Can Catholic confess to Orthodox priests?

[vernet1]

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 +

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.

Fr. Gregory,

I am grateful that you make the point that you are offering only your own opinion. Nevertheless, it may be confusing when you say that ‘to the Orthodox’, Roman Catholics are full members of the One True Church.

Just to be clear, this is NOT the Orthodox viewpoint. I have never heard this from any Orthodox bishop, priest, established Orthodox writer, or any of my Orthodox companions, and we are pretty far opposite to the ‘anti-ecumenist’ ‘ultra-traditionalist’ groups.

Additionally , to say that the only reason sacraments are not shared is because of ecclesial irregularities is incorrect. We disagree on dogma, as well as on the Saints.

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you, I only want to clarify for those reading.

 

[Cecilianus]

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?

The Mass of All Time developed into its present form very early (around the 5th to 7th centuries, at the latest) and was modified very slightly and regularized a handful of times, including at the Council of Trent, hence the erroneous name “Tridentine Mass”. It was at the Council of Trent that St. Pius V declared that the Mass promulgated would be used for perpetuity, hence the name “Mass of All Ages” or “Mass of All Time”. It was reformed again (and once again in very, very slight ways) in 1962 at Vatican II when Blessed John XXIII issued the 1962 missal, which is what we use. Seven years later, four years after Vatican II closed, an entirely artificial and entirely unprecedented liturgy written by Archbishop Bugnini (who was subsequently removed from his position when his ties to Freemasonry were disclosed) was issued under the name “Novus Ordo”, which is what most Latin Catholics have to put up with today. I have only ever seen two priests say a Bugnini Mass without liturgical abuses and without either preaching heresies or expressing heretical opinions to me in private - both of these priests were forbidden by their religious superiors to say the Mass of All Ages.

 

[Cecilianus]

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 +

Thank you, Father!

I wish we could go back to the days when the schism (which was only supposed to affect a couple of individual prelates who were mentioned by name) was viewed as simply an irregularity involving those prelates rather than as a distinction between two different churches, as if there could be another Church or as if Christ could have two bodies. The Dominicans working to restore unity right after the Cerularian schism accepted the Greek bishops as their lawful superiors, the Benedictines on Mount Athos lived in communion with the Greek monks, St. Bartholomew of Simeri accepted the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople when he visited Mount Athos and then the jurisidiction of the Pope when he built a monastery in Italy, and St. Dimitry of Rostov studied theology in Rome, practicing as a Catholic. If someone does not reject communion with Rome, then he is a Catholic - likewise, in your eyes, I should be viewed as Orthodox, since I’ve never denied any teaching of the Orthodox Faith.

And the excommunication of Cerularius (which never really had any jurisdiction anyway, since the Pope who delegated authority to Cardinal Humbert was dead) has been lifted.

 

[vernet1]

Thank you, Father!

I wish we could go back to the days when the schism (which was only supposed to affect a couple of individual prelates who were mentioned by name) was viewed as simply an irregularity involving those prelates rather than as a distinction between two different churches, as if there could be another Church or as if Christ could have two bodies. The Dominicans working to restore unity right after the Cerularian schism accepted the Greek bishops as their lawful superiors, the Benedictines on Mount Athos lived in communion with the Greek monks, St. Bartholomew of Simeri accepted the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople when he visited Mount Athos and then the jurisidiction of the Pope when he built a monastery in Italy, and St. Dimitry of Rostov studied theology in Rome, practicing as a Catholic. If someone does not reject communion with Rome, then he is a Catholic - likewise, in your eyes, I should be viewed as Orthodox, since I’ve never denied any teaching of the Orthodox Faith.

And the excommunication of Cerularius (which never really had any jurisdiction anyway, since the Pope who delegated authority to Cardinal Humbert was dead) has been lifted.

That particular excommunication was lifted. You say you do not deny any teaching of the Orthodox Faith? Yet part of the Orthodox Faith is that there can be no bishop of bishops. Our Saints had their tongues torn out because they refused to confess Catholic dogma (Doctrine of purgatory according to the Council of Florence, for example).

 

[vernet1]

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 +

Hello and peace to all.

Fr. Gregory,

Who is your bishop?

Also, can you please define ‘extreme circumstances’ with regards to Bishop Hilarion’s statement?

 

[5Loaves]

Father, bless

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).
Fr. Gregory +

Thank you for such a full, and honest/candid, response and for the economia you would extend to me and my brothers and sisters in our time greatest need. Indeed I cannot imagine how much different my life would be now were I not able to share in some ‘lesser’ festal vigils and the like at an Orthodox parish when my own tiny Byzantine Catholic church has none.

I have not been involved in the East West relations enough years to have your insight nor that of others here with deeper roots, but it appears to me that the relationships amongst a number of our patriarchs East and West have deepened and increasingly examples of their own ecumenical engagements have perhaps a more public profile, while the reaction has become more intense.

Here and elsewhere, I have learned a lot about where they are “coming from” when Orthodox of those positions are honest, firm, but not just yelling. They have certainly helped me understand the nature of our situations better and in fact to speak up when I think they’re being caricatured/misrepresented, as I see Orthodox speak up for us Catholics when we are at times likewise misrepresented.

May we be in your prayers, unworthy sinners that we all are.

 

[ElizabethPH]

If you are going to Jordan there is Sacred Heart Parish in Amman and the Melkite center is there as well.

 

[sidbrown]

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 +

Thank you Father Gregory. I hope that you will continue to contribute to the discussions here at CAF. While some Orthodox priests in the USA do express a leniency of sorts toward Catholics, it does not appear to be the general rule.

