I'm sure this is something eyebrow raising for every reader here. Latin Catholics will be surprised by some information, Eastern Catholics will be perturbed to be called a "rite" instead of a member of a sui iuris Church, and Orthodox will be less than happy to see talk of intercommunion that is largely only unidirectional (though with some notable exceptions in the Middle East).
ROME, JULY 21, 2009 (Zenit.org) - Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q1: Is there a real division/separation between Catholics of the Latin rite and Catholics of Eastern rites? Is a Catholic of the Latin rite debarred in anyway from participating in the liturgy of an Eastern-rite Catholic church? Does a Latin-rite Catholic have to follow a procedure before he can participate in the liturgy of an Eastern-rite Catholic church? -- H.W., Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago
Q2: May a Catholic attend Mass in an Orthodox church? Is not the Orthodox Church schismatic? -- E.T., Mairé-L'Evescault, France
A: Since these two questions are related I will take them together.
First, there is no division or separation between the Latin rite and the more than 20 Catholic Eastern Churches. There are, however, many differences and distinctions.
These multiple distinctions give each Church its characteristic identity within the one fold which is the Catholic Church.
The most obvious distinctions are external. Each Church uses a distinct ritual for Mass, the sacraments and sacramentals.
For those Churches where there is a corresponding Orthodox Church (for example, the several Byzantine or Melkite Churches, the Coptic, and the Syro-Malankara), an outsider would be hard-put to distinguish between the two celebrations. One key difference with the Orthodox: The Eastern-rite Catholics mention the Pope in the anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer. Among other places.
Compared to the Latin-rite Church, the Eastern-rite Churches differ in their internal organization. This is evident, for example, in the guiding role of the patriarch or major archbishop, the means of selecting bishops, and in some cases the presence of married priests.
None of these differences, however, constitute a separation of faith or of communion with the See of Peter.
Because of this, any Catholic may attend, receive Communion, and fulfill the holy day precept at any Catholic rite.
There is no formal procedure required before attending, but the ancient principle of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" should be diligently applied. Thus a Latin Catholic who wishes to attend one of these rites should acquaint himself with the basic practices and demands of the rite and adapt himself accordingly. For example, most Eastern rites remain standing for most of the celebration and do not kneel for the consecration; a Latin should respect this tradition. Some rites have stricter fasting rules before receiving Communion, and as far as possible a Latin should follow suit. A lamentable fact is that many people who choose to regularly attend an Eastern parish 'cherry pick' those disciplines they like and ignore others - attending days of obligation on weekdays (as the Eastern Catholic Churches haven't moved any of them to Sunday in the US), the fasting restrictions (much more lax in the Latin Church), etc.
Frequency in attending an Eastern celebration does not inscribe a Catholic to that rite, just as an Eastern Catholic who habitually attends the Latin rite does not automatically become Latin. To formally switch rites in a permanent manner requires a formal procedure. A complex and inconsistent process based on the opinions of both the Latin and Eastern hierarchs. This can be as simple as the writing of two letters or as slow and convoluted as sending paperwork to Rome.
The question is somewhat diverse for the case of Orthodox Churches, which are not in full communion with Rome but which enjoy the apostolic succession and all seven sacraments. While full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.
From the Catholic standpoint, a member of the faithful who is unable to attend Mass because there is no Catholic celebration available, may, if he so wishes, attend and receive Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Please refrain from sending me angry comments about this line. This is the Catholic viewpoint and does not in any way reflect Orthodox opinion.
Likewise, an Orthodox Christian in a similar situation is allowed to receive Communion and some other sacraments in any Catholic rite. Such an attendance is always optional and is never obligatory, not even in order to fulfill a festive precept.
However, not all Orthodox Churches accept this, and some take a dim view of any form of intercommunion. Once more it is incumbent upon Catholics not to impinge on others' sensibilities and limit themselves to what is acceptable to each particular Church.
Posts
From what I've read we are automatically anathema if we take communion from a non-Orthodox church so that last paragraph isn't really correct.
ReplyDeleteI think it was written from a Catholic rather than an Orthodox standpoint, Michael. From their perspective, Orthodox people may receive in their churches, and, where episcopal authority has mutually agreed it, their people may receive in our churches. Sadly, there are isolated occasions where Orthodox hierarchs have done this and there is a standing permission to do this in the Antiochian church in certain circumstances. This, to me, shows a complete disregard for the communion that is the Church. It isn't a matter of economy or pastoral leniency because the Church is the Church. Exposure to the Holy Things of those who are in heresy is detrimental to their wellbeing and a flagrant dismissal by the priest of his duties in bringing people to salvation.
ReplyDeleteI should add that I have more respect for the Church of England than the Catholic church on this point of intercommunion. The Catholic church knows very well that it is against an Orthodox understanding of the Church and Mysteries for our people to receive in their churches, yet they prey on those of our people who do not know better and have an official policy of giving communion to any Orthodox people who so present themselves.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, the Church of England's position is that Christians of other Trinitarian christian churches may receive communion at its altars, provided that they are "in good standing" in their own churches. If I, as an Orthodox Christian, were to present myself at an Anglican altar, I would be under anathema and so not "in good standing" in my church. By the Church of England's own rules, I should not be given communion at an Anglican church. I have a greatb deal of respect for this. It shows that they recognise a difference between our churches and that, while their own understanding of the Church and the Eucharist means that I could receive, they implement this rule out of respect, both for other traditions and for the individuals concerned. Imagine if an unsuspecting Orthodox received at a non-Orthodox church and then went to his own church to find he was under anathema and had to confess this. Not good. I wish the Catholic church would show similar respect.
(I know that many Anglican clergy take it upon themselves to disregard this but that is a different matter from the Church of England's official policy).
The official policy of the Catholic Church is that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Orthodox are welcome to commune, but they should follow the discipline of their own churches. I think you will find this written in the common missalettes used in many Catholic churches.
ReplyDeleteAs for Episcopal/Anglican churches, first of all the phrase "in good standing" to them means very little, or nothing. It might mean, unless you have created scandal in your old parish by being a child molestor, or something along those lines. Second of all, in practice, their churches are divided between those who offer communion to absolutely anyone, even the unbaptized, and those who offer communion to anyone baptized in any church and a believer in Jesus Christ.
My husband belongs to a parish of the newly formed Anglican Church in North America. Their regular announcement is that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and is baptized is welcome to come to communion. If you don't yet believe or aren't baptized, please come up for a blessing. I have been making an ongoing attempt to persuade the pastor to include something which says, you are welcome to come to communion, unless you belong to a church whose discipline would not allow it, or something along those lines. I have pointed out to him that this would include Catholics, Orthodox, and Missouri Synod Lutherans at least. He has tried to do this, but all of the ways of saying it are so awkward that he always drops it.
I really think the Catholic rule does respect the Orthodox practice.
And in practice, Catholics at least understand what you mean by not wanting to commune with them, which you will find the vast majority of Anglicans do not.
A priest of the Toronto Oratory told me that some Orthodox college students asked if they could confess to the Catholic priests there. They were told, as far as we are concerned, yes, but you should ask a priest of your church at home first what you should do. He said they never came back. Which is as you believe is correct.
I am quite quite sure that you are mishearing "in good standing" to make it mean something it does not mean to those who wrote it, and that no respect for Orthodox beliefs is in any way implied by it.
(Of course you know how much respect for the Orthodox beliefs of her mother Presiding Bishop Schori had. )
Susan Peterson