Communing in an Orthodox church

[MariaGoretti88]

I would say rather that it’s uncomfortable for a lot of Catholics and Anglicans – the Orthodox are usually the first to speak out against intercommunion-without-doctrinal-agreement.

They are. I just don’t understand why it’s only a small remnant of Catholics that seems to be protective of our Sacraments and dogmas. I don’t know, but I will continue to pray about this because I’m always left walking in circles lol.

By your own standards, you should cease receiving communion, because what you are saying concerning the Orthdodox is in opposed to what is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. BTW, it is against the rules of the Forum to refer to the Orthodox either as heretics or schismatics.

You’re using the Protestant tactic of taking one thing out of context to try to refute an entire claim without holding it up to other things of the same source. They do that with verses of Scripture without considering other parts of the Holy Word, whereas you are taking one part of one official document without holding it up to other documents that are also official.

The Catholic Church by definition cannot contradict itself and you shouldn’t speak that way of Holy Mother Church. It is not for you to decide what doctrines of hers are and are not important.

Again, if you don’t accept her doctrines then there’s no point in running to her for help if you’re dying (Sacrament of Extreme Unction) unless you are ready to submit to her authority (confess disbelief and convert before expiring).

 

[Vico]

Doesnt the Catholic church allow Orthodox Christians to commune in its churches?

And arent Catholics allowed to commune at Orthodox churches in some circumstances?

A. Catholics are to avoid indifferentism. That means to hold and act in accord with the belief that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith. The other non Catholic churches are known as either particular churches (that have Apostolic succession) and ecclesial communities (those without Apostolic succession).

CCEO 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 ofthe non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community concerned.

 

[5Loaves]

The Orthodox Church may not be heretical on paper, but according to the Catholic Church’s definition (heretics accept some revealed Truth but not all), the Orthodox Church is technically in heresy. Schismatics according to the same source refuse to submit to the authority of the Holy Father, but accept all revealed Truths.

Before things go any further along these lines please review the Sticky: Important Forum Information #4 at the top of the EC Section “On the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic”.

 

[Vico]

Doesnt the Catholic church allow Orthodox Christians to commune in its churches?

And arent Catholics allowed to commune at Orthodox churches in some circumstances?

B. The Vatican has addressed some inter-ecclesial issues in the 1993** DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM****:**

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ectory_en.html

Prayer in Common

1. Where appropriate, Catholics should be encouraged, in accordance with the Church’s norms, to join in prayer with Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities. Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to these other Christians. [119] Shared prayer is in itself a way to spiritual reconciliation.
   …
   111 d) When services are arranged between Catholics and those of an Eastern Church, particular attention should be given to the liturgical discipline of each Church, in accordance with n. 115 below.
   …
2. Since the celebration of the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day is the foundation and centre of the whole liturgical year, [120] Catholics—but those of Eastern Churches according to their own Law [121]—are obliged to attend Mass on that day and on days of precept. [122] It is not advisable therefore to organize ecumenical services on Sundays, and it must be remembered that even when Catholics participate in ecumenical services or in services of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains.

Sharing in Non-Sacramental Liturgical Worship

1. By liturgical worship is meant worship carried out according to books, prescriptions and customs of a Church or ecclesial Community, presided over by a minister or delegate of that Church or Community. This liturgical worship may be of a non-sacramental kind, or may be the celebration of one or more of the Christian sacraments. The concern here is non-sacramental worship.

…

1. In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach.
   …
2. In the prudent judgment of the local Ordinary, the funeral rites of the Catholic Church may be granted to members of a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial Community, unless it is evidently contrary to their will and provided that their own minister is unavailable, [123] and that the general provisions of Canon Law do not forbid it. [124]
3. Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for any Catholic for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from a minister of an Eastern Church. [128]

footnotes:
119 Cf. UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, n. 8.
120 Cf. SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, n. 106.
121 Cf. CCEO, can. 881, 1; CIC, can. 1247.
122 Cf. CIC, can. 1247; CCEO, can. 881, 1.
123 Cf. CIC, can. 1183, 3; CCEO, can. 876, 1.
124 Cf. CIC, can. 1184; CCEO, can. 887.
128 Cf. *CIC, *can. 844, 2 and *CCEO, *can. 671, 2.

