Brother André Marie’s Theology Weblog

8 responses so far ↓

• 1 Anna // Dec 30, 2007 at 6:16 am

  Dear Brother,

  I enjoy reading your wonderful and very updated blog on religion and also other matters of interest. I thought perhaps you may be able to help me in a certain matter, as I noticed you are quite the collector of learned theology books and articles? I was wondering, what is your view toward the subject of “Communicatio in Sacris” with non-Catholics, or so-called Ecumenism. I recently read this new book, a very scholarly one, called “Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion with non-Catholics. ” You can browse it here:

  http://www.lulu.com/content/1431544

  I am a little confused because I recently have started to study Roman Catholicism, after many years with the Russian Orthodox Church that I was raised into, yet as I have traveled the world through the years, I have noticed more and more that the Catholic Faith is my own.

  However, I seem to find that the so-called Reformed Liturgy is certainly unorthodox compared to the Tridentine and Orthodox Liturgies (all I have experienced). Now reading this book “Communicatio in Sacris,” I am convinced that the disparity of worship in churches is a major barrier of Full Communion for the Christian Churches, wouldn’t you agree?

  It would be great to learn your opinion of the New Liturgy. A few years back, I met a priest from the Society of Saint Pius X in Europe, and he told me that the Russian Orthodox Church has a valid liturgy which Catholics may attend according to more liberal laws of the modern Popes of Rome. Is this so? And likewise, may we–the Orthodox–communicate in the Roman Catholic churches, as well? The priest thought perhaps, but he was not sure. It is great to know if this is true, it seems so, but I am not sure myself. I travel a lot and it is difficult sometimes to find an Orthodox Church I may communicate in, and I would not mind communicating openly in the Roman Catholic churches as well (even in the Vatican - I recently saw on television the Midnight Solemn High Latin Papal Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI–O how Beautiful, Inspirational, Traditional, and Orthodox did that seem!)…

  Anyhow, I am excited to read through your blog, it seems you have a background in Byzantine Theology? Have you visited Russia? I would appreciate any theological review you have written or perhaps a colleague (I also enjoy Fr. Harrison’s articles) that would give me a complete understanding of the Roman Catholic Church’s Teaching and Practice concerning “Communicatio in Sacris,” and even better would be any personal experience or twist you could share about this very controversial matter that disturbs Our Churches today.

  I wish you all the blessings in the New Year.

  Sincerely,
  Anna

• 2 Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. // Dec 30, 2007 at 10:10 am

  Dear Anna,

  Christ Jesus be praised! I have not read the book you mention so I am not fit to comment on it. The Church has always forbidden communicatio in sacris (CIS) as a sin against the first commandment. Traditional moral theology manuals outlined what constituted a sin in this matter. In the early days of the “ecumenical movement,” the Holy See, true to the traditional prohibition against CIS, seriously limited the activities of Catholics in this new movement. I believe the popes showed great perspicacity in this, as well as great pastoral care.

  Of course, not everything called “ecumenism” is CIS. There was a decree issued by the Holy Office under Pius XII (Instructio de Motione Oecumenica), which outlined, faithful to Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, what legitimate “ecumenism” was to be for Catholics. Romano Amerio describes this in the following paragraph:

  First: “the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Christ” that is, it does not need to acquire things that go to make up the fullness of Christianity from other denominations. Second: Christian unity must not be pursued by means of a process of assimilation between different confessions of faith, or by adjusting Catholic doctrine to the teachings of other denominations. Third: true union between the churches can come about only by the return, per reditum, of separated brethren to the true Church of God. Fourth: separated brethren who rejoin the Catholic Church lose nothing of the truth to be found in their own denominations, rather they retain it just as it was, but in its completed and perfected context, complementum atque absolutum.

  This does not touch on the question of CIS, but it shows that the Church was wary of this new movement (which was Protestant in its inception), but desired to use it so as to foster true unity in the Catholic Church. I believe this is the “authentic” ecumenism we ought to strive for.

  The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1965) defines communicatio in sacris as “The act by which a Catholic actively and publicly joins in divine worship with non-Catholics. The Church tolerates mere passive presence for a grave reason; e.g., weddings and funerals of close non-Catholic relatives and friends. Active participation is forbidden.” Note the year of the publication, Vatican II’s final year. Even then, the traditional explanation was given.

