Can Catholic confess to Orthodox priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scapularkid8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The priest in your case erred, if you were Orthodox at the time. If he was roman church, it’s not surprising; few Roman priests are truly aware of Orthodoxy as a practical matter, let alone the canons permitting them to absolve you.
Still, I would think that even a relatively ignorant Latin priest would at least have reason to pause, and perhaps consult some sources, rather than simply saying “no.”

I mean, the USCCB’s guidelines on the reception of communion, readily available in most Latin parishes, including just about every missalette I’ve ever seen, say: “Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).” Surely it wouldn’t require a rocket scientist to suspect “perhaps if they may receive communion, they might also receive absolution?” The latter would be lesser than the former.
 
I once asked an Orthodox priest friend to hear my confession. He said he couldn’t – because if he gave me absolution, he’d have no grounds for not giving me communion.
 
Jesus Christ created this entire world. Jesus Christ died for our sins, then rose from the grave. Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man. Wouldn’t it feel great to pray and confess your sinfulness to the Creator of the universe, rather than to another sinner? Pray to Jesus, trust in Jesus, forget about what sinful men tell you to do.
 
Jesus Christ created this entire world. Jesus Christ died for our sins, then rose from the grave. Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians agree.
Wouldn’t it feel great to pray and confess your sinfulness to the Creator of the universe, rather than to another sinner?
False dichotomy. 🙂
 
Y? because a priest is sinless? That’s the only way I can reason a false dilemma from what I stated. Please explain.
We confess our sins to Christ. That is the false dilemmas from what you stated.
 
More importantly, We obey Christ who told the apostles to go forth and forgive mens sins, then pointed out that what they held bound on earth was bound in heaven, and what they forgave on earth was forgiven in heaven. He didn’t give that power to all the faithful; only to the apostles, and they gave it to their successors, the bishops, and priests were granted it by their bishops on a priest by priest basis so that more people’s sins could be forgiven.
 
Diak;6168183:
As ByzCath already mentioned though the Canons do not apply to the Orthodox (in their minds) they do apply to Catholics, and knowingly recieving Sacraments from a heretic is a griveous Sacrilege. If you must go to an Eastern Church, go to the Eastern Catholic Church.
DorianGregorian, if it’s a sacrilege to knowingly receive the Sacraments from a heretic, then almost all of the sacraments I’ve ever received have been sacrilegious. There are more heretics in the Latin church than everywhere else combined, if only because there are more people in the Latin church than everywhere else combined. How many Latin priests do you know who are actually orthodox? I receive the Sacraments where they’re offered - even though the priests believe nothing. I’ve listened to gay-rights homilies and homilies that explicitly denied the transcendent nature of the Mass, and received communion from the priest. How else are you going to do it? There’s only one church I’ve ever been to in my entire life that had a Novus Ordo Mass without liturgical abuses.

So why is it such a catastrophe to receive the sacraments from people who are orthodox, but through no fault of their own grew up in a country where a historical accident caused a de facto schism? Historical accidents seem to me a much less severe problem than deliberate apostasy. Yet we don’t think twice about receiving the sacraments from Latin heretics.

If you object that we have no right to judge their souls and that they are innocent of heresy until the Church decides otherwise, then I turn your objection on the Orthodox. Most of them are probably innocent of the crime of heresy. Heresy is a choice, not an inheritance.
 
DorianGregorian;6169357:
DorianGregorian, if it’s a sacrilege to knowingly receive the Sacraments from a heretic, then almost all of the sacraments I’ve ever received have been sacrilegious. There are more heretics in the Latin church than everywhere else combined, if only because there are more people in the Latin church than everywhere else combined. How many Latin priests do you know who are actually orthodox? I receive the Sacraments where they’re offered - even though the priests believe nothing. I’ve listened to gay-rights homilies and homilies that explicitly denied the transcendent nature of the Mass, and received communion from the priest. How else are you going to do it? There’s only one church I’ve ever been to in my entire life that had a Novus Ordo Mass without liturgical abuses.

So why is it such a catastrophe to receive the sacraments from people who are orthodox, but through no fault of their own grew up in a country where a historical accident caused a de facto schism? Historical accidents seem to me a much less severe problem than deliberate apostasy. Yet we don’t think twice about receiving the sacraments from Latin heretics.

If you object that we have no right to judge their souls and that they are innocent of heresy until the Church decides otherwise, then I turn your objection on the Orthodox. Most of them are probably innocent of the crime of heresy. Heresy is a choice, not an inheritance.
First off that’s an argumentum tu quoque, we’re not talking about that Latin Church, that’s a seperate issue.

