Can a Melkite Priest do all the same things as a Latin Rite priest?

[The_Prodigal]

FWIW, a few years ago. Pope Benedict attended Divine Liturgy on the feast of St. Andrew in the Patriarchal Cathedral Church of St. George in Constantinople.

Whether he celebrated privately beforehand, I know not.

If he didn’t, you have the best precedent in the world.

And a friend of mine who went to Catholic schools BEFORE V2 said that he was taught that if he could not get to a Catholic Church, he could fulfill his Sunday mass obligation by attending an Orthodox Church.

If it’s this occasion you refer to, that was Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006.

 

[Ungcsertez]

You keep claiming that, but don’t cite which Canon that you think that makes Confirmation by the priest the norm.
So, what is the canon that you’re citing?

If that is so, why do Latin Catholic bishops confirm Latin Catholic “childern of the age of reason” in the United States?

U-C

 

[The_Prodigal]

The comment “I’m afraid not” was directed at the statement “…you have the best precedent in the world”, not at the statement about fulfilling the Sunday Obligation at an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Catholics are required to attend Holy Mass on all Sundays and days of obligation. Their own rite is preferred, but any valid, licitly celebrated Catholic rite is permissible. An illicitly celebrated yet valid Catholic Mass (such as those offered by SSPX priests) also fulfil the obligation, though are obviously not preferred over Masses offered by priests in full communion.

Likewise, the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox churches is a validly offered Eucharistic sacrifice, consecrated and presented by a (presumably) validly ordained priest. Hence, if a valid and licit Catholic liturgy is unavailable, then the Orthodox or “not-quite-schismatic” SSPX liturgy will suffice.

If none of these are available, you are dispensed from the obligation to attend Mass - but not the obligation to keep the Lord’s Day holy.

If a Catholic cannot be present at a Catholic liturgy (in communion with the Holy See) on Sunday, the obligation is dispensed. Period.

Where do any of the the Catholic Churches teach that under that circumstance, the Catholic faithful ought to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy that is available?

 

[Cluny]

If it’s this occasion you refer to, that was Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006.

Thank you for your information. I didn’t remember what day of the week it was. I still don’t know if he celebrated the Latin rite privately beforehand.

However the link you gave said this:

Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) joined Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in celebrating the Divine Liturgy on November 30, the promise that had brought him on his 4-day visit to Turkey.

…

He then joined the Patriarch in the Byzantine liturgy, with each prelate delivering a homily. After the ceremony, the Pope and the Patriarch joined in signing a joint declaration, affirming their commitment to the pursuit of full Christian unity. [See today’s separate CWN headline story for a fuller account of the joint statement.]

This might sound to some readers as if they concelebrated. They most assuredly did NOT. I watched it on EWTN. The Pope merely assisted in choir, though he did recite the Lord’s Prayer in Greek at the appropriate time.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

You keep claiming that, but don’t cite which Canon. So, what is the canon that you’re citing?

If that is so, why do Latin Catholic bishops confirm Latin Catholic “childern of the age of reason” in the United States?

??? If what’s true??? My post is a question, not a statement. I asked the previous poster what specific citation from the Canon he was referring to! I’ve quoted my post above.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

??? If what’s true??? My post is a question, not a statement. I asked the previous poster what specific citation from the Canon he was referring to! I’ve quoted my post above.

Since this question really relates to the Latin Rite, here’s the appropriate Latin canons:

CHAPTER II : THE MINISTER OF CONFIRMATION
Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a Bishop. A priest can also validly confer this sacrament if he has the faculty to do so, either from the general law or by way of a special grant from the competent authority.
Can. 883 The following have, by law, the faculty to administer confirmation:
1° within the confines of their jurisdiction, those who in law are equivalent to a diocesan Bishop;
2° in respect of the person to be confirmed, the priest who by virtue of his office or by mandate of the diocesan Bishop baptises an adult or admits a baptised adult into full communion with the catholic Church;
3° in respect of those in danger of death, the parish priest or indeed any priest.
Can. 884 §1 The diocesan Bishop is himself to administer confirmation or to ensure that it is administered by another Bishop. If necessity so requires, he may grant to one or several specified priests the faculty to administer this sacrament.
§2 For a grave reason the Bishop, or the priest who by law or by special grant of the competent authority has the faculty to confirm, may in individual cases invite other priests to join with him in administering the sacrament.
Can. 885 §1 The diocesan Bishop is bound to ensure that the sacrament of confirmation is conferred upon his subjects who duly and reasonably request it.
§2 A priest who has this faculty must use it for those in whose favour it was granted.
Can. 886 §1 A Bishop in his own diocese may lawfully administer the sacrament of confirmation even to the faithful who are not his subjects, unless there is an express prohibition by their own Ordinary.
§2 In order lawfully to administer confirmation in another diocese, unless it be to his own subjects, a Bishop needs the permission, at least reasonably presumed, of the diocesan Bishop.
Can. 887 A priest who has the faculty to administer confirmation may, within the territory assigned to him, lawfully administer this sacrament even to those from outside the territory, unless there is a prohibition by their own Ordinary. He cannot, however, validly confirm anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the provision of can. 883, n.3.
Can. 888 Within the territory in which they can confer confirmation, ministers may confirm even in exempt places.

So, yes, some priests may confirm without requiring special permission from a bishop while others require it.

Deacon Ed

 

[Ungcsertez]

Since this question really relates to the Latin Rite, here’s the appropriate Latin canons:So, yes, some priests may confirm without requiring special permission from a bishop while others require it.

Deacon Ed

Again, this would be under extra ordinary circumstances, correct? When Eastern Catholic priests administer the three Mysteries of Initiation (Confirmation being the second Mystery administered immediately after Baptism and before bits of the Eucharist are administered) to an infant Eastern Catholic baby, that is the norm, not extra ordinary circumstances and thus a difference between Latin Catholic and Eastern Catholic priestly functions.

U-C

 

[Aramis]

U-C:

the CCEO, which appies to all non-Roman Church Catholics, says this:
Canon 694
According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, chrismation with holy myron is administered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism or separately.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PJA.HTM#B

Canon 696

1. All presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer this sacrament either along with baptism or separately to all the Christian faithful of any Church sui iuris including the Latin Church.
2. The Christian faithful of Eastern Churches validly receive this sacrament also from presbyters of the Latin Church, according to the faculties with which these are endowed.
3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.
   intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PJC.HTM

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Again, this would be under extra ordinary circumstances, correct? When Eastern Catholic priests administer the three Mysteries of Initiation (Confirmation being the second Mystery administered immediately after Baptism and before bits of the Eucharist are administered) to an infant Eastern Catholic baby, that is the norm, not extra ordinary circumstances and thus a difference between Latin Catholic and Eastern Catholic priestly functions.

U-C

Not necessarily. Under the rubrics of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (the statutes I mention here apply to the United States) a person who is “past the age of reason” (usually asserted to be seven) is to be baptized, confirmed and given first communion. Unless the bishop has specifically reserved confirmation to himself, the priest who does this baptism is also to confirm. This is also why Latin Rite deacons should never baptize a child who is seven or older.

Deacon Ed