Can Orthodox Christians receive communion in other churches?

[Livindesert]

Just wondering I read that Orthodox churches around 1900 accepted the Eucharist of Anglicans as valid. Since conservative Anglican churches still teach the same doctron as in 1900 is it still o.k. for Orthodox to commune with these people?

 

[LinuxLurker01]

Just wondering I read that Orthodox churches around 1900 accepted the Eucharist of Anglicans as valid.

Individuals may have believed that, but they were very mistaken.

Since conservative Anglican churches still teach the same doctron as in 1900 is it still o.k. for Orthodox to commune with these people?

It never was okay.

 

[MichaelHelp]

i thought the Eucharist was to commune with Christ, not with a church. So why does it matter where it is taken?

 

[Livindesert]

O.k. I found the quote I was thinking of. The Eastern Orthodox church viewed Anglican orders as valid in 1922 but that is different from communion right?

 

[musicluvr83]

i thought the Eucharist was to commune with Christ, not with a church. So why does it matter where it is taken?

The following was taken from the OCA website...it says it better than I could so I figured I'd copy/paste it:

"For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, not the means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist.

"Sometimes people argue, "But Father, I believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches." If this is indeed the case, then the question is not one of Eucharistic hospitality but, rather, "Then if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven't you become an Orthodox Christian?""

 

[Damaris]

You aleady know an Orthodox Christian can't receive Communion in a heterodox church. Seems like just another pot stirring thread. Been a few the last few days.

Even if it is a pot-stirring thread, it's nice that people have responded kindly and thoroughly anyway. You never know when an innocent person is going to put in an internet search for answers to the same question.

 

[Michael G]

Not even close.

You really need to discuss your planned disobedience with a priest.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

i thought the Eucharist was to commune with Christ, not with a church. So why does it matter where it is taken?

This is not Biblical. The Eucharist is not just about the individual and Christ. It is about the individual, the Holy Trinity and the whole Church.

First, Christ so closely identifies with the Church that the New Testament calls it His Body. When Saul was going to persecute Christians, our Lord said "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?" The Apostle Paul later said that a husband ought to care for his wife as he cares for his own body which is a mystery that points to Christ and His Bride the Church. You cannot separate Christ from the Church.

Second, communion is a communal act. It necessarily involves believers gathering together, just like the first Eucharist. Christ gathered his disciples in the upper room to share a meal together.

Third, the Eucharist is what seals our unity as believers:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." --I Cor. 6

So it matters a lot that one is actually in communion with the people that they take communion with.

M.

 

[ProScribe]

You really need to discuss your planned disobedience with a priest.

Thank you for suggesting that, though I may only see a orthodox priest 2-3 times a year.

 

[Lukaris]

Thank you for suggesting that, though I may only see a orthodox priest 2-3 times a year.

The you should only take it at those times or less. In America, frequent communion was not the original norm (I do not know about the old world). In a 1949 Antiochian Orthodox catechism (per oversight of then Metr. Antony Bashir) it is stated, "the Church commands us all to confess our sins & receive Holy Communion during the Holy & Great Week before Easter. This is the absolute minimum. It is better to confess our sins & receive the Holy Mysteries four times a year .." So you can see that confession & communion have varied widely in America but it is not quantity but quality that counts.

 

[Dorothea]

O.k. I found the quote I was thinking of. The Eastern Orthodox church viewed Anglican orders as valid in 1922 but that is different from communion right?

Yes, it's different.

The reason why is because one communions in a church with people who are one body who share the same exact doctrines, dogmas, and teachings of their particular church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I found this post on another thread quite interesting

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703-18/#post51968274

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel That's great for you. Michael the Iconographer - who is my pal - also did the same.
However; the CC doesn't deny nor negate the succession or the sacraments of the east.
So again, you remain in receiving the Eucharist - which was what I was referring to.

Schism is not a good thing, for the Apostle said to avoid it.
Not embrace it.

The whole opening the doors to the Eucharist to those not within the Church is, to me, almost equal to heresy (that is outside of the realm of economia and exceptions such as areas in the Middle East in which inter-Communion is sometimes allowed between EO and OO churches due to ongoing persecution).

