Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?

[ziapueblo]

Here’s a great read:

We Are All Schismatics by Archbishop Zoghby

https://melkite.org/products-page/oes-eastern-churches/we-are-all-schismatics

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

I agree, as a whole, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches are not to refer to each other as “sister Churches” however, it is appropriate for particular Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox, to refer to each other as “sister Churches.”

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To answer that, can we reverse that example. What happens if I as a Catholic receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday. Have I met my Sunday obligation for Mass, according to the Catholic Church? … No

Steve: you’re side-stepping the point. I’m not talking about whether attendance at each other’s church fulfills one’s Sunday obligation. I’m stating that according the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, in line with the Code of Canon Law (844 section 3), the Catholic Church does not object to the reception of communion in a Catholic Church by Orthodox Christians. This makes no sense if schism has condemned us.

(all emphasis mine)

Actually in context this is not just walking off the street and going up to communion.

see conditions in section §2., and (licitly and what it says) in sections §1, §3, and ( consultation in what it says) in section §5.

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

 

[Isaac14]

Actually in context this is not just walking off the street and going up to communion.

Thank you. I had already read all of canon 844. I obviously agree this does not allow a free for all. While allowed, I obey my own bishop and receive the Eucharist in only the Orthodox Church.

To repeat myself: the point I am making and that you have avoided addressing, is that if Orthodox are guilty of schism, then even this limited permission would not be granted, much the same as a Catholic with unconfessed mortal sin may not receive the Eucharist.

 

[twf]

I know at the local Melkite Greek Catholic mission, Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians routinely commune…at least they did about a decade ago when I had the pleasure of attending a liturgy there. Is it right for them to do so? I won’t be the judge… but in this case, the Antiochian Othodox Christians felt they had more in common with their Melkite Catholic brethren (language, culture, and perhaps even spirituality) than they did with the various (mostly Eastern European) Orthodox communities in town…

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

To judge if someone is in schism out of missinformation or deceit of others, or out of his own ignorance or his own sins is not easy task to do. It is same concept as with Catholic Church never saying someone specific is in Hell- we simply dont know as only God knows full conscience with intentions, all circumstances and everything about the person and He judges.

Also, as far as I know I don’t think Catholics are allowed to simply go to communion in Orthodox Churches unless in state of necessity- as Eucharist is visible sign of unity and normally, we are not perfectly united. With recent understandings of “communion so profound” thing it might also be that unity is not so disturbed that Catholic couldnt receive- but I simply wouldn’t out of respect for Orthodox tradition (as they hold us as schismatics/heretics who are not allowed to receive Eucharist) as for our own sign of unity that Eucharist is. I am actually curious what is stance of Catholic Church on this (again, in cases other than necessity). If we are not to receive Eucharist in Patriotic Churches (China for example) why would Orthodoxy be different, I have no clue. While some Orthodox priests do let Catholics commune, it is not practice nor canonically allowed. What ZP talks about however, is very encouraging and heart-warming as Orthodox and Catholics do understand that Christ is the Eucharist- and we are devoted to Him, so we both commune. I guess both ways can go if with proper intent or justification, but I am curious about what is official stance.
Isaac, I believe that Orthodox and Catholic Churches need to unite in truth- not in compromise, not in what’s just common, we need to unite in everything. Not just to unite for sake of unity, but unite for sake of God and His Faith, His truth. I dont like when someone erases schism in place of false unity or sweet words. I dont mean to say we should be hostile- far from that, but we should acknowledge we dont have perfect unity yet strive for it. I don’t however mean to say that Orthodoxy is bad and Catholicism is good, obviously I have respect for Orthodox Church and I believe we need to discuss all issues and reach consensus, to find out what God wants from us. So that one day, our Churches are really One- not two churches in union, not sister churches, one Church that is Holy, Apostlic and Catholic- one that keeps fullness of Christ and God. May we pray for unity how God wants it, not like men do.

