Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[KyivAndrew]

The Eastern Orthodox allow their priests to get married so how could they be under the authority of Rome when Rome does not allow priests to be married?

I believe you may be confusing Eastern Catholics with Eastern Orthodox. Rome allows Eastern Catholic priests who are married before they join the priesthood. My parish priest is a married man, and I belong to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, in union with Rome. The priestly celibacy rule in Roman Rite Catholicism is a discipline which could be changed in the future. It is not dogma under Rome.

Again, Eastern Catholic Churches, fully in communion with Rome, like mine, have married priests with Rome’s blessings. That’s the subforum this thread is under: Eastern Catholicism.

 

[Vico]

Really? The schism between the E. Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church has been lifted? That’s great. I thought that they were still out of communion with each other, but it is great to hear that I was wrong on that.

They are still out of communion with each other, but the excommunications were lifted, sorry for any confusion.

Interestingly the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople office existed from it’s establishment in 1204 (Fourth Crusade) till 1964, when it was abolished.

 

[dcointin]

Hello Heychios,

Yes time is important, but you have misconstrued it concerning Church History,

In 100 a.d. there is One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church… There were major Sees but one Church,

St. Augustine Of Alexandria on a decision to a controversy within the Catholic Church five holy Sees, “Rome has spoken that is the end of the Matter”

J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

In further support of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that

(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;

(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine (we shall discuss the history of the Pelagian heresy) and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;

(3) St. Augustine’s “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);

(4) Further, we shall discuss the role of the African bishops, and Popes Innocent I and Zosimus (the latter is used as an instance of “papal fallibility”) during the Pelagian controversy.

Russian Orthodox rises:
The growing might of the Russian state contributed also to the growing authority of the Autocephalous Russian Church. In **1589, **Metropolitan Job of Moscow became the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’; making the Russian Church one of the five honorable Patriarchates.

However, in **1721 Tsar Peter I abolished completely the patriarchate **and so the Church effectively became a department of the government, ruled by a Most Holy Synod composed of senior bishops and lay bureaucrats appointed by the Tsar himself. An independent (from the state) patriarchate was reestablished in 1917, but after the death in 1925 of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, who had been persecuted by the Soviet authorities, the patriarchate remained vacant until 1943, when, during the Second World War, the Soviet government allowed somewhat greater freedom to the Church.

The Uniate question: [a member of an Eastern church that is in union with the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledges the Roman pope as supreme in matters of faith, but maintains its own liturgy, discipline, and rite.]

The Eastern Catholic Churches consider themselves** to have reconciled the East and West Schism** by keeping their prayers and rituals similar to those of Eastern Orthodoxy, while also accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity comes at the expense of ignoring critical doctrinal differences and past atrocities.

All Protestant faiths are breakaways from the Roman Catholic Church, ergo can RE- unite with it, if they so choose.

There were several schisms Coptic, who St Mark taught, and was Martyred 68 a.d. in Alexandria, In or about approximately 6th a.d. the Coptic Church was exiled due to a misunderstanding.

Sorry to say, Church History says The Catholic Church so called in writing 100 a.d By Irenaeus, of Bishop of Antioch.

God Bless,
John

The interpretation of one historian about the beliefs of one person do not prove that a thing was believed by the Church everywhere. I don’t disagree that there are people that spoke in very favorable terms of the bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and the first (protos) bishop of the Church, but there are other that never speak in this way and emphasize the equality and collegiality of the sees. The matter is considerably more complicated than your quotations from Kelly would suggest. The conclusion I’ve come to after studying the issue is that the idea of papal primacy gradually developed over the course of centuries as a result of many factors, and any attempts to read back into history the modern understanding is disingenuous. I think that the first steps to reconciliation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would be to recognize: one, that early fathers do speak of a certain Roman primacy, and two, that this primacy is not as extensive as later Catholics would suggest. There can be no real dialogue when either side is refusing to understand history on its own basis and not reading back into it its own modern positions.

 

[Aramis]

The Eastern Orthodox allow their priests to get married so how could they be under the authority of Rome when Rome does not allow priests to be married?

