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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I noticed neither links were opened.

The Catholic Church doesn’t monitor every single communicant that presents themself in the communion line for being in proper disposition. If one is in an improper disposition receiving the Eucharist, who is that on? the individual.

As Paul said

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27 RSVCE - Partaking of the Supper Unworthily - Bible Gateway

Steve: I don’t believe your ability to provide a yes or no response is predicated on whether I have read the links you’ve given. These seem to be someone’s summary/opinion of the law rather than the law itself. Nor do they address my yes or no question as to whether it is possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed to receive under the conditions of canon 844.

I’ll also re-ask my second question. If it is impossible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed, why does canon 844 seem to allow for us to receive communion under specific circumstances?

If one can’t bring themselves to the proper disposition explained in those links, then they shouldn’t approach the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You are selectively ignoring some points

Yes. It is best to ignore points that you have made, since they are wrong. The SSPX is disobedient by their own statements, and yet they are not in schism.

The points made were not mine. The points given were properly referenced.
Take a closer look at the qualifications from Bp Tobin Library : Receiving Holy Communion | Catholic Culture

 

[Isaac14]

If one can’t bring themselves to the proper disposition explained in those links, then they shouldn’t approach the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Let me try one more time, slightly changing the wording of my yes or no question: In your opinion, based on the sources you’ve provided, is it possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed such that they can receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church in accordance with the conditions set forth in Canon 844? Really, this should be a simple yes or no.

 

[steve-b]

the qualifications from Bp Tobin Library : Receiving Holy Communion | Catholic Culture

steve-b:

If one can’t bring themselves to the proper disposition explained in those links, then they shouldn’t approach the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Let me try one more time, slightly changing the wording of my yes or no question: In your opinion, based on the sources you’ve provided, is it possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed such that they can receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church in accordance with the conditions set forth in Canon 844? Really, this should be a simple yes or no.

Again, Bp Tobin lays it out clearly. Library : Receiving Holy Communion | Catholic Culture If you meet Catholic Church requirements, and your Orthodox bishop says ok for you to receive, , then it says you can receive

 

[Isaac14]

If you meet Catholic Church requirements, and your Orthodox bishop says ok for you to receive, , then it says you can receive

The question I am asking is if it is possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed. My understanding from the sources you’ve provided is that due to our sin of schism, the answer is no it is not possible and therefore an Orthodox Christian can never actually partake of communion in those limited circumstances allowed in canon 844.

 

[Isaac14]

Right. It is going to depend on who is interpreting the phrase : “properly disposed”. For one thing, AFAIK, the Orthodox Church generally does not have a strict division of mortal and venial sins. And under certain limited circumstances, an Orthodox married couple may be given permission to use artificial birth control. Suppose for example, that they have seven children already and their finances are unable to support more children, and the wife is in poor health so that she would have a heart attack and die if she had more children.

I think these are all very good points. Elaborating on the mortal/genial sin distinction: in my understanding, the Orthdox approach is that all sin negatively impacts our soul as well our relationships with those around us and with God. But we’d also be fooling ourselves if, in some misguided attempt to avoid a mortal/venial distinction as is made in Catholicism, we try to deny that some sins have a significantly more destructive impact on us.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If you meet Catholic Church requirements, and your Orthodox bishop says ok for you to receive, , then it says you can receive

The question I am asking is if it is possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed. My understanding from the sources you’ve provided is that due to our sin of schism, the answer is no it is not possible and therefore an Orthodox Christian can never actually partake of communion in those limited circumstances allowed in canon 844.

The offer to extend the Eucharist is an ecumenical olive branch. That said, It’s NOT a wide open invitation as you can see without proper disposition as well.

Let’s take one item of that disposition. Permission from YOUR bishop. Is that even possible?

 

[Isaac14]

The offer to extend the Eucharist is an ecumenical olive branch. That said, It’s NOT a wide open invitation as you can see without proper disposition as well.

Let’s take one item of that disposition. Permission from YOUR bishop. Is that even possible?

Let’s please not dodge the question. You stated proper disposition is according to the rules of the Catholic Church. Given that we’ve established that Orthodox are guilty of schism, my understanding based on the sources you’ve provided is I can never be properly disposed.

Nowhere have I said or assumed communion is or should be wide open to all. Canon 844 provides for a very narrow set of circumstances in which communion is permissible for certain non-Catholics. It is not “wide open” in either of our churches.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The offer to extend the Eucharist is an ecumenical olive branch. That said, It’s NOT a wide open invitation as you can see without proper disposition as well.

Let’s take one item of that disposition. Permission from YOUR bishop. Is that even possible?

Let’s please not dodge the question. You stated proper disposition is according to the rules of the Catholic Church.

True. And not according to me but the Church who makes those rules.

Isaac14:

Given that we’ve established that Orthodox are guilty of schism, my understanding based on the sources you’ve provided is I can never be properly disposed.

I never said you could never be properly disposed. Your own disposition is up to you.
Issac14:

Nowhere have I said or assumed communion is or should be wide open to all. Canon 844 provides for a very narrow set of circumstances in which communion is permissible for certain non-Catholics. It is not “wide open” in either of our churches.

