Can Catholic confess to Orthodox priests?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again, I think the Canons are clear in this case but let me ask this.

Why would one go to the Sacrament of Penance to an Orthodox priest outside of an emergency and would he actually allow a penitent to do this anyways.

I can see no reason to do so for any reason as there are Catholic Churches almost everywhere. An Eastern Catholic without easy access to his Church can still go to a Latin Church which are avalible.

I also highly doubt an Orthodox priest would consent to doing this unless he really knew the penitent well.

So really the question seems to be unnecessary.

 

[Diak]

There are some Orthodox priests who respect the desire of Eastern Catholics to remain within their own particular tradition. This kindness has indeed been given to me on a number of occasions. But as you say, this is almost always done after the priest has become familiar with the penitent. I will also say that many Orthodox priests look at Confession differently than intercommunion, as the latter has a much more serious public ecclesiological aspect.

The Church does not forbid this, nor is there any question of an Orthodox priest having “faculties” (assuming he has normative status within his own eparchy) in the same way as the canonical sanctions against the SSPX.

I can most definitely see an Eastern Catholic who is accustomed to the liturgical form as well as the general spiritual considerations of traditionally receiving this Mystery (especially if a Church if their own particular ritual tradition is not present where they are) being interested in receiving this Mystery from an offering Orthodox priest rather than a Latin parish, so I do not think it an unncessary question at all.

There is certainly nothing stopping any Eastern Catholic from going to Confession at a Latin parish (I do this frequently) but likewise there is most certainly no requirement that an Eastern Catholic abandon any particular tradition. Unitatis Redintegratio states in Paragraph 15 that

Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There are some Orthodox priests who respect the desire of Eastern Catholics to remain within their own particular tradition. This kindness has indeed been given to me on a number of occasions. But as you say, this is almost always done after the priest has become familiar with the penitent. I will also say that many Orthodox priests look at Confession differently than intercommunion, as the latter has a much more serious public ecclesiological aspect.

The Church does not forbid this, nor is there any question of an Orthodox priest having “faculties” (assuming he has normative status within his own eparchy) in the same way as the canonical sanctions against the SSPX.

I can most definitely see an Eastern Catholic who is accustomed to the liturgical form as well as the general spiritual considerations of traditionally receiving this Mystery (especially if a Church if their own particular ritual tradition is not present where they are) being interested in receiving this Mystery from an offering Orthodox priest rather than a Latin parish, so I do not think it an unncessary question at all.

There is certainly nothing stopping any Eastern Catholic from going to Confession at a Latin parish (I do this frequently) but likewise there is most certainly no requirement that an Eastern Catholic abandon any particular tradition. Unitatis Redintegratio states in Paragraph 15 that

I am still not convinced of the validity issue even if the Orthodox priest has faculties from his bishop as that bishop is outside of the Catholic Church and the Canons in question do not apply to them.

This is something I must think about but if asked my answer is as I have stated it.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Again the fact that an excommunication has not been declared, does not mean that it is not present. The Orthodox do not have a Papal Mandate to consecrate Bishops. Ergo they’re excommunicated, ergo they are not part of the Church ergo they have no jurisdiction ergo they do not validly absolve (under normal circumstances).

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Did you know that this canon does NOT apply to the Orthodox?

Can. 1 The canons of this Code concern only the latin Church.

Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches specifically say that these laws do not apply to the Orthodox, either.

Ergo, your ergos are all wrong.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Did you know that this canon does NOT apply to the Orthodox?

Can. 1 The canons of this Code concern only the latin Church.

Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches specifically say that these laws do not apply to the Orthodox, either.

Ergo, your ergos are all wrong.

And as the Canons do not apply how can we determine proper faculties?

The Canons do apply to the person going to the Sacrament so they must follow them and part of that is going to the Sacrament to a priest that has faculties.

 

[Diak]

I will again point towards what the Magesterium has declared in Unitatis Redintegratio:

To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them…

As I and others have pointed out here, the Latin Code binds neither Orthodox nor Eastern Catholic laity or clergy and its citation or application in spiritual matters of the latter two is not applicable.

I am still not convinced of the validity issue even if the Orthodox priest has faculties from his bishop as that bishop is outside of the Catholic Church and the Canons in question do not apply to them.

This is something I must think about but if asked my answer is as I have stated it.

You may not be convinced but the Magisterium is (again from Unitatis Redintegratio):

All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church.

The anathemas of 1054 would likely not have been mutually renounced if either Church believed that the “jurisdiction” or “faculties” of the other were “invalid”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As I and others have pointed out here, the Latin Code binds neither Orthodox nor Eastern Catholic laity or clergy and its citation or application in spiritual matters of the latter two is not applicable.

