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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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

I believe our Lord has explained this in Luke 20:27-40. If we believe dead are in Heaven, Purifying state or Hell, we believe they are already on the “other side” where there is no marriage anymore. This is probably one and only Eastern teaching I can not completely grasp. Another stuff about divorce being viewed as a sin which is completed makes some sense, but I also believe in practice where one does reparations for his sin (return what was stolen, don’t keep it, etc) one would have to restore marriage to complete penance for dissolving it … after all, one is enjoying benefits taken from his Sin if he can re-marry after divorcing, and that is not very compatible with penance. Even if it is a one time thing sin, why does East hold that it’s effects are to be tolerated and not minimized? It would be akin to killing a man and stealing his property while having someone else be accused of it, going to Confession and then sitting down enjoying that property and watching poor accused guy go to prison …

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

units is currently rejected by Rome as counterproductive and a failure.

Isn’t that a bit insulting to the Eastern Sui Iuris Churches? How is Rome even handling such situation?

Once more, Catholicism bending over backwards not to give any offense.

Yes, and sacrificing pride and dignity of Eastern Catholic Churches while doing so… brilliant…

 

[twf]

Syriac Orthodox is Oriental, not Eastern, Orthodox. I think, on the whole, the OO is more “Catholic-friendly” than the EO in this regard.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Another stuff about divorce being viewed as a sin which is completed makes some sense

It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems to me that the EO are saying, in so many words, that marriages can dissolve, can cease to be. The Catholic view of divorce is that it does nothing to the marriage itself, it is just a juridical act that establishes property rights, cessation of obligations, and child custody and support where applicable. Nothing more.

I am all in favor of second marriages (where an annulment of the first has been granted) being more sober and penitential in nature, acknowledging the harm caused by the failure of the first marriage. This part, I am in agreement with the EOs.

 

[dochawk]

Isn’t that a bit insulting to the Eastern Sui Iuris Churches?

No. (and not because of what spellcheck did).

We long to reunify with our corresponding churches.

 

[AlNg]

In all seriousness, without the nationalistic demands of the RO, either +JPII or +Benedict and the EP would have managed to restore communion . .

Some Ukrainian Eastern Catholics just don’t like Russians and they don’t like the Russian Orthodox Church. Further they want to ban the use of the Russian language in Ukraine and they don’t want to recognize the rights of the Russian speaking people in the East. Further, some Ukrainians were on the side of Germany in WWII and fought against Russia. Stepan Bandera who was born into the family of an Eastern Catholic priest was awarded the title of the National Hero of Ukraine. But it was declared illegal after this award was condemned by the European Parliament. He worked with the German military groups which favored Ukrainian independence. Here is an example of what a Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest had to say about Russians, Jews, Blacks and Chinese:

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It doesn’t make sense to me .

I should correct myself- I understand how, without Latin theology, this view can form as without Latin theology there are no contradictions… well except one I have listed above.

I am all in favor of second marriages (where an annulment of the first has been granted) being more sober and penitential in nature, acknowledging the harm caused by the failure of the first marriage. This part, I am in agreement with the EOs.

Yes, but I would oppose second marriages of widowed people being more penitential. What for even? Marriage ends after death, as our Lord has informed us. Losing a spouse is already very deep pain which tests faith of people, adding penitential character to something we did not cause seems weird at best.

No. (and not because of what spellcheck did).

Ah, did not mean that, apologies.

We long to reunify with our corresponding churches.

Yes, but not allowing people to benefit from unity with Pope just because it would please those who do not want to benefit from it… it’s pretty weird. Same way, saying “Uniats” are wrong option and method seems to degrade those people who have shed blood for being united with Peter’s successor. I do understand politically, Rome wants to unite with entire Orthodoxy at once, but while possible I do view this as doing bad things to increase chance of one better thing happening. I guess that canon which basically makes any Orthodox, who in heart accepts Catholic teachings and Papal teachings as true, a Catholic could be applied to EO clergy too and make this a bit better. Still, weird that unity is discarded for sake of potential bigger unity.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Actually, if I may ask, what is the meaning behind not allowing widowed people to remarry? Does anyone know how that came to be?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Yes, but I would oppose second marriages of widowed people being more penitential. What for even? Marriage ends after death, as our Lord has informed us. Losing a spouse is already very deep pain which tests faith of people, adding penitential character to something we did not cause seems weird at best.

I wouldn’t say that a second marriage of a widowed person should be “penitential”, after all, there is nothing to do penance for. However — and this is just my opinion, just my personal sensibilities — I think it should be more subdued, more sober, out of respect for the deceased spouse and their family.

My "ex-"wife is still very much alive, with a second invalid “husband” in a highly irregular “marriage”. The story is pretty bad, and for several reasons I can describe it no further. We have no annulment, but if we ever did have one, and if I were to marry, I would much prefer a simple ceremony, very understated, with just a few people in attendance. I think that would be far more respectful to those who have been affected by the divorce — our child, our respective parents, relatives, and so on. In a case such as this, I like the Orthodox practice very much.

Same way, saying “Uniats” are wrong option and method seems to degrade those people who have shed blood for being united with Peter’s successor.

