Obsculta
Volume 8 | Issue 1
Article 21
5-22-2015
Revisiting the Roman Church's Table Practice
Mark Anthony Rodriguez
College of Saint Benedict/Saint John's University
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/obsculta
Part of the Christianity Commons
ISSN: 2472-2596 (print)
ISSN: 2472-260X (online)
Recommended Citation
Rodriguez, Mark Anthony. 2015. Revisiting the Roman Church's Table Practice. Obsculta 8, (1) : 227-238.
http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/obsculta/vol8/iss1/21.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Obsculta by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
O
B
S
C
V
L
T
A
R e v i s i t i n g t h e R o m a n C h u rc h ’ s
Table Practice
Mark Anthony Rodriguez
Abstract - The Roman church teaches that reception of the Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ is reserved only for those who have membership in the Roman faith. By examining the actions and parables
of Jesus, this essay questions whether or not Jesus seems to have
demonstrated an alternative purpose for his eucharistic meals.
And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who
are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to
me, “These are true words of God.”1
One could define “closed communion” as the practice of restricting the serving of the consecrated bread and
wine of the Lord’s Supper to those who are members in
good standing of a particular church, denomination, sect, or
congregation. Though the meaning of the term has varied
slightly from tradition to tradition, it generally means that
a church or denomination limits participation in the Supper
of the Lord either to members of their own church, members of their own denomination, or members of some specific class within their church. The Roman church teaches
227
Table Practice
that reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ within its tradition is reserved only for those who have been
baptized, 2 but even this mandate assumes that such individuals were in fact baptized in the Roman Church.
Only after undergoing such a baptism and attaining what
the church calls the age of reason — which Pius X defines
in his 1910 decree Quam singulari to be “about the seventh year, more or less” 3 — can one then present him or
herself at the table of the Lord to receive Holy
Communion. 4
Regarding the Roman church’s table practice,
Kevin Irwin writes in his book, Models of the Eucharist, that
“the key issue in acts of (inter)communion is the degree of
belonging to and participation in the church that sharing in
the Eucharist presumes and fosters.” 5 But, by examining his
actions and parables Jesus seems to demonstrate an alternative purpose. Regarding the role table-fellowship played in
earliest Christianity, Norman Perrin writes, “it is evident that
the meals themselves were the important thing and not a theological purpose which they might be said to serve.” 6 Hence,
the purpose of this essay is to seek out what Jesus originally
intended by his experience (as both guest and host) of tablefellowship, and more specifically, to ask whether such fellowship was truly meant to be exclusive. Did Christ intend to
form a special club of intimate believers when he instituted
the Eucharist “on the night he was betrayed,” 7 or did his table
rather form a fe llowship of hospitality to which all have been
invited and have their place? 8
Social life centered around eating and drinking in the
ancient world every bit as much as it does for people today, 9
and this was no different for Jesus, the Son of Man, who like228
O
B
S
C
V
L
T
A
wise came “eating and drinking” (Mt 11:19). The scriptures
often show Jesus eating at table and several times witness to
how he likened the kingdom of God to the image of a great
banquet “at which all those who enjoyed God’s favor would
sit down together and feast in abundance.” 10 Jesus’ tablefellowship did not set out to establish any rank or authority,
for even he, as the master and teacher, 11 had come to serve.