CCEO Canon 881

1. The Christian faithful are bound by the obligation to participate on Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy, or according to the prescriptions or legitimate customs of their own Church sui iuris, in the celebration of the divine praises.
2. In order for the Christian faithful to fulfill this obligation more easily, the available time runs from the evening of the vigil until the end of the Sunday or feast day.
3. The Christian faithful are strongly recommended to receive the Divine Eucharist on these days and indeed more frequently, even daily.
4. The Christian faithful should abstain from those labors or business matters which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s day, or to the proper relaxation of mind and body.

 

[RyanBlack]

You’re using the Protestant tactic of taking one thing out of context to try to refute an entire claim without holding it up to other things of the same source. They do that with verses of Scripture without considering other parts of the Holy Word, whereas you are taking one part of one official document without holding it up to other documents that are also official.

The Catholic Church by definition cannot contradict itself and you shouldn’t speak that way of Holy Mother Church. It is not for you to decide what doctrines of hers are and are not important.

Again, if you don’t accept her doctrines then there’s no point in running to her for help if you’re dying (Sacrament of Extreme Unction) unless you are ready to submit to her authority (confess disbelief and convert before expiring).

The words you have used to attack my position could just as easily be turned against you. You might consider that.

Also, please consider this: what gives you the right to condemn the Orthodox as heretics and schismatics, and to claim that they should not be permitted to receive communion in the Catholic Church when the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach otherwise? You are not proclaiming what the Church teaches, you are proclaiming your personal opinion. I have no desire to deny you your right to your opinion, but please don’t misrepresent it as being the teaching of the Church.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

Before things go any further along these lines please review the Sticky: Important Forum Information #4 at the top of the EC Section “On the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic”.

Just read it. Thank you.

The words you have used to attack my position could just as easily be turned against you. You might consider that.

Also, please consider this: what gives you the right to condemn the Orthodox as heretics and schismatics, and to claim that they should not be permitted to receive communion in the Catholic Church when the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach otherwise? You are not proclaiming what the Church teaches, you are proclaiming your personal opinion. I have no desire to deny you your right to your opinion, but please don’t misrepresent it as being the teaching of the Church.

I shall quote from the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, Chapter 8…

“And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God,** that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord;** and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so [Page 82] exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.”

For Roman Catholics, this is a real and valid Council of the Church that must be accepted and the Catechism that you stated does not and cannot contradict the doctrines of this or any previous Council or declaration before it (the Catechism). This shows us (although there are other sources too) that receiving Holy Communion is a sign of unity in belief, but the Orthodox, regardless of their status with the Church, do not believe everything that Roman Catholics do, why do you think they are two different Churches if our beliefs are exactly the same? Other posters here (and it seems like most Orthodox that I’ve talked to) acknowledge that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do not agree on every single doctrine.

That said, just because others would receive Sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in danger of death, why do you think that I am obligated to? I find that the Canons posted above give room for people like me to feel no obligation to receive Sacraments outside of the Church that I belong to. No where has the Catholic Church said that I am under grave obligation to receive Eastern Orthodox Sacraments in danger of death.

In fact, I don’t think the Church could even obligate me to receive any Sacrament since I’ve passed the age of reason.

I do consider that the same arguments I’m using can be (and have been) used against me. I appreciate the arguments people have made and presented to me, but I still as of now would prefer to receive no Sacraments unless I’d be receiving them from Catholic ministers.

I’ll also reiterate that I believe that Eastern Orthodox Sacraments are valid and real, but I believe that I would be sinning mortally against the First Commandment if I were to receive them and would also be sinning against the Theological Virtue of Faith (and indirectly offending the Blessed Mother and the Holy Father by denying dogmas pertaining to them).

I have read somewhere that Catholics aren’t allowed to receive communion at non-Catholic services even if it’s offered to us (I hardly doubt anyways that if I were dying that a Protestant’s first reaction would be to offer me communion…) but even if I weren’t dying.

Also, I know for a fact that I am not misrepresenting the Catholic Church by claiming that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin and her Assumption into Heaven and Infallibility of His Holiness in faith or morals are binding dogmas on all Christians that need to be held to be in-communion with the Church.

So you’re telling me I can publicly deny the Immaculate Conception after understanding what it means and its significance to Christians and still worthily receive Holy Communion without any danger of committing a mortal sin? Explain how because if that is the case, why should I receive the Sacrament of Penance ever? If you need a quote affirming the IC as dogma, I can find one for you. Let me know.

 

[RyanBlack]

Just read it. Thank you.

I shall quote from the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, Chapter 8…

“And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God,** that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord;** and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so [Page 82] exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.”

