Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?

[Wandile]

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.

The theology behind the discipline is doctrinal. That never changes

And it hasn’t :

Canon 844

“Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers ALONE,”

 

[Wandile]

You have said things quite well in your posts, Ryan Black.

Absurd is an apt word from your correspondents. It is not just the theologians of the pontifical athenea who hold the position you cite; any other would be also opposed to the thought that prevails in the Holy See with those who are charged with relations with the Orthodox. I would be very interested to know, specifically, which theologian of the 21st century would hold such a contrary position.

Lol the congregation for the doctrine of faith is there for a reason. Many priests are off the rails with their theology or merely ignorant but thank God the congregation corrects many errors, even among its top level clergy involved in theological ecumenical talks! One example is the misuse of the phrase “sister churches”.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers ALONE

,"

And the rest of the sentence, that you incompletely cite, is: without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2. – which explain, in turn, when Catholic faithful may receive the specified sacraments licitly from non Catholic ministers just as when Catholic ministers may licitly administer the specified sacraments to non Catholics.

 

[recentrevert]

.) 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.

Your attitude amounts to a rejection of the excusive authority of the Church over the baptised - you are saying that any bishop can start his own religion (by rejecting the Catholic Faith), ordain his own priests and they can all celebrate Mass and do pretty much as they please because they reject the authority of the Church! This is an error because the Church has authority over all the baptised and sacraments are only licit when they are performed with the blessing of the Church. There are many countries with their own legitimate temporal authority but there is only one true Church.

 

[recentrevert]

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?

Christus natus est!

Their religion was founded by men because they took the truth and mutilated it. Just as if a modern bishop decided to deny the sinfulness of adultery, and yet keep all the other dogmas of the Faith he would be founding his own new religion. His illegitimate successors would not have authority over the baptised in his diocese and his authority would cease the moment he knowingly rejected the authority and teachings of the Church to become a schismatic and a heretic. Even if he was invincibly ignorant if the Pope excommunicated him his authority would cease.

The reason they are not re-ordained when they enter the Church is that their ordinations were valid - that is, they really did become priests, but priests without authority: just as laicized priests have the sacramental character and the ability to consecrate the Eucharist and absolve from sins but must not do so (taking into account the exceptions the Church makes for celebrating the sacrament of penance in extreme circumstances).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Their religion was founded by men because they took the truth and mutilated it. Just as if a modern bishop decided to deny the sinfulness of adultery, and yet keep all the other dogmas of the Faith he would be founding his own new religion. His illegitimate successors would not have authority over the baptised in his diocese and his authority would cease the moment he knowingly rejected the authority and teachings of the Church to become a schismatic and a heretic. Even if he was invincibly ignorant if the Pope excommunicated him his authority would cease.

The reason they are not re-ordained when they enter the Church is that their ordinations were valid - that is, they really did become priests, but priests without authority: just as laicized priests have the sacramental character and the ability to consecrate the Eucharist and absolve from sins but must not do so (taking into account the exceptions the Church makes for celebrating the sacrament of penance in extreme circumstances).

I wish to understand you precisely: you are asserting that Orthodox clergy are to be considered by the Holy See as schismatics and heretics and that these clergy are the equivalent of priests who have been laicised? Is this the thesis that you are actually advancing in your post? And, in referencing “their religion” you are also asserting that that, as Orthodox, they are their own religion?

 

[RyanBlack]

Their religion was founded by men because they took the truth and mutilated it.

As I previously stated, it is contrary to Catholic teaching to say that the Orthodox Churches were founded by men.

From Pope St. John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint:

In its historical survey the Council Decree Unitatis Redintegratio has in mind the unity which, in spite of everything, was experienced in the first millennium and in a certain sense now serves as a kind of model. “This most sacred Synod gladly reminds all … that in the East there flourish many particular or local Churches; among them the Patriarchal Churches hold first place; and of these, many glory in taking their origin from the Apostles themselves.”

 

[Wandile]

And the rest of the sentence, that you incompletely cite, is: without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2. – which explain, in turn, when Catholic faithful may receive the specified sacraments licitly from non Catholic ministers just as when Catholic ministers may licitly administer the specified sacraments to non Catholics.

Exactly those exceptions are only true with regards to Catholics going to other churches or when schismatics approach us. However note the general rule, only catholic sacraments are properly licit unless due authority is given in certain situations mentioned in the subsections mentioned

Just read those sub sections. They don’t help your case at all.

 

[Wandile]

As I previously stated, it is contrary to Catholic teaching to say that the Orthodox Churches were founded by men.