 

[Cecilianus]

That particular excommunication was lifted. You say you do not deny any teaching of the Orthodox Faith? Yet part of the Orthodox Faith is that there can be no bishop of bishops. Our Saints had their tongues torn out because they refused to confess Catholic dogma (Doctrine of purgatory according to the Council of Florence, for example).

If there are no “bishop of bishops” (a possibly ambiguous phrasing, however, since strictly speaking the bishop is the highest order of Holy Orders), then what is the Patriarch of Constantinople? Has - or has had in the past - jurisdiction over other bishops.

 

[Cecilianus]

That particular excommunication was lifted. You say you do not deny any teaching of the Orthodox Faith? Yet part of the Orthodox Faith is that there can be no bishop of bishops. Our Saints had their tongues torn out because they refused to confess Catholic dogma (Doctrine of purgatory according to the Council of Florence, for example).

And the Orthodox have never defined that there is no purgatory, and, in fact, in practice DO believe in the purification of sins after death. Not wanting to call it purgatory seems to me to be just quibbling. The only alternative proposed is the “toll-houses”, which most Orthodox reject as a Gnostic (more accurately, Bogomil) insertion into the Faith.

 

[Aramis]

That particular excommunication was lifted. You say you do not deny any teaching of the Orthodox Faith? Yet part of the Orthodox Faith is that there can be no bishop of bishops. Our Saints had their tongues torn out because they refused to confess Catholic dogma (Doctrine of purgatory according to the Council of Florence, for example).

Then there can be no patriarchs, either. By the time of their own schism, the Assyrians already held the relationship of the pope to the patriarchs to the analagous to that of Patriarch to bishops.

In point of fact, the teaching that no bishop leads another is counter to the canons of the 7 councils; a synod may not act without its head bishop.

 

[Robertwilliam]

The idea comes from the fact that as not being a member of the Orthodox Church you have no rights within it and no way to deal with it if this did happen.

What does THAT mean? I have been Orthodox for 24 years, no priest has EVER broken the seal of the confessional

 

[sidbrown]

Our Saints had their tongues torn out because they refused to confess Catholic dogma (Doctrine of purgatory according to the Council of Florence, for example).

Which Saints were those?

 

[vernet1]

And the Orthodox have never defined that there is no purgatory, and, in fact, in practice DO believe in the purification of sins after death. Not wanting to call it purgatory seems to me to be just quibbling. The only alternative proposed is the “toll-houses”, which most Orthodox reject as a Gnostic (more accurately, Bogomil) insertion into the Faith.

Most Orthodox do not reject it as gnostic, the proper understanding is completely different from Purgatory, which is defined as a temporal fire by the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence. It is this dogma that the Orthodox reject.

 

[vernet1]

Which Saints were those?

Read the life of St. Mark of Ephesus.

 

[vernet1]

If there are no “bishop of bishops” (a possibly ambiguous phrasing, however, since strictly speaking the bishop is the highest order of Holy Orders), then what is the Patriarch of Constantinople? Has - or has had in the past - jurisdiction over other bishops.

He is a first in honor among equals. He retains his rights and honor not because the Church has given it to him.

 

[vernet1]

Then there can be no patriarchs, either. By the time of their own schism, the Assyrians already held the relationship of the pope to the patriarchs to the analagous to that of Patriarch to bishops.

In point of fact, the teaching that no bishop leads another is counter to the canons of the 7 councils; a synod may not act without its head bishop.

"“It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” - St. Cyprian, 7th Council of Carthage

From the Britannica Concice Encyclopedia:

“In disputes with the bishop of Rome, Cyprian asserted that the people and their bishop constituted the church, that there was no “bishop of bishops” in Rome, that all bishops equally possessed the Holy Spirit, and that their consensus expressed the church’s unity.”

 

[CallistusPM]

The first question to be answered is: Are Orthodox clergy still part of the Apostolic succession? I believe the answer is in the affirmative, so their administrating the sacraments would be valid but not lawful, except under certain emergency conditions. This would be the same as for a defrocked priest. Now, exactly what would “emergency conditions” entail? Good question. Certainly in the case of possible death. Intent, form and matter would be palpable under these conditions. Not only would this be valid and lawful but mandatory on the part of the clergy, Orthodox or defrocked. If a person has a cardinal sin on his/her soul and no official Roman Rite priest available to confess to, would this constitute an “emergency?” What could be more of an emergency than the salvation of one’s immortal soul?
Let’s take this a step further. Since the Second Vatican Council, I have noticed the sacrament of penance being marginalized and de-emphasized by many (not all) Novus Ordo churches. My former parish church tore out the confessional booths along with excoriating all existing Traditional/historical church sacred elements and furnishings. Now, if you wish to see a priest concerning “reconciliation,” you make an appointment to meet with him one on one in his study. This is not the Traditional Roman Rite of the sacred sacrament of confession. Like all things traditionally Roman Catholic, it has been demeaned, expurgated and relegated to obscurity. The Novus Ordo church is just simply not the church I was raised in. It is a far cry from the liturgy of all ages. A Protestant ethos infects Catholic worship in the post Vatican Council church.

 

[vernet1]

He is a first in honor among equals. He retains his rights and honor not because the Church has given it to him.

Forgive me, I meant to write "He retains his rights and honor because the Church has given it to him.

Chalcedon (451), c.28

FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome"****

 

[josethekke]

Well I was just replying with the force and using the same logic some people like to use against SSPX Catholics. Then again at least the SSPX recognize the last 10 or so Ecumenical Councils.

what is SSPX catholic i think a person really intend to confess his sin he can apprroch a orthodox priest, who is the nearst priest because intention to confess sin is really imoprtant