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

[AlNg]

Russians in Ukraine just want fair treatment which I don’t think they are getting now. Why do you think that Father Constantine Simon converted to the Russian Orthodox Church?

 

[AlNg]

Exactly right. But how many Ukrainians do you actually know? The Ukrainians I met at the local Eastern Catholic Church are vehemently opposed to such. They loudly say that they want all Russians out. I mentioned to them about how Czechoslovakia was divided into Czechia and Slovakia and they were furious. They don’t want any separatism and they don’t want any special status for Russian speaking areas. They want all Russians out. I tried to be friendly to them since they had come to US fairly recently. I volunteered to show them some of the European areas here. I made a map and gave directions to some spots like where they sell goods and food from several countries in Eastern Europe and areas that specialize in food, dancing and various artifacts from Germany. But they were not too overly friendly after I had mentioned the case of Czechoslovakia.
I see a disproportionate criticism toward the Russian Orthodox Church here:

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

 

[AlNg]

It is an attempt to balance a slant against Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church.
BTW, how many Ukrainians do you know? Why do you suppose that Father Constantine converted? He had a fairly high position in Rome as professor and vice rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute?

 

[George720]

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

This is normally end of life widowing - I know a priest who had a young wife with 4 children and she died. He asked for and received the Blessing of his Bishop to remarry, was laicized, and remarried and is now married again and raising his children… Canons are not understood by us laws that forbid on pain of ex-Communication… They are instead understood as guides to the praxis of the Faith, and in such matters that are on the side of faith and morals, rather than Church Dogmatics, Ekonomia is the general rule in their application… We encourage good morals, but do not enforce them…

So that what for you is a law that forbids remarriage of widows is for us a guideline that can be easily set aside according to the “facts on the ground”…

geo

 

[AlNg]

He is not the only one. There is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church that has a mural with President Putin of Russia in Hell.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I think this was historical term and therefore applied in history, when Church had a say in this.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So that what for you is a law that forbids remarriage of widows is for us a guideline that can be easily set aside according to the “facts on the ground”…

Yet, Byzantine Emperor was historically deposed for this. I think remarrying after being widowed is much more pleasant than after divorcing, so I do not understand why would one be a problem when other just requires penitential character of second wedding.

 

[dochawk]

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.

As to that, you’ll need to take it up with the Vatican, not me. My inclination would be to admit them, but I"d like to think that the Vatican knows better . . .

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

They already married.

Allowing the second marriage, whether after death or divorce, is permitted when it would benefit the person’s salvation. It is still not ideal or preferred.

I wouldn’t say that a second marriage of a widowed person should be “penitential”, after all, there is nothing to do penance for .

it’s not that it’s “for” widowed persons, but rather that that distinction isn’t drawn. There was a marriage, it should be eternal, but something else is happening.

One might even be taken out of Communion for a 4th…

or removed from the throne . . .

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?

St. Paul wrote something about those with the Law Written on their hearts . . .

So that what for you is a law that forbids remarriage of widows is for us a guideline that can be easily set aside according to the “facts on the ground”…

That’s about the best I’ve seen it put!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As to that, you’ll need to take it up with the Vatican, not me. My inclination would be to admit them, but I"d like to think that the Vatican knows better . . .

Yeah, my position is the same honestly. I, personally and if it were my choice, would not do that… but I submit to their position.

There was a marriage, it should be eternal

Doesn’t marriage last until death? There are numerous verses for that
Romans 7:2-3
" For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."
Luke 20:34-36
“And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

Bold part basically says reason they don’t marry neither are given in marriage is that they can not die anymore- and hence marriage is possible thanks to death. As Paul further explains in first verse I quoted, it is because marriage ends with death. Paul even says that woman whose husband dies can marry another.

I also don’t quite get the divorce thing now that I’ve read another passage,
Matthew 5:31-32
““It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Wouldn’t this kind of disqualify the “Orthodox Church recognizes consequences of divorce, which is broken marriage” as grounds for second marriage to be allowed? Because “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” basically means that even if there is someone who is divorced, remarrying is committing adultery.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Romans 7:2-3
" For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."

It doesn’t get any plainer than this.

I also don’t quite get the divorce thing now that I’ve read another passage,
Matthew 5:31-32
““It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Wouldn’t this kind of disqualify the “Orthodox Church recognizes consequences of divorce, which is broken marriage” as grounds for second marriage to be allowed? Because “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” basically means that even if there is someone who is divorced, remarrying is committing adultery.

Ditto.

I love and respect the Eastern Orthodox Church, but to be so close to us, to be so similar to us, they have some pretty strange ideas sometimes.

(But then again they would say the same thing about us, I suppose.)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’ve seen either pews or folding chairs in every Eastern Rite Catholic church, or Orthodox church, I’ve ever been in.

 

[ziapueblo]

Most OCA churches I have been in have no pews and only seating around the perimeter. Same with RO and ROCOR. And Greek monasteries I’ve been in. But, as you pointed out, most Orthodox Churches have pews or folding chairs and have become westernized for sure.

ZP

 

[George720]

I think remarrying after being widowed is much more pleasant than after divorcing, so I do not understand why would one be a problem when other just requires penitential character of second wedding.

