Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?

[steve_b]

Not only does the Catholic Church refer to the Orthodox Churches as “Sister Churches,” but also speaks of the “very close sacramental bonds between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches” and the “real but imperfect communion” between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. So there is a reality here, with respect to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches that goes far beyond mere ecumenical language.

I’m not disagreeing with the term. I’m trying to draw context
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[Grace_White]

I am pretty sure that Eastern Orthodox churches have valid apostolic succession, so their priests are valid and likewise all the sacraments are also valid. However, I have heard that they are also illicit. Can someone clearlify what this means?

Thanks,

Pietro Contolini

This means that the Orthodox Church has abused the gift of the Sacrament of the Eucharist because they do not teach the same teachings as the Catholic Church yet they continue to celebrate the Eucharist. God has given priests the power of transubstantiation, and God does not take away that power. Their priests have received the power but they abuse it by teaching other doctrines than the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Yet eccumenical language aside,

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church part of the Catholic Church?

NO

Do you (or I or Ryan etc.) claim to be part of the Orthodox Church? Surely not! So why would you imagine that they claim to be part of us? You’re not trying to set up a straw man argument here, are you?

(Btw long time no see. )

 

[prodromos]

God has given priests the power of transubstantiation, and God does not take away that power.

Is that truly Catholic teaching? It is not remotely the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We petition the Holy Spirit to come down and change the gifts. Don’t you do the same?

 

[steve_b]

Do you (or I or Ryan etc.) claim to be part of the Orthodox Church? Surely not! So why would you imagine that they claim to be part of us? You’re not trying to set up a straw man argument here, are you?

(Btw long time no see. )

I’m just bringing context into the phrase #105

:tiphat:yes it’s been awhile

 

[Wandile]

I would add to that the fact that the Catholic Church refers to the Orthodox Churches as “Sister Churches.”

That’s because they are. However as the official clarification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith stipulated, this phrase must not be misunderstood or misused. The Church of Constantinople is a Sister Church of the Church of Rome. The Church of Antioch is a Sister church of the Church of Paris / New York/ Johannesburg. The Eastern Orthodox are not a sister church of the Catholic Church. The Congregation made this clear just for all who don’t know.

*"In recent years, the attention of this Congregation has been directed to problems arising from the use of the phrase «sister Churches,» an expression which appears in important documents of the Magisterium, but which has also been employed in other writings, and in the discussions connected with the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. It is an expression that has become part of the common vocabulary to indicate the objective bond between the Church of Rome and Orthodox Churches.

Unfortunately, in certain publications and in the writings of some theologians involved in ecumenical dialogue, it has recently become common to use this expression to indicate the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, leading people to think that in fact the one Church of Christ does not exist, but may be re-established through the reconciliation of the two sister Churches.

In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]

1. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches."*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[Wandile]

Branch Theory is not held by either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. However, referring to the Orthodox as our “seperated brethren”, rather than calling them “a schismatic body”, is not Branch Theory. It’s just mature ecumenical dialogue.

I never disagreed on this point:shrug:. I never even addressed the terminology used to describe them. I challenged the point made that both Churches are Christs church. That was branch theory.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

St. John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint 12, made more explicit what Unitatis Redintegratio taught on Orthodox & Eucharist.
The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. Truth demands that all this be recognized.
That is very clear on the value of the celebration of the Eucharist, by Orthodox clergy, to the good of the Church.

This thread reminds me of what the Pope warned in Ut Unum Sint 2
Besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories.
The work of the Holy See & the Joint Commission is well summed up in what follows the above quote
With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation
Conversations, at the high level where they matter & have import for international outcomes & where they help to heal the past, must occur in the above lights recognizing what the Pope says further in Ut Unum Sint 49:
The Lord has made it possible for Christians in our day to reduce the number of matters traditionally in dispute.
This is true for those who have lived it & seen it…the fruit of international theological dialogue. One is much better there, in those discussions, than re-visiting events when, as popes and patriarchs since 1964 have said, the memory of the past is obliterated. As Pope John Paul says of these memories to be purified, it is a matter of “consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past.”

The Pope continues in paragraph 50:
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council wished to base dialogue on the communion which already exists, and it draws attention to the noble reality of the Churches of the East: “Therefore, this Sacred Synod urges all, but especially those who plan to devote themselves to the work of restoring the full communion that is desired between the Eastern Churches and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to these special aspects of the origin and growth of the Churches of the East, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before the separation, and to form for themselves a correct evaluation of these facts”
This means theologians in the dialogue may properly come to conclusions other than previous theologians in history determined.

52. With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby “there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church” the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion.
The events of the past are removed…they are gone. East and West both have asked for and received forgiveness. Now it is a matter of carrying forward the healing.

