Eastern Orthodox opinions of Roman Catholic Eucharist

[Mort_Alz]

I didn’t know whether to post this in Eastern Catholicism or Non-Catholic Religions since I’m asking for viewpoints from Orthodox Christians and not Eastern Catholics, BUT, I figured a lot of Orthodox Christians frequent this section, so I decided to post this here.

Ok, first question: Some Protestant groups would accuse the Roman Catholic Church of idolatry for adoring the Blessed Sacrament purely for worship separate from Communion. What do Orthodox Christians think of this? Would they accuse Catholics of idolatry or excess?

Second question: Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine are Jesus’ resurrected body and so his body and blood are inseparable. Thus, the consecrated host is the full body AND blood of Jesus and the consecrated wine is the full blood AND body of Jesus. Catholics, in accordance with this theology may “pass the cup” for whatever reason (uncomfortable because of germs in the accidents, etc.). What do Orthodox Christians think of this? I know that the normative practice for Orthodox Christians is to use leavened bread (to represent the resurrection) and that it is dipped in the blood of Christ. In Orthodox opinion, is it “ok” to “only” partake of the consecrated host?

Third question: Roman Catholicism asserts that Eastern Orthodoxy has valid sacraments, thus, Christ is truly and actually present in Orthodox Eucharist/Communion. Is this feeling mutual? i.e. do Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is really and actually present in Roman Catholic Communion/Eucharist?

Thanks and much appreciation in advance

 

[ConstantineTG]

I didn’t know whether to post this in Eastern Catholicism or Non-Catholic Religions since I’m asking for viewpoints from Orthodox Christians and not Eastern Catholics, BUT, I figured a lot of Orthodox Christians frequent this section, so I decided to post this here.

Ok, first question: Some Protestant groups would accuse the Roman Catholic Church of idolatry for adoring the Blessed Sacrament purely for worship separate from Communion. What do Orthodox Christians think of this? Would they accuse Catholics of idolatry or excess?

It would certainly be some sort of excess. The Eucharist was meant to be eaten. Jesus gave us His body and blood for us to eat. Of course Eastern Catholics would keep mum on it. Some even adapting the practice as a form of Latinization.

Certainly we do not believe it to be idolatry. It is indeed the flesh and blood of Christ. But again the Eucharist was instituted to be real food and real drink.

Second question: Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine are Jesus’ resurrected body and so his body and blood are inseparable. Thus, the consecrated host is the full body AND blood of Jesus and the consecrated wine is the full blood AND body of Jesus. Catholics, in accordance with this theology may “pass the cup” for whatever reason (uncomfortable because of germs in the accidents, etc.). What do Orthodox Christians think of this? I know that the normative practice for Orthodox Christians is to use leavened bread (to represent the resurrection) and that it is dipped in the blood of Christ. In Orthodox opinion, is it “ok” to “only” partake of the consecrated host?

There are certain cases that the Eucharist be given only under one kind, but its more of an exception rather than a more common occurrence. Again this goes back to the fact that Christ instituted the Eucharist to be under the appearance of bread and wine, not bread alone or wine alone.

Third question: Roman Catholicism asserts that Eastern Orthodoxy has valid sacraments, thus, Christ is truly and actually present in Orthodox Eucharist/Communion. Is this feeling mutual? i.e. do Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is really and actually present in Roman Catholic Communion/Eucharist?

Thanks and much appreciation in advance

Since I’m not Orthodox, I cannot answer this one. I have an idea what they believe in, but the opinion on the validity of Catholic Sacraments vary. For one thing they don’t have a concept of “valid or invalid” like the Catholic Church has.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I didn’t know whether to post this in Eastern Catholicism or Non-Catholic Religions since I’m asking for viewpoints from Orthodox Christians and not Eastern Catholics, BUT, I figured a lot of Orthodox Christians frequent this section, so I decided to post this here.

Ok, first question: Some Protestant groups would accuse the Roman Catholic Church of idolatry for adoring the Blessed Sacrament purely for worship separate from Communion. What do Orthodox Christians think of this? Would they accuse Catholics of idolatry or excess?

Echoing Constantine on this one, I think most Orthodox would say that there is nothing idolatrous about worshipping the Eucharist, they would just think that it is potentially a liturgical abuse to reserve it for a purpose other than eating.

