible particular form, that it is the image and true presence of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion , n. 11, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 28, 1992.

You would agree that "source" and "root" are synonyms?

When I speak of unity here, I'm not talking about the unity between the faithful, but the eucharist being used artificially as a tool to 'unite' those who are not unanimous in faith -

i.e. the way that protestant ecumenists use the 'eucharist' shared by presbytarians, baptists, methodists et all, and then say they are united in fellowship.

Of course, the eucharist is a source of unity within the community of faith, amongst those who are already united in common confession, but the initial context of the thread was that of Christians who are not united in terms of confession, though both of Byzantine lineage.

I was writing within the context of that thread.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Administrator, Fr. Mark, and all brother and sister contributors:

I was under the impression that sharing of certain sacraments by the Catholic Church was something of a pastoral concern for people who were temporarily cut off from their own communities and faced spiritual danger. The examples contemplated were something like this: a Catholic, whether Eastern or Western who found himself in Siberia and was for some long period cut off from a priest could approach the Orthodox Church for ministrations. I was told that in this situation, where a long term situation might prevent one from participating in the Liturgy and Holy Communion, that one might do whatever might be necessary to continue a sacramental life, including making profession of faith if the Orthodox priest required that. This was supposed to be an extreme case and not one of going to one church one Sunday and one's own the next.

I live in Central Pennsylvania where my parish has welcomed a Coptic Orthodox family to be part of us. The children are enrolled in our school. Many times they travel to Washington, D.C., to participate in their own parish. Many times, because of weather or other reasons, they worship with us. They live here permanently. No one has asked them to convert. We are trying to be supportive of this family and have them share with us their spiritual treasures. I am sure that if enough people in the area were Coptic Orthodox and founded a church that this situation would cease. But for the present, how can this be a threat to anyone? I believe that this situation is simply pastoral charity extended to one of the Lord's own.

I lived with a similar situation in a more rural area of Pennsylvania while growing up. A Greek Orthodox family approached our Latin parish and was offered the same pastoral care.

It is my understanding that in both these cases the people were first advised to approach their own clergy, explain their geographical situation and living conditions, and ask for permission/advice.

I've wondered about this situation for myself. What would I do if I found myself more or less permanently settled in a place where I could not regularly attend the Liturgy with a Catholic congregation and a Catholic priest--whether Eastern or Western? I hope that I don't have to find out. But in the meantime, I plan to continue welcoming people like the Coptic Orthodox family or the Byzantine Orthodox family to my parish. An isolated Christian soon becomes no Christian at all because of the pressures of the world we live in.

Dear Administrator and brothers and sisters:

I have read the many postings to this board and understand the reasons for the Church refusing open communion as it is practiced by many Protestant churches.

Maybe I am off the wall, but I think that what the original question sought to uncover is along somewhat different lines.

I have been wondering about the Eucharist in this fashion for a long time and wonder if it resounds with anyone else.

At some profound level, when any one of us approaches the Lord in the Liturgy to receive His Most Holy Body and Life-Giving Precious Blood, we are immediately and simultaneously present with Him at the Last Supper, at the Crucifixion on Golgotha, at the empty Tomb with Mary when we encounter Him with her, at the Ascension with the Apostles, and somehow--by anticipation?--already participating in welcoming Him back as part of His Glorious Second Coming. For me the sharing of the Eucharist is so profound and intense that sometimes I find myself all but overwhelmed. I believe that we are drawn into the eternal life of grace life right here and now taht we hope to live forever--we have one foot in this life and one foot already in eternity, if you will permit me that, when we commune.

Now the Holy Trinity cannot be divided. I believe that we can all agree on that. I have come to a point where I see somewhat in a fuzzy fashion that all believers and their communities that have maintained the Apostolic succession, have preserved the faith that they have received, and live that faith out within the Liturgy as they have received it have somehow entered that same life of grace that I have.

I don't know and don't pretend to know how the many divisions we have, whether administrative or theological, enter here. But somehow, have faced this rather profound understanding that at some level that God alone can unravel and fully explain there is a communion--a common union--that we share simply because Christ cannot be divided as we sadly have been. I also understand that this does not paper over anything that has been discussed in this forum by the believers who care enough to wrestle with this painful area of Christian life.

But somehow, again God knows the how, the why, and the wherefore, when I participate in Christ and His Holy Body and Blood, each of the Orthodox and Catholic Christians, whether Eastern or Western, who have lived, live now, or ever will live, is united to me in Christ because His Mystery, that we participate in liturgically, is greater than all our expressions or experiences of it put together.

Please don't misunderstand this as religious indifferentism. I'm about as tough an opponent of that type of thinking as anyone else. This is an attempt to understand this mystery at a level deeper than we as human beings often get.

Do I make some sense here?

BOB

Dear Bob,

Beautifully put!

The Divine Liturgy itself celebrates the Second Coming of Christ as if it has already occurred.

And it is God who judges who among the myriad believers in Christ, belonging to various traditions and Churches, really is a member of His Body.

We are united with the millions of these, the Church on earth, with the Church in heaven, and the Church of those who have reposed - along with the Holy Trinity.

Mysterium tremendum . . .

Alex

Billions!

Alex:

May I fine-tune your reply without offending?

". . . as if it has already occurred"

Eternity is a constant, intense, permanent now. Our future when the Lord comes as St. Paul has it in 1 Thessalonians 4 is already occurring before the Face of Our Father.

Perhaps " as it is occurring": The Divine Liturgy celebrates the Second Coming of Christ as it is occurring. I believe that the Lord will come as St. Paul outlines it, but the He is already coming to us as He promised liturgically. The reason we may not see this is that His Coming liturgically is similar to His coming at His Incarnation: the Chosen People thought he'd come riding in on a white horse and put the Romans to flight. We miss it, perhaps, because we're still looking up at the sky like the Apostles at the Ascension.

BOB

Bob,

Your thoughts have been put to music through Carl Schalk's setting of this poem by Jaroslav Vajda. It is one of the few truly great contemporary hymns:

Now the silence
Now the peace
Now the empty hands uplifted
Now the kneeling
Now the plea
Now the Father's arms in welcome
Now the hearing
Now the power
Now the vessel brimmed for pouring
Now the body
Now the blood
Now the joyful celebration
Now the wedding
Now the songs
Now the heart forgiven leaping
Now the Spirit's visitation
Now the Son's epiphany
Now the Father's blessing
Now
Now
Now

How can their be unity of Christians if The Eucharist is inclusive?

Jupiter - How do you define "Christians?" In a real sense there is already unity among Christians.