  The New Mass in not CIS. It is a liturgy which was tailored to be less offensive to non-Catholics (Protestants, that is. As you yourself doubtless know, the New Mass itself is considered offensive by many Orthodox, precisely because it constitutes a departure from tradition, something the Orthodox value a great deal — this is one of many sad ironies implicit in the liturgical innovations). Of course, since the New Mass is valid (with proper form and matter), and since it was promulgated by the Church, Catholics may fulfill their obligation by attending it. Many traditionalists (e.g., Father Leonard Feeney, Michael Davies, Hamish Frasier, Romano Amerio) were highly critical of the innovations of the New Liturgy, but did not come to the conclusions, popular among the sedevacantists, that the New Mass is either invalid and/or objectively sinful to attend.

  The liberalism which has been plaguing the Church — including notions of false unity (let’s “get together” without asking non-Catholics to convert) — this, along with good old-fashioned bad will, is the true obstacle to Church unity. The Holy Father has just reminded us that the Church is fundamentally missionary and therefore must seek converts. That is what we have been doing all along.

  We are encouraged to see a return (albeit a gradual one) to the Church’s liturgical tradition. Doctrine, especially no salvation outside the Church, must also be restored to its proper emphasis.

  I have no formal background in Byzantine Theology, although I have studied some works of the Eastern Fathers, whom I love. I know several Byzantine Rite Catholics with whom I discuss theology at times, and have many times worshiped at the beautiful Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (your “father among the saints”) served by Eastern Rite Catholic priests. (This is one of many of the Catholic Church’s Eastern Rites.)

  If you are interested in my views concerning the New Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, I recommend you read “The Latin Mass and the Orthodox.”

  As a non-Catholic, you may not receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church, although you may attend the Mass. I would strongly encourage you to remedy that situation by entering the unity of the Catholic Church via either the Russian, Ukrainian, or Ruthenian Rites. (These are all Catholic jurisdictions under the Roman Pontiff, with their own distinct uses of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.) A Ukrainian Rite friend of mine — Mr. Gregory Lloyd of the NCCL — may be able to put you in contact with the right clerics, and give you some helpful counsel. He knows the ropes of the Byzantine Catholic Church.

• 3 Michael // Dec 31, 2007 at 4:42 pm

  Hi there Anna,

  I think you bring up some very interesting points on the issue of Communicatio in Sacris–Intercommunion with non-Catholics, etc.

  However, the Roman Church has allowed it in certain times, cf. http://www.sedevacantist.org Mr. John Lane’s Website.

  The Greeks and Russians must be shocked at the lack of Order within the Vatican II and Novus Ordo Missae….

  But, Br. Andre, you bring up some vlaid points as well. The subject needs to be looked into more.

  I myself went ahead and purchased this book as well: Communicatio in Sacris, by Mr. William DeTucci.

  I hope it was worth the $24.95…hahaha…will see…

  I want to learn the true nature of this subject as it is rarley treated within Traditionalist circles.

  It is the same with the unfair treatment that was handed (unjustly) to Fr. Feeney–at least he never said the New Mass and must have had a great respect for the Eastern Liturgies as I have read through his book, Bread of Life.

  In it there are citations from the Eastern Fathers, etc.

  Though I must disagree with Br. Andre on the matter of Explict Baptism of Desire and Blood–yet to be defined by the Church as a “doctrine”.

  Anna, another book I recommend would be:

  “The Orthodox Churches” by Fr. Adrian Fortescue.

  It is a great book, Fr. Adrian was a scholar in the Eastern Rites.

  Well, that is it for now.

  Happy New Year!

  Yours,

  Michael

• 4 Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. // Dec 31, 2007 at 5:26 pm

  Michael,

  Thank you for your comments. You are correct in that there were times when a sort of intercommunion was allowed. Pope Pius XI allowed the Armenian Rite Catholics of Constantinople to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Armenian (so-called) Apostolic Church because they could not get to a Catholic rite. In the dihmi system, the Sultan regarded all Christian Armenians as being subject to the Armenian “Catholicos” (sort of a high Patriarch) as their civil and religious ruler. This church, along with the Copts are now commonly called “Oriental Orthodox” as distinguished from “Eastern Orthodox” (etymologically, a distinction without a difference! Theologically, though, the former accept only 3 Ecumenical Councils, while the Eastern Orthodox accept 7).

  As I understood it, this pastoral measure of the the Holy Father’s employed his Universal Jurisdiction in a very extraordinary way, essentially granting faculties to schismatic clergy for the benefit of the Armenian Uniate faithful. In theory, he could do this on a regular basis, but the mind of the Church has always been to protect the faithful from the dangers of schism and heresy.