Luke writes, “Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds
alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he [the master] will fasten
his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve
them” (12:37). And again, “For the Son of Man came not to be
served but to serve” (Mk 10:45). Such a toppling of contemporary authoritarian social constructs finds its epitome in Jesus’
actions at the final supper recounted in the Gospel of John
where he writes:
And during supper Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all
things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was
going to God, got up from the table, took off his outer robe,
and tied a towel around himself. Then he poured water into a
basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them
with the towel that was tied around him. (Jn 13:2-5)
“The central feature of Jesus’ mission is the ‘holy’ or ‘wondrous exchange’ so often described by the Fathers.” 12
Irenaeus 1 3 writes, “He gave his soul for our soul, his flesh
for our flesh, pouring out the Spirit of the Father in order
to achieve union and communion between God and man.” 14
And, again, to paraphrase Athanasius, 15 all men were condemned to death; but he, the immortal one, the innocent
one, surrendered his body to death for all. Hence, all men,
being dead thro ugh him are now freed from sin and are raised
to new life: “his suffering for our incapacity for suffering,
229
Table Practice
his death for our immortality, his tears for our joy, his being laid to rest for our rising again, and finally, his baptism
for our sanctification.” 16 According to John O’Donnell,
an interpreter of Hans Urs von Balthasar, “the Eucharist
is the perfect embodiment of the admirabile commercium
between God a nd man. The Church presents her emptiness to the Father, and she in turn is filled with Christ, the
Bread of Life. And the bread which she eats is the Body
which she becomes, Christ’s Body visible in the world.” 17
Focusing once again on Jesus’ table-fellowship — that
holy or wondrous exchange demonstrated throughout the New
Testament — Bradshaw and Johnson comment, “One of the
striking features of the recorded actions of Jesus [and his followers] is his apparent disregard for some of the established
customs of the pious society of his day with regard to meals.” 18
For examples, they point to Mk 7:1ff as well as to Lk 7:34 (parallel, Mt 11:19) saying “not only were his disciples criticized
for eating with unwashed hands, unlike the Pharisees, but Jesus himself was described by his enemies as ‘a glutton and
a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’” 19 But,
Jesus does not shrink in the face of such accusations and continues to liken the kingdom of God to a great banquet (cf. Mt
22:2, & Lk 13:29, 14:15) while at the same time adding a “novel twist” as accounted in Bradshaw and Johnson: “Those regarded as outsiders would be invited while those expecting to
have a place would be denied it (see, for example, Mt 8:11-12;
Lk 13:28-29).” 20
By Jesus’ actions and words, “he was thus moving the boundary markers with regard to those whom his
contemporaries deemed acceptable to God and challenging the conventional divisions within society.” 21 Accord230
O
B
S
C
V
L
T
A
ingly, “his feeding miracles functioned as performative
versions of this teaching, as symbolic anticipations of the
fu ture messianic banquet (Mt 14:13-21; 15:33-39; Mk 6:3144; 8:1-9; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:5-15).” 2 2 Norman Perrin writes,
“Jesus’ table-fellowship with ‘tax collectors and sinners’ is not a
proclamation in words at all, but an acted parable,” and it is
precisely this “aspect of Jesus’ ministry which must have
been most mea ningful to his followers and most offensive
to his critics.” 23
In Mt 11:16-19, Jesus says:
But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children
sitting in the marketplaces and calling to one another, “We
played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you
did not mourn.” For John came neither eating nor drinking,
and they say, “He has a demon”; the Son of Man came eating and
drinking, and they say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend
of tax collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is vindicated by her
deeds.
According to Perrin, when Matthew writes that “the Son of
Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”
the evangelist gives two things that give offence to the
authorities in Jesus’ day: (1) his eating habits and (2) the
fact that he is a “friend” of “tax collectors and sinners.” 24
Perrin writes, “If we understand the phrase ‘a glutton and a
drunkard’ to refer to Jesus’ habit of holding table fellowship,
and the ‘friend of tax collectors and sinners’ to refer to the
people with whom he was prepared to hold that fellowship,
then we have at one and the same time a matter of notable
and noticeable offensiveness.” If such things were not offensive, why would the evangelist feel the need to mention them,
es pecially after just mentioning how the Baptist had likewise
231
Table Practice
offended the authorities of his day by doing the exact opposite?
