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

[Don_Ruggero]

cont’d

In this Easter season, my mind turns to the encounter on the road to Emmaus. Without knowing it, the two disciples were walking with the Risen Lord, who became their teacher as he interpreted for them the Scriptures, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets” ( Lk 24:27). But they did not grasp his teaching at first. Only when their eyes were opened and they recognized him did they understand. Then they acknowledged the power of his words, saying to each other: “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” ( Lk 24:32). The quest for reconciliation and full communion means that we too must search the Scriptures, in order to be taught by God (cf. 1 Th 4:9).

Your Beatitude, with faith in Jesus Christ, “the firstborn from the dead” ( Col 1:18), and in a spirit of fraternal charity and lively hope, I wish to assure you that the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed to the path of unity with all the Churches . Only in this way will the one People of God shine forth in the world as the sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race (cf. Lumen Gentium , 1).

 

[babochka]

your penny example shows lack of formation in this subject

Thankfully, even Catholics are not required to be perfectly formed Christians before receiving Holy Communion.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Venial and Mortal Sin are in most cases distinguished by one’s conscience- stealing 20€ from homeless and stealing 20€ from rich isnt the same thing. However, for example profaning Eucharist by stepping on it would always be considered Mortal Sin. There are things that are always mortal sin and things that are always venial, but in the end most sins can be either of two.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

This question frankly deserves the answer of one who is not a lay person but one who is a priest.

You are not guilty of schism.

You most assuredly can be properly disposed to receive the sacraments from a Catholic minister. You do so simply by being in the spiritual condition in approaching the sacraments in a Catholic Church that would be yours in approaching the same sacraments in the Orthodox Church.

There is no limit or duration as to availing yourself of this grant.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church articulates how far we have journeyed since the start of the ecumenical movement – and the saints who were part of it and who advanced it. There we read

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches , this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."

This demonstrates the very real advances through the ecumenical movement that have been realised and which Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis have illustrated by their writings, their speeches and, most especially, their actions.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

cont’d

Assuming that you are American, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops well articulate the matter when they published:

Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches

Thus, while we would advise you to respect the discipline of your own Church, there is no obstacle to your quite properly receiving Eucharist as well as Confession or Anointing of the Sick from a Catholic priest whenever doing so is to your spiritual benefit, presuming simply that you would be able to receive the same sacraments if you were in the Orthodox Church to which you belong. That is you are, for example, if married, validly married, not impeded by sin, and the other conditions which prevail also among the Orthodox as among Catholics.

I have used this provision many many many times over the course of my priesthood…and it is a joy to be able to do it for the Orthodox.

I will add moreover that I have used many times the provisions of canon 844 §3 in favour of Anglicans and Lutherans to provide them with Eucharist, the Sacrament of Penance and Anointing of the Sick, using the determinations of when this is to be done by my Bishop.

I would characterise the grants of canon 844 as “generous” rather than “very narrow”. It is in no sense “an olive branch” as was said in another post but the real recognition of what stage we have arrived in our ecumenical journey From Conflict to Communion. with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters – and it is an expression of that reality,

These grants very much reflect the mind of Pope Saint John Paul II who wrote in Ut Unum Sint

…the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”.69 This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.

 

[ChristMyLife]

This question frankly deserves the answer of one who is not a lay person but one who is a priest.

Father, I mean this with all respect, but as a highly educated layman, I respectfully request you stop making comments like this.

I’ve seen you multiple times now imply that laymen without formal theological education are incapable of properly understanding or expounding the faith.

Father, this is a grave error.

Please consider this in the future. I understand your frustration when you see clearly ignorant laymen wrongly teaching against the Church, but it is equally wrong to imply that laymen without formal training are incapable of understanding the intricacies of the faith. That’s an idea which is dangerously close to the gnosticism condemned in the Apostolic exhortation of our Holy Father Pope Francis “Gaudete et exsultate.”

