I have been teaching study abroad courses in Italy for almost two decades. The Italy study abroad courses have become popular options for Seton Hall students who wish either to explore first-hand the foundations of Christian culture or to walk in the footsteps of the saints, as Italy has produced an abundance in every epoch of Catholicism. Every year, I am impressed with the students who take the courses, a good number of whom are not Catholic, or even Christian.
This year, an incredibly gifted young man, member of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, took the course. We visited several Palermitan churches and shrines, and attended Sunday Mass at a Catholic church; my Orthodox student eagerly attended. It happened that when the student went with crossed arms to receive a blessing from the priest, the priest in Palermo, who probably was not accustomed to the practice, said: “Apri la bocca” (“Open your mouth”), and the student did as he was told and received the Eucharist. I will never forget how uncomfortable this young man felt after he received the Eucharist instead of the blessing in a Catholic Church. The priest in Palermo probably was not accustomed to blessing people who approach him in the communion line, or had never thought that a person in line was not Catholic.
I calmed the student, explaining that the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church have the same understanding of and reverence for the Blessed Eucharist and the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I realized again how much Christian division hurts, and how much still remains to be done so that Catholic and Orthodox intercommune.
Which leads to this current controversy: the much-contested matter of intercommunion with certain Protestants, which was raised by the German bishops and which is a virtual impossibility, in my view, for theological reasons. If the Catholic Church can and will think of intercommunion, then intercommunion with the Orthodox Churches is the most reasonable, probable, and feasible, as there is an imperfect communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox Churches.
If intercommunion with Lutherans or other Protestants was ever approved (which I strongly doubt), it would not only be “sacrilegious” and an “outrage” against the sacrament of the Eucharist, as Cardinal Sarah has put it, but would also cause a trauma in modern ecumenism and damage Catholic-Orthodox relations, something the Catholic Church would avoid at any cost. As Pope Francis said in a recent meeting with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of Moscow, “the Catholic Church will never allow an attitude of division to be born on its own.”
Catholic faithful, from a Catholic perspective, can receive the Eucharist and the Sacraments of penance and the anointing of the sick in an Orthodox Church. But the Orthodox faithful cannot do the same in a Catholic Church. So, there is no reciprocity from the Orthodox Churches. As a general rule, the Orthodox Church—or, more precisely, the Orthodox Churches – do not allow Catholics (or members of any non-Orthodox denomination) to receive the sacraments in their Churches. However, there might be exceptions to the rule. In some Orthodox Churches, the priest might advise the Orthodox faithful to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church under extraordinary circumstances (for example, if there is no possibility of getting to an Orthodox Church or an Orthodox priest), but this is an exception and not the rule. Most Orthodox priests would advise their faithful to wait, since the Eucharist is a sign and symbol of ecclesial communion.
To my knowledge, the Greek Orthodox Church does not allow Roman Catholic faithful to receive communion in the Greek Orthodox Church, as receiving the Eucharist requires Church membership—and, thus, unity under an Orthodox bishop. What the Orthodox Eucharistic theology implies is triple unity, which includes Eucharistic unity, Faith unity, and Ecclesial unity. Only when these conditions or unities are met will intercommunion with the Orthodox will be possible.
Instead, the Catholic Church teaching is clear regarding communicatio in sacris (participation in things sacred) with and in Churches where these sacraments are valid and not dissimilar to the Catholic understanding of them. This includes the Orthodox Churches, which have preserved the sacraments and the apostolic succession. According to Canon 844, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Canon Law:
Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Moreover, Vatican II emphasized the validity of the Eucharist celebrated in the sister Churches of the East and went a step further in building bridges of communication encouraging communicatio in sacris. Unitatis Redintegratio, the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, states:
Everyone also knows with what great love the Christians of the East celebrate the sacred liturgy, especially the eucharistic celebration, source of the Church’s life and pledge of future glory, in which the faithful, united with their bishop, have access to God the Father through the Son, the Word made flesh, Who suffered and has been glorified, and so, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, they enter into communion with the most holy Trinity, being made ‘sharers of the divine nature.’ Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature and through concelebration, their communion with one another is made manifest…. These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore, some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged. (no. 15)
The value of the Eucharistic celebration in the Eastern Churches that are not in communion with the Catholic Church is not questioned by the fathers of Vatican II. Instead, Vatican II focused on and valued the diversity of ways the Eastern Churches have for centuries celebrated the mystery of the Eucharist, following their ancient and diverse liturgical traditions.
The U.S. Catholic bishops summed up the matter of communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox in their 1996 Guidelines for the Reception of Communion at a Catholic Mass:
Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Churches of the East, and the Polish National Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches.