 

[Dovekin]

Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in full communion with it, there is still a very close communion in matters of faith. Moreover, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature” and “although separated from us, these Churches still possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist…”. This offers ecclesiological and sacramental grounds, according to the understanding of the Catholic Church, for allowing and even encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship, even of the Eucharist, with these Churches, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities”. It is recognized, however, that Eastern Churches, on the basis of their own ecclesiological understanding, may have more restrictive disciplines in this matter, which others should respect. Pastors should carefully instruct the faithful so that they will be clearly aware of the proper reasons for this kind of sharing in liturgical worship and of the variety of discipline which may exist in this connection.

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.
Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism 123

 

[Dovekin]

The principles which should direct this spiritual sharing are the following:

a ) In spite of the serious difficulties which prevent full ecclesial communion, it is clear that all those who by baptism are incorporated into Christ share many elements of the Christian life. There thus exists a real, even if imperfect, communion among Christians which can be expressed in many ways, including sharing in prayer and liturgical worship, as will be indicated in the paragraph which follows.

b ) According to Catholic faith, the Catholic Church has been endowed with the whole of revealed truth and all the means of salvation as a gift which cannot be lost.Nevertheless, among the elements and gifts which belong to the Catholic Church (e.g.; the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity etc.) many can exist outside its visible limits. The Churches and ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation, for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or ecclesial Community, their celebrations are able to nourish the life of grace in their members who participate in them and provide access to the communion of salvation.

c ) The sharing of spiritual activities and resources, therefore, must reflect this double fact:

1. the real communion in the life of the Spirit which already exists among Christians and is expressed in their prayer and liturgical worship;
2. the incomplete character of this communion because of differences of faith and understanding which are incompatible with an unrestricted mutual sharing of spiritual endowments.

Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism 104

 

[Dovekin]

Forgive the length of these passages, I just wanted to make clear what informs the thinking of the practices being described by people here. The standard is “genuine spiritual advantage” for communion with Eastern Churches, not necessity. And of course, a “real communion in the life of the Spirit which already exists.”

These should help explain that Catholics do not see the relationship between Catholic and Orthodox churches as that of mother and child, but as sister churches, daughters of the one Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

To judge if someone is in schism out of missinformation or deceit of others, or out of his own ignorance or his own sins is not easy task to do. It is same concept as with Catholic Church never saying someone specific is in Hell- we simply dont know as only God knows full conscience with intentions, all circumstances and everything about the person and He judges.

True.

That said, it doesn’t negate instruction, properly referenced, to change the direction of someone who is in a sin that we see is grave / mortal. Who am I to Judge what is mortal in another … one might ask? John obviously had no issue determining that in someone else so he teaches we are to do the same.

OrbisNonSufficit:

Also, as far as I know I don’t think Catholics are allowed to simply go to communion in Orthodox Churches unless in state of necessity- as Eucharist is visible sign of unity and normally, we are not perfectly united. With recent understandings of “communion so profound” thing it might also be that unity is not so disturbed that Catholic couldnt receive- but I simply wouldn’t out of respect for Orthodox tradition (as they hold us as schismatics/heretics who are not allowed to receive Eucharist) as for our own sign of unity that Eucharist is.

ERGO, as already posted, "According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Thereby showing when it presents itself, who is in schism from who… agreed?

OrbisNonSufficit:

I am actually curious what is stance of Catholic Church on this (again, in cases other than necessity). If we are not to receive Eucharist in Patriotic Churches (China for example) why would Orthodoxy be different, I have no clue.

good question.

My first thought is, the “Patriotic Churches” in China, might be suspect as to valid ordinations thus valid sacraments

OrbisNonSufficit:

Isaac, I believe that Orthodox and Catholic Churches need to unite in truth- not in compromise, not in what’s just common, we need to unite in everything. Not just to unite for sake of unity, but unite for sake of God and His Faith, His truth. I dont like when someone erases schism in place of false unity or sweet words. I dont mean to say we should be hostile- far from that, but we should acknowledge we dont have perfect unity yet strive for it.

agreed.

 

[steve-b]

What has irked me (and no doubt others) is that Steve’s approach is so black and white. As much as both the Orthodox and Catholics have every right to believe the “other” is guilty of schism, that does nothing to help us actually achieve restored communion between our Churches through the dialogue that has and continues to take place. If we’re not willing to look at the separation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches with more nuance than to speak only terms of schism and guilt, we have little hope.