That said if someone knows that a particular Parish Priest for example has heretical beliefs, one would be obliged to stay away (though remember even a heretic can provide sacraments if they have valid matter, form, and intent).

That said it is why I attend the Mass of All-Time. 😉
 
Cecilianus;6193640:
First off that’s an argumentum tu quoque, we’re not talking about that Latin Church, that’s a seperate issue.
No, because it points to a general principle which needs to be applied universally. I don’t like receiving the sacraments from the unorthodox, but I’ve had to - and what people think about is not the orthodoxy of the minister but the dignity of the sacrament being received.
That said if someone knows that a particular Parish Priest for example has heretical beliefs, one would be obliged to stay away (though remember even a heretic can provide sacraments if they have valid matter, form, and intent).
That would be almost any Novus Ordo parish priest. 😦 Although when a priest gave a homily saying that Catholics need to get over the idea that there’s anything “transcendent” going on in the Mass, I started to wonder whether he had valid intent or not.
That said it is why I attend the Mass of All-Time. 😉
Same here, when I can get to one!
 
That said it is why I attend the Mass of All-Time.
What is the Mass of All Time? Was this Mass of All time exactly the same as was said 1600 years ago, or did it change over the centuries only to be codified at the Council of Trent?
 
No! No! No!

The Orthodox are Schismatics ergo:

Even if their excommunications were forgiven by Paul VI, almost all of their Bishops have ordained Priests without a papal mandate, thus incurring automatic excommunication.
The Orthodox Church has valid Sacraments,
 
The Orthodox are Schismatics ergo:
Even if their excommunications were forgiven by Paul VI, almost all of their Bishops have ordained Priests without a papal mandate, thus incurring automatic excommunication.
First of all, this is not what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches. This is simply a subjective intepretation of mutable Canon Law that cannot be made except by one appointed to do so by the Church. Secondly, as has been amply pointed out, this mutable Latin canon law does not apply to any other particular Church than the Latin Church.

Thirdly, the Patriarchs have always historically held jurisdiction within their own patriarchal territories, and later in the diaspora. This has never, repeat never, been canonically questioned by Rome.

Again this is a completely different matter canonically then considering four Latin bishops allegedly professing obedience to Rome and to her particular law, being of the Roman particular Church and ritual tradition and thus directly subject to her canonical purview. When these four bishops ordain priests without posessing valid jurisdiction and directly break the canonical norms of the particular Church they supposedly belong to, that places them directly subject to discliplinary actions by the hierarchy of their particular Church, in this case the Bishop of Rome and his designated authority (the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith, in this case).
 
Also to clarify a perennial misconception, “emergency” is not the only requirement to approach an Orthodox priest for confession.
If necessity requires it **or genuine spiritual advantage suggests it **
,

“Genuine spiritual advantage” precisely gets at my previous point, that an Eastern Catholic wishing to continue to receive the Mysteries according to their own particular tradition can most certainly do so according to this canon. The Church wants to foster her children continuing to practice their faith according to the traditions of their respective particular Churches, and let’s face it, often in the diaspora Eastern Catholic parishes are not conveniently close. When taken with the Magisterial complimentarity of Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Orientale Lumen, Ut Unum Sint among many other examples, this desire of the Church for her Eastern children can be amply demonstrated.

Nor do I think it necessarily a good thing that Eastern Catholics get the complacent idea that they must continue a forced reliance on the Latin Church when the Church herself teaches us to be authentically Eastern. As I mentioned I have regular Latin confessors out of choice, not because I feel I have to go to them, and I have generally always taken the opportunity when the kindness of Orthodox priests presents itself for this Mystery. Communion with one’s particular Church is most certainly not either broken nor even threatened in any way, but rather strengthened by fidelity to the spiritual heritage of the particular Catholic Church.
I once asked an Orthodox priest friend to hear my confession. He said he couldn’t – because if he gave me absolution, he’d have no grounds for not giving me communion.
I’ve also been told this, but have also been told by several priests that they considered the Mystery a spiritual healing done by God between the penitent and priest and not the same implications as the visible, public manifestation of communion with the Church that receiving the Eucharist has in the Orthodox Church.
 
I’m going to be traveling for quite an extended time this coming summer, fall and winter in the Middle East. I understand that Roman, Greek, and Arab/Maronite Catholicism is present in this area but as I understand it the frequency of finding an Arab belonging to one of these denominations residing in the Middle East is highly less likely than the Arabs that have now immigrated to the West. In short: Catholic churches are harder to come by.