Rome has allowed married men in the Eastern Catholic Churches since the beginning of Rome asserting authority.

Further, there are married men who are Roman clerics (my dad is a Roman Catholic deacon; Fr. Scott Medlock is a married man and a Roman Catholic priest).

 

[ron77nyc]

Rome has allowed married men in the Eastern Catholic Churches since the beginning of Rome asserting authority.

Further, there are married men who are Roman clerics (my dad is a Roman Catholic deacon; Fr. Scott Medlock is a married man and a Roman Catholic priest).

Something about that situation does not make sense. There is and has been for the past 50 years a shortage of priests in the Roman Catholic Church and there are said to be 150,000 priests living today who left the Roman Catholic Church to get married; so if Eastern Catholic priests can be married why not Western Catholics? I would imagine if the Eastern Orthodox are reconciled, they will also be accepted without being celibate.

 

[Vico]

Something about that situation does not make sense. There is and has been for the past 50 years a shortage of priests in the Roman Catholic Church and there are said to be 150,000 priests living today who left the Roman Catholic Church to get married; so if Eastern Catholic priests can be married why not Western Catholics? I would imagine if the Eastern Orthodox are reconciled, they will also be accepted without being celibate.

The current rule is that traditions are to be preserved per each Church sui iuris, except for organic change. It is an issue of scandal where there overlapping Catholic Churches sui iuris jurisdictions exist with the predominately Latin Church. The Holy See asked the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Poland (in 1998) to stop ordaining married priests. In the USA, for the Byzantine Catholic Church, each case must be approved individually (since 1999).

An interesting article:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, some follow the celibacy rule. Marriage only before ordination is the constant rule where the clergy can marry, and a bishop must be celibate.

CCEO Canons

Canon 769 1. The authority who admits a candidate for sacred ordination should obtain: … (2) if the candidate is married, a certificate of marriage and the written consent of his wife;

Canon 285 2. If the presbyter is married, good morals are required in his wife and his children who live with him.

Canon 375 In leading family life and in educating children married clergy are to show an outstanding example to other Christian faithful.

Canon 390 1. Clerics have the right to a suitable sustenance and to receive a just remuneration for carrying out the office or function committed to them; in the case of married clerics, the sustenance of their families, unless this has been otherwise sufficiently provided, is to be taken into account. 2. They also have the right that there be provided for themselves as well as for their families, if they are married, suitable pension funds, social security as well as health benefits. So that this right can be effectively put into practice clerics are bound by an obligation on their part to contribute to the fund spoken of in can. 1021, 2 according to the norm of the particular law.

Canon 1021 2. Wherever social security and health insurance have not yet been suitably arranged for the clergy, the particular law of each Church sui iuris will provide for the creation of institutes safeguarding these benefits and put them under the vigilance of the local hierarch.

 

[John_oxios]

Something about that situation does not make sense. There is and has been for the past 50 years a shortage of priests in the Roman Catholic Church and there are said to be 150,000 priests living today who left the Roman Catholic Church to get married; so if Eastern Catholic priests can be married why not Western Catholics? I would imagine if the Eastern Orthodox are reconciled, they will also be accepted without being celibate.

Hi Ron,
Not all Eastern Rite Clergy are married, I believe if they are not married by their Ordination then they remain unmarried.
In the Roman rite, Even a deacon, once ordained if married, and his spouse dies, is not allowed to remarry. And if not married, at ordination, cannot marry after ordination.

Nobody forces celibacy on Roman Catholic Priests, they accept and commit to them.
The prophet Elijah did not marry, because his mission from God was more important. John the Baptist, Not married, Jesus not married, and for the record how many Protestant ministers wind up divorced because they cannot dedicate the time to raising their families, because of the time thie ministry and congregation take up.

