Can Catholic confess to Orthodox priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scapularkid8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
\I would also add that if one goes to an Orthodox priest you may not be protected by the seal of the confessional.\

**I don’t know where you got that idea.

The seal of confession is as absolute in Orthodox Churches as it is in the Catholic Churches.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
\I would also add that if one goes to an Orthodox priest you may not be protected by the seal of the confessional.\

**I don’t know where you got that idea.

The seal of confession is as absolute in Orthodox Churches as it is in the Catholic Churches.**
Click to expand...
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.
 
DorianGregorian said:
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
Click to expand...
In his book, Principles of Catholic Theology, it appears then-Father Ratzinger was willing to make a distinction between the pre-schism office of the Papacy, and the post-schism office of the Papacy (which would obviously include Vatican I).

I’m curious as to what all of you think about his statement:

“Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries…Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

ericsammons.com/blog/2009/12/04/what-would-catholic-orthodox-reunion-look-like/
 
Again, just having an unconfessed mortal sin is not considered an emergency case where one could approach a suspended priest for confession.

Now I do understand that the Orthodox are a different case, or at least some make this argument.

But I stand by my opinion of the Canons cited that one can not go to an Orthodox priest for confession outside of an emergency.

It is interesting that we have testimony of Canon Lawyers (and I believe bishops) in the case of a Catholic of one Church attending another not having to follow both liturgical calendars and Holy Days of Obligation yet there is nothing but silence from the experts on this issue.

I guess no one has seen a need to consult those experts. Until such a time I am unconvinced and would never advise someone to do this.
 
ByzCath said:
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.
Click to expand...
It may or may not be relevant to your question, but my canon lawyer friend (a Latin, himself) is fond of pointing out that the Latin Code of Canon Law only applies to the Latin Church, while the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches includes canons that apply both to Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church. For this reason, the Eastern Code is, in a manner of speaking, more universal.
 
Brother David:

Show me in the canons where it requires emergency…

Because I can’t find it there.
 
Aramis said:
Brother David:

Show me in the canons where it requires emergency…

Because I can’t find it there.
Click to expand...
I can’t, but then as you said, the Canons do not cover the Orthodox. I state this by the very fact that any priest can hear a confession and grant valid absolution regardless of his state (faculties, suspension, etc.).

My argument is that as an Eastern Catholic they cover us and the way I read it to have a valid absolution we need to go to confession to a priest with proper faculties.

As the Orthodox are outside the Church I do not believe such is the case.

Please, you know me, I am open, convince me otherwise.
 
ByzCath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps canon 671 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which I do not think has been cited, may be of assistance. It is the parallel of canon 844 of the Latin Church. Paragraph 2 is relevant to Catholics, although I do not know whether a Orthodox priest would be willing to administer the sacrament even if its condition is met from our point of view.

*§1. Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments only to Catholic Christian faithful, who, likewise, licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers. *

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

*§3. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed.This holds also for the Christian faithful of other Churches, who according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same condition as the Eastern Churches as far as the sacraments are concerned. *

*§4. If there is a danger of death or another matter of serious necessity in the judgment of the eparchial bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or the council of hierarchs, Catholic ministers licitly administer the same sacraments also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach the ministers of their own ecclesial communities and who request them on their own, provided they manifest a faith consonant with that of the Catholic Church concerning these sacraments and are rightly disposed. *

§5. For the cases in §§2, 3 and 4, norms of particular law are to be enacted only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community concerned.

In the Latin Church, canon 976 has “Even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, any priest validly and licitly absolves from any kind of censures and sins any penitent who is in danger of death, even if an approved priest is present.” Eastern canon 725 is substantially the same (though I think the Latin is more elegant in the Eastre canon, but that’s just personal taste).

Divine law binds everyone. Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the sufficient use of reason and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age. That in canon 11 of the Latin Code and in 1490 of the Eastern canons.