Am I positioned as a Catholic, if needed, to confess in an Orthodox church if I need to?
 
First off that’s an argumentum tu quoque, we’re not talking about that Latin Church, that’s a seperate issue.

That said if someone knows that a particular Parish Priest for example has heretical beliefs, one would be obliged to stay away (though remember even a heretic can provide sacraments if they have valid matter, form, and intent).

That said it is why I attend the Mass of All-Time. 😉
Which form of the “Mass of All-Time”? As both the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form are the same rite (at least according to the Pope).😃
 
I’m going to be traveling for quite an extended time this coming summer, fall and winter in the Middle East. I understand that Roman, Greek, and Arab/Maronite Catholicism is present in this area but as I understand it the frequency of finding an Arab belonging to one of these denominations residing in the Middle East is highly less likely than the Arabs that have now immigrated to the West. In short: Catholic churches are harder to come by.

Am I positioned as a Catholic, if needed, to confess in an Orthodox church if I need to?
As several people have pointed out in the Middle East the boundaries between our respective communions tend to disappear - but depending on the circumstances I know Orthodox priests (myself included) who would “hear your confession” and “give you absolution” as well. And as someone else also mentioned in such circumstances there would be no reason not to commune you as well - I would commune you - depending on circumstances, which are to be determined on a case to case rather than on an abstract basis. Canons are guidelines to facilitate the regularity of the life of the Church so that salvation is never hindered for anyone. Canons are not ends in themselves, they exist for us - on our behalf and we do not exist on theirs. This is why canons ought to be looked at for guidance - and I think that the intent of the canons are your salvation (Canon 102 of Trullo tells me so and it is important for me as an Orthodox - I am not sure how this canon is considered in the RCC). This means that if and when the literal application of Canon Law would endanger and not serve your salvation the real-life pastoral circumstances overrule the letter of the canon so that its intended goal may yet be achieved. This is often - in the Orthodox world - referred to as “economy.” Canons are applied economically - that is unto the salvation of the people. It is interesting to note here that economy is also the word often used by Church Fathers to denote the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection of Jesus Christ - the word “economy” can be said to indicate for them the entirety of the Lord’s salvific effort.

His Grace Hilarion Alfeyev has recently (without defining precisely what the criteria are) said that Orthodox priests are to minister the Sacraments to Roman Catholics in extreme circumstances - economy. For anyone, anyone at all to receive sacraments other than the initiatory ones, one must be a member of the Church – full stop. I.o.w. - even though His Grace did not draw these conclusions - Roman Catholics are to the Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ and full members of the One True Church, and the only reason that sacraments are not shared regularly is because there are “irregularities” in our ecclesial structures - which affect the disciplinary and temporal aspect of the life of the Church. Communion in sacris even if allowed in extreme situations is possible only if the one with whom one has such communion is within the one same Church. Such communion is not possible with those outside.

The Sacraments are salvific means by means of which Jesus Christ restores and puts us in communion with His Father empowered the Holy Spirit. The dispensing of sacraments - to whom they shall and shall not be given - must serve the salvation of the people to whom they are given or from whom they are withheld. Excommunication, or barring from the Sacraments are pastoral tools unto salvation and ought to be applied as such. In this case, you traveling in the Middle East and perhaps unable to have access to a Roman Catholic priest for receiving the Sacraments could be a case which qualifies as “extreme” - it would for me.

Now I must conclude by saying that in the Orthodox world there will be many who disagree with me, or even with His Grace Hilarion Alfeyev on this matter. Ecumenical relations has become a hot-button issue and the Orthodox Church of a 100 years ago is no longer the Orthodox Church of today. Anti-ecumenist fundamentalism is on the rise and moderate Orthodox are increasingly marginalized (on the web their presence is hardly even noticeable).

As a final note: I speak on behalf of my own pastoral insights and practice and do not dictate or represent an authoritatively binding opinion but merely my own.

Fr. Gregory +
 
Father, bless, and thank you for that honest perspective. If you were closer to us you would have several more penitents in line… 🙂
 
There are only 7 ecumenical councils. Even Rome recognizes this.
Yes, there are only 7 Ecumenical Councils, but to say that the Vatican recognizes this is an error. In fact, a Roman Catholic scholar once criticized the Orthodox Church (the Church I belong to) by saying, ‘you guys have only had 7 ecumenical councils’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top