For Roman Catholics, this is a real and valid Council of the Church that must be accepted and the Catechism that you stated does not and cannot contradict the doctrines of this or any previous Council or declaration before it (the Catechism). This shows us (although there are other sources too) that receiving Holy Communion is a sign of unity in belief, but the Orthodox, regardless of their status with the Church, do not believe everything that Roman Catholics do, why do you think they are two different Churches if our beliefs are exactly the same? Other posters here (and it seems like most Orthodox that I’ve talked to) acknowledge that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do not agree on every single doctrine.

That said, just because others would receive Sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in danger of death, why do you think that I am obligated to? I find that the Canons posted above give room for people like me to feel no obligation to receive Sacraments outside of the Church that I belong to. No where has the Catholic Church said that I am under grave obligation to receive Eastern Orthodox Sacraments in danger of death.

In fact, I don’t think the Church could even obligate me to receive any Sacrament since I’ve passed the age of reason.

I do consider that the same arguments I’m using can be (and have been) used against me. I appreciate the arguments people have made and presented to me, but I still as of now would prefer to receive no Sacraments unless I’d be receiving them from Catholic ministers.

I’ll also reiterate that I believe that Eastern Orthodox Sacraments are valid and real, but I believe that I would be sinning mortally against the First Commandment if I were to receive them and would also be sinning against the Theological Virtue of Faith (and indirectly offending the Blessed Mother and the Holy Father by denying dogmas pertaining to them).

I have read somewhere that Catholics aren’t allowed to receive communion at non-Catholic services even if it’s offered to us (I hardly doubt anyways that if I were dying that a Protestant’s first reaction would be to offer me communion…) but even if I weren’t dying.

Also, I know for a fact that I am not misrepresenting the Catholic Church by claiming that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin and her Assumption into Heaven and Infallibility of His Holiness in faith or morals are binding dogmas on all Christians that need to be held to be in-communion with the Church.

So you’re telling me I can publicly deny the Immaculate Conception after understanding what it means and its significance to Christians and still worthily receive Holy Communion without any danger of committing a mortal sin? Explain how because if that is the case, why should I receive the Sacrament of Penance ever? If you need a quote affirming the IC as dogma, I can find one for you. Let me know.

I don’t think you are obligated to receive sacraments in the Orthodox Church, and I never said so, so I don’t know why you are putting that question to me. However, the Catholic Church does indeed permit her members to do so in cases or true need (provided the Orthodox priest grants permission).

As far as the Church not being able to obligate you to receive any sacrament because you are past the age of reason, I believe that you are incorrect; it’s my understanding that you are obligated to confess at least once per year and to receive communion at least once per year, although I’m open to correction if I’m wrong.

I never stated that you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching by claiming that the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of the Theotokos, and papal infallibility are dogmatic, so I do not know why you are posing this question to me. And no, I do not need any quotes from you to prove that the Catholic Church teaches that the Immaculate Conception is dogma. I’m quite familiar with Catholic teaching. As to your problem with the Orthodox denial (often it’s more indifference, rather than outright denial) of certain Catholic dogmas and their having permission to receive communion in Catholic parishes, I suggest you not direct your anger at me and others on this Forum, but at the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, since the pope and his brother bishops are the ones who give this permission.

 

[Peter_J]

They are. I just don’t understand why it’s only a small remnant of Catholics that seems to be protective of our Sacraments and dogmas. I don’t know, but I will continue to pray about this because I’m always left walking in circles lol.

The West isn’t very traditional. Catholics typically are more traditional than Anglicans and Protestants, but still not terribly traditional.

On the Orthodox forum that I participate on, the question often comes up of whether it’s alright to pray with non-Orthodox. Interesting contrast when I come here, where common prayer is taken for granted and intercommunion is pushed for.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

That’s more a matter of political correctness than anything else. Official Catholic documents make it clear that the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and UOJ are dogmas.

It’s definitely not political correctness.

Immaculate Conception: It’s far from a foregone conclusion that eastern Orthodox deny this. The dogma - which yes, is universally binding - was defined in theological terms relevant only to the vocabulary of western Christianity. It confuses the East more than anything else.

The day you hear it explicitly and definitively asserted in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy that the All-Holy Theotokos was conceived without grace in her soul, is the day you can tell me that the Orthodox are in heresy for denying the Immaculate Conception.

Random Internet people saying it’s false because they don’t understand the western vocabulary with which we Latins describe ancestral sin? That doesn’t count as denial.

