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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve been Orthodox longer than ten years and I’ve known a few Orthodox priests (Antiochian) that have knowingly communed Copts here in the United States.
 
CoffeeFanatic said:
I’ve been Orthodox longer than ten years and I’ve known a few Orthodox priests (Antiochian) that have knowingly communed Copts here in the United States.
Click to expand...
Coptic Orthodox or Coptic Catholics? And if the former, do Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (which the Copts are) have any sort of intercommunion?
 
I am 100% aware that the Copts are Oriental Orthodox. It’s Coptic Orthodox. If there is any sort of intercommunion I am completely unaware of it.
 
CoffeeFanatic said:
I am 100% aware that the Copts are Oriental Orthodox. It’s Coptic Orthodox. If there is any sort of intercommunion I am completely unaware of it.
Click to expand...
Until fairly recently, I was unaware that the Copts, Ethiopian Tewahedo, and similar churches were not “Eastern Orthodox”. I thought “Oriental Orthodox” was just a subset of Eastern Orthodox. Easy assumption to make if you’re a Latin Rite Catholic and think just in terms of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant/Evangelical.
 
CoffeeFanatic said:
I’ve been Orthodox longer than ten years and I’ve known a few Orthodox priests (Antiochian) that have knowingly communed Copts here in the United States.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t support it, but that’s on their heads then. At any rate, Coptic Orthodox are a lot “closer” to our faith (if one can say that) than Western Catholics.
 
Curiously, the Orient Orthodox in general are far closer than the EO to restoring communion with Rome (if you discount the request that Rome rebuffed a few years ago).

It’s even more of an, “Oh, that’s what you mean??? Oops . . .” situation . . .
 
dochawk said:
Curiously, the Orient Orthodox in general are far closer than the EO to restoring communion with Rome (if you discount the request that Rome rebuffed a few years ago).

It’s even more of an, “Oh, that’s what you mean??? Oops . . .” situation . . .
Click to expand...
What request was that?

Would I be correct in assuming that the Oriental Orthodox do not have the historical and theological “baggage” that the Eastern Orthodox have — the atrocities surrounding the horrible sack of Constantinople, the bitter fights over the filioque, and so on?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
What request was that?
Click to expand...
An Orthodox Church (one of the baltics iirc) requested communion with Rome a few years ago, and was politely (and quietly!) turned down, due to the wrench it would through into the broader situation. It appears the East and West both want to enter communion wholesale, rather than bits and pieces.
HomeschoolDad said:
Would I be correct in assuming that the Oriental Orthodox do not have the historical and theological “baggage” that the Eastern Orthodox have — the atrocities surrounding the horrible sack of Constantinople, the bitter fights over the filioque , and so on?
Click to expand...
That’s my impression. There’s really a single misunderstanding, not even a conflict, and little oil on the fire since then.
 
The West and East thought the Orientals were Nestorian.

West/East and Orient were simply using different words in explaining the same understanding, and insisting on their own words kept talking past one another.
 
dochawk said:
What request was that?
Click to expand...
This is a shame. I am wondering if it was seen by Rome as a potential “uniate” situation, a method of reunion which Rome has abandoned going forward, and therefore potentially insulting to Orthodoxy. Once more, Catholicism bending over backwards not to give any offense.

I also have to wonder it was the Latvian Orthodox Church, which immediately brings to mind the Seinfeld episode in which George converts for the sake of his girlfriend. I found that episode mildly (but only mildly) objectionable, in that it treats a part of the apostolic Church (albeit separated) as merely a weird, superstitious ethnic phenomenon, rather than as a Christian body with true faith and sacraments. But it was funny. And it allowed the world to discover that there actually is such a thing as Latvian Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
 
RyanBlack said:
Monophysite, not Nestorian.
Click to expand...
in any event, they were neither.

I’m juggling too many discussions an heresies in my head at the moment.
HomeschoolDad said:
This is a shame. I am wondering if it was seen by Rome as a potential “uniate” situation, a method of reunion which Rome has abandoned going forward, and therefore potentially insulting to Orthodoxy. Once more, Catholicism bending over backwards not to give any offense.
Click to expand...
units is currently rejected by Rome as counterproductive and a failure.

Speaking in broad generalities above my pay grade, such an action would do serious harm to the general movement towards unity (also why Rome doesn’t recognize the head of the largest EC church as a Patriarch . . .).
 
dochawk said:
also why Rome doesn’t recognize the head of the largest EC church as a Patriarch
Click to expand...
I’m not quite with you here. Are you referring to an Eastern Rite church in union with Rome, and if so, which one is it? Or are you talking about Moscow as “the largest EC [Eastern Christian] church”, i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church?
 
The Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Although an interesting case can be made about the Tomos of the ROC, but I’m not going to go there . . .
 
dochawk said:
Although an interesting case can be made about the Tomos of the ROC, but I’m not going to go there . . .
Click to expand...
Perhaps I’m just not well-versed enough in matters Eastern, but what do you mean? Are you referring to the ROC having been given a tomos of autocephaly from Constantinople?

(I know just enough about the ecclesiastical workings of Orthodoxy to make an utter fool of myself. Help me out here…)
 
It really needs to be another discussion another thread, and I probably won’t joint it.

The short version is that the royal family in Kiev fled to Muscovy and purported to relocate the see of Kiev there. Eventually (centuries) the EP traveled there and ran out of funds needed to return home. He ended up with funds, and Moscow got its tomos . . .
 
I was invited to receive communion at a Syriac Orthodox church, by members of the church, but I declined out of fear that I might be portraying myself as a schismatic. However, there would be times where I would receive communion out of Syriac Orthodox church, like if there was no Catholic church around. I have to say, in response to the original question here it really depends on the bishop of whichever Orthodox jurisdiction. I had a professor, that is an Eastern Orthodox priest, I would say in the case of an emergency , he probably would not have a problem with me confessing to him or receiving Holy Communion from him.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I was invited to receive communion at a Syriac Orthodox church, by members of the church, but I declined out of fear that I might be portraying myself as a schismatic. However, there would be times where I would receive communion out of Syriac Orthodox church, like if there was no Catholic church around. I have to say, in response to the original question here it really depends on the bishop of whichever Orthodox jurisdiction. I had a professor, that is an Eastern Orthodox priest, I would say in the case of an emergency , he probably would not have a problem with me confessing to him or receiving Holy Communion from him.
Click to expand...
I received a similar invitation (ended up not participating in the Qurbana, so it wasn’t an issue). If I were in a corner of the world where only these sacraments were available, I’d receive them without giving it a second thought.

You know, in these discussions along the lines of “we will give members of church X sacraments in an emergency”, I have to wonder why we don’t go one step further and say “seeing as it is not a sin to give members of church X these sacraments — if it were, we couldn’t do it in an emergency — why don’t we go ahead and have open access to each other’s sacraments, emergency or not?”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top