www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News "intercommunion" -- whether non-Catholic Christians may receive holy Communion.

I agree, and it seems to me it would foster the idea of communion as fellowship, which I think is a common Protestant idea. It is above all about unity of faith. Still the point is how can you know they totally adhere to the teaching of the church regarding the Eucharist if they are not members of the church? It fundamentally makes no sense.

Quote

The bigger problem is that Protestants, who do not have access to the Sacrament of Confession and absolution, are all almost certainly under mortal sin. How, then, are they are properly disposed to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord, when the Apostle tells us that one who receives unworthily only eats and drinks condemnation on himself?

This would be my first concern. My priest will not even commune visitors to our church from other Orthodox churches if he doesn�t know when they last confessed and if they are in good standing with their own parish. That is of course with the assumption that they�ve maintained the entire pre-communion fast.

Andrew

Andrew:

I think you are upset about something that is not general practice. When the Catholic Church refers to the practice of admitting people to the Eucharist who are not in full communion, she is not calling this "intercommunion."

Intercommunion means that two Churches are in formal communion and that the CLERGY of each Church can officiate in either Church. There is no intercommunion between the Catholic Church and other Churches--probably with the exception of the Church of the East, but that is a special case and restricted to members of that Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church.

The cases envisioned by the permission(s) outlined here are, in practice, meant to be very restrictive. The original thought came out of the Vatican Council where discussion was about those Catholics who were separated from their particular Church for long periods of time and our brethren in other Apostolic Churches who found themselves temporarily in that same situation. We had just come out of WW2 and were in the midst of the Cold War. Many people found themselves in the Soviet gulag somewhere and may not have had access to the sacraments for long periods--years, for example. The question was posed if it would be considered apostasy to approach an Orthodox priest for confession, Holy Communion, or the Anointing of the Sick. The Catholic Church's answer was "no." It also lead to the same answer to the question of whether a Catholic priest should require a member of the Orthodox Church to make confession of faith in order to receive the same mysteries if he found himself cut off from his own Church for a similar long period of time.

In the United States at the present time, it is my understanding that these conditions do not exist. Additionally, this practice was never meant to be something that one would do on a regular basis in a place where it was possible to reach members of one's own Church. In other words, one does not go to the Catholic Church this Sunday and the Orthodox Church the next. Weddings, funerals, and other gatherings where families may be mixed are also occasions that do not rise to the level of necessity. Do we have people ignoring this? Yes, we do. As with anything couched in language that is meant to be nuanced, most people miss the strictness underlying what is supposed to be an action that the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches would call "economy." We call it a "pastoral provision"--a special act of mercy extended on a case by case basis for those with a genuine need. Note that "need" is not the same as "want."

There is an explanation in our pew books (we call them missalettes) that is very plain about who can receive the Eucharist and who should not receive. Beyond that there is always room for abuse. Where you have human beings, you have people who excuse themselves from any rule that comes along because we all fall for the temptation of thinking we are special and somehow outside any prohibitions.

Beyond all this, there will always be those who approach unworthily. Only the Lord "searches the reins and the heart and clearly discerns the most hidden things of men." I only worry about trying to examine myself and find what should be confessed as best I can. Beyond that, no one will ever be perfectly ready or worthy.

Hope that this eases your mind.

In Christ,

BOB

In many Eastern Catholic Churches it is quite normal to find Eastern Orthodox Christians receiving Holy Communion (and making their Confessions when appropriate).

Incognitus

Surprised yes, upset no. I understand that these cases are exceptional, but to my mind that does not mitigate the implications of what such actions mean.

Something appears to be going on at the Taize community however, where it appears that at least on one occassion communion was given out indiscriminately to Protestants.

That is certainly wrong and if done without the knolwedge of their priests it would be a great problem. Actually it would be a problem either way.

Andrew

Andrew,

It is not as simple as you make it. For example: The Syriac Catholics and Syriac Orthodox in the MidEast have arrangements which allow the priest at one Church to validity, licitly, and properly pastor to the other - including marriage, Eucharist, confession and everything else.

Dear Andrew,

I know many Orthodox that do not completely accept or adhere to the teachings of my Orthodox Church, yet receive Holy Communion...albeit rarely! Would that then be any different than a devout Protestant receiving communion?

Actually in my mind a 'devout' Protestant that accepts all the Commandments and doesn't fall into this 'everything is relative' mentality, should be more of a candidate for the Eucharist than one that belongs to an apostolic Church and falters.

But then I'm an Ecumenist.

Zenovia

Andrew you are reading into what I said something that I did not say. I did not argue that Protestants should be given communion. I take issue with your statement, and that of Logos Teen, that Protestants cannot be *properly disposed* aka "in good standing with God".

Jason

This sort of reminds me of the ubiquitous Gandhi question when the topic of salvation comes up. Like that, this scenario strikes me as a false dilemma.