I am not say that the Canons bind the Orthodox, but they do bind the Latin or Eastern Catholic who is seeking the Sacrament.

I would be interested in what a bishop and/or canon lawyer would say to this question.

 

[jlhargus]

Brother David:

You are forgetting: Their valid bishops have given those orthodox priests valid postings as pastors, and thus valid authority over sins by virtue of the office of pastor or priest-confessor.

It doesn’t even require an emergency. It requires physical or moral incapability to approach a Catholic Minister, and a genuine spiritual advantage. Essentially, absolution of any mortal sin meets the “genuine spiritual advantage” clause.

JL: I think you are right on this, however even if it does require an emergency. I would consider being in mortal sin an emergency. To assume you are not in danger of death is presumptuous you could be hit by a truck, fall in the bath tube, have a heart attack, or any number of natural catastrophes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JL: I think you are right on this, however even if it does require an emergency. I would consider being in mortal sin an emergency. To assume you are not in danger of death is presumptuous you could be hit by a truck, fall in the bath tube, have a heart attack, or any number of natural catastrophes.

Having an unconfessed mortal sin is not how the Church defines “emergency”.

 

[Dan-Man916]

i think the question revolves around receiving absolution rather than hearing a confession. The two are really distinct items.

An Orthodox priest may hear your confession, but he may not grant absolution because you are not in communion with the Orthodox priest.

it is important to make that distinction.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Did you know that this canon does NOT apply to the Orthodox?

Can. 1 The canons of this Code concern only the latin Church.

Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches specifically say that these laws do not apply to the Orthodox, either.

Ergo, your ergos are all wrong.

You are correct!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

i think the question revolves around receiving absolution rather than hearing a confession. The two are really distinct items.

An Orthodox priest may hear your confession, but he may not grant absolution because you are not in communion with the Orthodox priest.

it is important to make that distinction.

Then the answer to the question is that you can go to confession to anyone.

I would also add that if one goes to an Orthodox priest you may not be protected by the seal of the confessional.

 

[Aramis]

Again the fact that an excommunication has not been declared, does not mean that it is not present. The Orthodox do not have a Papal Mandate to consecrate Bishops. Ergo they’re excommunicated, ergo they are not part of the Church ergo they have no jurisdiction ergo they do not validly absolve (under normal circumstances).

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Eastern Patriarchs don’t need one within their patriarchal territories. CCEO Canons 85 and 86 establish that a Patriarch with his synod is in fact able to establish, suppress, or modify eparchies within the church’s patriarchal territory, and to ordain and grant canonical provision to bishops and metropolitans within their church.For the Roman Church, only the apostolic see can modify, suppress, or create dioceses, and only the apostolic see may remove or order installed bishops, and only the apostolic see may grant canonical provision. See also CCEO canon 177, 181, 187, 189.

The CIC, BTW, has no authority over the eastern churches. See CIC Canon 1.

And, just for clarity, check out §2:
CIC 844
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

Necessity or true spiritual advantage, and physical or moral lack of access to catholic priests. Not Emergency. (The wording is the same in the CCEO canons.)
Being in a state of mortal sin would clearly put true spiritual advantage. So if no Catholic priest is available (or the only one available is under impediment, etc), then the need for confession and the inability to get to a Catholic priest is the bound.

 

[DorianGregorian]

Again, a subjective citation of one canon of mutable law that only applies to the Latin Church cannot be given or interpreted without the entire corpus of Magisterial teachning. Yes, it does mean they do not exist, and in fact the mutual excommunications against Constantinople and Rome were rescinded in the mid-1960s.

Excommunications do specifically have to be declared to have force to the entire Church, and have been since the early Church. One cannot assume anything so serious as an excommunication without a specific proclamation and notification to the particular Churches in question. Even the ipso facto excommunication of Msgr. Lefebvre and the bishops of 1988, while “on paper” was ipso facto, this excommunication was proclaimed by Pope John Paul II, and most definitely was not “assumed” at all without the solemn delcaration.

There are several examples of Magisterial teaching that do not agree with your assertion. One example that comes to mind is Paragraph 16 of Unitatis Redintegratio: Paragraph 17 concludes with
\QUOTE]

Let’s remember though that Churches of the East in this context means the Eastern Catholic Churches, it was policy well before Vatican II not to Latinize Eastern Catholics (see Orientalium Dignitas Leo VIII)

However the Orthodox (again this applies to Orthodox, not my equal Eastern Catholic brethren) DENY THE PAPACY both as laid down in the 21 Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. They also deny the Ex Cathedra Dogma of Papal Infallibility. Denying a Dogma is heretical, and heretics cannot be part of the Church (Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio), outside of which there is no salvation (Council of Venice). [Which although the Orthodox don’t think applies, it does, and it most certainly applies to Catholics).]