Again, one of the conditions is getting permission from your bishop. Is he open or closed to it?

 

[twf]

Steve is clearly not thinking with the mind of the Lawgiver. It would be absolutely absurd for St. John Paul II to have approved this canon if it wasn’t intended to have any practical purpose. If, as Steve asserts, every Orthodox Christian is personally guilty of the grave sin of schism, then why bother devoting text to an impossible hypothetical?
Clearly, the Lawgiver envisioned a scenario in which Orthodox Christians could indeed be properly disposed to receive…otherwise the canon makes absolutely no sense and is essentially rendered invalid.

 

[steve-b]

Elaborating on the mortal/genial sin distinction: in my understanding, the Orthdox approach is that all sin negatively impacts our soul as well our relationships with those around us and with God. But we’d also be fooling ourselves if, in some misguided attempt to avoid a mortal/venial distinction as is made in Catholicism, we try to deny that some sins have a significantly more destructive impact on us.

Mortal sin is in scripture

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal lead to death, θάνατον sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal ( θάνατον ). There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal (θάνατον ).

If one dies in a sin whose consequence keeps one from inheriting heaven, then it’s a mortal (deadly) sin.

a Few examples

Titus 3:10-11 Douay-Rheims Bible, Titus Chapter 3 Reject a heretical (αἱρετικὸν )man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is )perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

Ephesians 5:3-5 Douay-Rheims Bible, Ephesians Chapter 5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Hebrews 10:23-27 # SEARCH heb 10
missing Eucharist deliberately on Sunday, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.

Galatians 5: 19 - 21 Gal5:19-21 RSVCE - Now the works of the flesh are plain: - Bible Gateway sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ), http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 1 cor 6:9-10 RSVCE - Do you not know that the unrighteous - Bible Gateway no sexually immoral (πόρνοι ), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ( ἀρσενοκοῖται ), 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[steve-b]

So only Catholics are to be properly disposed to Catholic teaching on receiving the Eucharist and no one else?

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

 

[steve-b]

Scroll up a few posts:

Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches? - #450(name removed by moderator)
Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches? - #451(name removed by moderator)
[/quote]

Your original response to me said

"Mortal vs venial sin has little to do with the eligibility of an Orthodox individual to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church, because canon law deals not with issues of conscience and subjective culpability, but rather with issues pertinent to the maintenance of external order in the Church."

Please explain, given the canon you quoted and I’ve quoted, says clearly the Orthodox must be properly disposed. That’s a specific requirement.

844 §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.

 

[steve-b]

All you had to say to clarify yourself, is say what is underlined. That would have been sufficient. I still don’t agree that being in mortal sin is NOT less important.

 

[steve-b]

The post I responded to wasn’t written clearly

 

[Isaac14]

Thank you (name removed by moderator) for your helpful comments. As an Orthodox christian, the only circumstances I foresee myself seeking communion (or any of the sacraments mentioned in Canon 844 for that matter) would be some extreme, exceptional event and also be unable to seek my own clergy. From my reading this is within what Canon 844 intends to allow. Although the Orthodox would never officially allow even a statement along the lines of 844 in reciprocation, I believe that more a few Priests and Bishops here in the US would quietly extend economia to a Catholic person in a similar extreme exceptional event, in the same spirit of canon 1752 that you mention.

 

[Isaac14]

If, as Steve asserts, every Orthodox Christian is personally guilty of the grave sin of schism, then why bother devoting text to an impossible hypothetical?

That is the exact point I’ve been clumsily trying to drive to!

 

[Dovekin]

Earlier in this thread I provided some quotes from the Directory on the Application of the Norms and Principles of Ecumenism(1993) from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Those quotes are more relevant than the 1917 code, which has explicitly been changed. The standard for members od Easter churches is “if necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests.” For most of us, necessity is the only relevant standard, but for some a genuine spiritual advantage may suggest intercommunion.

IOW, you are taking too limited a view of canon 844. The Vatican has explicitly laid out more lenient guidelines than you allow. Those who present an overly strict interpretation of canon 844, like yourself and steveb, are the ones who are not well informed on the laws. The Directory is the official interpretation!

NB since it is coming up so much. Members of the Eastern Churches are not guilty of schism. Someone who leaves the Latin church to join an Eastern church may be, there are other issues to consider than what has been presented here.

 

[edward_george1]

I’d be interested to see what @acanonlawyer has to say about this.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Dovekin]

We are discussing the application of canon 844, so of course the canon itself is authoritative. “Can. 34 §1. Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them.” In no way does the Directory derogate from the law.

Or are you saying the abrogated canon from 1917 is more “authoritative” than the explanation and guidance given by the Directory? (I only spoke of relevance to understanding canon 844)

If that is the case, why is it licit for Catholic ministers to administer sacraments to them? This is the question that has been asked repeatedly, and the response has not been adequate imo. steveb seemed to say “proper disposition” made the the canon moot, while you ignore the parts I’ve emboldened here:

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…
§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…