Jesus desires that everyone come to his table for not
ten verses later one sees him give his grea test and most well
known invitation saying, “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest”
(Mt 11:28). Here, Jesus opens his whole self to all, even sinners. And, if Jesus is truly present Body, Blood, Soul, and
Divinity in the consecrated bread and wine at the Lord’s
Supper, should not all likewise come and partake? Mark reminds us that Jesus has not come to call the righteous, but
the unrighteous (cf. Mk 2:17). Holy things are not only
for the holy, they are for the unholy as well, for could not
a sinful man or woman after hearing the prayer of elevation
and fraction in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, “Holy
things for the holy people,” echo the very words of the Syro phoenician woman, saying, “Sir, even the dogs under the
table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mk 7:28). Is this not why
the very same liturgy has the people respond, “One is holy,
one is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father?” 25
But, Jesus does not stop here. He does not simply
want to call sinners to the table, but everybody. His invitation, at least in Mt 8:11 (for one must recall the later parable
of Mt 22 which will be discussed below) appears to be a universal invitation. In Mt 8:11, Jesus says, “I tell you, many will
come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” According to Perrin,
“This saying definitely refers to the expected messianic banquet of the time of salvation, and it emphasizes the universalism that will be a feature of it.” 2 6 For Jesus, table-fellowship
was an anticipation of what was to be expected in the Kingdom
(cf. Lk 13:29 given above, but especially LK 14:15 where it says,
232
O
B
S
C
V
L
T
A
“One of the dinner guests, on hearing this, said to him, ‘Blessed
is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!’”).
In this pericope, scribes, tax collectors, fishermen and Zealots will all gather together around the table of our Lord
at which they will proceed to celebrate “the joy of the present
experience and anticipate its consummation in the future.” 27
Regarding the role of table-fellowship in earliest
Christianity, Pe rrin writes:
It is evident that the meals themselves were the important
thing and not a theological purpose which they might be said to
serve. The existence of such different theological emphases as
those connected with the ‘Lord’s Supper’ in the New Testament
(I Cor. 11) is an indication that the occasion has called forth
the theologies, not the theologies the occasion. The practice
of early Christian communal meals existed before there was a
specifically Christian theology to give it meaning.28
The only reason the early church persisted in holding
Christian communal meals (eucharists) is simply because
they were (and are) a continuation of something Jesus
himself did. 29 Nathan Mitchell reminds his readers that
Jesus sat at table “not as the charming, congenial, ringleted centerpiece of a Rembrandt painting, but as a vulnerable
vagrant willing to share potluck with a household of strangers.” 3 0 Jesus did not only eat with objectionable persons —
outcasts and sinners — he ate with anyone, indiscriminately. 3 1
The fact that the church in Corinth did not observe
this Christ practiced, indiscriminate table fellowship brought
upon them a very harsh criticism by Paul when he wrote:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body
and blood of the Lord. For this reason many of you are weak
and ill, and some have died. (1 Cor 11:27, 30)
233
Table Practice
According to Bradshaw and Johnson, “this failure to recognize the fundamental equality of all and to share what they
have with one another leads [Paul] to conclude that ‘when
you assemble together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper’
(1 Cor 11:20).” 32
Hence, in order for one to eat the
Lord’s Supper, he or she must do just the opposite. He or
she must recognize the fundamental equality of all and share
whatever he o r she has with one another until Christ
comes again.
In conclusion, when Jesus sat down at table
he drew all manner of people to himself. All were welcome at his table. The Roman Church, however, still practices a closed table, one that is even closed to her fellow
believers who just happen to be baptized within a different faith tradition. This seems contrary to Christ’s initial
purposes for th is sacrament. Many will say that the Church
has always held a closed table, but in regards to baptized
Christians, this is not true. It is true that after the great
schism in 1054, Eastern Orthodox Christian s could not receive
the body and blood of the Lord at a Roman eucharist.
But,
according
to
the
current
Code
of
Canon
Law,
“Catholic
ministers
may
[now]
licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist
and anointing of the sick to members of the
oriental churches which do not have full Communion
with the Cathol ic Church.” 33 Such a change came after the
promulgation of the “Joint Catholic Orthodox Declaration of
His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch
Athenagoras I” on 7 December 1965 when it declared
that:
234
O
B
S
C
V
L
T
A
They [Paul VI and Athenagoras I] regret and remove both from
memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of
which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered
closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.34
And so, once the excommunication was committed
“to oblivion,” by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism, all
Orthodox faithful could now receive Eucharist at a
Roman Catholic liturgy. 34 Hence, the unifying (or communal) force between the two traditions is baptism. Such an
understanding definitely follows after the traditional interpretation of the parable of the great wedding banquet in
Mt 22:1-14 where a man is discovered not wearing a wedding robe.