Luther's primary error was that he placed his judgment above that of the church. That is what led to his downfall. He felt he could reinterpret and discard as he saw fit. The cult of the autonomous self has now obviously simply become a mainstay of our cultural outlook, and is one of the more poisonous legacies of the Reformation. In many ways I feel it is at the heart of these issues.

Regardless, what establishes worthiness to receive is not what you or I think, but it is what the church with Christ at its head has established and teaches. Communion is an eschatological action, and not an ordinance, sign or token of fellowship. It is the most intimate bond of faith between God and ourselves and between ourselves and the entire community of faith. It is in to this relationship that we are joined by the burial and rising of baptism and the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit through Chrismation.

Andrew

Dear Zenovia,

This is were we differ in opinion. Communion means by at least Orthodox teachings and practices that we are in union sacramentally (I believe this is also the Catholic Church's teaching, but I can be wrong). If faithful refrain from communion then that is their own spiritual life that they are playing with. By allowing Protestants that reject that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ defames the sacrament. Communion implies that you accept ALL the teachings of the church, not a pick and chose as many protestants believe, or that believing the bible or following the commandments is enough. Many Protestants believe and teach that the elements are just that, bread and wine, and not the Body and Blood. I as a priest do not have the where with all to question someone to their belief that is not Orthodox approaching the chalice, and if I suspect in any way that they are not of the faith, I will challenge them and turn them away from the chalice. Ecumenism is fine for dialogue, and leading towards unification, but we must start with those that are close, such as the Orthodox and Catholics. Many Protestants do not not even teach or even believe what we as Churches share. Remember Luther may have rebelled against the pope, but instead he created millions of popes. For each Protestant is free to accept or reject what they may feel necessary for their faith.

Reunion can come about by finding things in common. I believe and you can see that even though the Orthodox and Catholic Churches share so much in faith and teaching, they still have not resolved some issues that would lead to a restoration of communion. To suggest that Protestants even come close at times, such as the bishops of the Anglican Church, i.e. the infamous Bishop of Durham who rejected the Resurrection having a common faith and teaching, thus saying they are in union with us, I have to draw the line at.

I pray that one day, we may have a unity, but a unity in the fullness of the faith, not a watered-down version as the Protestants teach. I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but as a priest I have to draw a line at where the bounds for inter-communion are suggested.

Asking forgiveness for any offense.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Jason, in truth as someone said none of us will ever be worthy to receive the mysteries. The church however has set out what makes us prepared and in the right condition to partake.

We don't know the contents of each others hearts in full, meaning none of us can really surmise another�s standing before God. A priest who has heard the confession of someone before presenting themselves for communion is in the best possible position though to make sure one is prepared and in the right condition. We are not our own confessors and spiritual directors for a reason.

Ultimately I would say one can never be fully �in good standing� with God while outside of the church; no matter how moral, wonderful or upstanding one may be.

Andrew

Father Anthony:

I have to agree with you. It is my understanding from studying both Churches that this is one area where Catholics and Orthodox Christians agree.

When one communes, one comes into intimate union with Christ and with His Church. It also means that one agrees with every doctrine of the Church in which one communes. It means that one is in agreement with, and in communion with, the hierarchy of the Church in which one communes: the particular priest serving and through him his bishop and through his bishop to the head of the Church as his bishop understands that temporal head to be. It means that one is a part of the Body of Christ and one is in communion with all others who are in the particular Church one communes with. Communion has many levels beyond the primary one of being an intimate union with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by being built up into the Body of Christ. None of these other implications and portions of the total reality can be deleted or ignored. What confuses people who have a very sketchy understanding of the Mystery and its reality beyond the mere reception of the Lord is the attempt to understand the Eucharist in ways that explain how all the Apostolic Churches have true participation in the Mystery of Christ, how this essentially relates to the unity of the Trinity which cannot be broken, and how we are then related to each other even when we cannot formally receive from each other on a regular basis. (The bad old days when we hurled polemics at each other made things so much more clear. :rolleyes: One could set up an enclosure about oneself and keep everyone else out. Understanding the Mystery in a deeper sense only messes up our neat little worlds, even as it calls us to repentance and a more focused search for communion on the formal level.)

I can relate to your dilemna as a priest since I have been commissioned by my bishop to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion in my parish. As a funeral director I have met many people in many settings as part of my work. I have seen many who I KNOW NOT TO BE MEMBERS of my particular Church approaching in my Communion line on Sundays and holidays. You have the advantage of being an authority in your parish. We often hear, "Who are you to tell me I can't receive Communion?"

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Andrew you said:

"Luther's primary error was that he placed his judgment above that of the church. That is what led to his downfall. He felt he could reinterpret and discard as he saw fit. The cult of the autonomous self has now obviously simply become a mainstay of our cultural outlook, and is one of the more poisonous legacies of the Reformation. In many ways I feel it is at the heart of these issues."