Second question: Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine are Jesus’ resurrected body and so his body and blood are inseparable. Thus, the consecrated host is the full body AND blood of Jesus and the consecrated wine is the full blood AND body of Jesus. Catholics, in accordance with this theology may “pass the cup” for whatever reason (uncomfortable because of germs in the accidents, etc.). What do Orthodox Christians think of this? I know that the normative practice for Orthodox Christians is to use leavened bread (to represent the resurrection) and that it is dipped in the blood of Christ. In Orthodox opinion, is it “ok” to “only” partake of the consecrated

Well the divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has all of the consecrated bread put into the chalice of wine when it is time for the laity to commune, so passing on the cup is literally impossible unless you just aren’t going to commune.

Third question: Roman Catholicism asserts that Eastern Orthodoxy has valid sacraments, thus, Christ is truly and actually present in Orthodox Eucharist/Communion. Is this feeling mutual? i.e. do Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is really and actually present in Roman Catholic Communion/Eucharist?

The typical attitude is that we don’t know. There are plenty, however, who hold a private opinion that He is present in the Catholic Eucharist, and also quite a few who personally believe that He is not present.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well the divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has all of the consecrated bread put into the chalice of wine when it is time for the laity to commune, so passing on the cup is literally impossible unless you just aren’t going to commune.

I know Eastern Catholics are more liberal in this sense, but wouldn’t a priest set aside something for someone who cannot partake of the Body or Blood? Like I know someone in our Eparchy, not sure if the person has celiac disease but the priest would always have a second chalice with the Precious Blood only, just for this person. Like I said, its not ordinarily done, but if there is necessity, I do expect that the priest would make it so.

The typical attitude is that we don’t know. There are plenty, however, who hold a private opinion that He is present in the Catholic Eucharist, and also quite a few who personally believe that He is not present.

This would have been my answer

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know Eastern Catholics are more liberal in this sense, but wouldn’t a priest set aside something for someone who cannot partake of the Body or Blood? Like I know someone in our Eparchy, not sure if the person has celiac disease but the priest would always have a second chalice with the Precious Blood only, just for this person. Like I said, its not ordinarily done, but if there is necessity, I do expect that the priest would make it so.

I’m not sure. I’ve heard of people with celiac disease being given wine that has still been mixed with the bread (with basically no particle of bread on the spoon, similar to how an infant would be communed), but l’m not sure how they would deal with somebody who couldn’t even do that (for example, if somebody had an extreme gluten allergy). I guess under that circumstance, they might reserve some of the wine before the bread is mixed in, but I personally have never seen that done. Perhaps I’ll ask one of the priests about that this Sunday, if I can remember.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Some Protestant groups would accuse the Roman Catholic Church of idolatry for adoring the Blessed Sacrament purely for worship separate from Communion. What do Orthodox Christians think of this? Would they accuse Catholics of idolatry or excess?

Eucharistic adoration is not really a part of our tradition, but during presanctified liturgies during Lent we prostrate ourselves when the already consecrated gifts are brought into the nave during the great entrance. I think the main difference is that we do not preserve the consecrated elements for adoration, but for consumption by the sick and dying.

Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine are Jesus’ resurrected body and so his body and blood are inseparable. Thus, the consecrated host is the full body AND blood of Jesus and the consecrated wine is the full blood AND body of Jesus. Catholics, in accordance with this theology may “pass the cup” for whatever reason (uncomfortable because of germs in the accidents, etc.). What do Orthodox Christians think of this? I know that the normative practice for Orthodox Christians is to use leavened bread (to represent the resurrection) and that it is dipped in the blood of Christ. In Orthodox opinion, is it “ok” to “only” partake of the consecrated host?

Well, first of all, worrying about germs in the Eucharist is highly offensive and not present in Orthodoxy. The Eucharist heals sickness, it does not bring it. The more sick that people are, the more they should commune. We all share a common spoon in Orthodoxy; there is no dipping going on. The Melkites in the Roman papal communion now do intinction because the Jesuits were appalled at how “unsanitary” it was to use a common spoon. Another of those hidden Latinizations. Orthodoxy doesn’t tend to emphasize the minimum, such as the bottom line for salvation or the minimum number of elements needed for a “valid” Eucharistic consumption. It’s all very strange minutia that we try to avoid these days, although there were neurotic stints in the past. We just carry the ritual out as it was ordained, not needing to make some kind of designation between the clergy and the faithful by only giving the priest the right to the Most Precious Blood.