Papal infallibility: I have yet to meet one eastern Orthodox who is willing to understand this correctly… I’m not saying they’re not out there, but until I speak with even one, their denial remains a miscommunication.

UOJ: What is that? I’m sorry, I confess I’ve never seen that acronym.

Since the passage of that recent Canon (I never remember the number) it’s been made clear that Eastern Catholics must hold to the same post-schism western dogmas that western Catholics must, such as papal infallibility, and I simply am not able to accept those as dogmas.

Are you sure? Properly understood, they make a lot of sense and are quite patristic. Concerning papal infallibility specifically, if you do a search for posts on the subject by poster Mardukm, I think you’ll be happy you did…

Don’t even try to tell me that the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady and her glorious Assumption into Heaven, and accepting Papal Infallibility are suggestions according to the Church.

I wouldn’t dream of it. Of course they are not suggestions but rather universally binding dogmas.

I briefly addressed above why current Orthodox belief and worship simply does not convince the Catholic hierarchy that there is a substantive denial of these dogmas…

The Orthodox Church may not be heretical on paper, but according to the Catholic Church’s definition (heretics accept some revealed Truth but not all), the Orthodox Church is technically in heresy. Schismatics according to the same source refuse to submit to the authority of the Holy Father, but accept all revealed Truths.

So the Catholic Church is lying? Official documents do not consider them to be in heresy, but really they are? That is quite a… bold assertion. What, are we worried about their feelings or something?

And they’re not schismatics, because they’re not guilty of the schism; they didn’t cause it. They’re literally considered to be sister churches that are in schism, but no living Orthodox is either a schismatic or a heretic. That’s not political correctness; it’s the truth.

Unless someone wants to explain to me why I (and all other Catholics here) would be refused the Sacraments if I refused to believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, but why our Orthodox brothers and sisters wouldn’t be…

Because you’re a Latin Catholic; if you deny it, we presume you know what you’re talking about.

The Immaculate Conception was defined in an exclusively western way, so Christians of the Byzantine tradition often don’t even understand it. I’m not saying it’s only binding on the Latin Church - far from it! It is a universally binding dogma of the Catholic Church. But the terminology with which it was defined is meaningless in the East, which has a very different way of understanding original sin/ancestral sin.

As much as it infuriates some Orthodox… we simply don’t believe them when they say they deny the Immaculate Conception. The sublime things they say about the Theotokos - even in their Divine Liturgy - simply belie that assertion.

Now do see the problem I’m having?

I do, and I agree with you in principle. It’s just that you’re mistaken about the Orthodox. The only error in their beliefs is the belief that we are heterodox (well, some of them have an inaccurate ecclesiology as well, but this is by no means universal throughout their church).

That, then, is or should be the only difference between an eastern Orthodox community and an eastern Catholic one: the latter realizes that the Latin Church is fully orthodox, and so they realize how insane it is not to be in communion with the bishop of Rome.

As for the Canon Law, I have my own explanations for that to keep me freaking out about worrying about non-Catholics worthily receiving our Sacraments.

Are you willing to share them? I’m curious, because - as has been quoted here - canon law does indeed explicitly say that it “does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians” of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, or any other church the CDF deems to be in a similar status regarding the legitimacy of their churches and Sacraments…

(although it also urges these Christians to respect the discipline of their own churches, of course)

 

[Peter_J]

Also, I know for a fact that I am not misrepresenting the Catholic Church by claiming that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin and her Assumption into Heaven and Infallibility of His Holiness in faith or morals are binding dogmas on all Christians that need to be held to be in-communion with the Church.

So you’re telling me I can publicly deny the Immaculate Conception after understanding what it means and its significance to Christians and still worthily receive Holy Communion without any danger of committing a mortal sin?

I would say that a requirement for *anyone *to receive communion is to be in good standing with his/her own church. In your case, you would not be in good standing with your church, the RCC, if you publicly denied the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s definitely not political correctness.

You should read Never the Twain?

 

[Peter_J]

Because you’re a Latin Catholic; if you deny it, we presume you know what you’re talking about.

The Immaculate Conception was defined in an exclusively western way, so Christians of the Byzantine tradition often don’t even understand it. I’m not saying it’s only binding on the Latin Church - far from it! It is a universally binding dogma of the Catholic Church. But the terminology with which it was defined is meaningless in the East, which has a very different way of understanding original sin/ancestral sin.

As much as it infuriates some Orthodox… we simply don’t believe them when they say they deny the Immaculate Conception. The sublime things they say about the Theotokos - even in their Divine Liturgy - simply belie that assertion.