If a non Catholic approaches the Cathollic Church for the administration of a sacrament (or in the case of even a non sacramental marriage), our Church law would bind them in that sense as it would be applied to the situation.

Note that paragraph 2 speaks of particular law. So we’d also have to know about any legislation in a given Catholic Church of the East that might apply.
 
cameron_lansing said:
*§2. If necessity requires it or genuine spiritual advantage suggests it and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is permitted for Catholic Christian faithful, for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers, in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. *

This right is my main contention that only in cases of emergency can one receive the Sacrament of Penance from an Orthodox priest as I can not think of the case where one is unable to approach a Catholic priest for this. Notice it says nothing about tradition or form as the argument has been made.
§4. If there is a danger of death or another matter of serious necessity in the judgment of the eparchial bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or the council of hierarchs, Catholic ministers licitly administer the same sacraments also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach the ministers of their own ecclesial communities and who request them on their own, provided they manifest a faith consonant with that of the Catholic Church concerning these sacraments and are rightly disposed. *
Click to expand...
Here is the case for emergencies is spelled out.

Thank you for this, it just reinforces my belief in this matter.
 
ByzCath said:
I can’t, but then as you said, the Canons do not cover the Orthodox. I state this by the very fact that any priest can hear a confession and grant valid absolution regardless of his state (faculties, suspension, etc.).

My argument is that as an Eastern Catholic they cover us and the way I read it to have a valid absolution we need to go to confession to a priest with proper faculties.

As the Orthodox are outside the Church I do not believe such is the case.

Please, you know me, I am open, convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...
The requirement in canon law is inability to go to a catholic priest, true spiritual advantage, and no indifference. it EXPLICITLY permits “penance, the Eucharist, and annointing of the sick.”

Absolution of a major sin is definitely true spiritual advantage. Emergency would only seem to apply when in danger of death; no such burden seems implied in the canons with regard to the Orthodox, but does apply to other christian communities.

Baptism is doable by anyone in a pinch, so lacking access to a Catholic cleric for that sacrament it falls to a Catholic Layman (CCEO677).

Confirmation falls to the bishop and the priest; if one is in a situation of perpetuated lack of access (for example, assigned for years by civil authority to a community without a Catholic presence), there is little option; it must be delayed until either a priest may visit or the candidate may be taken to one…

Excepting, of course, the cases of Armenians, Chaldeans, and certain other communities, for whom formal agreements are in place for pastoral care with their orthodox counterparts; for the Melkites, such agreements seem to be verbal ad-hoc, and localized, but very present.

CCEO 670-671 explicitly permit attendence outside need (which was a major change of the new codes; even merely attending a protestant service was a sin under the old code); Orthodox sacraments when offered may be received.

Canon 670
  1. For a just cause Catholics can attend the liturgical worship of other Christians and take part in the same, observing those things which, by reason of the degree of communion with the Catholic Church, are established by the eparchial bishop or by a superior authority.
  2. If non-Catholic Christians lack a place in which divine worship can be celebrated with dignity, the eparchial bishop can grant the use of a Catholic building or cemetery or church according to the norm of particular law of his own Church sui iuris.
Canon 671
  1. Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments only to Catholic Christian faithful, who, likewise, licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers.
  2. If necessity requires it or genuine spiritual advantage suggests it and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is permitted for Catholic Christian faithful, for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers, in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
  3. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed. This holds also for the Christian faithful of other Churches, who according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same condition as the Eastern Churches as far as the sacraments are concerned.
  4. If there is a danger of death or another matter of serious necessity in the judgment of the eparchial bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or the council of hierarchs, Catholic ministers licitly administer the same sacraments also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach the ministers of their own ecclesial communities and who request them on their own, provided they manifest a faith consonant with that of the Catholic Church concerning these sacraments and are rightly disposed.
  5. For the cases in 2, 3 and 4, norms of particular law are to be enacted only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community concerned.
    intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/
 
Right, so I fail to see how a Catholic may go to an Orthodox priest for the Sacrament of Penance outside of an emergency.