The Pope chose his words very well when His Holiness said:
This gesture had been preceded by the meeting of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I in Jerusalem, in January 1964, during the Pope’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land. At that time Pope Paul was also able to meet Benedictos, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Later, Pope Paul visited Patriarch Athenagoras at the Phanar (Istanbul), on 25 July 1967, and in October of the same year the Patriarch was solemnly received in Rome. These prayer-filled meetings mapped out the path of rapprochement between the Church of the East and the Church of the West, and of the re-establishment of the unity they shared in the first millennium.
And that is the journey that Rome, her bishop and the dicasteries of the Holy See are set upon with the Ecumenical Patriarch and the dialogue partners from Orthodoxy…regardless of what others wish or think about it or balk at it.

One of the most moving moments for me was when Pope Francis bowed to ask Patriarch Bartholomew to bless him. It was moving for Bartholomew and all who saw it. The way ahead is there. The question is how many will choose to stay behind. It will be too bad for them.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

 

[recentrevert]

You mean how many Eastern Orthodox will refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and accept the Faith as handed down from the Apostles? Because to suggest that there could be re-union without us holding the same Faith is absurd; The only real obstacle to re-union is the difference in Faith. How can the E.O. become part of the Church if they reject the Faith?

 

[SyroMalankara]

You mean how many Eastern Orthodox will refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and accept the Faith as handed down from the Apostles? Because to suggest that there could be re-union without us holding the same Faith is absurd; The only real obstacle to re-union is the difference in Faith. How can the E.O. become part of the Church if they reject the Faith?

The “subject to the Roman Pontiff” lingo and “the Faith” may be mutually exclusive depending on the specifics with the argument. In regard to the East, Traditionally were not “subjects” of the Roman Pontiff. Sister Churches, most respected Holy Father, Primacy of Honor yes. Subjects? Historically the Western Churchmen have a much stronger argument

 

[Wandile]

St. John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint 12, made more explicit what Unitatis Redintegratio taught on Orthodox & Eucharist.
The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. Truth demands that all this be recognized.
That is very clear on the value of the celebration of the Eucharist, by Orthodox clergy, to the good of the Church.

With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation
Conversations, at the high level where they matter & have import for international outcomes & where they help to heal the past, must occur in the above lights recognizing what the Pope says further in Ut Unum Sint 49:
The Lord has made it possible for Christians in our day to reduce the number of matters traditionally in dispute.
This is true for those who have lived it & seen it…the fruit of international theological dialogue. One is much better there, in those discussions, than re-visiting events when, as popes and patriarchs since 1964 have said, the memory of the past is obliterated. As Pope John Paul says of these memories to be purified, it is a matter of “consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past.”

The Pope continues in paragraph 50:
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council wished to base dialogue on the communion which already exists, and it draws attention to the noble reality of the Churches of the East: “Therefore, this Sacred Synod urges all, but especially those who plan to devote themselves to the work of restoring the full communion that is desired between the Eastern Churches and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to these special aspects of the origin and growth of the Churches of the East, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before the separation, and to form for themselves a correct evaluation of these facts”
This means theologians in the dialogue may properly come to conclusions other than previous theologians in history determined.

52. With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby “there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church” the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion.
The events of the past are removed…they are gone. East and West both have asked for and received forgiveness. Now it is a matter of carrying forward the healing.

The Pope chose his words very well when His Holiness said:
This gesture had been preceded by the meeting of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I in Jerusalem, in January 1964, during the Pope’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land. At that time Pope Paul was also able to meet Benedictos, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Later, Pope Paul visited Patriarch Athenagoras at the Phanar (Istanbul), on 25 July 1967, and in October of the same year the Patriarch was solemnly received in Rome. These prayer-filled meetings mapped out the path of rapprochement between the Church of the East and the Church of the West, and of the re-establishment of the unity they shared in the first millennium.
And that is the journey that Rome, her bishop and the dicasteries of the Holy See are set upon with the Ecumenical Patriarch and the dialogue partners from Orthodoxy…regardless of what others wish or think about it or balk at it.

One of the most moving moments for me was when Pope Francis bowed to ask Patriarch Bartholomew to bless him. It was moving for Bartholomew and all who saw it. The way ahead is there. The question is how many will choose to stay behind. It will be too bad for them.

Nobody has denied anything claimed here. Ecumenism is good for restoring unity. Forgiveness and an urgent desire to move forward in dialogue is in essence what all quoted sums up to.

What we are discussing is sacramental theology. Something that cannot and does not change.

 

[RyanBlack]

Nobody has denied anything claimed here. Ecumenism is good for restoring unity. Forgiveness and an urgent desire to move forward in dialogue is in essence what all quoted sums up to.

What we are discussing is sacramental theology. Something that cannot and does not change.

The licity or illicity of sacraments is a matter of church discipline and canon law, not a matter of immutable doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

St. John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint 12, made more explicit what Unitatis Redintegratio taught on Orthodox & Eucharist.
The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. Truth demands that all this be recognized.
That is very clear on the value of the celebration of the Eucharist, by Orthodox clergy, to the good of the Church.