I say:

Actually Luther was a 'spirit' of dissension and therefore not of the Holy Spirit. Yet those that followed him were not all 'spirits' of dissension. They followed the Gospel as they were taught it and acquired Grace in whichever way God desired to disperse it and in accordance to their own merit.

You said:

"Regardless, what establishes worthiness to receive is not what you or I think, but it is what the church with Christ at its head has established and teaches. Communion is an eschatological action, and not an ordinance, sign or token of fellowship. It is the most intimate bond of faith between God and ourselves and between ourselves and the entire community of faith. It is in to this relationship that we are joined by the burial and rising of baptism and the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit through Chrismation."

I say:

Yet in my own personal 'experiences' I have known many partaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist while remaining in a state of mortal sin. I also know that in my Church the cannons are quite severe and the priests in consequence disperse a great deal of 'economia'.

By the same token, I have known Evangelicals, that are highly devout, for as even Father Groechel has said, (and he certainly is a saint), that many of these women would put those in his Church to shame.

When I state ecumenism, I state it with these experiences and in this context...just for clarification.

I don't mean that the Eucharist should be given freely to everyone that wants to receive it.

Zenovia

Andrew,

Well, I think I still must disagree. Ones standing before God is not determined by his status in the Church. Ultimately his status is determined by his union with Christ. And that does not necessarily imply membership in the institutional Church. The late Pope John Paul II made an analogy back in the early 90's that I believe is fitting here. There are, he said, two churches. The Church of Peter and the Church of Mary. The Church of Peter being the visible institutional Church founded by Jesus about 2000 years ago. The Church of Mary is the entire body of all those who say YES to God. Which of the two is the more enduring? Certainly the Church of Mary will outlast the Church of Peter. At the parousia the Church as such will end and we will enter into the eschaton fully and definitivly. Yet the Church of Mary will persist throughout eternity.

Nor should we forget the testimony of great saints such as St Mary of Egypt who were absent for many many years both from the Church and her rites and sacraments. Consider the vast majority of Catholics in the middle ages who communed maybe once or twice a year; many did not commune but a few times in their whole lives. Yet this was not counted to their fault but was considered, at the time, to be acceptable. Let us not forget that frequent communion in the West was an innovation of the PROTESTANT REFORMERS which the Church took over during the Counter Reformation.

My point very simply is that neither you nor I have the ability or the right to judge ANY mans spiritual condition whether they be in or out of the Church. That is for God alone. On the contrary, we are to judge all men with Charity. It doesnt bother me that you said Protestants should not be given communion. Obviously there are problems with the content of their faith which serve as an impediemnt to this. Yet to give as reason that most protestants are under mortal sin or are not worthy because they have not been to confesion seems to me to be rather judgmental and legalistic. God is not bound by the Sacraments and can and does give grace as he pleases. I will not be surprised to find many protestants ahead of me in heaven.

Jason

That really makes no sense. Luther sowed seeds of dissension yet it bore fruit? I don�t see it that way. The Reformation is a tragedy and it has caused great harm to the Western Church.

Luther believed he understood the essence of the church in a way that nobody else did. He believed he understood what the Blessed Augustine and the Apostle Paul really meant when all of the Fathers before him had not. He placed himself above the church. The movement he launched has since then split in to countless movements, all of which have resurrected one or more of the ancient heresies condemned by the church - be they of Nestorius, Montanus, Arius or any of the others.

Although Luther himself did not place private judgment of as the ultimate authority in matters of faith, it was the inevitable consequence of his movement. It was fittingly in large part because of the historical-critical method of Lutheran Biblical scholars at German universities like T�bingen and Halle that the Bible was knocked off the pedestal of ultimate authority, leaving only the authority of the self in its own place. Like Father Anthony said every man his own Pope, because the only thing infallible is ones own feelings and judgment.

I will say ironically in the context of this thread that the group in this country who remains steadfast in their Lutheran Confessionalism (the Missouri Synod) practice closed communion.

We don�t scrap speed limits because people speed.

I know many nice Hindus at work, that�s not really the point. We�re not in a morality contest, and if being most moral was really what made us right with God we would still be Jews and there would be no point for the church to exist.

Andrew

Dear Jason,

I read your post carefully and found that I agree with you. We should not, in our personal zeal and piety, allow ourselves to be judgemental, for judgement is for God alone. We all fall short in sin, we all stumble and fall because of sin, and we are all dependent upon His mercy for our salvation.

I also think that when and if we get to Heaven and see how many are there, that we will all realize that there was more gray between black and white than we may have expected.

Yours in Christ,
Alice

P.S. This is not making any commentary on inter-communion. I respect and understand the reasons that the Churches have for various denominations not being able to share in this sacrament yet.