I know of no place where there is an Orthodox Church that there is not also a Catholic Church.
 
Tons of places:

Middle East
India, excluding Kerala
China
parts of Africa
southern parts of the US
parts of Alaska
territories of Canada
certain Islands and Island nations
etc

The law also does not exclude the agreements made between the Pope and Patriarchs of the various churches individually - e.g. Syriac Orthodox - Catholic agreements re: Eucharist, penance, marriages, etc.
 
ByzCath said:
Right, so I fail to see how a Catholic may go to an Orthodox priest for the Sacrament of Penance outside of an emergency.

I know of no place where there is an Orthodox Church that there is not also a Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Try rural Alaska. about every 3rd village is Orthodox, and every third is Catholic. Almost no overlap.

Heck, if one does not drive, several towns, as well.
 
Aramis said:
Try rural Alaska. about every 3rd village is Orthodox, and every third is Catholic. Almost no overlap.

Heck, if one does not drive, several towns, as well.
Click to expand...
I’m wanting to say it’s probably a similar case in Siberia Russia, although there will be no Catholicism there.
 
scapularkid8 said:
I’m wanting to say it’s probably a similar case in Siberia Russia, although there will be no Catholicism there.
Click to expand...
You’d be wrong. 🙂 The Archdiocese of Anchorage has a priest on mission to eastern Siberia. 👍

Tho’ from what I’ve heard, finding an Orthodox parish isn’t much easier there, either.
 
ByzCath said:
This right is my main contention that only in cases of emergency can one receive the Sacrament of Penance from an Orthodox priest as I can not think of the case where one is unable to approach a Catholic priest for this. Notice it says nothing about tradition or form as the argument has been made.
Here is the case for emergencies is spelled out. Thank you for this, it just reinforces my belief in this matter.
Click to expand...
Some thoughts to consider on that, however.

Emergency or a Latin equivalent (other perhaps than necessity) does not appear in that canon as a condition. I do not think, off hand, that the word “emergency” would appear in any authorized English translations of the code with which I am familiar. Someone could check though.

To avoid being either looser or more restrictive than the legislator intends, I would stay with those condition as are listed, and all must be met-
necessity or true spiritual advantage (utilitas) , and
and danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, and
access to a Catholic minister is morally or physically impossible, and
the sacraments would be valid in that non Catholic Church

**Utilitas **is a broad term. It can mean advantage or some welfare to a person or a group of persons that falls short of a necessity. As it appears in the canons of East and West (the Latin), either necessity or true advantage is sufficient. Thus the two are placed in discinction by that use of “or” (in Latin, aut).

The term “necessity” would seem to suggest a situation in which there is an imperative to act. This **utilitas **in the canon is of a lesser degree, and admits to a discretion to act if the conditions are met.
 
I remember once I was out of town and asked a Catholic priest if he could hear my confession.
He asked me if I was Catholic, I said I was not, and he explained that he could not provide absolution of my sins.
I told him I was aware of that fact, but could he hear my confession, and then pray to God that He forgive my sins?
After all, anybody can pray to God to forgive the sins of another.
The priest said yes, heard my confession, did not pray the prayer of absolution, but rather simply prayed to God asking Him to forgive my sins.
I suppose the same would be true of Orthodox priests.
 
johnruss said:
I remember once I was out of town and asked a Catholic priest if he could hear my confession.
He asked me if I was Catholic, I said I was not, and he explained that he could not provide absolution of my sins.
I told him I was aware of that fact, but could he hear my confession, and then pray to God that He forgive my sins?
After all, anybody can pray to God to forgive the sins of another.
The priest said yes, heard my confession, did not pray the prayer of absolution, but rather simply prayed to God asking Him to forgive my sins.
I suppose the same would be true of Orthodox priests.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top