![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
CWN: Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics
This is in from CWN. I think it is interesting in light of discussion on this blog about Catholics seeking out the Orthodox in times of serious spiritual necessity and how that might be a model for how we think of Communion from SSPX chapels.
Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics
Timisoara , May. 27, 2008 (CWNews.com) – A Romanian Orthodox bishop has shared Communion with Catholics, causing a sensation in a country where Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox have a history of tense relations.
At the consecration of the Queen of Peace parish church in Timisoara on May 25, Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu of Banat asked to share Communion. The Orthodox metropolitan approached the altar and received the Eucharist from his own hand.
Romanian Catholic Bishop Alexandru Mesian of Lugoj was the celebrant of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Catholic church; Archbishop Francisco-Javier Lozano, the apostolic nuncio to Romania, was also present.
Although Orthodox and Catholic bishops often join in ecumenical services, and occasionally participate in each other’s liturgical ceremonies, they do not share Communion—an indication of the breach in ecclesial communion between the Orthodox churches and the Holy See. In Romania, tensions between the Orthodox Church and the Eastern-rite Romanian Catholic Church have been pronounced, adding to the surprise created by Metropolitan Corneanu’s action.
With some Orthodox believers outraged by the metropolitan’s sharing Communion with Catholic bishops, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania issued a statement saying that at the next meeting of the Orthodox synod, in July, Metropolitan Corneanu "may be asked to give an appropriate explanation" for his action.
The statement from the Orthodox patriarchate went on to say that ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church, "already quite fragile, cannot be helped, but are rather complicated," by sharing in Communion.
Metropolitan Corneanu—who was one of the first Orthodox bishops to admit that he had cooperated with the secret police under the Communist regime—has a record of friendship with Romanian Catholics. He was among the few Orthodox leaders prepared to return church properties that had been seized by the Communist government from Catholic ownership in 1948 and handed over to Orthodox control.
This is an outrage. Someone who rejects the Catholic Church and her Divine teaching approaches the altar and receives Holy Communion – and it’s permitted by Canon Law.
What a disgrace. What a sacrilege. [And you are not the judge of this. – Fr. Z]
Comment by Paul — 27 May 2008 @ 6:59 pmAlthough the incidents are unrelated, this reminds me of the incident where Pope Paul VI kissed the feet of Metropolitan Melito in 1975.
Out of all things, that’s something I’ve never found on a sedevacantist site, though I’m sure it’s out there.
Comment by Cody — 27 May 2008 @ 7:22 pmI wouldn’t go so far as to call this act sacreligious, as they have valid orders, and amidst the puppet “Masses”, something of this sort is more disappointing rather than sacrilegous.
I don’t see the grave necessity in this situation for the Orthodox Bishop to receieve at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I long for the day that the East and the West re-unite.
Comment by Joe of St. ThĂ©rèse — 27 May 2008 @ 7:23 pmPaul, I can understand your disgust but our Church (the Catholic Church)
Comment by Andy — 27 May 2008 @ 7:24 pmpermits Orthodox faithful to share communion provided they get permission from
their bishop, He is the bishop, he asked, we gave. How is that sacrilege?
I’ll be the first one to say that without consideration of any theological issue whatsoever or any consideration of canon law I am thrilled by this. I know, I know.. I’m still thrilled.
Comment by RJackson — 27 May 2008 @ 7:27 pmFar from an outrage, this Bishop has not rejected the Catholic Church, he has been one of his Church most vocally embracing of Her. May this be the first fruits of mutual recognition!
Comment by Michael — 27 May 2008 @ 7:29 pmPaul, it is way above your paygrade to be judgmental of the Bishop when the proper juridical and canonical authorities were present and accepting of him! It is far more outrageous to commune ex-Latin Rite Catholic priests turned sedevacantist and fill-in-the-blank ‘other’ clergy who have willfully and openly rejected the Holy Father, than this bishop who has embraced the Catholic Church from an opposite road much further traveled. It’s the difference between one who traveled from New York to visit you in Chicago, knowing his New York compatriots will give him a trashing when he returns versus one who refused to meet you while living next door, just because he didn’t like your selection of home furnishings!
I am not sure exactly how I feel about this. “That they may all be one…”; also, every time I am talking about the faith among Christians I feel like I have to almost always put in a disclaimer in to the effect of, “generally other Christians believe this/that, but the Orthodox Churches are very much like us”. We have a long way to go, and communion is and symbolizes union, but I don’t think we are so far off. Russia was the 800 pound gorilla missing from the bulk of the Ravenna Conference but I think we can look to its discussions to forge the way back to One Apostolic Church.
I think a good start would be to acknowledge the theological value for the Filioque, not forget it, but discard it in all our liturgies. We need to grow up as a Latin Church and realize the Niceno-Constanipolitan form is the more ancient formula of the (Episcopal) Fathers-and no less accurate than the Creed with the Filioque.
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.
Just my sinful two cents.
Comment by Joe — 27 May 2008 @ 7:29 pmAn Orthodox metropolitan archbishop approaches the chalice and is received as an equal to the bishops in communion with the Pope of Rome. This is an incredible gesture on the part of Rome: It sends the message that our belief in the validity of their orders is not mere lip-service.