From Pope St. John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint:

In its historical survey the Council Decree Unitatis Redintegratio has in mind the unity which, in spite of everything, was experienced in the first millennium and in a certain sense now serves as a kind of model. “This most sacred Synod gladly reminds all … that in the East there flourish many particular or local Churches; among them the Patriarchal Churches hold first place; and of these, many glory in taking their origin from the Apostles themselves.”

You guys are saying two different things. You are speaking of apostolic succession showing the origin of their churches and episcopate. But recentrevert is talking about the inventors of their current state (schism). Those were men and thus they can be called, in this sense, churches of men. For it was men who created their current situation, not the apostles. It was men who chose to sever communion, deny roman authority and deny dogmas of the faith.

 

[RyanBlack]

You guys are saying two different things. You are speaking of apostolic succession showing the origin of their churches and episcopate. But recentrevert is talking about the inventors of their current state (schism). Those were men and thus they can be called, in this sense, churches of men. For it was men who created their current situation, not the apostles. It was men who chose to sever communion, deny roman authority and deny dogmas of the faith.

Of course a state of schism is not the work of Christ or of Apostles, but rather, due to the actions of men–actions of men on both sides of the schism, as the Catholic Church herself affirms. A church, and the state of schism, are not the same thing. Pope St. John Paul II clearly and unambiguously affirmed the apostolic foundations of the Orthodox in Ut Unum Sint.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Exactly those exceptions are only true with regards to Catholics going to other churches or when schismatics approach us. However note the general rule, only catholic sacraments are properly licit unless due authority is given in certain situations mentioned in the subsections mentioned

Just read those sub sections. They don’t help your case at all.

I have taught Canon 844 for many years, until my retirement.

I have also employed Canon 844 in my ministry.

Your reading of the canon is in error. Your effort to force it to say something it does not is also in error.

• The canon prescribes the norm that Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic faithful (which is what I normally do in the exercise of my ministry as a priest).
• Also, for Catholic ministers administering the sacraments licitly to those who are Orthodox or deemed equivalent to them by the Holy See (which I sometimes have occasion to do).
• And for Catholic ministers administering the sacraments to Christians in other ecclesial communities (which I infrequently do)…typically involving those in danger of death in hospital (which, by grant of the law itself is at my discretion, in paragraph 4) or, more rarely, in circumstances delineated by my bishop, using the prerogative the Holy See accords him according to paragraph 4.
  .
  The canon also provides a provision for when Catholic faithful may receive the sacraments of penance, anointing and Eucharist licitly from non Catholic ministers and who said ministers are.

This has nothing to do with liceity or non-liceity for non Catholics minsters administering sacraments to non Catholic recipients…Not concerning the Eucharist celebrated by the Orthodox. Not concerning Methodist ministers baptising the infants of Methodist parents. Not concerning marriages between a baptized man and a baptized woman who are free to marry unless one of the parties is Catholic…for in that circumstance canon law, which is properly applied to the Catholic party, would render the attempt at marriage invalid for defect of form.

You will also note the proper canonical term is not “schismatics”. The term is “members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church” and “members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches” relative to paragraph 3 and “other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church” relative to paragraph 4.

This usage from the 1983 code is expanded by the terminology employed by Pope Saint John Paul II. In Ut Unum Sint, after making quotes from documents of the previous generation that used the term “separated brethren” which was used in place of “schismatics” (which belongs to another era consigned to the past), His Holiness noted pointedly:
Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”.
Thus, this is the terminology properly employed by Catholics who live in the 21st century.

Finally, this is from the notice entitled “On the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic” in the instructions for participating in the forum “Eastern Catholicism.” You may find the note here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=243365. It reads:
*Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

/…/

Note that ascribing these terms to the faithful or to individual members of any of the Apostolic Churches is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
*

 

[steve_b]

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.

Just thinking out loud here

That gets into schism which is condemned behavior, and law, which gets into other behaviors which is and which is NOT licit…agreed?

D:

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.

This provision in Canon Law addresses Catholics…the Orthodox have thereby no corresponding reciprocal obligation to do something for a Catholic simply because Catholic Canon Law allows a Catholic to approach an Orthodox minister of a sacrament in a moment of need. The norms of the Orthodox governing their ministers actions are operative there and not ours. Similarly, when our Canon Law makes provision to administer sacraments to the Orthodox who spontaneously seek them of their own accord, we specify that they should observe the edicts of their hierarchs, even as it is our canon law which governs the decisions and actions of our sacramental ministers.

The admonition that indifferentism and error is to be avoided means, succinctly, that the person receiving (this applies to Catholic and Orthodox) must understand that what they are doing is exceptional and not normative…that there are real distinctions between being Catholic and being Orthodox and that one actually is either one or the other – even though each truly have the seven sacraments as really as the other. One cannot receive from one and from the other as though the person receiving actually belonged to both or to neither.