 

[AlNg]

Venial and Mortal Sin are in most cases distinguished by one’s conscience- stealing 20€ from homeless and stealing 20€ from rich isnt the same thing. However, for example profaning Eucharist by stepping on it would always be considered Mortal Sin. There are things that are always mortal sin and things that are always venial, but in the end most sins can be either of two.

The point is that there oftentimes is not a significant difference between what constitutes grave matter and what does not. The example involved a moderately well off student, of medium to low income. In this example, it would be grave matter to steal $1000 from him, but not grave matter to steal $0.05 from him. If we stick to this case, and do not bring in other examples of the homeless or of the super rich we have for this case:
Theft of $1000 - grave matter
Theft of $0.05 - venial matter
Now if we work down, changing the amount each time slightly, using the same person, a student of moderate means, and not changing this person for this example:
We have
Theft of $999.99 - grave matter
theft of $$0.06 - venial matter
However, there comes a point where there is either going to be a small difference between what constitutes grave matter and what constitutes venial matter OR the possibility, that even in this given case of the student of moderate means, there is a grey area of continuity and lack of difference between what constitutes grave matter and what constitutes venial matter.
Focusing in on this last consideration, we see the objection of some to whether or not there is always a clear cut and crisp black and white difference between a mortal and a venial sin, or whether or not it is a question of grey continuity so that it becomes difficult to state unequivocally there is a sure difference between a mortal and a venial sin. In the end sin is an offense against God and there are so many different categories and as has been stated

in the end most sins can be either of two.

 

[AlNg]

I will add moreover that I have used many times the provisions of canon 844 §3 in favour of Anglicans and Lutherans to provide them with Eucharist, the Sacrament of Penance and Anointing of the Sick, using the determinations of when this is to be done by my Bishop.

So the current teaching is that under certain conditions Anglicans and Lutherans can receive the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance? Generally what would be the conditions for that?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There is not certain amount of money to steal for it to determine if sin is venial or not- Sin is categorized on how much damage does it do to soul- and I think Saint Ignatius of Loyola describes this beautifully when he states that small sins can be more dangerous than mortal ones as we tend to overlook them. It is simply that some matters are grave for someone and not for others- it is all based on conscience and in the end comes down to all circumstances- Church just categorizes some sins as grave matter which should be “especially” avoided. Murder should be especially avoided, abortion should be especially avoided. Every sin should be avoided but some damage soul more and almost sever unity with Christ instead of just impairing it. Orthodox Christians also distinguish between some more serious and less serious sins and this is the same- it is just that because of western/latin mindset, Church helped people distinguish by categorizing some sins as mortal.

 

[AlNg]

Murder should be especially avoided

Murder is committed all the time in wars and the Church says that some wars are just. So they redefine the word murder so that it is not murder to kill thousands of innocent children by dropping a bomb in Dresden or in Hiroshima. And war crimes are only committed by those who lose the war. the winners are never accused of committing war crimes. No one has been convicted of ordering bombs to be dropped in Dresden or in Hiroshima. The war in Yemen was supposed to last only two weeks, when it began in 2014 during the Obama years, and yet four years have passed and I did not hear anything from the Democratic senators (who are now opposing the war) against the killing of Yemeni children? But didn’t they support this war during those four years. Five thousand children have been killed in the war, and 85,000 children have died of starvation because of the war.

There is not certain amount of money to steal for it to determine if sin is venial or not- Sin is categorized on how much damage does it do to soul-

Baltimore catechism
Q. 1291. What sin is it to steal?
A. To steal is a mortal or venial sin, according to the amount stolen either at once or at different times.

 

[Weserthy]

The relevant section of canon law for communion that addresses this is as follows:

Who Can Receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers Tract

“If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).

So there has to be some grave reason, such as danger of death, plus they must meet the other conditions: (1) cannot approach a minster from their own church, (2) freely ask for it, (3) manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments (i.e., believe in the Real Presence, transubstantiation, etc.), and (4) be properly disposed (i.e., have made a good confession). It’s a pretty high bar to reach for most Protestants.