Why exactly the Metropolitan decided to do this is another matter. Maybe his reception of the Eucharist at a liturgy offered in communion with the Pope of Rome signifies that he, too, is now in communion with us? What a wonderful miracle that would be! Why assume that this is a sacrilege?
Comment by SFCM Organist — 27 May 2008 @ 7:30 pm“How is that sacrilege?”
If a priest knowlingly gives Holy Communion to someone who rejects the Catholic faith, he has committed sacrilege.
This Orthodox Bishop presumably rejects the filioque, the immaculate conception, and Papal supremacy. Are these not dogmatic articles of the Catholic faith? Is it not gravely sinful to reject them?
The fact is that this Bishop is a public heretic and schismatic. To permit him to receive Holy Communion is sacrilege.
Comment by Paul — 27 May 2008 @ 7:31 pm“Far from an outrage, this Bishop has not rejected the Catholic Church”
The Filioque. The Immaculate Conception. Papal Supremacy.
Are these articles of the Catholic faith or not? Is it sinful to reject them or not?
It’s at times like these that I can’t help but agree with Bishop Williamson. Modernists simply engage in mushy thinking. Reasonable argument escapes them.
Comment by Paul — 27 May 2008 @ 7:34 pmI agree that it’s a scandal. If the Bishop truly embraced the Church, he would convert. And once in communion, he could receive Holy Communion.
Comment by D.V.M. — 27 May 2008 @ 7:37 pmIndeed. This is outrageous, not for some, but for many Orthodox believers. He is the same bishop who, one year ago, almost denied the existence of devils on national television (asserting that the source of evil is to be searched within each man, while blaming the devil leads to superstitions). But he is also the first bishop to recognize in 1990 he has been a Securitate (political police) collaborator. This bought him credit in the eyes of the civil society as an act of courage (there are very few public figures who did it, especially so early). I think his act is to be re-evaluated in the light of the new event (it may reveal opportunism). Now the Patriarch is aware of the tensions the event is raising, so the declaration on the Patriarchy website is extremely cautious. This is a test for him (many see him way too ecumenist) and I hope he will not let the issue in limbo (which sadly is not uncommon in this part of the world).
Comment by adriatikus — 27 May 2008 @ 7:43 pmI do not think it can be said that an “Orthodox Bishop presumably rejects the filioque, the immaculate conception, and Papal supremacy.”
Comment by Viator Catholicus — 27 May 2008 @ 7:53 pmIn regard to the filioque, some accept it as explained by Florence, wherein from is equivalent to through, and the Spirit comes from both Father and Son as from one principle. It was opposition to the unilateral addition of the filioque to the creed by the Carolingian Church that led to the invention of theological reasons to oppose it. The Pope only mandated it in the Creed of the Roman Mass in the 11th century. Thus, John Paul II’s permission not to use it where it has not been traditional can have a profound impact on restoring unity.
The rejection of the Immaculate Conception is often not a rejection of the dogma, but the way it was promulgated. Many Greek Fathers believed in the Immaculate Conception.
Papal supremacy has been the key issue. But, as Orthodox theologians become more familiar with the Latin Fathers, and the Pope’s shed some of the imperial ceremonies that accrued when they had to assume control of the Papal States, I think they will find the official teaching in seed form within the writings of the Greek Fathers.
If you think that the Romanian Metropolitan should not be given the sacraments for whatever reason, I think there are two problems. First administering sacraments is permitted to the Orthodox according to Canon 844.3 and secondly a lay person simply does not have the authority to make such a judgment in any case.
If we believe that the Catholic Church is true (and are soo keen to defend it and call everyone else a heretic etc) then I think we should also repose TRUST in it and not disregard its Canon Law like this.
Comment by Yaqoob — 27 May 2008 @ 7:55 pm“I do not think it can be said that an “Orthodox Bishop presumably rejects the filioque, the immaculate conception, and Papal supremacy.”
Then why on earth doesn’t he convert??
Comment by Paul — 27 May 2008 @ 8:01 pmIf Fr. Z is correct, and there is some similarity here with the case of the SSPX, then I see no need for outrage. It seemed like a humble expression of a desire to be in true communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Comment by schoolman — 27 May 2008 @ 8:02 pm“If we believe that the Catholic Church is true (and are soo keen to defend it and call everyone else a heretic etc) then I think we should also repose TRUST in it and not disregard its Canon Law like this.”
If we believe that the Catholic Church is the true church, we will hold the Catholic faith as laid down by her through the centuries. It is the constant teaching of the Church that you cannot reject Catholic doctrine and receive Holy Communion.
Obviously, the very fact that Canon 844 exists is a tremendous scandal. It’s an invitation to sacrilege, and an unspeakable shame. When I first saw it, I couldn’t believe it.
I may not have the authority to promulgate a new Code of Canon Law, but I can tell the difference between right and wrong. The faithful have every responsibility to fight against the error which motivated this Canon.
Comment by Paul — 27 May 2008 @ 8:09 pm“If Fr. Z is correct, and there is some similarity here with the case of the SSPX, then I see no need for outrage. It seemed like a humble expression of a desire to be in true communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”
Members of the SSPX hold the Catholic faith. The Orthodox do not.
When did this become a matter of dispute? When did the Immaculate Conception cease to be Catholic dogma?
Comment by Paul — 27 May 2008 @ 8:13 pmPaul:
Holy Mother Church does n ot agre