Many people, either in actual fact or figuratively, have “shed blood for being united with Peter’s successor”. Very often becoming a Catholic ruptures family relationships, friendships, and social ties. Agreed, it should always be respected.

I guess that canon which basically makes any Orthodox, who in heart accepts Catholic teachings and Papal teachings as true, a Catholic could be applied to EO clergy too and make this a bit better.

What canon is this? Is this in the 1983 Code?

 

[George720]

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.

Would that be with or without the Blessing of their Bishop?

I saw one do it, and he just kept it private and made no fuss about it… And did NOT tell his Bishop… And I would guess that the Bishop knew and simply looked the other way… I seriously doubt that any of the parties could p(name removed by moderator)oint the dividing issue…

geo

 

[George720]

Marriage ends after death,

The point of marriage is the sacrifice of self for the sake of one’s spouse… And God blesses marriages with children… Hence there should be no need for divorce…

Death of a spouse then leaves open the question for the survivor of the salvation of the soul of the departed… Many Saints have taken up a life of penance for a departed spouse… St. Xenia comes to mind… Yet children can come into play… But death releases the marriage… The EOC normally does not do annulment, unless no consummation, yet even there, couples CAN have a celibate marriage, and many Saints have done so…

Telling children of married parents that their parents were never married because their marriage was annulled by the Church is not Orthodox… Divorce is a terrible thing, and a second marriage is very much second-best, and a third is but a last-ditch attempt… A fourth will be a civil marriage, not Blessed Sacramentally by the Church… One might even be taken out of Communion for a 4th…

geo

 

[ziapueblo]

intercommunion club, like fight club, has one rule, and that is; first rule of intercommunion club, you don’t talk about intercommunion club.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Telling children of married parents that their parents were never married because their marriage was annulled by the Church is not Orthodox

There is a Latin term for that, which basically makes children of “supposed” marriage legitimate. This would be like saying “telling children of parents who were never married or attempted to truth is actually uncharitable”.

Divorce is a terrible thing, and a second marriage is very much second-best, and a third is but a last-ditch attempt… A fourth will be a civil marriage, not Blessed Sacramentally by the Church… One might even be taken out of Communion for a 4th…

Yes, but Orthodoxy also forbids marriage upon being widowed. What is the logic behind that?

What canon is this? Is this in the 1983 Code?

It was either in 1983 Code or some other law which was promulgated post-V2. Perhaps @ziapueblo or @dochawk know where it is? I am not sure at this moment.

 

[ziapueblo]

@HomeschoolDad

Canon 844, CCEO Canon 671:

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.

The big loophole is section 2: "If necessity requires it OR IF GENUINE SPIRITUAL ADVANTAGE SUGGESTS IT. . . "

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The big loophole is section 2: "If necessity requires it OR IF GENUINE SPIRITUAL ADVANTAGE SUGGESTS IT. . . "

Uh, well, true but word “genuine” and as long as indifferentism is avoided, seem to limit loophole usage.

Hm, wasn’t there something about “if Orthodox Christian accepts Papal teachings in his heart but remains with visiting Orthodox Church, he can be counted as being in full communion with Catholic Church” or something like that? I’ll have to go through old posts, because some poster actually told me about it and I remember googling it and actually seeing it myself as well.

 

[ziapueblo]

“if Orthodox Christian accepts Papal teachings in his heart but remains with visiting Orthodox Church, he can be counted as being in full communion with Catholic Church” or something like that?

Not sure.

ZP

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Telling children of married parents that their parents were never married because their marriage was annulled by the Church is not Orthodox

I don’t know that Latin term, but the Church does create a legal fiction, declaring that the children of marriages that are later annulled, are legitimate. I have to assume this is as much for preserving sensibilities as anything else. Being illegitimate is no reflection whatsoever upon a person. As I once heard it put, “there are no illegitimate children — only illegitimate parents”. I couldn’t agree more.

Sadly, being the child of two parents who were married at the time of one’s birth (and preferably conception!), and having those parents still together and not having presumed to marry someone else, is becoming almost the exception rather than the rule in today’s society. Nobody gives it a second thought, and certainly nobody stigmatizes the children.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As I once heard it put, “there are no illegitimate children — only illegitimate parents”. I couldn’t agree more.

That is clever, great and very true!

Church does create a legal fiction, declaring that the children of marriages that are later annulled, are legitimate. I have to assume this is as much for preserving sensibilities as anything else.

Yes, it was mostly done to prevent abuse of annulments to change heirs or situations where those who realized they were not really married actually feared for their children’s future because they would no longer be legally heirs to their property. At least, this is my understanding.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Church does create a legal fiction, declaring that the children of marriages that are later annulled, are legitimate. I have to assume this is as much for preserving sensibilities as anything else.

This would have to apply to countries, if there are any, that take into account the Church’s judgment regarding the validity of a marriage and the concomitant legitimacy of the children when a marriage is ruled by the Church to have been invalid ab initio. In the United States, what a church has to say about legitimacy of children is totally irrelevant in the eyes of the civil law.

Are there any countries where this would apply (aside from Vatican City State, assuming it even has marriage laws)? Countries with concordats?

 

[AlNg]

No. There are many Ukrainians who don’t like Russia.