It’s why I quote copiously. Without definitions, we just have ongoing circular opinions … would you agree?

Therefore, I’ve used in my posts

"According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Thereby showing when it (schism) presents itself, definition of schism, shows who is in schism from who.

 

[Isaac14]

"According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Thereby showing when it (schism) presents itself, definition of schism, shows who is in schism from who.

Okay, I get it, we’re back at I’m a guilty Orthodox schismatic. Why then, according to the conditions in Canon 844 would I, a guilty schismatic, still be allowed to receive communion in a Catholic church?

 

[ziapueblo]

This happens often between the Melkite and Antiochian Orthodox Churches. They see each other as the same Church. Just an issue with “upper management”.

I have heard it has dropped off some due to an increase of former Protestant clergy now Orthodox clergy who bring their anti-Catholic baggage with them, so I have heard.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

"According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Thereby showing when it (schism) presents itself, definition of schism, shows who is in schism from who.

Okay, I get it, we’re back at I’m a guilty Orthodox schismatic. Why then, according to the conditions in Canon 844 would I, a guilty schismatic, still be allowed to receive communion in a Catholic church?

Maybe because you’re going in the right direction

OK OK

Isaac, you deserve a better answer than I can give off the top of my head, but I will get you the answer… OK?

 

[AlNg]

Catholics did not excommunicate Cerularius for omitting Filioque

It was mentioned as one of the reasons for the excommunication, No?

if virtue is there, there are also harmony and unity.

I think that there are Russian Orthodox who have virtue, even though they are not in union with Roman Catholicism.

While it does say that if there is no harmony and unity, there is no virtue

I see where it says that if there is no harmony or no unity, then there is no virtue. I think that you can have virtue, even though you may not have unity.

 

[AlNg]

What happens if I as a Catholic receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday. Have I met my Sunday obligation for Mass, according to the Catholic Church? … No

That is the opinion of Jimmy Akin. I was told differently.

 

[AlNg]

I would be MOST surprised if an Orthodox Priest, who did not know you ,would give you the Eucharist without actually questioning you when you approached the Chalice .

It depends on where you are, as has already been noted. However, I think what you say is generally true in the USA, although perhaps with a few exceptions such as has been mentioned above with some Melkites and some Antioch Orthodox.

 

[guanophore]

If a married clergy is acceptable, was it absolutely wrong for the Roman Church to mention it as one reason why His Holiness Michael Cerularius and all his followers should be excommunicated.

It is a discipline, not a doctrine, so it is not “absolute”. I think God gave clarity to this matter by declaring the days of Leo on the face of the earth completed before the bull could be delivered, thus invalidating its contents. The one that really got me was about the hair. beards, tonsure, etc. Really?!

 

[AlNg]

According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The SSPX refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff in the matter of celebrating the New Mass. If the SSPX is in schism, by refusing to celebrate the New Mass. and if it is a mortal sin to willfully embrace scism, why did the Holy Father, the Supreme Roman Pontiff, lift the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX and grant faculties to allow Roman Catholics to go to confession to an SSPX priest validly?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What happens if I as a Catholic receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday. Have I met my Sunday obligation for Mass, according to the Catholic Church? … No

That is the opinion of Jimmy Akin. I was told differently.

did you note Jimmy Akin’s internal links ? Isn’t that where it originates from?

AND in extension

1. “a Catholic does not fulfill his Sunday Obligation attending an Orthodox celebration from ” http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur486.htm
2. “Catholics are not permitted to attend an Orthodox Church on Sunday instead of going to a Catholic one, as this does not satisfy the regular Sunday obligation” from http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07...d-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/
3. “ Although Catholics can occasionally attend Eastern Orthodox liturgies as a guest, those liturgies do not fulfill the Sunday/holy day obligation to attend Mass.” from Are Eastern Masses valid? Should Catholics receive Communion at them? | Catholic Answers

BTW, what were YOU told?