(emphasis added)
I’m glad you realize that people don’t like being manipulated – I’ve actually met quite a few Catholics who are surprised by that!

 

[Peter_J]

… how insane it is not to be in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Are we getting ready for Brest-Litovsk, Part II?

 

[Hesychios]

… we simply don’t believe them when they say…

We don’t believe you when you say you don’t believe us.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Papal infallibility: I have yet to meet one eastern Orthodox who is willing to understand this correctly… I’m not saying they’re not out there, but until I speak with even one, their denial remains a miscommunication.

Understand correctly? Quite frankly, I don’t think that anybody truly understands Papal Infallibility, because until the infallible Magisterium or a pope in an ex-cathedra statement releases a document clarifying which papal proclamations are actually ex-cathedra, it is about as meaningful of a dogma as if I were to say that Jesus had five abcd’s and two xyzk’s (what is an abcd or an xyzk? I don’t know, but you are required to believe that Jesus had five of the former and two of the latter).

If somebody were to ask, for example, if the declaration from Unam Sanctam, “furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is an ex-cathedra statement, he would receive a myriad of answers, some saying that it does not fit the criteria to be an ex-cathedra statement because it was not meant for public dissemination, or that it was not meant for all of the faithful (at which point, one wonders what sort of papal bull Unam Sanctam was then), much to the chagrin of Traditionalist Catholics most of whom will certainly affirm that it is in fact an ex-cathedra statement, and therefore a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, the criteria for an ex-cathedra statement from the First Vatican Council:Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.are sufficiently vague, that people can argue whether or not the statement in question concerns faith or morals, was made by the pope in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, or was intended to be held by the whole Church.

Then there is also the question of how much of a particular document is infallible. Is it only the sentence in which the Roman Pontiff writes “We define”? The paragraph? Everything proceeding? Everything preceding? The entire document? We see this of course with Munificentissimus Deus, where people pick and choose how much of the document is infallible. Don’t like the fact that Pope Pius XII also writes in Munificentissimus Deus that the Theotokos died? That’s ok, the only thing Pope Pius XII defines is that she was assumed into heaven after the completion of her earthy life, so you can just ignore the rest of the document.

I honestly don’t think anybody is capable of understanding papal infallibility, because it simply wasn’t defined well enough, hence you have incredible disagreements over what should be an incredibly simple question: which statements disseminated by the popes throughout the near-two-thousand-year history of Christianity are ex-cathedra and therefore irreformable? Trust me, this is not simply the Orthodox being stubborn, this is the Orthodox being baffled by a dogma which has no inherent meaning.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

As far as the Church not being able to obligate you to receive any sacrament because you are past the age of reason, I believe that you are incorrect; it’s my understanding that you are obligated to confess at least once per year and to receive communion at least once per year, although I’m open to correction if I’m wrong.

As to your problem with the Orthodox denial (often it’s more indifference, rather than outright denial) of certain Catholic dogmas and their having permission to receive communion in Catholic parishes, I suggest you not direct your anger at me and others on this Forum, but at the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, since the pope and his brother bishops are the ones who give this permission.

That’s true, I forgot about that. I was thinking when I specifically had heard that children cannot after they’ve reached the age of reason be forced to receive the Sacraments of Baptism or Confirmation against their will or desire. (One of the reasons that I advocate Baptism and Confirmation before children turn seven and before receiving Holy Communion. My favorite Orthodox friend convinced me of this ^^ love him).

And by golly you’re right that I’m frustrated at whomever in the Magisterium gave permission for this (watch it be someone good too like Pope St. Leo XIII or someone), but there is hope in that disciplines can change all the Holy See has to do is sign a paper and give an explanation so hope isn’t lost. I just pray that sins of sacrilege never be committed especially not towards Jesus Christ present in the Holy Eucharist. As per the sticky I read, the sentence I would put here I’ll just leave it out even though it was kinda hopeful, but ehh. We’ll live without it.

The West isn’t very traditional. Catholics typically are more traditional than Anglicans and Protestants, but still not terribly traditional.

On the Orthodox forum that I participate on, the question often comes up of whether it’s alright to pray with non-Orthodox. Interesting contrast when I come here, where common prayer is taken for granted and intercommunion is pushed for.