  Fortesque is great on these questions. He also has a book called “The Uniate Eastern Churches.” This and the one on the Orthodox Churches are part of a trilogy. They are available here:

  https://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-24-fortescue-adrian- the-eastern-churches-trilogy-the-uniate-eastern-churches.asp x

• 5 Sasha // Jan 3, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  I am a Traditional Catholic and appreciate the fact that at least someone in the world has a valid mass — the Orthodox church? — huh! I am confused!

  hahaha….

  As far as Intercommunion, I was taught by my Dad that it is wrong and the good olde Catechism rejects it! How can Catholics go to receive God in the Church of people that refuse to believe Jesus founded One true Church?

  I think I might have to buy that book too! But it seems a little expense for something unheard of, the subject matter that is. No one in my SSPX chapel talks about Intercommunion as a controversial subject.

  Oh! did you hear, someone told me that the book by Michael Malone might be republished. The one that deals with Salvation and the Church. Anyone with news on that? That is like the most scholarly book on the matter, huh?

  God Bless Everyone!

  Sasha!

• 6 Elżbieta Szczot // Jan 12, 2008 at 3:36 am

  Dear Brother Andre Marie,

  I would like to thank you for posting so many wonderful and interesting blogs. I have become profoundly intimate with your page thanks to the crafty advice of an old acquaintance and fellow-scholar Dr. Vere.

  However, Anna, Michael, et al, I do not think Br. Andre has honestly presented the current canonical situation to you as far as “Communicatio in Sacris”?

  In Poland, and other Eastern countries, this topic is a very practical one because of the situation with many non-Catholic churches present (Orthodox, Mariavite, Old Catholic, Polish National, FSSPX, etc.) who all have valid sacraments, but who do not enjoy full communion with the Apostolic See and also sometimes due to the political-ethnic relationship with mixed rites in a locality to tempt the issue. I for one was raised during the Communist Cold War Era in the midst of priests and bishops who may of differed on this subject and so I did see the indifference of cult. The question use to bother me, but not any more. Since I have advanced myself since those former days, I have come to the knowledge of what Rome expects of Catholics (and also what She expects her separated brethren to at least respect), and that is, the Catholic ban on participating in non-Catholic sacraments (Communicatio in Sacris).

  I will cite here some scholarship for you, who may be ignorant of this major canonical issue on non-Catholic communion. I quote from a Roman Document entitled “VATICAN NORMS GOVERNING GRAVE OFFENSES, INCLUDING SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS” that I assisted as a consultant due to my graduate studies on the topic of Communicatio in Sacris (cf. Ochrona Eucharystii w normach dotyczących communicatio in sacris”, w: �Annales Canonici” 1(2005), s. 13-30, Papieska Akademia Teologiczna, Instytut Prawa Kanonicznego, Krak�w 2005, ISSN 1895-0620), here is a clip of the document for the blog:

  “(15) Code of Canon Law, can. 908 - Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic church.

  (16) Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 702 - Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy with non-Catholic priests or ministers.

  (17) Code of Canon Law, can. 1365 - A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

  (18) Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 1440-A person who violates the norms of law concerning participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) can be punished with an appropriate penalty.”

  Source: National Catholic Reporter, Posted November 22, 2002, http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/documents/CDFnorms.htm

  Br. Andre, I hope you review this topic more closely before stating “a sort of intercommunion was allowed [by the Apostolic See],” for that is inaccurate and gives scandal to non-Catholics, like Anna. The Catholic Church has always condemned the sin of Intercommunion with non-Catholics and has formulated the dogma “Nulla communicatio in sacris cum haereticis aut schismaticis.” Those Neo-Schismatic Armenians were rebuked by Pope Pius IX for disobeying the Church’s disciplines, and he forbade Catholics to hold communion with their schismatic Patriarch, we read:

  “John Kupelian, one of the neo-schismatic priests, is working vigorously to ensure that the affair proceeds according to their plan. By Our authority, this man has previously been publicly and specifically excommunicated and declared cut off from the Catholic Church by the Apostolic delegate for Mesopotamia and other districts, Our venerable brother Nicholas Archbishop of Mardin; the specific charge was encouraging disorder and fomenting schism in the state of Diarbekr or Amida. After being sacrilegiously consecrated as bishop by the pseudo-patriarch, and having gained power, he now attempts by argument and by open threats to bring the Catholics of the Armenian rite under his rule…
  For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank. Since the faction from Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and the flock following its shepherd.[24] Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Further more, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France,[25] discipline is often closely related to doctrine and has a great influence in preserving its purity. In fact, in many instances, the holy Councils have unhesitatingly cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline…
  Still you should avoid those who grow daily worse, as the Apostle commanded. And you should continue to receive no one in your gathering under any pretext who holds communion with such men that you may preserve the Catholic faith unsullied in your hearts.” (Pius IX, QUARTUS SUPRA, 6 Jan. 1873)

  http://www.ewtn.org/library/encyc/p9quartu.htm

  John Paul the Great made a similar declaration concerning the schismatic Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and his sect the Sacerdotal Priestly Society of St. Pius X (Cf. Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988).