Those who have the cura animarum are to see that this canon is observed according to its intent relative to the faithful under their care when it is a Catholic under his care seeking the sacraments from the Orthodox or through his judgment of the circumstance when it is an Orthodox communicant seeking one or more sacraments from him. The determination is really not that difficult, practically speaking.
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.

Because there is schism, and therefore, communion is NOT there, and NOT free of extraordinary measures being met to receive from the Orthodox, thereby Catholics aren’t free to just walk up and receive the Eucharist from the Orthodox regardless of stripe, that suggests to me there’s licit vs not licit behavior being spoken of here. If a Catholic can only receive from an Orthodox in extraordinary circumstances, and once those circumstances are removed, then a Catholic can’t receive. That focuses exactly on what is licit vs illicit behavior.

The problem with this picture is schism.

If schism wasn’t there would we be having this particular discussion?

Would you agree with this statement, that while a sacrament can be valid, there is ALSO a legal element here i.e. licity impacted by, and a side effect, of schism.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The licity only concerns the Catholic party.

Say a Catholic approaches an Orthodox priest for Eucharist - the licity mentioned in the Canon is in regard to the Catholic. If a Catholic priest is giving to an Orthodox layman - the licity again mentioned in the Catholic canons regard the priest.

As to circumstances - for Assyrian Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox, most laymen are free to receive in either Churches and vice versa in almost every occasion. The sacraments of Penance and Baptism may also be received. St. JP2 signed those agreements with the respective Patriarchs.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Some of the positions in this thread are logically incoherent. Liceity is a category which applies to those over whom a set of laws has legal authority. If the sacraments as celebrated by the Orthodox are capable of being judged as illicit, then it is an unwitting recognition that we “schismatics”, as Wandile and company are wont to call us, are actually inside the church and subject to the canonical authority of the pope.

Don Ruggero’s answer is correct, in my opinion. Liceity as a category of Roman Catholic canon law can only apply to the faithful and ministers subjected to that law, which is why while situations involving Roman Catholic faithful receiving sacraments from Orthodox ministers or Orthodox faithful receiving sacraments from Roman Catholic ministers fall under the category of liceity (the former detailing the circumstances under which Roman Catholics may receive the sacraments licitly, and the latter detailing what Roman Catholic ministers may do with the sacraments licitly), the situation of Orthodox ministers giving sacraments to Orthodox faithful cannot properly be characterized as licit or illicit.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
.) 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.

Is this some kind of joke?

 

[Peter_J]

And, in referencing “their religion” you are also asserting that that, as Orthodox, they are their own religion?

Sadly, there are many posters/bloggers on the Internet who claim that Christian is not a religion but an umbrella term encompassing many “religions”.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That gets into schism which is condemned behavior, and law, which gets into other behaviors which is and which is NOT licit…agreed?
/…/
Because there is schism, and therefore, communion is NOT there, and NOT free of extraordinary measures being met to receive from the Orthodox, thereby Catholics aren’t free to just walk up and receive the Eucharist from the Orthodox regardless of stripe, that suggests to me there’s licit vs not licit behavior being spoken of here. If a Catholic can only receive from an Orthodox in extraordinary circumstances, and once those circumstances are removed, then a Catholic can’t receive. That focuses exactly on what is licit vs illicit behavior.

The problem with this picture is schism.

If schism wasn’t there would we be having this particular discussion?

Would you agree with this statement, that while a sacrament can be valid, there is ALSO a legal element here i.e. licity impacted by, and a side effect, of schism.

The CIC is the body of law for Latin Rite Catholics. The CCEO is the body of law for Eastern Catholics.

These codes, and other legislative texts, govern what is lawful/licit for those for whom they were legislated and whom they govern – Latin Rite Catholics and Eastern Catholics respectively.

The question, 160 posts ago, was: “Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?”

The Holy See, in the law she promulgates, does not address the circumstances that render a celebration of the Eucharist illicit where the celebrant of the Eucharist is a cleric of a non Catholic Church.

As a Catholic priest, subject to Catholic canon law, it would be illicit for me to concelebrate the Eucharist celebrated by a non Catholic minister. It would be illicit for me to admit to my celebration of the Eucharist, as a concelebrant, a non Catholic minister – because I am bound to Catholic canon law. I am free to welcome him to be present, to pray at my Mass and to exchange the sign of peace with him at the appropriate moment.

But the question of the liceity of a non Catholic minister presiding at the Eucharist in his own church…our canon law does not legislate.

If you want to know what would be illicit for an Orthodox priest regarding the celebration of the Eucharist in an Orthodox church, then you must ask the Orthodox. It COULD be an issue for the Holy See if the bond of governance were healed – although that which would heal it would specify the Petrine ministry in such circumstance.

