Fr. Thomas Hopko's lecture - what do you think?

[Ilian]

What is needed is unity among Orthodoxy itself. There are many things one could point to that show how much an issue our lack of unity is.

In regards to intercommunion, it happens now under certain circumstances with both Catholics and Oriental Orthodox.

 

[Andrea Elizabeth]

The anathema has been lifted, but not by the whole Church, just the EP. What we'd basically have to do, if we just communed with RCs with nothing changing on either their part or ours, is say that it's OK to have one bishop be the supreme bishop. Being in communion with the pope would be the requirement for being in the Church, and we'd have to give the "Amen" to this.

Something's not getting through the thin crack in my brain. I'm saying why can't we commune with nothing changing, and then you're saying we'd have to agree that the Pope is the supreme bishop. That would be our side changing, which I don't see that we would have to do. Then it becomes communion based on agreement about who people are instead of about who Christ is.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

What is needed is unity among Orthodoxy itself. There are many things one could point to that show how much an issue our lack of unity is.

In regards to intercommunion, it happens now under certain circumstances with both Catholics and Oriental Orthodox.

Shhh... no one likes to talk about that!

 

[RobNJ]

Something's not getting through the thin crack in my brain. I'm saying why can't we commune with nothing changing, and then you're saying we'd have to agree that the Pope is the supreme bishop. That would be our side changing, which I don't see that we would have to do. Then it becomes communion based on agreement about who people are instead of about who Christ is.

Hey, AE... I posted this in another thread some time back:


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, notthe 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.

(From the OCA website http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=107&SID=3 )

 

[Andrea Elizabeth]

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.

Thanks Rob for reposting that. I remember now fully agreeing with it. The way it's worded by Fr. Matusiak gives me peace about the "exclusiveness" of our communion.

I think the difficulty in understanding lies in the mystery of what the Eucharist and the Church really is.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Something's not getting through the thin crack in my brain. I'm saying why can't we commune with nothing changing, and then you're saying we'd have to agree that the Pope is the supreme bishop. That would be our side changing, which I don't see that we would have to do. Then it becomes communion based on agreement about who people are instead of about who Christ is.

I get where you're coming from. Well, at least I think it's one of two possibilities. Let me give it a shot (actually, two shots

Are you saying why can't we just commune catholics under special circumstances DESPITE the fact that we aren't yet one Church?

If so, Ilian has already rightly said that they and Oriental Orthodox do do this from time to time. Many preists would strictly prohibit this but many would allow such and ekonomia in near-death situations and so on. you see... there's the canons and the rules and "anathema if one do this" which are important... but then there is also... reality. The reality is that it is difficult for many to deny that deep down they feel or realize that there is something special and mystical and unique that ties us together that is NOT htere between say us and protestants or whomever. That doesn't make us one (visible) Church... but there is something special there. there is a reason that Orthodox lurk and post in OBOB and vice-versa (other than the wierdos who visit just to "prove the papists wrong"). So, the reality is that in many countries many priests - push come to shove - will commune a catholic (and especially an oriental orthdoox) - Right or Wrong.

OR

Are you asking why can't we just be united as one Church DESPITE the fact that we don't recognize the Pope's Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction?

Well, the reason is becuase we view communion as proof that we are already one Church (it also works to further unite... but it is not a means to CREATE a union). Perhaps mystically we are connected, but that's not a call for us to make. The Church is both mystical and beyond what the mind can judge and comprehend as well as visible with boundaries and a definite hierarchy. If the Catholic Church were to say "Okay, the Pope is simply the one Bishop over the West and we will continue with our hierarchy while you in the East will continue with your heirarchy. We are united through what we profess and now the West is just one more jurisdiction in the Church and the Pope - although special - is patriarch only over the West and in nowise over the East." Then, I think many Orthodox could go along with that. (I mean, if we're expecting the West to completely obliterate its system of heirarchy that has developped over many many centuries then we are simply looking for obstacles to keep Rome away). But as it stands, Rome is AT THE VERY LEAST saying, "If we are to be one Church, Rome will allow the East to do as she feels is best and will not intervene BECAUSE ii is Rome's PERROGATIVE to ALLOW the East to do so, - NOT because it is simply not part of Rome's jurisidiction as the East necessarily believes." Unfortunately we cannot agree to that. It would be dishonest to our selves and our entire past. At best we would just be PRETENDING to recognize Rome's perrogative. It's simply not within the Eastern Psyche to see Rome has having any kind of innate priority over their affairs. It would be living a lie.

Does that help at all? I apologize if it didn't or if I misconstrued your thoughts on this subject.