God bless, 
               John

p.s. Sorry Vico saw your post # 206 after I posted, Thanks for the references

 

[John_oxios]

The interpretation of one historian about the beliefs of one person do not prove that a thing was believed by the Church everywhere. I don’t disagree that there are people that spoke in very favorable terms of the bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and the first (protos) bishop of the Church, but there are other that never speak in this way and emphasize the equality and collegiality of the sees. The matter is considerably more complicated than your quotations from Kelly would suggest. The conclusion I’ve come to after studying the issue is that the idea of papal primacy gradually developed over the course of centuries as a result of many factors, and any attempts to read back into history the modern understanding is disingenuous. I think that the first steps to reconciliation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would be to recognize: one, that early fathers do speak of a certain Roman primacy, and two, that this primacy is not as extensive as later Catholics would suggest. There can be no real dialogue when either side is refusing to understand history on its own basis and not reading back into it its own modern positions.

Hello docointon,

                Are you a Catholic?   Funny thing about the protestants, they blurt out one verse out of context, and try to tear apart Catholic teaching without waiting for the Catholic teaching of the matter to be explained.  On many occasions I've showed them I'll bring up a reference to show they were incorrect.. and they always reply with one reference doesn't fill the bill or that the references were not official enough for them. But aside from that:


            One historian??? 2000 yrs of Tradition!   You want more references?? Look them up.   I can't change the way you believe with references, only the Holy Spirit can do that, I can only show you why I believe the way I do.  I spent ten yrs. in protestant Church's only to find out that The Catholic Church is the Church established By Jesus Christ through His Apostles and their successors.

This is the same Church which has fought against Gnostics 1st and 2nd century, Montanism, 2nd century, Sabelliansm 3rd century, Arianism 4th century, Pellaianism 5th century,

The holy Sees gathered together, anywhere from two hundred and fifty to five hundred Bishops, to defend against heresies and define What exactly did the Apostles teach to defend Its teachings.

If you believe we got the Canon of the New Testament right after five centuries, then you gotta believe in the Church teachings @ least up to that time! Too many protestants try to say the Church went into apostasy as early as the 2nd century.

I can’t think of the author but someone stated, paraphrased “Heresies were born out of the Church, by not defining what we believe until the teachings were challenged.”

In the early Church beliefs were defined as mysteries of God, and believers were happy because of their faith.
Later on these mysteries were challenged and the Church soon had to define and go back to what the apostles taught. The Eastern rite had a problem with the Western rite explaining mysteries of God/ Church with philosophical definitions.
But that’s how things were explained in the west.
Let’s take for instance, Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist… Not until the 10th century did someone ask, (Actually it was a monk to his bishop) “What do we mean by His presence.” He later wrote a book which was condemned by the Church, but a hundred yrs later… Men are demanding to know? So after 900 yrs of Church faith and practice, the teaching of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist needs to be explained. Thomas Aquinas explains it beautifully, ‘Transubstantiation’ and the Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit ratify its explanation. However the Greeks withdraw from this,why? Again in the East basically nobody challenged the mysteries of the Church and the Eastern rite was firm on not being able to define the mysteries of God, philosophically. It’s not that don’t believe in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist… but its a mater of Faith, no explanation.

As far as ‘No real dialogue?’ C’mon 1966 both Church’s join together in prayer, two yrs. ago in Huntington, N.Y. The Patriarch of the Greek Church, speaks at the RCC seminary and visits our local Cathedrals.
There’s plenty of dialogue going on… Roman catholics with permission can receive the Sacraments/ mysteries of the faith at Greek Church’s. and visa versa.
I go to the Local Eastern Orthodox Greek Church Bible study on occasion and I am welcomed.

There’s even dialogue with the Lutheran Church since 1998, and several agreements on Doctrine.

God Bless,
John

 

[sidbrown]

Hello docointon,

                Are you a Catholic?   Funny thing about the protestants, they blurt out one verse out of context, and try to tear apart Catholic teaching without waiting for the Catholic teaching of the matter to be explained.  On many occasions I've showed them I'll bring up a reference to show they were incorrect.. and they always reply with one reference doesn't fill the bill or that the references were not official enough for them. But aside from that:


            One historian??? 2000 yrs of Tradition!   You want more references?? Look them up.   I can't change the way you believe with references, only the Holy Spirit can do that, I can only show you why I believe the way I do.  I spent ten yrs. in protestant Church's only to find out that The Catholic Church is the Church established By Jesus Christ through His Apostles and their successors.