The king asks, “Friend, how did you get in here without
a wedding robe?” But, the man is speechless. So, the
king commands his attendants, “Bind him hand and foot,
and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.” If all that is needed for
one to remain at the banquet is a wedding robe, then our
separated Protestant brothers and sisters possess this by
merit of their Trinitarian baptism. Having “washed their
ro bes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb”
(Rev 7:14), they have forever put on Christ (Gal 3:27).
Might they now be invited to his table?
235
Table Practice
Notes:
1
Revel a t i o n 1 9 : 9 ( N R S V ) .
2
“ C o de o f C a n o n L a w , ” V a ti ca n. v a , a cce sse d No vember 27 , 20 14,
ht tp :/ / www.va t i c a n. v a /a r ch i v e /E N G 1 1 0 4 /_ _ P 2 T.HTM, 842 §1:
“A p er s o n who ha s no t r e ce i v e d ba pti sm ca nno t va lid ly be a d mit t ed
t o t he o t her s a c r a m e nts. ”
3
P i u s X , Q u a m s i n g u lar i , P a pa le ncy cli ca ls. ne t , a c c es s ed No vember 3 , 201 4, ht t p ://w w w . pa pa le ncycli ca ls. ne t/P ius 10 /p10 q ua m.
ht m . T he c hu r c h pr o m u lg a te d th i s te a ch i ng si m ply t o ens ur e t ha t
t ho s e who p r es en t th e m se lv e s to r e ce i v e th e co ns ec r a t ed br ea d a nd
wine p o s s es s “ s o m e k no w le d g e o f th i s a u g u st S ac r a ment ” (Pius X,
Qu a m s i n gu l a r i ). I n o th e r w o r d s, i n o r d e r to r e c eive Ho ly
Co m m u n i o n r i ghtly , o ne m u st a tta i n th e a g e w h en he o r s he “c a n
dist i n gu i s h b et we e n th e Br e a d o f th e H o ly E u ch ar is t a nd o r d ina r y
bre a d” (i b i d.).
4
T he C o de o f Ca no n L a w sta te s th a t ch i ld r e n who ha ve r ea c hed
t he u s e o f r ea s o n a nd w h o h a v e b e e n pr o pe r ly pr epa r ed be r ef r es hed
by t he C hu r c h wi t h th i s d i v i ne f o o d “a s so o n a s po s s ible,”914.
5
K evi n Ir wi n , Mo d e ls o f t h e Eu ch ar i s t ( M a h w ah, NJ: Pa ulis t
Pres s , 2005 ), 87 .
6
N o r m a n Per r i n, R e d i s c o v e r i n g t h e T e ac h i n g of J es us (Lo nd o n:
SCM Pr es s ; N ew Y o r k : H a r pe r a nd R o w , 1 967 ) , 1 0 4.
7
F r o m E u c ha r isti c P r a ye r I I I i n T h e R o m an Mis s a l: Stud y E d ition
( Co l l egevi l l e, M N : L i tu r g i ca l P r e ss, 2 0 1 0 ) , 7 2 9.
8
A c c o r di n g t o P i e r r e L é v y i n h i s bo o k , Co lle ctiv e I ntellig ence:
Man k i n d’ s E m e r gin g Wo r ld , th e r e f u sa l o f f e llo ws hip o r “ho s pit ali t y ” wa s S o do m’ s cr i m e . H e w r i te s, “R a th e r tha n welc o me t he
st r a n ger s , t he S o d o m i te s w a nte d to r a pe th e m . Ho s pit a lit y is t he
pe r fec t r ep r es en t a ti o n o f th e m a i nte na nce o f th e s o c ia l bo nd , o ne
c o n c ei ved i n a c c o r d a nce w i th th e f o r m u la o f r e cipr o c it y : we a r e
likel y t o b e ei t her th e r e ce i v e r o r th e r e ce i v e d . And ea c h o f us ma y
be c o m e a s t r a n ger i n tu r n. H o spi ta li ty su sta i ns t he po s s ibilit y o f
t ra vel , o f m eet i n g th e o th e r . T h r o u g h h o spi ta li t y , he who is lo s t ,
d if fer en t , fo r ei gn , i s w e lco m e d , i nte g r a te d , i nclud ed in a c o mmunit y . H o s p i t a l i t y i s th e a ct o f a tta ch i ng th e i nd i vid ua l t o a
c o m m u n i t y . In ev e r y r e spe ct, i t i s th e o ppo si te o f ex c lus io n.”