John

 

[Xpycoctomos]

oops.. Andrea... What Rob posted is better so if I confused you, just go back to Rob's post to refresh

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, notthe 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.

 

[Andrea Elizabeth]

I get where you're coming from. Well, at least I think it's one of two possibilities. Let me give it a shot (actually, two shots

Are you saying why can't we just commune catholics under special circumstances DESPITE the fact that we aren't yet one Church?

If so, Ilian has already rightly said that they and Oriental Orthodox do do this from time to time. Many preists would strictly prohibit this but many would allow such and ekonomia in near-death situations and so on. you see... there's the canons and the rules and "anathema if one do this" which are important... but then there is also... reality. The reality is that it is difficult for many to deny that deep down they feel or realize that there is something special and mystical and unique that ties us together that is NOT htere between say us and protestants or whomever. That doesn't make us one (visible) Church... but there is something special there. there is a reason that Orthodox lurk and post in OBOB and vice-versa (other than the wierdos who visit just to "prove the papists wrong"). So, the reality is that in many countries many priests - push come to shove - will commune a catholic (and especially an oriental orthdoox) - Right or Wrong.

Yes, I put some stock in mystically special feelings. We have a unique bond, but there is something different going on too. I appreciate the special ekonomia that will sometimes allow communion.

OR

Are you asking why can't we just be united as one Church DESPITE the fact that we don't recognize the Pope's Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction?

Well, the reason is becuase we view communion as proof that we are already one Church (it also works to further unite... but it is not a means to CREATE a union). Perhaps mystically we are connected, but that's not a call for us to make. The Church is both mystical and beyond what the mind can judge and comprehend as well as visible with boundaries and a definite hierarchy. If the Catholic Church were to say "Okay, the Pope is simply the one Bishop over the West and we will continue with our hierarchy while you in the East will continue with your heirarchy. We are united through what we profess and now the West is just one more jurisdiction in the Church and the Pope - although special - is patriarch only over the West and in nowise over the East." Then, I think many Orthodox could go along with that. (I mean, if we're expecting the West to completely obliterate its system of heirarchy that has developped over many many centuries then we are simply looking for obstacles to keep Rome away). But as it stands, Rome is AT THE VERY LEAST saying, "If we are to be one Church, Rome will allow the East to do as she feels is best and will not intervene BECAUSE ii is Rome's PERROGATIVE to ALLOW the East to do so, - NOT because it is simply not part of Rome's jurisidiction as the East necessarily believes." Unfortunately we cannot agree to that. It would be dishonest to our selves and our entire past. At best we would just be PRETENDING to recognize Rome's perrogative. It's simply not within the Eastern Psyche to see Rome has having any kind of innate priority over their affairs. It would be living a lie.

Does that help at all? I apologize if it didn't or if I misconstrued your thoughts on this subject.

John

Yes, but isn't it about protecting the true faith, and if we allow them to commune, that we believe the true faith will be mystically compromised? That error will be allowed in through the chalice? Sorry if this sounds disrespectful.

 

[Ilian]

Yes, but isn't it about protecting the true faith, and if we allow them to commune, that we believe the true faith will be mystically compromised? That error will be allowed in through the chalice? Sorry if this sounds disrespectful.

Typically the ekonomia dispensed by bishops in this matter is only done in the context of great need or exceptional circumstances, and yes it happens with both Catholics (particularly Eastern Catholics) and Oriental Orthodox. Some bishops are more lenient than others in this regard. Typically this is done informally but in some places, like Syria, there are protocols established.

 

[walking.away.123]

An article by Fr. Alexander Schmemann (Father-in-law to Fr. Thomas Hopko) on separation and unity.
"Unity", "Division", "Reunion" in the light of Orthodox Ecclesiology
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/schmemann_unity.html

 

[katherine2001]

I think that if anyone thinks Fr. Tom suggests that the Orthodox faith be compromised in the name of unity, then they don't know Fr. Tom very well. He's a skilled diplomat--he speaks softly and carries a big stick.

Well said, Choirfiend. If there is one person that will not compromise the faith, it is Fr. Hopko. He takes a very strong stand for the faith. However, he also believes in us developing the virtues. People who really have those virtues practice true humility, gentleness, patience, and mercy. You don't convert people by hitting them over the head and crowing that you have the truth while they are all wrong. You are a lot more likely to get through to them by showing them the virtues. It certainly worked with me! If most of us are honest, it is what works best with us too. How did Jesus show people the truth? We all need to work at doing it the way that Jesus did. I think Fr. Hopko is right.