Do canonical Eastern Orthodox priests ever admit Catholics to the sacraments?

[dochawk]

What “nationalistic demands” are you referring to?

It takes a few years watching the discussions to catch on to this, but . . …

For example, the demand that Moscow be placed in precedence over Constantinople.

The folks demanding that the RCC admit it was wrong are.more often than not RO.

The insistence that Moscow be recognized as “Third Rome”.

To absorb some of it, read some of the archives at byzcath.org–particularly the banned members (who are disproportionately RO making such statements). One even demanded that Rome’s be dropped in primacy as “penance”, but that no penance was due from the ROC due to it’s oppression by communism, and that it should be the first in primacy . . .

And would it really have been that easy to restore communion?

yes

What about papal infallibility,

given the current VI definitions about it being something that happens in union with the college of bishops, it wouldn’t take me a whole afternoon to produce a statement consistent with Eastern conciliarity and the Western declaration.

filioque ,

Already long hashed out. The Western church has never meant that this means that the Spirit originates in the Son by that–but that is what the original Greek verb meant. It’s a matter of “violent agreement” on the actual theology with a dispute stemming from the differences in Greek and Latin grammar (in short, greek has about a half a dozen words that translate to “procede” . . .)

the use of economia to allow second (and even third) marriages, and so on?

A) not that difference in substance from decrees of nullity, and
B) this wasn’t a bar for the several hundred years before the schism.

as a non-theologian, I’ll probably botch this by observing that the West sees the divorce as an ongoing sinful situation (present indicative), while the East sees the sin as complete (preterite).

 

[HeDa]

The beginning is for everyone to see “we and us” instead of “I, me, my and mine”. I think that is going to be the major difficulty.

Theoretically it is very easy but people´s minds are the hardest part.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

the use of economia to allow second (and even third) marriages, and so on?

Are you saying that the East allowed second (and even third) marriages before 1054? Did Rome have an issue with this?

as a non-theologian, I’ll probably botch this by observing that the West sees the divorce as an ongoing sinful situation (present indicative), while the East sees the sin as complete (preterite).

I’m not following your reasoning here. Divorce (i.e., civil separation and establishment of certain rights) is not necessarily sinful in and of itself. Are you saying that the East sees the civil divorce as having dissolved the sacramental marriage?

 

[ReaderT]

I’d like to give you my perspective as an Orthodox Christian.

Never, in my 10 years since conversion, have I ever known a priest that would even dare to provide Sacraments for non-Orthodox including Catholics. Perhaps that would change in really extreme circumstances (rapidly approaching death), but never before.

All these stories I’ve been reading about “Oh it’s common, especially in Eastern Europe” is not my experience at all. In fact, St. Paisios (Greek) would not even pray the “Our Father” with Vatican officials, let alone invite them to Sacraments.

Occasionally some EO priests will do confession for Oriental Orthodox faithful, but that isn’t standard either.

 

[twf]

The Middle East is where it’s alleged to be common.

 

[ReaderT]

The Middle East is where it’s alleged to be common

The Middle East is Oriental Orthodox (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt), not Eastern Orthodox

EDIT: @babochka reminded me that there are Antiochian Orthodox in Middle East.

 

[ReaderT]

[The Filioque is] already long hashed out. The Western church has never meant that this means that the Spirit originates in the Son

Dochawk: It seems the Western church did mean just that - Catechism of the Catholic Church 246:

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”

 

[babochka]

I’d like to give you my perspective as an Orthodox Christian.

Never, in my 10 years since conversion, have I ever known a priest that would even dare to provide Sacraments for non-Orthodox including Catholics. Perhaps that would change in really extreme circumstances (rapidly approaching death), but never before.

All these stories I’ve been reading about “Oh it’s common, especially in Eastern Europe” is not my experience at all. In fact, St. Paisios (Greek) would not even pray the “Our Father” with Vatican officials, let alone invite them to Sacraments.

Occasionally some EO priests will do confession for Oriental Orthodox faithful, but that isn’t standard either.

I don’t recall anyone saying that it is common in Eastern Europe, only that it is relatively common in the Middle East. Without a doubt, it did occur in Eastern Europe during Communism.

The Middle East is Oriental Orthodox (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt), not Eastern Orthodox

Antiochian Orthodox are not Oriental. I’m sure the tens of thousands of Eastern Orthodox faithful in the Middle East would object to your statement.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Middle East is where it’s alleged to be common

It is actually both, as well as Eastern Rite Catholic (Melkites, Maronites, Chaldeans, et al) and a handful of Latin Rite Catholics. Throw in the Jews, the Muslims and the Druze, and it makes for a very interesting religious salad bowl. It is very good when all of these groups can find a way to coexist and get along.

 

[ReaderT]

Antiochian Orthodox are not Oriental. I’m sure the tens of thousands of Eastern Orthodox faithful in the Middle East would object to your statement.

You’re right. I forgot about them. I will change my post.

 

[twf]

Yeah it’s the Antiochians and Melkites I had in mind. Though I believe inter-communion does happen between Catholics and Orientals too.

I know that Antiochian (Greek) Orthodox will routinely commune at the local Melkite Catholic Church here in town. Or at least that was the case some years ago when I visited. It was, at least at the time, the only Arabic byzantine parish in the region, so Arabic speaking Orthodox were more comfortable there than at say a Russian, Greek, or Ukrainian Orthodox parish.

Perhaps a case where ethnicity trumps confession.

