[Apologetics] Fw: CWNews: Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics

Wed May 28 13:48:08 EDT 2008

Hi

Unlike Art, I think this was a good thing to happen as far as relations between the two sides is concerned.  I have my reservations, though - the report I read earlier today implied that it was a case of the metropolitan self-communicating without being a concelebrating minister.  That would, as far as I know, be wrong, even in the case of a non-concelebrating Catholic priest/bishop.

The article Art cites doesn't elaborate more:

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. 

One of the requirements for a valid consecration is the intent of the priest to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.  By accepting Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox consecrations as valid, Rome at least implicitly acknowledges that they intend to do as we do.  So the Orthodox must believe as we do in order to intend what our priests intend.

And they do - they fully acknowledge the Real Presence; they just do not explain it in Western terminology (Aristotelian terminology) using terms like "substance" and "accidents."  The Western definition of transubstantiation is a collection of words describing a dogma.  The dogma is a reality, the words are the best attempt we can make.  The East and West have both made different best attempts, and, at least as far as those in union with Rome are concerned, both attempts are valid.  They're the same in content, different in wording and underlying philosophical concepts.  Aristotelianism and Thomas Aquinas have never been declared the sole valid means of expression of our understanding of dogma.

What the East is careful not to do, is explain HOW the change occurs.  They agree fully with us THAT it occurs.  And the change that both sides agree occurs is the same change we describe with the term "transubstantiation."

Just as the case here has frequently been made that Protestants and Catholics may, at times, share the same teaching but phrase it in such different ways that each side finds it hard to grasp that the two sides are saying the same thing, so it is with the East vs West issue.

The term the East uses is metousiosis, which is the Greek equivalent of the Latin transsubstantiatio, and the East uses these terms as translations for each other when (rarely) it translates documents across the East/West divide.

The following is about as authoritative to the Orthodox as Trent is to us, i.e. Trent is fully authoritative to us as an Ecumenical Council; Jerusalem is fully authoritative to them as the highest possible council aside from the Ecumenical Councils which, to them, ceased with Nicaea II in 787 AD:

Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (1672 AD), chapter 4, translated by Robertson, 1899 (emphasis mine):

DECREE XVII.

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night wherein He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: "Take, eat ye; This is My Body." {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: "Drink ye all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins." {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin {Mary ELC}, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and entereth into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also saith: "Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake," that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord - for to say so were blasphemous and wicked - but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descendeth upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man's wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth.

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honoured in the highest manner, and adored with latria. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different therefrom; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.

Further, we believe that by the word "transubstantiation" the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, - for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, - but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above. Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who hath received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox, and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics; but necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress the Catholic Church of Christ rejecteth and anathematiseth.

(It does use terms like "accidents", interestingly.  Translations into Russian in the 1800's, to avoid being too close to Rome, changed that wording, but continued to use "transubstantiation.")

The commonly seen Eastern argument that they don't accept transubstantiation is simply an anti-Rome reaction.  They accept metousiosis, which is an identical concept, and what they reject is Rome, Western philosophy, and Latin words, because they don't like Rome.  It really has nothing to do with differences in dogma.  If it did, we would not consider their Eucharists to be validly consecrated.

It would be the same if they rejected the term "mater Dei" and accepted the term "Theotokos" instead - in fact, many do object to the Latin form.  There is no doctrinal difference, it is just Latin that is "bad" because it's Catholic and not Orthodox, and their excuse is that "mater Dei" puts the emphasis on "mother" where as "Theotokos" puts the emphasis on "God."  Ironically, even those who object to "mater Dei" still use the Greek "meter Theou" or "Theometor" which are perfect transliterations.  Even "Dei genetrix" is objected to, because it's Latin, with the excuse that "genetrix" is a noun, Mary, whereas "tokos" is only a suffix.

My point with that is that it is anger, not doctrine, that prevents them from acknowledging our language, and that allows them to maintain a distance that is not really there.

Worth reading: Phil Porvaznik (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm) defends the Orthodox belief as being substantially the same, in spite of wording being an issue at times.  The context is the equivalent situation with Anglicanism.

God bless,
Stephen

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Art Kelly 
  To: Apologetics Group ; Jim Murphy 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:29 PM
  Subject: [Apologetics] Fw: CWNews: Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics

        See my comment on this article at

        http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58680

        (Scroll down for the comments at the bottom.)

        Art

        --- On Tue, 5/27/08, CWNews.com <subs at cwnews.com> wrote:

          From: CWNews.com <subs at cwnews.com>
          Subject: CWNews: Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics
          To: arthurkelly at yahoo.com
          Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 5:30 PM

                a web service from Trinity Communications 
                CWNews: Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics
                Art: 

                Amazing news from Romania today! When an Orthodox bishop asks to share the Eucharist with his Catholic counterparts, that's big news. When it happens in Romania-- where the Orthodox Church is dominant, and often hostile to Catholics-- it's astonishing. Is Metropolitan Corneanu signaling a desire to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church? Will his Romanian Orthodox confreres tolerate his action? We'll be watching this story with keen interest.

                - Phil Lawler 

                Today's Headlines: 

                  a.. Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics 
                  b.. English Church forced to drop adoption services 
                  c.. Church growing in Africa, receding in Europe, data show 
                  d.. Ahmadinejad wants meeting with Pope Benedict 
                  e.. Australian Anglican cleric raps World Youth Day protestors 
                  f.. California poll shows small majority favoring marriage amendment 
                  g.. Russia to support reconstruction of Orthodox churches in Kosovo 
                  h.. Canadian bishops question "Body Worlds" exhibit 
                In Off the Record today: 

                  a.. contradiction 

                This mailing is a service of Catholic World News. © All material copyright 2006, all rights reserved.
                For subscription information, visit www.cwnews.com.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20080528/49b6343f/attachment.html>