Here is another blog entry that talks about this as well:

Can a Non-Catholic Receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy

 

[twf]

Thank you for returning Father - even if you don’t intend to stay. Its appreciated.

 

[twf]

Father, I mean this with all respect, but as a highly educated layman, I respectfully request you stop making comments like this.

I’ve seen you multiple times now imply that laymen without formal theological education are incapable of properly understanding or expounding the faith.

Father, this is a grave error.

I think you’re reading too much into Father’s words. He has a long history of being antagonized and contradicted, to the detriment of others on this forum, by self-righteous posters who write with the authority of popes yet are completely out to lunch…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

“If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).

The citation of Canon Law is correct but the commentary that follows is not in accord with our praxis in Europe.

One issue is “danger of death” which is when I have most used the provision. The other is “other grave necessity, in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops.” These guidelines have been in place for years and are what are to be used to assess the situations other than danger of death. In case of uncertainty or a unique situation, my bishop simply has his presbyterate consult him as to whether or not the case, in his determination, rises to “grave necessity” as regards this provision of the law.

An inability to approach a Lutheran or Anglican minister is normal where I am a priest. As for manifesting a Catholic faith…relative to the Eucharist, they must believe that the elements are not bread and/or wine but truly the body and blood of Christ or that in the act of absolution, they are actually forgiven and not simply declared to be forgiven by God. They do need to be properly disposed but do not need to have “made a good confession,” although I certainly could hear their confession in the process of ministering to them, if they discerned that need…what is required is that they must not be conscious of having on their conscience grave sin.

My instances of sacramental ministry in favor of a non-Catholic who is not Orthodox are predominantly with Lutherans and Anglicans. Where I am, it is not a “high bar” for those to whom I have ministered the sacraments.

Also in response to the question posed to me by @AlNg

 

[steve-b]

Interesting because the current Bishop Nicholas Samra and Vatican II say otherwise.

steve-b:

There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’.

The Latin Church is just one Church of 24 and the Latin rite is just one expression of the faith. What does Catholic mean again? Oh yeah, universal. So we share the same faith even though we have different expressions of that faith. We Eastern Catholics are tired of Latin’s telling us what we believe or are to believe. If you can’t handle what Vatican II says about the Eastern Churches, I don’t know what to tell ya! Catholic is more than the Latin Church.

ZP

The part of Bp Alya’s quote you removed was, “there is no Eastern truth vs Western truth, truth is truth.”

The 24 churches are different expressions but ONE Church in complete union with the pope. THAT is what Catholic means.

As to your last comment, this canon, is in full accord with Vat II

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

Do you agree?

 

[AlNg]

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

I doubt that the Orthodox Churches would ever agree to a situation where the Pope has supreme and full power over their liturgy and that he can always freely exercise this supreme power. Even some Roman Catholics have objected to the changes in the Roman liturgy and the suspensions and excommunications of those who refused to abandon the Tridentine Mass.

 

[ChristMyLife]

doubt that the Orthodox Churches would ever agree to a situation where the Pope has supreme and full power over their liturgy and that he can always freely exercise this supreme power

I’m sure in the interest of Unity, the Church could agree to something which says something like “the Roman Pontiff agrees to leave all Liturgical matters in the Eastern Churches under Patriarch x within his purview, and heretofore agrees to leave said matter entirely in the hands of Church x and their Holy Synod.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That is why there are two distinct provisions within Canon 844.

This provision is for faithful of the Orthodox Churches and those determined by the Holy See to be in equivalent situation:

§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.

While this provision is what would be applied to other Christians.

§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.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for pointing that out. I had intended to delete the paragraph number before publishing and apparently forgot to do so before hitting reply. It should have read simply:

I will add moreover that I have used many times the provisions of canon 844 in favour of Anglicans and Lutherans to provide them with Eucharist, the Sacrament of Penance and Anointing of the Sick, using the determinations of when this is to be done by my Bishop.