This thread reminds me of what the Pope warned in Ut Unum Sint 2
Besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories.
The work of the Holy See & the Joint Commission is well summed up in what follows the above quote
With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation
Conversations, at the high level where they matter & have import for international outcomes & where they help to heal the past, must occur in the above lights recognizing what the Pope says further in Ut Unum Sint 49:
The Lord has made it possible for Christians in our day to reduce the number of matters traditionally in dispute.
This is true for those who have lived it & seen it…the fruit of international theological dialogue. One is much better there, in those discussions, than re-visiting events when, as popes and patriarchs since 1964 have said, the memory of the past is obliterated. As Pope John Paul says of these memories to be purified, it is a matter of “consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past.”

The Pope continues in paragraph 50:
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council wished to base dialogue on the communion which already exists, and it draws attention to the noble reality of the Churches of the East: “Therefore, this Sacred Synod urges all, but especially those who plan to devote themselves to the work of restoring the full communion that is desired between the Eastern Churches and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to these special aspects of the origin and growth of the Churches of the East, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before the separation, and to form for themselves a correct evaluation of these facts”
This means theologians in the dialogue may properly come to conclusions other than previous theologians in history determined.

52. With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby “there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church” the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion.
**The events of the past are removed…they are gone. **

Thank you for posting those quotes, Don. However, I need to correct the highlighted statement: One particular event from the past has been removed.

If we were living between 1054 and 1445 then we could simply say “If the 1054 excommunications have been lifted, that makes East and West once again in communion with each other.”

However, since 1445, the Council of Florence has been – for Catholics – the standard of orthodoxy, and it has been – for Orthodox – completely unacceptable and heterodox.

Hence I must say that our “traditionalist Catholic” friends have a point (even though, IMO, they generally don’t make it very well): as long as the Catholic Church doesn’t rescind the Council of Florence and the Orthodox don’t accept its teaching, we are faced with a barrier to full communion.

 

[steve_b]

However, since 1445, the Council of Florence has been – for Catholics – the standard of orthodoxy, and it has been – for Orthodox – completely unacceptable and heterodox.

Since no ONE speaks for all of Orthodoxy, the Catholic Church then negotiates with each Church in Orthodoxy as an individual Church.

hence there were Orthodox Churches that left Florence in union with Rome #231 . That link is from one of those conversations from the past on this subject. You and I had a few back and fourths on that ( Papal Supremacy thread )

One person (St Mark of Ephesus) objecting to the council decrees, had significant influence on bishops, coming home from that council
P:

Hence I must say that our -]“traditionalist /-]Catholic” friends have a point (even though, IMO, they generally don’t make it very well): as long as the Catholic Church doesn’t rescind the Council of Florence and the Orthodox don’t accept its teaching, we are faced with a barrier to full communion.

Valid point.

Maybe someone reading this, has another answer, but I don’t recall seeing any teaching that came out of an ecumenical council that was rescinded.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Is that truly Catholic teaching? It is not remotely the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We petition the Holy Spirit to come down and change the gifts. Don’t you do the same?

This is not the first time I’ve heard a catholic say that priests have the power of transubstantiation. It is why one priest told me that if a priest becomes a Protestant minister, the sacrament is the real deal. It strikes me as presumptuous that anyone could claim to have such a power over God. I don’t know if that’s official catholic teaching though…

 

[steve_b]

This is not the first time I’ve heard a catholic say that priests have the **power of transubstantiation. **It is why one priest told me that if a priest becomes a Protestant minister, the sacrament is the real deal. It strikes me as presumptuous that anyone could claim to have such a power over God. I don’t know if that’s official catholic teaching though…

Here’s a few articles on the subject(s) you bring up. I hope it helps

Eucharist

Catholic “Inventions”
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/catholic-inventions

Can Dogma Develop?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

The Sacrifice of the Mass
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass

Eucharist Encyclical
http://www.catholic.com/documents/eucharist-encyclical

Does laicization remove a priest’s powers?
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-laicization-remove-a-priests-powers

Are those who follow their priest in leaving the Church in mortal sin?

 

[Wandile]

The licity or illicity of sacraments is a matter of church discipline and canon law, not a matter of immutable doctrine.

Yes neither did I deny this. Yet sacramental theology is irreformable. Sacramental theology is what governs the discipline.

Nevermind the fact that the discipline has not changed.

 

[RyanBlack]

Nevermind the fact that the discipline has not changed.

That’s your opinion, and one that is by no means universal. Not by a long shot.

 

[Wandile]

That’s your opinion, and one that is by no means universal. Not by a long shot.

You wish that was the case.

No its a fact. Your opinion is the one that mystically is true yet has no explicit paper trail. I have quoted numerous saints and documents. You reference two paragraphs that speak about validity not licity. You mention one author who you aren’t even sure where he gets the support for his position other than a paragraph that speaks about sacramental validity rather than licity. Your position at its core is baseless and relies on strained extrapolation. Mine is found explicitly in the writings of the saints and Ecumenical Councils.