This has been bothering me for several hours (since I first subscribed to this thread anyways), and I’ve finally been able to put my finger on it. I don’t think this scenario could ever happen. The Orthodox (as far as I have been told, but noting Deacon Ed’s post) do not view the Roman Catholic priest as validly ordained, and thus cannot confect the Eucharist or grant absolution or give the Last Rites.If the Orthodox Christian (one that is seperated from Rome) came to a Catholic priest and said he has no belief in the Papacy, but cannot find an Orthodox priest, I cannot see how he could be given communion. That is not “properly disposed.”
Actually, there is no official Orthodox position on this. What the general consensus of Orthodox teaching on this issue devolves to is this: they know where grace is (in the Orthodox Church), but they do not know if it is present elsewhere. Therefore, they will generally not seek the mysteries in a non-Orthodox setting. This is very similar to the Catholic position vis-a-vis the Anglican church. This pertains primarily to the Latin Rite and does not seem to carry over as much to the Eastern Catholic Churches (as I noted earlier).This has been bothering me for several hours (since I first subscribed to this thread anyways), and I’ve finally been able to put my finger on it. I don’t think this scenario could ever happen. The Orthodox (as far as I have been told, but noting Deacon Ed’s post) do not view the Roman Catholic priest as validly ordained, and thus cannot confect the Eucharist or grant absolution or give the Last Rites.
Thanks Deacon!Actually, there is no official Orthodox position on this. What the general consensus of Orthodox teaching on this issue devolves to is this: they know where grace is (in the Orthodox Church), but they do not know if it is present elsewhere. Therefore, they will generally not seek the mysteries in a non-Orthodox setting. This is very similar to the Catholic position vis-a-vis the Anglican church. This pertains primarily to the Latin Rite and does not seem to carry over as much to the Eastern Catholic Churches (as I noted earlier).
Deacon Ed
To me here is the critical point in the argument. Why would the Orthodox Christian even approach a Catholic priest? If he didnt believe in the Catholic church wouldn’t he go to an Orthodox priest? He would only go to a Catholic priest if he came to believe in the Catholic faith or he couldn’t get to an Orthodox priest. Ok, so here is the crucial point: If the Orthodox Christian shows no belief in those doctrines that seperate the Catholic and the Orthodox would that be considered “properly disposed?” I dont think so!!! How could it be??? They don’t believe in certain dogmas(Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, The Assumption) which means they are outside (objectively speaking) the Church.Actually, there is no official Orthodox position on this. What the general consensus of Orthodox teaching on this issue devolves to is this: they know where grace is (in the Orthodox Church), but they do not know if it is present elsewhere. Therefore, they will generally not seek the mysteries in a non-Orthodox setting. This is very similar to the Catholic position vis-a-vis the Anglican church. This pertains primarily to the Latin Rite and does not seem to carry over as much to the Eastern Catholic Churches (as I noted earlier).
Deacon Ed
I believe that someone who denies the Papacy would not be “properly disposed.” Holy Father, BenedictXVI, if you are reading this would you please issue a definitive staTement clarifying this?? Thank You!!!Charles, that’s kinda what I said in post 16 above.
Canon law is pretty much what it is and “properly disposed,” without an official definition, is up to the communicant and his confessor, no?
I don’t think there’s much else to argue about here.
But the Church only requires that they have the same belief in the sacraments, not the entirety of the Church’s teachings. Oh, and the Orthodox do believe in the Assumption of Mary – it’s simply celebrated as the Dormition of Mary.To me here is the critical point in the argument. Why would the Orthodox Christian even approach a Catholic priest? If he didnt believe in the Catholic church wouldn’t he go to an Orthodox priest? He would only go to a Catholic priest if he came to believe in the Catholic faith or he couldn’t get to an Orthodox priest. Ok, so here is the crucial point: If the Orthodox Christian shows no belief in those doctrines that seperate the Catholic and the Orthodox would that be considered “properly disposed?” I dont think so!!! How could it be??? They don’t believe in certain dogmas(Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, The Assumption) which means they are outside (objectively speaking) the Church.
No deacon the Church requires them to have faith in those sacraments and be “properly disposed.” Big difference in my opinion.But the Church only requires that they have the same belief in the sacraments, not the entirety of the Church’s teachings. Oh, and the Orthodox do believe in the Assumption of Mary – it’s simply celebrated as the Dormition of Mary.