Over the centuries, the Christian East has developed its own liturgies, which in their specific forms accentuate specific aspects of the Eucharistic mystery. Eastern liturgies have more complex rites; to an Eastern Christian the Latin liturgy often appears simple, short, and straightforward. Aspects of Eucharistic theology that are more typical of the Eastern tradition are strongly anchored in the theology of the Fathers of the early Church and the Holy Scripture. The Eucharist is the sacrament or mystery; it is “mystery of mysteries.” For the Orthodox, the Eucharist is an eschatological anticipation, the veiled presence of the “Parousia” of the Lord Jesus, His presence and expectation at the same time. The Holy Spirit transforms both the gifts of bread and wine into the sacramental Body of Christ and those who participate in it, inserting them deeply into the ecclesial Body of Christ. Thus, the Eucharist constitutes the Church in communion. The faithful who participate in the Eucharistic body become one with Christ. Communion with Christ opens up to communion among the brothers, which goes beyond every distinction, in space and time. So, unity in and through the Holy Eucharist demonstrates unity in the one Faith and one Ecclesial community—that is, unity under one bishop.
So, if an Orthodox received the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, although the first requirement (unity of faith) is met, the second (unity under one bishop) is not met. As a result, it is an “imperfect” communion.
If intercommunion with the Orthodox Churches with which the Catholic Church has so much in common—including the sacraments and apostolic succession, the Fathers of the Church, the seven first Ecumenical Councils and other common beliefs and practices—is not possible, how can intercommunion exist with various Protestant denominations, which do not share apostolic succession or the same understanding of Holy Communion and the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? Put simply, intercommunion with the Protestants is an impossibility. As for my Orthodox student who received the Eucharist in a Catholic Church in Palermo, I advised him to talk to his parish priest and consider this a perfect-imperfect communion, mindful of the hope-filled words of Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I in late 2006: “The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I use to have lunch every month with a Greek Orthodox priest (I am Catholic). We talked about a range of topics that in many cases boiled down to different terminology as opposed to different teaching barring a few exceptions (like Marriage and divorce as opposed to Marriage and Declaration of Nullity). My question is, why can’t we hold an ecumenical council (invite all Orthodox parties with Catholic) and really hash out the historical understanding of everyone’s place? Everyone brings their evidence and theologians to argue (philosophically) the points to get to the Truth. Is that not part of their jobs as Bishops?
Be patient, pray for the international commission for catholic-orthodox dialogue and the conversion of hearts.
Why are the Eastern Catholic Churches always excluded from these meetings? It’s always Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox. We exist too!
The Catholic Church has held twenty one ecumenical councils during her 2,000 year history, of which the Eastern Orthodox, because of their schism with the Church, recognize only the first seven.
The likelihood that the fifteen or so ethnic branches of the Orthodox Church would agree to fully participate with the Catholic Church in a twenty second council is slim to none so I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Also, ecumenical councils are very tricky and unpredictable affairs that should not be convoked unless there is a very pressing need that can’t be resolved any other way.
Trust me, a council is not a thing to be entered into lightly.
No disrespect, but you do not know what you are talking about, sir. There are no “branches” of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is One, Holy, Catholic Eastern Orthodox Church that has different administrative units, which do not differ on dogmatics. The first councils were ecumenical [pre-Schism] making all other councils hosted by Rome, per se, non-ecumenical. If there was dialogue w/ the East, it would begin the question that caused schism, the role of the Bishop of the Rome w/in an undivided Church.
To the best of my knowledge, the Oriental Orthodox Churches (I.e. non-Chalcedonian) are not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches which accept the Council of Chalcedon and the other councils up to Nicea II or the Catholic Church.
I disagree. if the agenda of a Council was specifically the question of resolving the differences between the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, it would not be “tricky and unpredictable”.
Representatives of some or all of the EO Churches have attended several previous Councils and formally agreed to unity, most recently in the 15th century, only to have the agreement eventually rejected by their superiors when they returned home – in the last case, under pressure from their new Ottoman Moslem temporal overlords. This would be unlikely to happen in the 21st century with modern travel and communications as the supreme heads of each of the Churches could attend or convey their approval in an unambiguous and definitive manner.
Dear brother in Christ, John,
There has not been a true Ecumenical Council since the last one where both East and West attended. Your comment, “Their (Orthodox) schism with the Church” belies a polemical position. Can the Orthodox say they same thing: The Patriarchate of Rome left the other Patriarchates I. e. she broke from us? Was the schism from the Church or in the Church? Polemical comments do not help the cause of Church Unity.
No disrespect, but you do not know what you are talking about, sir. There are no “branches” of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is One, Holy, Catholic Eastern Orthodox Church that has different administrative units, which do not differ on dogmatics. The first councils were ecumenical [pre-Schism] making all other councils hosted by Rome, per se, non-ecumenical. If there was dialogue w/ the East, it would begin the question that caused schism, the role of the Bishop of the Rome w/in an undivided Church.
We had a Russian Orthodox student staying at our house for a time (in Ireland). After consulting her pastor before coming to study for six months, she regularly attended Mass and received Holy Communion in our local Catholic cathedral. If memory serves me right, I think that her pastor back home in Russia advised her it was fine, but *just in case* to worship in the local Catholic bishop’s church (our diocese’s cathedral).