Roman Catholicism asserts that Eastern Orthodoxy has valid sacraments, thus, Christ is truly and actually present in Orthodox Eucharist/Communion. Is this feeling mutual? i.e. do Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is really and actually present in Roman Catholic Communion/Eucharist?

Using their convoluted terminology they say that our Mysteries are “valid but illicit”. We can’t say with certainty if Sacramental Grace is present; it’s not our place. But I am currently of the personal opinion that if grace is active it is economic and not sacramental, as sacramental grace can only be present in the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which the papal communion is not understood to be a part of by the Orthodox Catholic Church.

I feel a connection with much of the piety and faith of the Roman papal communion as we have common apostolic roots, but ultimately our Church cannot guarantee sacramental, saving grace when we do not know for sure that it is there. If you want to be sure in our view, be Orthodox. Also, it is no special privilege that the papal communion might have economic grace, as that can be extended to all Protestant, heretical and even non-Christian groups. Economic grace is simple the Spirit blowing where it will, but at the end of the day the All-Holy and Life-Creating Spirit dwells permanently and fully in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church (or in common current usage the Eastern Orthodox Church).

But why is everyone so obsessed with getting our approval? I don’t know any Orthodox that lose sleep over where or not our “validity” is recognized by Rome’s pope. Now we do have a pope in Alexandria who presides over our mysteries in all of Africa, and this is the traditional home of the title pope before it’s later usurpation in the West:

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/thumb_large.php_.jpeg

Rome still denies this title to its planted churches in Alexandria. Rambling rambling.

 

[Old_Medic]

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that all Orthodox sacraments are completely valid AND Licit. In no way do they consider the sacraments of the Orthodox to be illicit. Whoever is spreading that informati0n is incorrect.

 

[Hesychios]

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that all Orthodox sacraments are completely valid AND Licit. In no way do they consider the sacraments of the Orthodox to be illicit. Whoever is spreading that information is incorrect.

If true, this is good information.

However, it does not agree with what I have read in a few places, and I have repeated that so I would be guilty of spreading this misinformation as much as any other. It is obvious there is some confusion in the ranks.

If possible, could you please point out where the Papacy definitively states (assuming it does) that Orthodox sacraments are licit as well as valid? I am reluctant to repeat this information to anyone without being able to back it up with a reference.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that all Orthodox sacraments are completely valid AND Licit. In no way do they consider the sacraments of the Orthodox to be illicit. Whoever is spreading that information is incorrect.

Do you have any source to back this up?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that all Orthodox sacraments are completely valid AND Licit. In no way do they consider the sacraments of the Orthodox to be illicit. Whoever is spreading that informati0n is incorrect.

That is correct, except that it is not considered licit for a Catholic to receive the sacraments from the Orthodox unless there is no Catholic availability at the time and place. But the CC considers Orthodox sacraments entirely valid.

The reverse is not true. In what I have read and from many posts from Orthodox on here who seemed to know what they are talking about, it seems very clear to me that the Orthodox do not consider Catholic sacraments valid. Some will grant that they’re “not sure” about Baptism only. I am sure there are Orthodox who would at least say they “don’t know” about the validity of other Catholic sacraments, but it is the basic position of the orthodox Churches that Catholic sacraments are invalid. I believe some of the Orthodox Churches, like the Armenian Church, for instance, have a different view.

 

[BusterMartin]

Do you have any source to back this up?

I don’t specifically see anywhere that documents that they are “licit” directly; however, this statement from the Catechism of the Catholic Church hints that the Orthodox Eucharist is licit.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged

Likewise, this from the Code of Canon Law indicates receiving the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church when meeting the right criteria is a lawful (licit) practice.

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Regardless of what I could or couldn’t find, for what it’s worth I’ve always heard that the OO and EO sacraments are valid and licit in the eyes of Rome.