This is the same Church which has fought against Gnostics 1st and 2nd century, Montanism, 2nd century, Sabelliansm 3rd century, Arianism 4th century, Pellaianism 5th century,

The holy Sees gathered together, anywhere from two hundred and fifty to five hundred Bishops, to defend against heresies and define What exactly did the Apostles teach to defend Its teachings.

If you believe we got the Canon of the New Testament right after five centuries, then you gotta believe in the Church teachings @ least up to that time! Too many protestants try to say the Church went into apostasy as early as the 2nd century.

I can’t think of the author but someone stated, paraphrased “Heresies were born out of the Church, by not defining what we believe until the teachings were challenged.”

In the early Church beliefs were defined as mysteries of God, and believers were happy because of their faith.
Later on these mysteries were challenged and the Church soon had to define and go back to what the apostles taught. The Eastern rite had a problem with the Western rite explaining mysteries of God/ Church with philosophical definitions.
But that’s how things were explained in the west.
Let’s take for instance, Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist… Not until the 10th century did someone ask, (Actually it was a monk to his bishop) “What do we mean by His presence.” He later wrote a book which was condemned by the Church, but a hundred yrs later… Men are demanding to know? So after 900 yrs of Church faith and practice, the teaching of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist needs to be explained. Thomas Aquinas explains it beautifully, ‘Transubstantiation’ and the Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit ratify its explanation. However the Greeks withdraw from this,why? Again in the East basically nobody challenged the mysteries of the Church and the Eastern rite was firm on not being able to define the mysteries of God, philosophically. It’s not that don’t believe in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist… but its a mater of Faith, no explanation.

As far as ‘No real dialogue?’ C’mon 1966 both Church’s join together in prayer, two yrs. ago in Huntington, N.Y. The Patriarch of the Greek Church, speaks at the RCC seminary and visits our local Cathedrals.
There’s plenty of dialogue going on… Roman catholics with permission can receive the Sacraments/ mysteries of the faith at Greek Church’s. and visa versa.
I go to the Local Eastern Orthodox Greek Church Bible study on occasion and I am welcomed.

There’s even dialogue with the Lutheran Church since 1998, and several agreements on Doctrine.

God Bless,
John

Orthodox do not recognise the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church and they do not allow Roman Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Many of them do not recognise the Catholic baptism and will say that the Pope and Catholic clergy are just lay people.

 

[Aramis]

Orthodox do not recognise the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church and they do not allow Roman Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Many of them do not recognise the Catholic baptism and will say that the Pope and Catholic clergy are just lay people.

Only many of them. Some will and have communed Catholics knowingly.

The Orthodox Churches have never made a definitive statement as a group about the validity of Catholics, and they have declared anathemas against protestantism.

The official line of most of the Orthodox Churches independently is “we don’t know”… the official line of a few is “Yes, but…” in a manner almost identical to that of the Catholics in re the orthodox. And the the on the street vie varies quite widely.

 

[sidbrown]

Only many of them. Some will and have communed Catholics knowingly…

Who has done this with the permission of the local bishop? Generally, they do not allow Catholics to receive Holy Communion because they do not recognise the baptism of the Catholic Church as valid. And the same with all of the other Sacraments.

 

[JohnVIII]

Who has done this with the permission of the local bishop? Generally, they do not allow Catholics to receive Holy Communion because they do not recognise the baptism of the Catholic Church as valid. And the same with all of the other Sacraments.

I couldn’t give you dates or references but I know that it wasn’t all too long ago that the Russian Church used to allow Roman Catholics to come to the Cup in Russia. They did this for a time because RC there did not have a church to go to other than the Russian Church. They stopped allowing this however, perhaps because certain other Orthodox Churches told them they need to stop.