The thing about *some* of the Eastern Orthodox (the Greek branch especially) to bear in mind is that they have a much more negative view of Catholicism than we have of them. In a number of cases in recent times in Britain and Ireland, some Orthodox choose to share churches with Anglicans rather than Catholics, which leads me to suspect that the issue is not really theological or sacramental but anti-Catholic. This appears to be an Eastern European/Greek phenomenon. In some cases I get the impression that the old ‘Rome as Antichrist / Whore of Babylon’ is an unspoken factor.
There are exceptions though. As far as I am aware the Armenians, Assyrians, Romanians, Syrian Orthodox (both Arab and Indian-they always share churches with Catholics in Europe) and the Copts have a much more ecumenical view of the Catholic Church.
Can I write here?
LAST UPDATED:
Dear Mrs. Murzaku,
Thank you for sharing your heart for Christian unity. Can I share a secret with you? If it’s ok, I want to share something about your approach with waiting to deal with Protestants before the Orthodox. Is that ok?
You may or may not find my remarks useful as I once was a former protestant preacher, now Indigenous-Miaphysites-Orthodox like your Malankara friend”. We are often confused with the Constanople-Orthodox or “Eastern Orthodox” as our close friends sometimes call themselves. Well, personally if I was you I would consider takling one at a time, which ever your could build inter-christian unity with first, than the other. Like Napoleon or Alexander the Great, in any boardgame, sometimes you have to take the small battles with the smaller countries before you can take the bigger ones, and in the process you grow moving us to a closer direction when all Christians are one again. But from an orthodox prospective, I could not see you building connections with the Protestants being frowned at by Orthodoxx any worse than what some call your merger with the “Church of the East”. As the Orthodox view of the Church of the East was much more frowned on than the Protestants or Catholic persuasions. I don’t personally frown on them as after listening to several open dialogs between our churches it appears that Nestorian was the only problem maker and not the other patriarchs he was affiliated with. As they never had the opportunity to participate in the international dialogs of the past, simply only hearing Nestorians version of the events. However, the concern of most of my Eastern Orthodox friends, who may or not consider us as orthodox also, depending on which of their branches you speak of. While many of these friends of mine speak of calendars, when you get to know them it’s really not about calendars, it’s about trust. Most of my Eastern Orthodox brothers feel the Catholics betrayed them when they invaded their capital in Constanople, while they were seen as pretending to come as allies to fight the Radical Muslim Ottoman invaders. They trusted them. It was the one time in history that they considered asking the Catholics for help and with much hesitation. And it was the one opportunity they gave you that they feel you betrayed them. This is how most feel. Unfortunately, as Orthodox, Miaphysite, Catholic, Protestant and Nestorian or any other kind of Christian; we all have made mistakes in the past with Judas Iscarots slipping in among us. And sadly due to our lack of humility we allowed the devil to devide us all. May the Lord have mercy on us all and call us back into being one united borderless apostle-based brotherhood again, with the Good Shepard as our chief pillar. Maybe we can not take communion together, but we can find some other way to connect the blocks that the devil has scattered. Pray for me a sinner and do please let me know if there is anything I can do to be helpful. My father once shared with me a story and I’ll end with this. The story goes about an apostle that came to Jesus. This apostle said, we found this group of people that are not one of us. But they are meeting together in your name. And doing many other things in your name. Teacher, do we have permission to go stop them? Looking back one could say, what a great opportunity compared to today, to stop a heresy straight in their tracks having Jesus and the aposles present to correct it. Then the Teacher surprisingly stopped them, saying what? “Do not stop them” And the disciple was puzzled. Why not? It did not make any sense to him. But the Teacher said, “Who is not against us, is for us”. I hope there is something we can learn from this. May God bless you and keep us in his compelling lights. Love and
Peace, Brandon
PS: As far as Eastern Orthodox, I would work on the Greeks Or Antiochians first as the Russians are the strictest and hardest even within their fellowship. And as far as Protestants, Methodists would be the easier one to tackle first. But be careful about the Methodist faction that slit off endorsing gay priests, as the Russian Orthodox attempted to even leave our join effort with the World Council of Churches over this faction. Honestly, rather than starting off trying to get in communion, it’s better to recognize each other first and start off with joint ventures working together at spreading faith in Jesus to the massive parts of the World that do not even have a small taste of who Jesus is. Like the Sahara and Asia. All my Muslim friends know next to nothing about Jesus or what he taught and most want to read the gospel but are scared to ask for it, due to fear. I truly believe that if we get all christians focused back on our mission, to seek and save the lost, this will naturally pull us together. It’s really sad, that Most of the world has not even had a small taste of who Jesus is, especially Asia and North Africa. And that is where most people in the world live. Prayerfully I can do something about this in my lifetime. Pray for me a sinner.
Sorry for so many edits, I could not find a way to delete the previous.