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.

Also while the Orthodox are refrenced in documents as Churches, this is in the same context that the Book of Revelation mentions seven Churches. They are Churches because they have valid Bishops, but there is only One Church (see the Nicene Creed) and that is the Catholic Church.

Laus Deo

 

[Aramis]

Dorian: The Orthodox are NOT heretics. Schismatics, but not heretics. They can be communed in the Catholic Church if they feel it needful.

Some of the Orthodox churches are actually in limited communion (albeit none of the churches of the EOC)… the Syrian Orthodox and the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox (and the ACE) all have formal intercommunion in place, approved by Rome, but not full communion. The Armenian Orthodox are close enough that the agreement in practice includes Deacons being able to assist in either church; the respective patriarchs (AAO and Armenian Catholic) permit their priests to concelebrate with each other for special occasions, and the Armenian Catholics seem to see themselves as in communion with both the AAO and the Pope of Rome. And Rome chooses not to take issue with it.

The EOC is far pickier on paper, but, in the middle east, and in the hinterlands of Alaska, and some other odd places, the local priest is the final arbiter.

 

[DorianGregorian]

Dorian: The Orthodox are NOT heretics. Schismatics, but not heretics. They can be communed in the Catholic Church if they feel it needful.

The Orthodox hold that the See of Rome is only a place of honor but not Jurisdiction.

Vatican I - Session #4 - Chapter #1 Article 6:
Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; **or that
it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction **that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Vatican I - Session #4 - Chapter #2 Article 1:
We promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence.

Vatican I - Session #4 - Chapter #3 Article 9:
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: **let him be anathema. **

Sorry, but the Orthodox clearly hold heretical beliefs of the Papacy, against the decrees of Vatican I. Paul VI could’ve remmited excommunications until he was blue in the face, but even the Pope can’t overrule a Dogmatic Concillar definition. As long as they hold this heretical belief, they are heretics, and a heretic cannot be part of the Church.

Don’t take my statements as harsh; they are not personal. However one cannot be a member of the Church without recognizing the office of the Papacy.

Laus Deo

 

[5Loaves]

Let’s remember though that Churches of the East in this context means the Eastern Catholic Churches, it was policy well before Vatican II not to Latinize Eastern Catholics (see Orientalium Dignitas Leo VIII)

In which context?

Can. 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

“members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church” means Orthodox

Can. 844§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

“non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid” means Orthodox.

 

[5Loaves]

i think the question revolves around receiving absolution rather than hearing a confession. The two are really distinct items.

It’s always possible for any priest to withhold absolution if for example the necessary elements of contrition and intent to change are not present. That said the Sacrament is seen as a unit from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (Cann. 959 - 997)
Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

Dan-Man916:

An Orthodox priest may hear your confession, but he may not grant absolution because you are not in communion with the Orthodox priest.

Under the conditions of Can. 844 §2 any Catholic may seek the Sacrament of Penance from a valid Orthodox priest and the Sacrament would be both valid and licit in the eyes of the Catholic Church, but that Orthodox priest might not offer the Sacrament to a Catholic sometimes or never depending on the concerns of the Orthodox priest and practices, I suppose, of his autocephalous Church. Not so much in the US where it would be quite unusual for a Catholic to have the situation where “it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister” but in other areas of the world where this can more often be the case we know there are Orthodox priests willing to offer the Sacraments to Catholics “Whenever necessity requires…”, and again where there are those who will not offer a Catholic the Sacraments.

That may be the same thing you were saying, Dan-Man916, or not.

 

[scapularkid8]

This is not germane to the discussion. Don’t de-rail this thread…

That was a close one. Thanks for the save haha

I’ve just decided that mortal sin is a rather dangerous case and based on current spiritual struggles, if I’m abroad and need a confession, I will confess to the nearest Catholic or Orthodox priest.

 

[5Loaves]

It doesn’t even require an emergency. It requires physical or moral incapability to approach a Catholic Minister, and a genuine spiritual advantage. Essentially, absolution of any mortal sin meets the “genuine spiritual advantage” clause.

I would respectfully disagree. I think you need to take the paragraph of this canon as one whole unit- it is even all one sentence If x, y, z and q, then …

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

I think you are potentially coming within the “danger of error” and “indifferentism” it cautions to avoid with the justification for seeking the sacrament that you have given here.

In fact when we were talking about this in canon law class the teacher also spoke about the idea that said Catholic was for a serious period of time absolutely unable to approach a Catholic priest. So you’re on vacation for two weeks and there’s no Catholic church around? That would not be justification for seeking sacraments from an Orthodox priest- except of course in danger of death. If you are living in that area and cannot travel to another area where there is a Catholic priest, then that begins to make the canon come into place.