It is not Law, but a guide… Remarriage of an old widow or widower is not for pleasantness, but for the Salvation of another spouse, in Orthodox Marriage… And by that age, it is mostly beside the point, for in old age, we are pretty much formed spiritually… Re-marriage after divorce is another matter entirely, and it being pleasant is entirely in question… There is a stigma to divorce, as there should be, and a greater one after a second divorce…

For the Orthodox, at old age, couples do separate for the sake of the Kingdom of God, going to monasteries or simply living separately in the same house… And this for the sake of enhancing their praxis of the Faith, of prayer and fasting and denial of self and alms giving… For us this is honorable, and by this time, the issues uniting the couple in the marriage bed should be well-resolved… When they are not, strife normally ensues…

Young widows and widowers will often not have such issues resolved, and may have children with which they need help in providing for, so that re-marriage can be a good thing…

But we tend to see annulment (of a prior long term Marriage for the sake of another marriage) as a pretense that denies the fact that they were married, and then separated, whether by divorce by death… We would rather own our previous marriage and our own weakness in sustaining it, and the subsequent divorce, rather than pretend we never were married in the first place…

I also don’t quite get the divorce thing now that I’ve read another passage,
Matthew 5:31-32
““It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Wouldn’t this kind of disqualify the “Orthodox Church recognizes consequences of divorce, which is broken marriage” as grounds for second marriage to be allowed? Because “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” basically means that even if there is someone who is divorced, remarrying is committing adultery.

There is that…

And I am unaware of any Ecumenical ruling contradicting it…

Although there may be one or more…

geo

 

[dochawk]

@ george720 has answered better than I possibly could have . . .

One thing I would note, though . . . again in handwavingly rough terms, and probably making errors, the Roman approach tends to see the sins involved in divorce and remarriage being ongoing, while the Eastern approach seems to see them as having happened, and complete, being ready for healing.

 

[poche]

Every group has their crazy fringe people.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Young widows and widowers will often not have such issues resolved, and may have children with which they need help in providing for, so that re-marriage can be a good thing…

Is it not penitential then?

But we tend to see annulment (of a prior long term Marriage for the sake of another marriage) as a pretense that denies the fact that they were married, and then separated, whether by divorce by death… We would rather own our previous marriage and our own weakness in sustaining it, and the subsequent divorce, rather than pretend we never were married in the first place…

Honestly, annulments are abused, but idea behind them is not flawed. I disagree with excessive number of annulments, but historically they were needed because of forced marriages etc…

Eastern approach seems to see them as having happened, and complete, being ready for healing.

While that is true, is there no penance attached to those sins or need to fix damage done? And then again there is that verse explicitly stating remarriage after divorce is sinful, not healing.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

But we tend to see annulment (of a prior long term Marriage for the sake of another marriage) as a pretense that denies the fact that they were married, and then separated, whether by divorce by death… We would rather own our previous marriage and our own weakness in sustaining it, and the subsequent divorce, rather than pretend we never were married in the first place…

No, the idea is most certainly not flawed.

It is true that the Church may have been overly parsimonious in granting annulments in times past (<30/year throughout the whole world IIRC), but the present situation, in some dioceses almost a “shall-issue” scenario, may not be as reckless as some people make it out to be. I think there is ample reason to think — and I believe Pope Francis has alluded to something like this — that many people in today’s world simply cannot contract valid marriages, because of defects in their mindset and either an inability or unwillingness to see marriage as exclusive and indissoluble. Granting this, declaring the marriages they attempted to contract to be null and void isn’t such a stretch. A person could have a long-term, joyous, fruitful, happy “marriage” with a putative spouse (until things start to go wrong), yet not ever have fulfilled the conditions for an objectively valid, binding marriage — because they can’t. Nobody is asking them to trash their “marriage” as worthless or devoid of any goodness. Nobody is saying it wasn’t a wholesome relationship entered into with the best of intentions. It is simply a matter of objective validity. Nothing more. (Conceivably, they could even remarry once they “get their minds right”.)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

In my diocese and probably country overall, annulments are not widespread (thank God for that, I guess). While they are probably occasionally granted, I would not say they are abused or anything like that (my parish priest’s brother who is also a priest works for diocese and resolves those things concerning validity of marriage, so that’s my source).

Nobody is saying it wasn’t a wholesome relationship entered into with the best of intentions. It is simply a matter of objective validity . Nothing more. (Conceivably, they could even remarry once they “get their minds right”.)

I agree. Sometimes annulments are preferable to spouses, sometimes they aren’t. To view annulment as “divorce with fancy name” would be pretty wrong- something that many people do nowadays.

 

[George720]

Annulment itself is not bad, when justified by the “facts on the ground” - eg forced marriages, non-consummated marriages, pretend marriages (say, to get a foreigner into a country by marriage), etc… But as I understand it, annulment is a substitute for divorce, and we tend to own divorce, rather than hide it behind annulment, especially with children involved…

In my Church, when converts are Baptized into the Faith who are married, they are remarried with the Crowning Sacrament, in order to complete and to bless the marriage that is recognized but is civil rather than in Christ (eg the Church)… So we recognize civil marriages, and in some cases even those that come into existence because of the time the couple with children has been together… And sometimes, we give a Church Betrothal in lieu of a civil marriage, where the Union is hidden from the State altogether… (rarely)

All of which goes back to the to the Orthodox understanding that these kinds of canons are not Law so much as a set of guiding principles to be administered for the sake of the Salvation of souls, rather than the conformity of souls to Ekklesiastical Rules…

geo

 

[dochawk]

While that is true, is there no penance attached to those sins or need to fix damage done?

I presume the there would have been some tie of reconciliation, possibly penance.

Note that a penance is not mandatory, nor even the norm as I understand, in Eastern confession,

[quote[
And then again there is that verse explicitly stating remarriage after divorce is sinful, not healing.
[/quote]

and again, the question as to whether the sin is done or ongoing . . .