No, it’s not a fact. It is quite obvious that discipline with respect to sacraments has changed. Furthermore, mere reason and logic dictates that on the basis of current canon law, the CCC, and Unitatis Redintegratio, the Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox sacraments to be unlawful, even with the lack of the explicit use of the phrase “Orthodox sacraments are licit.”
I’ll go you one better: show me where even the pre-conciliar RCC considered Orthodox sacraments illicit (or unlawful, same thing).
Just making some observations, not speaking for anyone here,I’ll go you one better: show me where even the pre-conciliar RCC considered Orthodox sacraments illicit (or unlawful, same thing).
I don’t know a single Catholic who was permitted to receive Communion at a Orthodox church once they made it known to the Priest prior to commencement that they were Catholic, myself included.
Yet it could also be asked another way, if the Orthodox sacraments are valid and licit for a Catholic to receive, why are there still restrictions and exceptions of any kind on Catholics receiving from an Orthodox priest anytime, anywhere?
Well, yes, some others have had different experiences, especially in certain parts of the world, but whether or not the Orthodox permit Catholics to receive Communion is an entirely different question from that of whether or not the Catholic Church deems Orthodox sacraments to be licit.I don’t know a single Catholic who was permitted to receive Communion at a Orthodox church once they made it known to the Priest prior to commencement that they were Catholic, myself included.
Perhaps others have had different experiences.
It could be that they have their criteria to fulfill before allowing it as we do.
Yes, it certainly could be asked that way, and in fact, I consider the questions you have raised to be entirely reasonable questions. My guess is that there are restrictions for at least two reasons. One reason could be the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that we are in a state of imperfect communion with the Orthodox Churches. To remove all restrictions would suggest a degree of perfect communion which does not currently exist. Another reason could be sensitivity to the fact that the circumstances in which the Orthodox permit Catholics to receive sacraments are quite limited.
Refer post #128
Thank you for saying that! I’ve been strongly thinking about going silent vis-a-vis this thread. (Maybe first I’ll just cite what I said before, for anyone who missed it:
.) Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got long-distance calls to make – I want to hear how people in New Zealand react when I inform them that something they’ve done has been deemed illegal by the United States of America.
You seem to be confusing the Church with either the Church of Rome or the Pope. As BXVI said, the Orthodox are Churches in the fullest sense of the word, with apostolic succession and valid sacraments.
How come then that, when a group of one of those churches founded by men decides to enter into communion with the Church of Rome, their bishops and priests are not reordained, but their original ordinations are accepted as equally sacramental to any bishop and priest in the Catholic Church?
Because there is not full communion between the Catholic Church and the Churches of the Orthodox Communion (and the other Churches judged by Rome to be in the same situation as the Orthodox). There is, however, a true and undoubted communicatio in sacris, if imperfect, and the Holy See makes provisions under what circumstances the sacraments that a Catholic minister celebrates may be shared with those who are not part of her visible structure. Similarly, the Holy See articulates when Catholics may receive the specific sacraments mentioned in this canon from Orthodox ministers or those judged equivalent for purposes of this canon.
**The reception does happen. This is a permission, written in law, given to Catholics – who are the proper subjects of Canon Law – for circumstances where it may be useful. There were Orthodox ministers who were most gracious during the persecutions in Eastern Europe that marked 20th century…and on our side to Orthodox faithful. There were many beautiful stories that reached Rome after the fall of the iron curtain in the aftermath of 1989 in this regard. I have always hoped they were adequately preserved in the annals of history since they were transmitted orally by those who lived it and many have gone to God.
Because an individual layperson is either Catholic or Orthodox. They belong to one or the other. They cannot be indifferent as though there is no distinction between the two – even though circumstances and necessities may require receiving the sacraments from a minister with whom one is not in full communion but who nevertheless really and truly confects the sacrament.
Liceity in this canon governs the actions of the Catholic minister who is acting in administering the sacraments as well as the Catholic party who is receiving from an Orthodox minister. It allows the Catholic minister to administer to an Orthodox Christian (or one equivalent by determination of the Holy See). One cannot extrapolate the points beyond that which you are endeavouring to educe. The canon states what is normal: Catholic ministers administer the sacraments to Catholic faithful. Catholic faithful receive the sacraments from Catholic ministers. The legislator then delineates when that norm can be deviated. The legislator is not saying this is the limit of liceity regarding the administration of the sacraments, as they exist in toto.
No the Church is all those within the fold lf churches in communion with Rome. These particular churches make up the Catholic Church of the creed.
No and this is unsurprisingly wrong and shows you don’t really comprehend the concept of licitness. Licitness of a sacrament concerns the legal administration of the sacraments. Outside the Church no sacraments are objectively licit/legal. Sacraments belong to the Church and outside her there are done illegaly without the permission of the Church. The church has taught numerous times on this. Learn your church history more and read the doctors and councils. Nevermind that efficacy of sacraments is generally what is concerned with the canons teaching upon when an Catholic approaches the sacraments of a schismatic.
That’s called apostolic succession. Even some heretics have apostolic succession. That is only a testament to them at once being part of the church of Christ but once they left, they became a church of men for Christ only has one Church, not many.
Both the theology and the discipline of sacraments assuredly changes as the Church passes from one epoch to another. The faith of the Apostolic and Sub-apostolic era will find a more precise theological articulation through the Church Fathers of East and West. The faith of the Patristic era, in turn, will find fuller expression in the theology of the Scholastic era. It is no less true today both in sacramental theology and in the discipline of the sacraments.
You have said things quite well in your posts, Ryan Black.