 

[Hesychios]

I couldn’t give you dates or references but I know that it wasn’t all too long ago that the Russian Church used to allow Roman Catholics to come to the Cup in Russia. They did this for a time because RC there did not have a church to go to other than the Russian Church. They stopped allowing this however, perhaps because certain other Orthodox Churches told them they need to stop.

This was during the ‘Sergian’ period. Perhaps the 1970’s (?), I don’t know.

 

[yogi44]

One would think they know better by now…

---

Limo Hire
Slimming Pills

 

[Aramis]

Who has done this with the permission of the local bishop? Generally, they do not allow Catholics to receive Holy Communion because they do not recognise the baptism of the Catholic Church as valid. And the same with all of the other Sacraments.

Bishop Nikolai’s position was “Pastors decide who is orthodox enough to receive in their parish.” I’ve heard it from his own mouth. But he’s been relieved. Local pastors I’ve talked to since have expressed that it hasn’t changed.

 

[sidbrown]

Bishop Nikolai’s position was “Pastors decide who is orthodox enough to receive in their parish.” I’ve heard it from his own mouth. But he’s been relieved. Local pastors I’ve talked to since have expressed that it hasn’t changed.

So in the whole world, there is only one relieved bishop who has allowed it in the past?

 

[Hesychios]

Who has done this with the permission of the local bishop? Generally, they do not allow Catholics to receive Holy Communion because they do not recognise the baptism of the Catholic Church as valid. And the same with all of the other Sacraments.

Actually, that is not exactly correct. Your explanation is too juridical, too ‘cut and dried’ so to say.

The issue would be much broader, one has to be prepared. An individual claiming to be Orthodox who was not prepared by prayer, fasting and a recent confession would be politely denied. Catholics seem to forget that this is important to Orthodox because Catholic priests routinely commune anyone who approaches them (with the possible exception of the most notorious who can be identified, such as political figures and other celebrities). For Catholics the cafeteria never closed.

In Orthodox temples the recipient is normally received by name. It is not an anonymous undertaking.

Let us try to remember that any Orthodox who even once received communion in a Latin Catholic church without receiving a blessing to do so prior would be expected to confess that at the very least, and for someone who had left the communion for a time (such as worshiping with Latin Catholics or Protestants, or lapsing from Christianity entirely) could possibly be expected to be Chrismated once again. According to the *canons *missing liturgy for three weeks would be enough to officially merit excommunication (although in practice this is not usually done). So allowing strangers to come right in and receive would be highly unusual. The priest wants to meet any newcomers right away and will try and do a mental assessment on the spot as to whether he will be inviting or allowing the person to partake.
So the question of the validity of a baptism isn’t really the reason, it is almost always (especially among those in the Russian tradition) not a grave concern because these can be accepted via economy. What the baptized person believes is also important, and some eastern Catholics (even western Catholics perhaps) might be accepted via economy as an act of charity. But officially no, it is not supposed to happen.

In the Middle east, Catholics and Orthodox have been occasionally communing each other on an unofficial level for a long time, mostly due to the harsh nature of the political/religious environment and the scarcity of temples in some areas.

Famously, in the days of the Stalinist gulags Catholics and Orthodox did commune each other in secret (undoubtedly expecting to die there), sometimes using the only bread they could find, which might technically be invalid matter like a cracker. These were very often bishops, and yes, many of them never made it out alive and we would regard them as martyrs today.*

 

[Hesychios]

  			Originally Posted by **Aramis**

This is really the subject of another thread, in another section, since it deals with the Latin custom of universal priestly celibacy.

But actually the point of reference is wrong. There will be no question of being ‘accepted’, because the Papacy wouldn’t be granted the right to rule on it. IF there is ever any reconciliation between our churches it will not be as was attempted in the past, the Vatican will not be allowed to control the Orthodox.

 

[jam070406]

the Vatican will not be allowed to control the Orthodox.

I hear they have a super computer in the Vatican that has every Orthodox believer’s personal information on record.

 

[Hesychios]

I hear they have a super computer in the Vatican that has every Orthodox believer’s personal information on record.

http://www.history.noaa.gov/art/noaa_gallery/nart0004.jpg