www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why not "Open Communion"?

I saw this article on the OCA website by Father John Breck, a scholar and friend. He seems to be posting a balanced presentation of the Orthodox Church's view on Communion. I am posting the link to the article below.

Why not "Open Communion"? [oca.org]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thanks for the article.

I recall an Orthodox priest and a friend of mine saying that he was opposed to intercommunion because he believed that the pain we feel when not being permitted to receive should spur us on to greater prayer and efforts to restore full and visible communion. He believed that it was something of a redemptive pain that kept us from getting comfortable in our separation.

As one who feels this pain acutely when I visit Orthodox churches, I agree with his approach.

God bless!

Gordo

Hmmmmmm

Thinking


Is Open Communion really the same as intercommunion ?

Sort of leaves me at a loss for words.

Mary

This is one of the best articles I've read on the subject. I'm going to bookmark it for future reference.

Joe

Fr. Breck's above-quoted statement on the issue of Orthodox reception of Holy Communion from Catholic priests/ministers during a Catholic Mass/Divine Liturgy is probably outdated or, the good Fr. has not considered Canon 844, particularly section 3, of the Latin Code of Canons.

Dear Father Anthony,

The article was beautifully written, and explained fully the conceptual differences between Holy Communion within the Orthodox Church and the Catholic, as well as some Protestant Churches. What is upsetting, is that a belief in the Eucharist, and the differences therof between it's meaning in the Orthodox and Catholic Church, is not always fully known and understood by many that receive the Eucharist. Since we know that so many are ignorant as to the teachings regarding the Holy Eurachist, how can people receiving the Eucharist be fully blessed by that, which they are receiving within them?

Is it then the outer manifestation and intellectulizing of the Holy Eurachist that is important, or rather the preparation of one's soul in regards to the participation of Holy Communion?

Mind you by saying that, I am not saying that we should ever limit the perfection and truths of our beliefs, but rather pay more attention to the fruits of our beliefs.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Sometimes to my ear, it almost sounds as though Orthodox faithful honestly think and imagine that we Catholics wait in joyful hope, during liturgy, wondering if it is all transubstantiated yet.

M.

Yes. This part of the article is most confusing to Catholics, I think.

M.

I also highly recommend Bishop Kalistos Ware's book on Intercommunion. In that book, he points out a minority opinion within Orthodoxy (advanced by such 20th century notables as Fr. Sergius Bulgakov) that defines unity in the faith as creedal and membership in the church as baptismal and thus would propose "intercommunion" among all creedal Christians who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity.

Sir,

Are you then stating then, that the practice is formally sanctioned by the Church?

Zenovia,

I find it difficult that while Father Breck's article is on an official church website as representative of the Orthodox Church's teachings, your conclusion does not match the sacramental theology of the Orthodox Church.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

The following quote is section three of Canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. From the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Christians indeed may receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, although it is the case, at least in the USA, that the Church urges the Orthodox to follow the discipline of their own Church, which of course, does not permit them to receive Communion except in the Orthodox Church.

Ryan

�3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

It is a great article, and expresses clearly why the idea of "open communion" should be rejected.

Upon closer reading, I find this quote interesting:



Of course, are we to then go on to say that the Church failed to preserve the mystery of Christ and the hypostatic union when the Nicene fathers embraced homoousious? Sorry, but Father Breck's statement here strikes me as being a little disingenuous. (Those rationalistic Latins penetrating those mysteries again!) Transubstantiation was defined to protect the doctrine of the Real Presence from heretical attack by the nominalist teachings of Berengarius of Tours, just like homoousious was defined in response to Arius' attack on the two natures of Christ.

In ICXC,

Gordo