  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/ documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.htm l

  I can only commend the scholarship of our comrade Dr. Vere, who as a Canonist has proven the FSSPX is certainly in schism just like those Armenians, please read his Thesis “A CANONICAL HISTORY OF THE LEFEBVRITE SCHISM,” it is online:

  http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

  I pray that you will not be Indifferent to this topic, which I feel you won’t be, as you seem to have a responsible grade of grace and learning in your own right about these sensitive topics.

  Sincerely in Christ,

  Dr. Elżbieta Szczot

  P.S. Br. Andre, I may be visiting the Boston Area to attend some seminars at the Weston Jesuit School of Theology this Fall Semester, and I was wondering if you have a link to driving directions from Boston to the St. Benedict Center, I may want to visit your Abbey. And also, is there any Conservative & Pious Liturgy you recommend I could attend in the Boston Area for Sunday services? Thank you!

• 7 Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. // Jan 12, 2008 at 9:58 am

  Dear Elżbieta,

  Thank you for your comments. Before I forget, let me show you where you can get directions to Saint Benedict Center:

  http://www.catholicism.org/directions-SBC.html

  For the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I believe Holy Trinity Church in Boston has the Traditional Rite every Sunday.

  Regarding the substance of your posting. I am happy that you have such abundant proofs — canonical and otherwise — of the sinfulness of communicatio in sacris. I appreciate very much the links, texts, and other proofs. I damn and condemn the evils of false ecumenism most wholeheartedly. My statement to Anna was based on a certain fact of history and was very tightly worded to show that something resembling communicatio in sacris was tolerated — particularly during a time of persecution — so as to produce a greater good. I made one mistake (that I know of!); I had the wrong pope. I trusted my memory and said it was Pope Pius XI who allowed these things with the Armenians. It was, rather, that great scholar-pope Benedict XIV.

  I quote from page 113-114 of Donald Attwatter’s Golden Book of Eastern Saints:

  “It was about 1694 and Der Gomidas [the married and martyred priest-convert from the Armenian schism who is now a Blessed], after a considerable period of quiet study and prayer, was reconciled with the Catholic Church, together with his family. This caused no excitement: it was a common occurrence at that time and Gomidas was not particularly well known. Nor did it cause any change in his external state; he stopped at St. George’s and carried on his parochial work and preaching as before, neither Catholic nor non-Catholic authorities saying him nay. This was a common state of affairs in the Near East in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Catholics and dissidents were mixed up in the same congregation, a church would have a dissident pastor at one time and a Catholic at another; Jesuits and Capuchins were invited to preach and hear confessions by Orthodox, Armenian, and other bishops in their churches, and did so. These practices were permitted in the hope that a greater good would emerge, viz., the formal reconciliation of all the dissidents concerned, and also, so far as receiving certain of the sacraments was concerned, to avoid worse evils arising from some provisions of Turkish civil law. Father Clement Galano, a Theatine clerk regular who reconciled the patriarch Kyriakos with Rome in 1641 , speaks of Armenians ‘praying all together in the same churches, though one does not assent in his heart to what another openly professes.’ ”

  There is a footnote a the end of this paragraph. This is what I was trying to recall in my earlier posting: “Those interested in such matters will find an example of papal permission (Benedict XIV) for this sort of thing on p. 743 of the Collectanea of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide (Rome, 1893).” I point out what you must already know, Elżbieta, that Benedict XIV was an eminent canonist.

  Should someone with the scholarship to do so set me right on this and prove that Attwater was off base and that such things were not, in fact, permitted by the Holy See, I will happily correct myself and dismiss the whole thing. God bless you and may Our Lady watch over you.

• 8 Catholicism.org » Blog Archive » «Ad Rem» N° 54 (11/28/2007): Concerning Palantíri and Blogses // Jul 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

  [...] Posted on the Theology Blog is “What Do You Get for the Priory that Has Everything?,” a Christmas [...]

Leave a Comment