Deacon Ed
If the Pope officailly defined what “properly disposed” meant then I would go with the Vicar of Christ of course. I just dont see how canon law can mean that someone who gives no indication he believes in the Catholic faith can be “properly disposed” to recieve the Eucharist.Charles, perhaps you not be looking in an Internet discussion forum for the sort of answer that would suit you. You seem to have one opinion, and canon law another. If the pope, who does not read this forum, disagreed with you, what would you do?
I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. Buy a copy of the book New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law available from Paulist Press. You will find that the commentary makes it very clear that the issue is one of belief in the sacraments and that the Church of the potential communicant have valid sacraments (which is true of the Orthodox).No deacon the Church requires them to have faith in those sacraments and be “properly disposed.” Big difference in my opinion.
The expression “properly disposed” occurs several times in canon law with regard to the reception of the sacraments. In general it means 1) the individual is baptized and, 2) with the exception of going to confession, is free of mortal sin.If the Pope officailly defined what “properly disposed” meant then I would go with the Vicar of Christ of course. I just dont see how canon law can mean that someone who gives no indication he believes in the Catholic faith can be “properly disposed” to recieve the Eucharist.
Yes, canon law does permit that as does Orientalium Ecclesiarum:As I said earlier the only way an Orthodox Christian would even approach a Catholic priest (and not his own priest) is either if he did have interest or belief in the Catholic faith, or if he couldnt find an Orthodox priest. So again, I ask you and anyone else a very important question.
Are you saying that Canon Law allows an Orthodox Christian to receieve the Eucharist if he posititively does not believe in the Papacy? Is that “properly disposed?”
The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity has provided examples of what constitutes “serious need” and has also addressed, in passing, the meaning of “properly disposed.” You’ll find that in the instruction they issued on June 1, 1972, n. 6 which can be found in the official records of the Catholic Church, the *Acta Apostolicae Sedis *64 (1972) 518-525 or it can be found in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts (Collegeville; Liturgical Press, 1982).
- When Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church request it of their own accord and are rightly disposed, they may be admitted to the sacraments of penance, eucharist and anointing. Moreover, Catholics may request these same sacraments of ministers of other Eastern Churches having valid sacraments on any occasion of need or genuine spiritual benefit when access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible.
Yes. Because, if anything, canon law clearly allows Communion to be given to non-Catholics in limited circumstances. You take “properly disposed” to the extreme. The Orthodox accordikng to your terms would need to convert to Catholicism in order to receive, rendering that canon law text moot.If the Pope officailly defined what “properly disposed” meant then I would go with the Vicar of Christ of course. I just dont see how canon law can mean that someone who gives no indication he believes in the Catholic faith can be “properly disposed” to recieve the Eucharist.
As I said earlier the only way an Orthodox Christian would even approach a Catholic priest (and not his own priest) is either if he did have interest or belief in the Catholic faith, or if he couldnt find an Orthodox priest. So again, I ask you and anyone else a very important question.
Are you saying that Canon Law allows an Orthodox Christian to receieve the Eucharist if he posititively does not believe in the Papacy? Is that “properly disposed?”
It appears as if the debator and myself were both wrong. Jimmy Akin also, last night, on the radio stated “properly disposed” does not mean acceptance of the catholic faith.Yes. Because, if anything, canon law clearly allows Communion to be given to non-Catholics in limited circumstances. You take “properly disposed” to the extreme. The Orthodox accordikng to your terms would need to convert to Catholicism in order to receive, rendering that canon law text moot.
We have to recognize that the Church teaches on many levels. In part, who may participate in the sacraments is a discipline (not so when it comes to women being ordained). Disciplines can change. At the same time, the Church does not expect that we would have open communion or that this permission would be a regular thing. Rather, it is for exceptional conditions.It appears as if the debator and myself were both wrong. Jimmy Akin also, last night, on the radio stated “properly disposed” does not mean acceptance of the catholic faith.
Question: Is it safe to say that the Church has changed it’s teaching on this matter?? If so, how do we defend against those who say the Church is in error because she is now allowing those who are not Catholics to recieve communion?
Pius IX says that, “If anyone should eat this lamb outside of the Church he has profaned.”
here you go!!! Pius IX April 8 1862 Amantissimus #3–sorry I do not have a link. You 'll have to google it. There are other quotes by Popes Pius VIII Gregory XVI that are similar.Pius IX says that, "If anyone should eat this lamb outside of the Church he has profaned."
Charles, will you give me a link to that quote; I’d like to read it in context.
It’s here.here you go!!! Pius IX April 8 1862 Amantissimus #3–sorry I do not have a link. You 'll have to google it. There are other quotes by Popes Pius VIII Gregory XVI that are similar.