 

[babochka]

I know that Antiochian (Greek) Orthodox will routinely commune at the local Melkite Catholic Church here in town. Or at least that was the case some years ago when I visited. It was, at least at the time, the only Arabic byzantine parish in the region, so Arabic speaking Orthodox were more comfortable there than at say a Russian, Greek, or Ukrainian Orthodox parish.

To be fair, it is not really the same thing that Orthodox faithful will receive communion at a Catholic Church as it is with an Othodox priest giving communion to a Catholic. It would be more notable if the situation were reversed and the Melkite Catholics regularly received at the Antiochian Church.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It would be more notable if the situation were reversed and the Melkite Catholics regularly received at the Antiochian Church.

Does this ever happen?

 

[ziapueblo]

I have a friend who is Melkite and he says that there is much more intercommunion between Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites than people would think. He is also a regular communicant at an OCA parish where his vacation home is.

Intercommunion between Greek Catholics and Orthodox seem to be like the first rule from fight club. First rule of intercommunion club, one doesn’t talk about intercommunion club.

ZP

 

[twf]

Second rule, Orthodox Christians on Catholic forums will adamantly deny that an Orthodox priest would ever commune Catholics!

 

[babochka]

Never , in my 10 years since conversion, have I ever known a priest that would even dare to provide Sacraments for non-Orthodox including Catholics

I would say that your 10 years of Orthodoxy (presumably in the U. S.) has not exposed you to the full breadth of practice of the faith, particularly under condition of extreme persecution. I would also assume that this sort of thing would be done privately and not generally talked about.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

It would be more notable if the situation were reversed and the Melkite Catholics regularly received at the Antiochian Church.

Does this ever happen?

Yes, but not so much in the U.S. as in the Middle East. And because it is officially not done, you’re not really going to hear people talk about it much.

 

[dochawk]

Are you saying that the East allowed second (and even third) marriages before 1054? Did Rome have an issue with this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) dochawk:

The East doesn’t make the same distinction between a marriage ending by divorce or death as the west, or at least not to the same level. Any second (ore third) marriage is in this category.

In fact, a thrice widowed byzantine emperor was deposed for attempting a fourth marriage.

So, yes, many centuries in communion with Rome while having second marriages.

I’m not following your reasoning here. Divorce (i.e., civil separation and establishment of certain rights) is not necessarily sinful in and of itself.

As I said, botching it :crazy_face:

I realized as I doze off later that sin wasn’t quite the right word to use here (but not quite wrong, either). I could really use a theologians help here . . .

The East sees marriage as something that is not to end. When it does, this is a tragedy, which leaves the “what now” problem.

However, and here I botch it again, the death of the marriage is a “completed” thing. The question is now whether or not it is better for this persons salvation to attempt another marriage. Death of a spouse does not automatically permit a second marriage.

The West sees the marriage as still there unless a death.

The Middle East is Oriental Orthodox (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt), not Eastern Orthodox

The Melkites and the Antiochan Orthodox are byzantine, not oriental.

Dochawk: It seems the Western church did mean just that - Catechism of the Catholic Church 246:

I’d like to hope that they don’t really mean that like it sounds–but we’re going way above my grade here. (OK, and probably flavored by my Eastern leanings . . . I think that there’s a hashed out version; maybe @ziapueblo can cite it . . .)

anyway, neither the Melkites nor the AOC are fully invested in the schism. Families, individual, and even clergy drift back and forth fairly often.

It is my understanding that they are currently building all new churches for joint use, rather than in pairs . . .

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The East doesn’t make the same distinction between a marriage ending by divorce or death as the west, or at least not to the same level. Any second (ore third) marriage is in this category.

I see what you are saying. I have wondered if we might, just might, be able to say that a marriage has “dissolved”, or “died”, not by any outward human action (“let no man put asunder”), but in and of itself — no man can put it asunder, but it can sunder itself. You cannot separate the “thing” of the marriage from the “matter” of the marriage, i.e., the husband and the wife — or can you? (Sorry, I don’t have a better word than “thing” to describe it.) I have in mind a marriage dissolving (not being dissolved) in the way that the Sacred Host dissolves in the digestion of the communicant, or the Precious Blood evaporating if it is spilled onto the corporal and left to dry. This is highly, highly speculative sacramental theology on my part, and I am no expert.

Death of a spouse does not automatically permit a second marriage.

I have never heard this before. What is the reasoning behind this?

I have also wondered if there are two “ways” in which the sacrament of matrimony is confected — the husband and wife exchanging rings and consent in the West, and the priest crowning the couple and thus conferring the sacrament in the East. One sacrament, two different ways to bring it about, each way unique to the rite of the Church in which it is confected?

And if this is true, could it make a difference in which these marriages can be said to “dissolve” or not? In other words, can an Eastern marriage “die” in a way that a Western marriage can’t? And if so, why? Again, more highly speculative sacramental theology.

 

[dochawk]

This is highly, highly speculative sacramental theology on my part, and I am no expert.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) dochawk:

It does, though, fit with my understanding. It is tragic, but the marriage is no longer there is (roughly) the thinking.

I have never heard this before. What is the reasoning behind this?

I could ask the same thing in the other direction–why would the marriage end with death?

But your questions have passed my level of understanding. (if these interest you, you should really check out the byzcath.org forums).

In other words, can an Eastern marriage “die” in a way that a Western marriage can’t?

That I doubt.

I’d go with the history of the understandings being different.

I have met an EC priest who thinks that the EC churches returning to EO practice on this would, for pastoral reasons, be one of the biggest benefit of restored communion . . . I’m inclined to agree with him . . .