Why are Orthodox allowed to receive communion? (Merged threads)

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

What the EO do is really not my concern. Where I agree with them, I agree; where I disagree, I disagree. To me, the question should not be whether or not they use these terms, but what it means to say that sacraments outside of your own church are this or that. It is not terribly surprising to me that there is no official/hard line for or against Roman Catholic sacraments coming from any Orthodox Church, because to say that they are "having grace" or "devoid of grace" is to state an opinion that has absolutely no effect on the Orthodox believer. I mean, if I state my own belief that it is possible, through God's mercy and grace, that a non-Christian may be saved, have I therefore sanctioned that Christians give up their religion? Of course not. So again, the difference is between what I have called an "operational principle" (establishing some sort of protocol by which the Church operates or relates to those outside of it) and, well...just having an opinion, I guess. Do some Orthodox churches or priests, on an individual level (keeping in mind the earlier example I gave that showed how pastoral considerations can sometimes overrule the normative teaching of the Church), decide to allow their faithful to receive in the Roman communion in certain circumstances? Yes, it seems they do.

Yeah, that all makes sense. As I said above, I don't disagree on these points. You understand that, right?

Originally Posted by dzheremi

But again, I really question whether the RC idea of "validity" really corresponds to EO's "grace". I don't think they mean the same thing.

The two concepts pretty clearly identify the same distinction... the difference lies in the fact that the Catholic Church makes it her business to assess this status of other church's Mysteries, whereas the Orthodox churches don't bother.

In other words, when asked if Orthodox Sacraments are valid, from the Catholic point of view there is a right answer: yes; when asked if the Catholic Mysteries have grace, any Orthodox answer is simply an opinion of that particular theologian/bishop/whatever...

Originally Posted by dzheremi

We might be able to adapt your understanding of the Branch Theory (which I agree with, of course) to an understanding the sacraments: Can we say that the Roman Catholic Church's sacraments are absolutely graceless, or definitely containing grace? Some might, but I wouldn't, because I do not control the Holy Spirit which I know descends upon the holy and precious gifts in our liturgies just as surely as upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. However, regardless of what anyone might say for whatever reason, such a judgment in no way implies a sort of "Branch Theory" of the sacraments, whereby we may say categorically that your Eucharist and our Eucharist are to be treated the same way, so that there is no prohibition to be held on intercommunion.

Exactly. Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, dzheremi. In fact, various CDF documents make it clear that what you've just described is essentially the Catholic position: other churches may have "valid Sacraments," but the sole Church of Christ nonetheless subsists in the Catholic Church (according to Vatican II and the papacy).

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Yeah, that all makes sense. As I said above, I don't disagree on these points. You understand that, right?

Of course. And I'm not really trying to argue, either; just clarify what I mean. It does not bother me if the RCC or any other church or person has a different view.

The two concepts pretty clearly identify the same distinction... the difference lies in the fact that the Catholic Church makes it her business to assess this status of other church's Mysteries, whereas the Orthodox churches don't bother.

Hmm. This is interesting. I don't really see how this doesn't constitute a difference in 'meaning' (since the RCC making categorical decisions on other churches' Eucharist involves invoking or creating particular definitions that only make sense in an RCC context), but we probably have different understandings of what that, uh...means, as well. So alright.

In other words, when asked if Orthodox Sacraments are valid, from the Catholic point of view there is a right answer: yes; when asked if the Catholic Mysteries have grace, any Orthodox answer is simply an opinion of that particular theologian/bishop/whatever...

Sure, fine.

Exactly. Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, dzheremi. In fact, various CDF documents make it clear that what you've just described is essentially the Catholic position: other churches may have "valid Sacraments," but the sole Church of Christ nonetheless subsists in the Catholic Church (according to Vatican II and the papacy).[/quote]

Well then. I'm always happy to agree with the California Department of Forestry.

[Wisely]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Well then. I'm always happy to agree with the California Department of Forestry.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

...
The two concepts pretty clearly identify the same distinction... the difference lies in the fact that the Catholic Church makes it her business to assess this status of other church's Mysteries, whereas the Orthodox churches don't bother....

Ooooh. Clearly the Orthodox have made such statements, just one example:

Constantinople 1755: In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the reception of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to "pastoral discretion." In any case, by the late nineteenth century a comprehensive new sacramental theology had appeared in Greek-speaking Orthodoxy which provided a precise rationale for such pastoral discretion; for the source of this new rationale, we must examine the influential figure of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748-1809).

...

On the basis of these conclusions we would like to offer to our churches the following suggestions:

That the International Commission begin anew where the Bari statement of 1987, "Faith, Sacraments, and the Unity of the Church," came to an abrupt conclusion, simply recognizing similarities and differences in our practice of Christian initiation, and that it proceed to reaffirm explicitly and clearly, with full explanation, the theological grounds for mutual recognition by both churches of each other's baptism;

That our churches address openly the danger that some modern theories of "sacramental economy" pose, both for the continuation of ecumenical dialogue and for the perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church;

That the Patriarchate of Constantinople formally withdraw its decree on rebaptism of 1755;

That the Orthodox churches declare that the Orthodox reception of Catholics by chrismation does not constitute a repetition of any part of their sacramental initiation; and

That our churches make clear that the mutual recognition of baptism does not of itself resolve the issues that divide us, or reestablish full ecclesial communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but that it does remove a fundamental obstacle on our path towards full communion.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea...al-economy.cfm

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthod.../1984lima.html

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Of course. And I'm not really trying to argue, either; just clarify what I mean.

Okay, I see.

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Well then. I'm always happy to agree with the California Department of Forestry.

LOL, you know I was referring to the Curia's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).