I’ve noticed this and I have some personal discomfort with praying “with” non-Catholics and usually refrain, but lately I’ve been more open to the idea as I no longer believe that God only hears Catholic prayers and can and does bestow Actual Grace to many people who aren’t Catholic. He’s trying to bring them into the fold but He just won’t do me a favor and step on peoples’ free wills for me! Ugh! And I thought He loved me and would do anything for me lolol. Jk

 

[Peter_J]

… I no longer believe that God only hears Catholic prayers

I’m surprised you ever did believe that.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

I wouldn’t dream of it. Of course they are not suggestions but rather universally binding dogmas.

I briefly addressed above why current Orthodox belief and worship simply does not convince the Catholic hierarchy that there is a substantive denial of these dogmas…

So the Catholic Church is lying? Official documents do not consider them to be in heresy, but really they are? That is quite a… bold assertion. What, are we worried about their feelings or something?

And they’re not schismatics, because they’re not guilty of the schism; they didn’t cause it. They’re literally considered to be sister churches that are in schism, but no living Orthodox is either a schismatic or a heretic. That’s not political correctness; it’s the truth.

Because you’re a Latin Catholic; if you deny it, we presume you know what you’re talking about.

The Immaculate Conception was defined in an exclusively western way, so Christians of the Byzantine tradition often don’t even understand it. I’m not saying it’s only binding on the Latin Church - far from it! It is a universally binding dogma of the Catholic Church. But the terminology with which it was defined is meaningless in the East, which has a very different way of understanding original sin/ancestral sin.

As much as it infuriates some Orthodox… we simply don’t believe them when they say they deny the Immaculate Conception. The sublime things they say about the Theotokos - even in their Divine Liturgy - simply belie that assertion.

I do, and I agree with you in principle. It’s just that you’re mistaken about the Orthodox. The only error in their beliefs is the belief that we are heterodox (well, some of them have an inaccurate ecclesiology as well, but this is by no means universal throughout their church).

That, then, is or should be the only difference between an eastern Orthodox community and an eastern Catholic one: the latter realizes that the Latin Church is fully orthodox, and so they realize how insane it is not to be in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Are you willing to share them? I’m curious, because - as has been quoted here - canon law does indeed explicitly say that it “does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians” of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, or any other church the CDF deems to be in a similar status regarding the legitimacy of their churches and Sacraments…

(although it also urges these Christians to respect the discipline of their own churches, of course)

That’s why the Church needs to stop playing semantics games and “Oh well the Protestants and the Orthodox just understand things differently…ehhh what the heck, let 'em on in!” this mentality is a slippery slope because who knows what’s next in the concessions to make (I gotta hand it to our Orthodox brethren that at least they aren’t making concessions to Catholics trying to please us).

Most of you are the ones making the Church look like she’s lying trying to say that on one hand, she teaches that all Christians must share the same beliefs and revealed Truths to receive the Sacraments, but then those who don’t believe our beliefs may receive the Sacraments and get the same amount of Grace (if any) that ‘good’ Catholics would.

I’m saying she wouldn’t say something so contradictory because then she’d be divided against herself and as Christ said in the Holy Gospel yesterday (OF), a city divided against itself will fall. I find some way to harmonize seemingly “conflicting” doctrines, Scripture, official statements etc. Someway somehow, I am not about to let my Church look hypocritical without fighting for her good name. I don’t roll like that.

Because I’m Latin so people presume I know what I’m talking about? Why thank you! I’m flattered but the Eastern Orthodox from what I’ve experienced know exactly what they are talking about and disagreeing with. They can explain the IC of the Theotokos just like I can, they just choose not to accept it, but they understand it. I understand their position on the procession of the Holy Ghost, however ridiculous I may feel it is, but I understand it, and therefore refuse to believe it. Young children yes, they can claim to not really understand, but I don’t really see that deer-in-a-headlight look from the Orthodox when I say Immaculate Conception lol.

IF I were the Pope (thank goodness I’m not, I have enough trouble trying to get myself on the right path, let alone all people), I do not feel that there is enough harmony between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism for us to be receiving each others Sacraments in danger of death. But that’s just me.

I feel most here have very strong feelings of reverence and veneration for the Sacraments and take them seriously. Consider this “my” way of expressing my devotion to them ^^

 

[Peter_J]

We don’t believe you when you say you don’t believe us.

I’ve never been Orthodox, yet I have to admit that even I get tired of hearing stuff like “The Orthodox disagree with fill in RC teaching]? Well then that just shows that they don’t understand it.”

 

[Peter_J]

That’s why the Church needs to stop playing semantics games

Stop playing semantic games? That’s so crazy it just might work!