Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics

Catholic World News ^ | May 27, 2008

[Petrosius]

Ping!

[kosta50]

Kolo will tell you that Marionite Catholics and Orthodox communities sin the Middle East do this routinely and spontaneously. The problem is that communion means communion of faith and we have not reached that point yet. As long as we profess a different faith, even if it is different by one word, it is not the same faith, and we know that the differences are more than one word.

The laity, however, want to feel "at home" in either Church and use Communion as an expression of a wishful union. It's good that there is a convergent feeling among our communities, but the Eucharist should not be used as a means toward reunion but rather as an expression of one.

I'm curious to see what the Metropolitan has to say.

[hosepipe]

WHy not.... the difference between them is marginal..

[dangus]

I’m always confused by the rank of “Metropolitan” in the East. How big of a head honcho is the bishop? I’m always gratified by gestures of reconciliation, but is this a sign of reconciliation or just a disobedient bishop practicing false ecumenism?

(Lurkers: the Roman Church has determined that its side in the mutual excommunications of the schism were invalid, even though a rupture still exists. Therefore, Catholics are/would be permitted to receive communion at Orthodox liturgies wherever the Orthodox church permits it. Orthodox churches, however, still consider the Roman Church excommunicated, and therefore do not permit it. Hence my curiosity: does the metropolitan have the authority to permit it?)

[dangus]

>> I’m curious to see what the Metropolitan has to say. <<

Apparently, this “bishop” WAS the Metropolitan, no?

[FormerLib]

Because those differences are supposed to have been addressed before communion is shared. This isn't the Democrat Party where you just modify the rules to suit you as you go; the Bishops are supposed to stand for something.

[hosepipe]

[ This isn't the Democrat Party where you just modify the rules to suit you as you go ]

I suppose every game needs RULES.. Playing church as well..

[Claud]

It is my understanding that the excommunications were leveled at the respective patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople, and didn’t extend to the laity or even the bishops in the respective Churches.

As far as I know (and someone correct me if I am wrong), neither Church has ever formally excommunicated the other.

That said, I’m with kosta in wanting to see the bishop’s explanation. At first blush I’d have to agree that it’s not wise to jumpstart any reunion with actions like this. But God will judge.

[NYer]

Kolo will tell you that Marionite Catholics and Orthodox communities sin the Middle East do this routinely and spontaneously.

And it spills over into this country. We have several 'mixed' families where the husband is Maronite and the wife is Orthodox or vice versa. They send their children to us for religious education but also take them to services in the Orthodox Church. Both husbands and wives receive communion at each other's respective churches.

[Petrosius]

Because those differences are supposed to have been addressed before communion is shared.

With respect, those differences should have been addressed in an ecumenical council before communion was broken.

[NYer]

I’m always confused by the rank of “Metropolitan” in the East.

From Wikipedia:

In hierarchical Christian churches, the rank of metropolitan bishop, or simply metropolitan, pertains to the diocesan bishop or archbishop (then more precisely called metropolitan archbishop) of a metropolis; that is, the chief city of a historical Roman province, ecclesiastical province, or regional capital. His jurisdiction is called a metropolia or a metropolis.

Before the establishment of patriarchs (beginning in 325 AD), metropolitan was the highest episcopal rank in the Christian church. They presided over synods of bishops, and were granted special privileges by canon law and sacred tradition.

In the Roman Catholic Church, a metropolitan has supervisory authority over the bishops in the dioceses that make up his ecclesiastical province, who are therefore called his suffragan bishops.

Metropolitan bishop

[Claud]

For instance, the Archbishop of Philadelphia is the metropolitan of the other suffragan sees in Pennsylvania (Allentown, Altoona-Johnstown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Scranton). New York is the metropolitan see of the dioceses in NY state, and Boston is the metropolitan see of all the dioceses in Massachusetts.

[Kolokotronis]

“With respect, those differences should have been addressed in an ecumenical council before communion was broken.”

Would Rome have respected the decision of an ecumenical council in the 11th century anymore than it respected the ecumenical council mandated wording of the Creed in the 4th? Somehow or other I sincerely doubt it, P.

FL is right. The differences TODAY have to be dealt with by an ecumenical council of TODAY. False ecumenism and, frankly, cheap showboating like this Romanian Metropolitan demonstrated, gets us nowhere. This is quite unlike what is going on in the Arab Orthodox community where world events, history and shared culture make their de facto intercommunion something we should recognize and the hierarchs should allow by economia.

[dangus]

Thanks, but I was particularly interested in the Romanian Church, not the Roman Church, which I’m very familiar with.

[Petrosius]

Would Rome have respected the decision of an ecumenical council in the 11th century anymore than it respected the ecumenical council mandated wording of the Creed in the 4th? Somehow or other I sincerely doubt it, P.

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence: that it would have been Rome that would have had to modify its position. As a lawyer I am surprised at you. : )

[Claud]

oops...sorry about that.

[NYer]

Thanks, but I was particularly interested in the Romanian Church, not the Roman Church, which I’m very familiar with.

From the link at my #12.

ORTHODOX

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the title is used variously. In the Hellenic Churches metropolitans are ranked below archbishops in precedence, and primates of local churches below patriarchal rank are generally designated as archbishops. The reverse is true for the Slavic Churches (Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc.), where metropolitans rank above archbishops and the title can be used for primatial sees as well as important cities.

In neither case do metropolitans have any special authority over other ruling bishops within their provinces. However, metropolitans (archbishops in the Greek Orthodox Church) are the chairmen of their respective synods of bishops, and have special privileges.

[Kolokotronis]

“...that it would have been Rome that would have had to modify its position.”

Seems to me that argument is long over, P and Rome lost it. Frankly, calling the Easterners heretics because we had “cut the filioque out of the Creed” was really beyond the pale. If it is still Rome’s position, and I don’t think it is, that it can change the wording of the Creed sua sponte, then there really is absolutely no point whatsoever in any theological dialog between Rome and the East if the point of the dialog is a reunion which will never happen.

[Claud]

I'm not sure we can say that the Council forbade changes in the wording of the Creed so much as the faith contained in it:

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

That can be interpreted as forbidding changes in wording, but it's not an open and shut case. If one changed the wording but did not change the faith expressed of the Creed, would that violate the Canon? I'm not sure it would. One could argue that the filioque does represent a different faith--but I don't think the Fathers really dealt with the issue of the procession of the Spirit, and who knows whether they held it or not.

In any case, an equal cannot bind an equal. So even if this canon did prohibit any additions to the Creed--it being a disciplinary matter and not part of the received and unchangeable Apostolic Tradition--any subsequent Council could easily revoke the prohibition.