Cf . C o l l ec ti ve I n te lli g e n c e : Man ki n d ’s Em e r g i n g W orld , t r a ns .
Ro b er t B o n o n n o ( N e w Y o r k a nd L o nd o n: P le nu m Tr a d e, 1997 ), 26.
236
O
B
S
C
V
L
T
A
9
P a u l F . B r a ds h a w a nd M a x w e ll E . J o h nso n, The E ucha ris tic
L i t u r gi es: T h ei r Ev o lu t i o n an d In t e r pr e t at i o n ( C o lleg eville, MN:
Lit u r gi c a l Pr es s , 2 0 1 2 ) , 1 .
10
I b i d., 8-9 . C f . M t 2 2 : 2 , & L k 1 3 : 2 9, 1 4 : 1 5.
11
C f. L k 1 2:3 7 & J n 1 3 : 1 4 .
12
Ha n s U r s vo n Ba lth a sa r , T h e o d r am a: T h e o lo g ica lDra m a tic
Th eo r y , vo l . 3 , Dr am at i s P e r s o n ae : P e r s o n s i n C hris t (S a n Fr a nc is c o , C A : Ign a t i u s P r e ss, 1 992 ) , 2 3 7 .
13
A s ec o n d c en tu r y Ch r i sti a n a u th o r i r o ni ca lly a s s o c ia t ed wit h
e sp o u s i n g u l t r a ex clu si v e v i e w s o f w h a t i t m e a nt t o be a Chr is t ia n
ba s ed i n hi s fa m o u s f i v e v o lu m e w o r k A g ai n s t H e res ies .
14
Sa n c ti I r en a e i , Epi s co pi Lu g d u n e n s i s e t M ar tyis , Detectionis
et E ve r si o n i s Fa l sa Co g n o m i n at ae A g n i t i o n i s s e u C ontra Ha eres es ,
L i b er Q u i n tu s, i n P at r o lo g i ae G r ae c ae , e d . J a cq ues -Pa ul Mig ne, vo l.
7b, S a n c t i I r en a ei ( P a r i s: J . P . M i g ne , 1 8 5 7 ) , 1 1 2 1 (c o l. 292b, 16-17 ):
«Da n te a n i m a m suam pr o n o s t r a an i m a, e t c ar n em s ua m pro nos tris
car n i bu s, et e ffu n d e n t e S pi r i t u m Pat r i s i n ad u n i tionem et com m unione m Dei e t h o m i n is » ( tr a nsla ti o n m i ne ) .
15
Aga i n , a n o t he r e a r ly Ch r i sti a n pe r so na li ty ( fo ur t h c ent ur y ) a s soc i a t ed wi t h es p o u si ng m o r e e x clu si v e v i e w s o f wha t it mea nt t o be
a C hr i s t i a n du e t o h i s v o lu m i no u s w r i ti ng s a g a i n s t t he Ar ia ns .
16
Sa n c ti P a tr i s N o s t r i A t h an as i i , A r ch e pi s co pi A lex a nd rinum ,
De I n c a r n a ti o n e e t Co n t r a A r i an o s, i n Pat r o lo g i a e G ra eca e, ed .
J ac q u es -Pa u l M i gne , v o l. 2 6, S a ncti A th a na si i ( Pa r is : J. P. Mig ne,
18 5 7), 9 9 1 / 2 (c o l . 698 A , 5 ) : «N o n e n i m u t s e i ps um s a lv um f a ceret
veni t Deu s, qu i es t i m m o r t ali s ; s e d u t n o s q u i m o rtui era m us lib era r e t: n equ e p r o s e pas s u s e s t , s e d pr o n o b i s : i t a ut id eo nos tra m
vi l i ta tem i n o p i a m q u e s u s ce pe r i t , u t n o b i s d i v i t i as la rg iretur s ua s .
