St. Pius X tolerated Communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox
This is an interesting find: a document has been uncovered in which Pope St. Pius X tolerated communicatio in sacris (i.e. shared communion) with the Orthodox.
Translation:
Most Blessed Father!
Andrew Szeptycki, Metropolitan of Halycz, Metropolitan of Kiev and Administrator of all Russia at the foot of His Holiness most humbly asks that faculties may be conceded to himself and also to confessors in communion (capable of being communicated) for dispensing secular faithful from the law which forbids communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune.
Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X deigned to sign with his own hand this document written by me with the words “May be tolerated”.
A number of years ago I wrote a paper on pre-Vatican II ecumenism in the Catholic Church. Many people are under the (false) impression that Vatican II “started” ecumenism in the Catholic Church, but my research showed me that while Vatican II was a giant leap for the Church in regards to ecumenism, it was the result of many years of ecumenical work within the Church.
Note: the purpose of this post is not to endorse a wider practice of communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox, but to emphasize that the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church did not consider the Orthodox to be simply schismatics outside the Church – which is the impression you get in some quarters.
Wow, this is very interesting! Thank you for sharing.
My only worry is that the document isn’t the original and that it doesn’t bear an official protocol number.
I’m not doubting the document, I’m only saying that people may find the document dubious without the actual signature or protocol number.
ad Jesum per Mariam,
Taylor
He said it might be tolerated, not that it was licit; nor that it should be widespread and valid for all the Church etc.
Two different things.
This tends to fulfill my prayer that the Church of the West, Catholic, and the Church of the East, Orthodos, just slowly grow back into one. George
This post seems to assume that St. Pius X could not have made an imprudent or even incorrect judgment.
I wish this could be made clearer: I frequently travel to eastern Europe and Asia Minor where RC churches are thin on the ground and would dearly love to partake of the Real Presence in the Eucharist in Orthodox Church.
Actually, doesn’t it really seem to say that “may be tolerated” was in request for the faculties given to the Metropolitan and other bishops to dispense from the canonical law preventing Communicatio in Sacris in those cases where the Metropolitan deems it necessary?
If that is the case, it certainly seems to be, then Mr. Sammons title”, “St. Pius X tolerated Communicatio in Sacris with the Orthodox” would seem to be intentionally provocative.
Resurrexi said: “This post seems to assume that St. Pius X could not have made an imprudent or even incorrect judgment.” Of course, that doesn’t seem to be the intention of the post. The intention seems to be to minimize the gravity of Communicatio in Sacris.
“was in request” should be “was in response”
Ahh, sorry. Last correction: “was in request” should be “was in response to the request”
At least as far back as Pope Leo XIII, Protestants were called “separated brethren” – I noticed this at the end of Pope Leo XIII Apostolic Letter to the English People, which had a prayer for Catholics at the end praying for the (re)Conversion of England, calling these Protestants “separated brethren”.
Nick:
The Eastern Orthodox are not Protestants. They are permitted to receive communion in a Catholic liturgy today. However, most Eastern Orthodox will not permit Catholics to receive communion at their liturgies.
[...] a post on Eric Sammons’s (Novus Ordo and teacher of Vatican II heresies) blog on “St. Pius X tolerated Communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox“ (see link): I will read the full article by this weekend. Meanwhile, regarding the alleged [...]
Pingback by response to Eric Sammons on the tolerance of communicatio in sacris from St. Pius X « WhoIsLikeUntoGod.com — October 2, 2010 @ 3:11 amsee my response: http://whoislikeuntogod.com/2010/10/02/response-to-eric-sammons-on-the-tolerance-of-communicatio-in-sacris-from-st-pius-x/
St. Pius X “against” intercommunion with schismatics. Found this quote in a book I read with many others “against” intercommunion:
http://www.amazon.com/Communicatio-Sacris-William-DeTucci/dp/143570388X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312943279&sr=8-1
St. Pope Pius X (1835-1914):
“But where a deplorable schism tore a
great number of Eastern Christians from
the center of Catholic unity, it was no
longer possible to continue such a
praiseworthy custom [that is, communion
with the Greeks prior to 1054 A.D.].
Michael Cerularius, who was not satisfied
with uttering poisonous calumnies against
the customs and ceremonies of the Latins,
openly declared that the consecration of
the unleavened bread was null and void [in
the Latin church]. It was then that the
Roman Pontiffs, careful of their Apostolic
duty, to prevent the Latins from falling
into error, forbade them to consecrate or
receive the Blessed Eucharist under the
species of leavened bread.
As for the Greeks [converts] who returned
to the faith and Catholic unity, they [the
Popes] allowed them to communicate with
unleavened bread in Latin churches, a
measure which, considering the times and
places [the Greek converts had to use Latin
churches], was certainly not fitting but
necessary.
In fact, as at that time it was not
easy to find Greek bishops who
were united to St. Peter’s Chair
and very few Catholic churches
of the Eastern rite existed, it was
to be greatly feared that
Catholics of the Eastern rite, if
not allowed to communicate in
Latin churches, would frequent
schismatic [so-called Orthodox
churches] and Pastors and would
run the risk of losing their faith.”
(Apostolic Constitution Tradita ad antiquis, Sept. 14, 1912. See also:
Papal Teachings: The Liturgy, Selected and Arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes,
Translated by the Daughters of St. Paul, Boston, Mass. 1962, p. 222).