Eastern Orthodox Questions

[AugustTherese]

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church currently in schism from the Catholic Church? Is it a formal schism or material schism?

Did not JPII repeal the excommunication of certain EO Patriarchs? Does that mean the EO is not longer in schism, material/formal?

Does this mean that the EO Sacraments are licit (as we know they are already valid)?

I am looking for a Catholic point of view, not an Eastern Orthodox point of view. Thanks!

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Does this mean that the EO Sacraments are licit (as we know they are already valid)?

They are licit b/c the Orthodox were never under the Pope to begin with (unlike the SSPX). They were in and out of communion with Rome throughout the centuries.

 

[AugustTherese]

They are licit b/c the Orthodox were never under the Pope to begin with (unlike the SSPX)

Thanks for your comment! In other words, Catholic Canon Law (whichever rite) does not apply to the Eastern Orthodox because they (EO) are their own Church with their own canon law, and, as long as they adhere to their own canon law, the sacraments are licit?

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

In other words, Catholic Canon Law (whichever rite) does not apply to the Eastern Orthodox because they are their own Church with their own canon law, and, as long as they adhere to their own canon law, the sacraments are licit?

Yes, although they don’t’ really have a formal catechism per se. I’ve been told from an OCA perspective that the RCC Catechism is a really good basis…with a few exceptions (I’m assuming the issues on Papal Supremacy/Infallibility and possibly the Immaculate Conception are the stumbling blocks.)

 

[AugustTherese]

Yes, although they don’t’ really have a formal catechism per se

But they do have their own canon law in writing, yes?

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

I don’t know. Perhaps one of our fellow Orthodox posters will have more info regarding this?

 

[AugustTherese]

They are licit b/c the Orthodox were never under the Pope to begin with (unlike the SSPX)

But, are the EO currently in schism? If they are, how can they sacraments be licit?

 

[1ke]

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church currently in schism from the Catholic Church?

Yes.

Does this mean that the EO Sacraments are licit (as we know they are already valid)?

The conditions under which a Catholic can licitly approach the Orthodox for the sacraments of Confession, Eucharist, and Anointing is spelled out in Canon Law. Canon law also covers marriage.

 

[1ke]

If they are, how can they sacraments be licit?

Licit means according to the law. Catholic law states when one may or may not approach the Orthodox for certain sacraments.

It is your action vis-a-vis the law that is “licit” is “illicit”, not the sacrament itself but the reception of it.

 

[1ke]

But they do have their own canon law in writing, yes?

Not really. That isn’t the Orthodox way.

 

[1ke]

the sacraments are licit?

I don’t think you understand what “licit” means in this context.

Licit for whom??

 

[RyanBlack]

But they do have their own canon law in writing, yes?

The Orthodox do not have one single code of canon law, like the Catholic Church. However, they do have various canons that serve as church law.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Yes, they are in schism (technically we are in schism with each other). Their sacraments (Mysteries as they call them) are licit b/c they don’t need Rome’s approval to celebrate them. Now if you’re asking if it’s licit for a Catholic to receive them, you’re going to get varied answers.

 

[AugustTherese]

Licit means according to the law. Catholic law states when one may or may not approach the Orthodox for certain sacraments.

Thanks for your answers! I was simply referring to the Sacraments being licitly celebrated. For example, when an Orthodox Bishop ordains a priest, is that licit because he is not under Catholic law, but his own canonical law? Even though that Bishop is in schism with the Catholic Church…?

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Yes. And if Orthodox priests become Catholic they aren’t re-ordained since they were validly and licitly ordained in the Orthodox Church.

 

[1ke]

“Licit” does not apply in this context.

 

[AugustTherese]

“Licit” does not apply in this context.

Gotchya! Thanks! Is that because Catholic Law does not apply to them?

 

[1ke]

Yep.

You’ve got it.

 

[Genesis315]

Yes, despite having real “particular churches” (bishop and flock celelbrating the Eucharist) they cannot be said to be the one Church professed in the Creed. The mutual lifting of excommunications by Paul VI was mostly symbolic, demonstrating a mutual desire to seek reunion.

The guilt of schism should generally not be presumed for those born and raised in the schism, but ultimately it will vary from person to person–God can judge the interior disposition.

 

[Genesis315]

“Licit” does not apply in this context.

I’m not sure this is true–at least not definitively true. Vatican II says certain functions “cannot be exercised” by them but chose to leave the question of how this plays out in terms of liceity of validity open for theologians to figure out.

Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss-specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations.

"http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html