Pa ssi o ( πάθ ος) e n i m e ju s , n o s t r a e s t i m pas s i b i li t as (ἁπάθειά) : m ors
( θ άνατος) ej u s, n os t r a i m m o r t ali t as ( ἀθ ανασ ί α ): lacrym a e ( δ άκρυον )
eju s, n o str u m ga ud i u m (ἡμετ έρα ): s e pu lt u r a ( ταφ ὴ) ejus , nos tra
resu r r e c ti o (ἀνάσ τασ ις) , e t b apt i s m u s ( βάπ τ ισμα) ejus , nos tra s a nctif ica ti o (ἁγ ι ασμ ός ) : n am P r o e i s , i n q u i t , e g o s an c t i f ico m eips um , ut s int
et i p si sa n c ti fc a ti i n v e r i t at e » ( tr a nsla ti o n m i ne ) .
17
J o hn O’Do n n e ll, “H a ns U r s v o n Ba lth a sa r : T he Fo r m o f His
Theo l o gy ,” i n H a ns U r s v o n B alt h as ar : H i s Li f e a nd W ork, ed . Da vid L . S c hi n dl er (S a n F r a nci sco , CA : I g na ti u s P res s , 1991), 218.
18
B r a ds ha w a n d J o h nso n, “T h e E u ch a r i sti c L i tur g ies ,” 8.
237
Table Practice
19
I b i d., 8.
20
I b i d., 8-9 .
21
I b i d., 9 .
22
Ib i d.
23
P er r i n , R edi sc o v e r i n g t h e T e ach i n g o f J e s u s , 10 2.
24
Ib i d., 1 05 .
25
F r o m “ The L i tu r g y o f S a i nt J o h n Ch r y so sto m,” in R . C. D.
Jas p er a n d G . J . C u m i ng , Pr ay e r s o f t h e Eu c h ar is t: E a rly a nd
Re fo r m e d (C o l l ege v i lle , M N : T h e L i tu r g i ca l P r e s s , 1990 ), 134.
26
P er r i n , R edi sc o v e r i n g t h e T e ac h i n g o f J e s u s , 10 6.
27
I b i d., 1 07.
28
I b i d., 1 04.
29
I b i d., 1 04-05.
30
N a t ha n M i t c h e ll, Eu ch ar i s t as S acr am e n t o f I nitia tion, Fo r um
Ess a y s 2 (C hi c a go : L i tu r g y T r a i ni ng P u bli ca ti o n s , 1994), 89-90 .
31
I b i d., 89 -9 0.
32
B r a ds ha w a n d J o h nso n, “T h e E u ch a r i sti c L i t ur g ies ,” 10 .
33
“ C o de o f C a no n L a w , ” 8 4 4 § 3 .
34
“ J o i n t C a t ho l i c O r th o d o x D e cla r a ti o n o f H i s Ho lines s Po pe
Pa u l VI a n d t he E cu m e ni ca l P a tr i a r ch A th e na g o ra s I,” Va t ic a n.va ,
ac c es s ed N o vem b e r 2 6, 2 0 1 4 , h ttp: //w w w . v a ti can.va /ho ly _f a t her /
p au l _ vi / s p eec hes /1 965 /d o cu m e nts/h f _ p- v i _ spe _1965120 7 _c o mm o n -dec l a r a t i o n _ e n. h tm l, 4 b.
35
I t i s , ho wever , i m po r ta nt to no te th a t su ch a g r a t uit o us invit a t io n o n t he p a r t o f th e R o m a n Ch u r ch h a s no t b een r ec ipr o c a t ed by
t he E a s t er n Or t ho d o x Ch u r ch e s. I t i s a lso i m po r t a nt t o no t e t ha t
t he c a n o n c o m es w i th o u t a ny f u r th e r q u a li f i ca ti on. Simply s a id ,
t hes e Or i en t a l C h u r ch e s a r e O r th o d o x a nd th u s ha ve va lid s a c r a m en t s .
238