Let us look at it this way. Say we have Group B. Group B left Group A and therefore Group B is not what one would call legitimate. Now, about 1200/1000 times when there some group or another that wishes to be considered legitimate or valid, they seek it. A great example would be the various groups of fake-odox in this country that claim some form of Apostolic lineage via a defrocked bishop.

Or let us pick on the Anglicans for a moment, it's been a while since I've picked on them (forgive me!) The Anglicans left the Roman Church. We know this. The Anglicans recognize the Roman Church as the "True Church" (at least last I had heard) and thus will recognize Roman ordinations, sacraments, etc etc; quite easily. They will allow the Roman Church's people to receive Communion.
Now, why is this? It is because the Anglicans - at large - wish for some form of validity or legitimacy and wish to find that by opening the doors to the Roman Church. Yet the Roman Church will not open the doors to the Anglicans unless the Anglicans become Roman Catholic.

Taking this concept and applying it elsewhere, we see it in Rome-East relations. The Roman Church will accept almost any Orthodox person, recognizes Orthodox orders as "valid" and will open the chalice for Communion to Orthodox Christians. Yet the Orthodox Church remains to guard the chalice to the grave.

I ask this: if the Roman Church is the True Church, why then does it open the doors to Communion to those whom it perceives to be schismatics and holds outside of Communion? In the eyes of the Roman Church, both the Anglicans and the Orthodox are both considered schismatic, yet only one is invited to the chalice.

If one equates how the Anglicans - at large - see Catholicism to how Catholicism - at large - appears to see the East, one finds the same show but with a slightly altered cast of actors and characters.

Something to think about, no?

As much as schism is not a good thing, it can only be healed when the Holy Spirit brings a way for healing to happen.

What do we do in the case of this scriptures and Tradition? We pray for it to stop. Or at least I do.

​

Scripture in the context of Tradition. It is what we have done for 2,000 years, why stop? This 'method' is not broken, why fix it?

 

[RobNJ]

Was there a reason, other than pot stirring, to revive an dead thread, with a hijacked copy/paste of an even older post , from General Heresies?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Was there a reason, other than pot stirring, to revive an dead thread, with a hijacked copy/paste of an even older post , from General Heresies?

And all this time I thought it was just the RCs that called it that

http://www.christianforums.com/t7203010-4/#post46566876

I'm not surprised. We call it general heresy for a reason. It is a vile place.

 

[RobNJ]

I think they stole the term from us

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think they stole the term from us

Does it really matter?

 

[Basil the Great]

OK, let's consider this possible scenario. Let's say an ambassador from an Orthodox country is serving in a South American nation. While there is probably an Orthodox Church now in most or all of the capital cities of South America, this would not have been the case probably 100 years ago. Nevertheless, I can only assume that even if an Orthodox Christian is living in an area where there is no Orthodox Church, it is still not acceptable for him to receive Catholic Communion.

However, what about confession? Let's say that the Orthodox Christian commits a grave sin and he becomes seriously ill and is in grave danger of dying. Would it be permissible for him to ask for a Catholic priest so he could make his confession, due to the serious risk of death that he faces?

 

[Antony in Tx]

OK, let's consider this possible scenario. Let's say an ambassador from an Orthodox country is serving in a South American nation. While there is probably an Orthodox Church now in most or all of the capital cities of South America, this would not have been the case probably 100 years ago. Nevertheless, I can only assume that even if an Orthodox Christian is living in an area where there is no Orthodox Church, it is still not acceptable for him to receive Catholic Communion.

However, what about confession? Let's say that the Orthodox Christian commits a grave sin and he becomes seriously ill and is in grave danger of dying. Would it be permissible for him to ask for a Catholic priest so he could make his confession, due to the serious risk of death that he faces?

Pretty sure he would have just taken an Orthodox priest with him as a member of his staff and to serve his entire staff if he were from an "Orthodox Country".

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well I plan on taking communion (I want to receive the sacrament) at this Lutheran church because its the one my mom always attends ~ St. Peter's or St. Barbara's is 45 minutes away in Ft. Worth.

Pro, you know better! You're just playing with us, right?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

i thought the Eucharist was to commune with Christ, not with a church. So why does it matter where it is taken?

The point of communion is to commune with the church, which includes Christ himself (the head of the church) and His body (the church).

The idea of cultivating an entirely 'personal' relationship between 'just me and Jesus' is foreign to Orthodoxy.