I can say that a Catholic priest or a Catholic bishop assuredly should not be present at an illicit Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest who, for example, had been laicised; the laicised priest would illicitly, albeit validly, celebrate Mass. He has violated canon law and presence at it would be illicit for a Catholic.

When the Eucharist is celebrated, for example on June 29 for the Feast of Ss. Peter & Paul by the Pope, a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarch comes to Rome and is present in celebration of the Apostolic Foundation of the Church in Rome: Ss. Peter and Paul.

Similarly, on November 30th, a delegation from the Holy See (and in 2014 the Holy Father himself) goes for the celebration of the Eucharist by the Ecumenical Patriarch in celebration of the Apostolic Foundation of the Church of Constantinople: St. Andrew.

In place of concelebration and communion, the sign of peace is exchanged at these Masses/Divine Liturgies as a gesture of the very real but impaired communio in sacris that exists between Catholics and Orthodox. Neither delegation shun the divine liturgy, as we would do for an illicit celebration rather each recognises that the head of each Church is celebrating according to their norms and traditions and we see and recognize that truly Mass is being offered by the successors of Peter and of Andrew.

Just as there is no bond of excommunication levied one against the other, there is no effort to impose law beyond where the bond of governance reaches its limits.

Catholics and Orthodox legislate for their own communicants. Beyond that, we work together to resolve issues where the respective laws do create tensions…this is most especially felt regarding the sacrament of marriage (West)/the mystery of crowning (East) when one party is Latin Rite Catholic and the other is Orthodox; care must be taken to respect the CIC binding the Catholic party and the legislation of the Orthodox that governs the Orthodox party of the marriage.

The question keeps being reformulated, I have to believe, in order to arrive at a predetermined answer by certain ones. I have answered the question…and others have articulated essentially the same response and have done so essentially the correct process of linear thought.

It’s a very precise answer because we are not where we were in Catholic Orthodox relations in 1963 or any other age. “After many centuries of silence” (Common Declaration of Pope Francis & Patriarch Bartholomew I) that dramatically changed and a dialogue was begun that has borne much progress in more than 50 years. The way that we interact with each other reflects that progress and is not locked in an epoch that, properly, belongs in a past we have left behind.

Presently, the communion between Catholics and Orthodox is real though imperfect. That is the declaration of five popes since 1964.

Both Catholics and Orthodox look forward to the future moment when the communion will be complete such as to find expression in the common celebration of the Eucharist. It is nearer than it was 52 years ago but it is not yet here.

I think it is fruitless to continue responding to this carousel. Those who read this thread and are sincere in their search can profit from reading the work of The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and where Catholics and Orthodox actually are in our journey together.

 

[AnthonyJ]

The licity only concerns the Catholic party.

Say a Catholic approaches an Orthodox priest for Eucharist - the licity mentioned in the Canon is in regard to the Catholic. If a Catholic priest is giving to an Orthodox layman - the licity again mentioned in the Catholic canons regard the priest.

As to circumstances - for Assyrian Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox, most laymen are free to receive in either Churches and vice versa in almost every occasion. The sacraments of Penance and Baptism may also be received. St. JP2 signed those agreements with the respective Patriarchs.

The Syriac Orthodox have the closest relation of all Orthodox Churches to the Catholic Communion. I was told by the local Syriac Orthodox priest that Catholics are permitted to commune at his parish. I was also told this by the former Syriac Archbishop of the Diocese of the Eastern USA, who is now the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

 

[steve_b]

The CIC is the body of law for Latin Rite Catholics. The CCEO is the body of law for Eastern Catholics.

These codes, and other legislative texts, govern what is lawful/licit for those for whom they were legislated and whom they govern – Latin Rite Catholics and Eastern Catholics respectively.

The question, 160 posts ago, was: “Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?”

The Holy See, in the law she promulgates, does not address the circumstances that render a celebration of the Eucharist illicit where the celebrant of the Eucharist is a cleric of a non Catholic Church.

As a Catholic priest, subject to Catholic canon law, it would be illicit for me to concelebrate the Eucharist celebrated by a non Catholic minister. It would be illicit for me to admit to my celebration of the Eucharist, as a concelebrant, a non Catholic minister – because I am bound to Catholic canon law. I am free to welcome him to be present, to pray at my Mass and to exchange the sign of peace with him at the appropriate moment.

I didn’t know you were a priest. Thanks for letting me know

My questions Fr, are to seek clarity. That’s all.

Re: concelebration,

who is it that JPII concelebrated the Eucharist with? Homily: Let No Difficulty Hinder Us

Am I reading concelebration with Bartholomew incorrectly?
D:

But the question of the liceity of a non Catholic minister presiding at the Eucharist in his own church…our canon law does not legislate.

Understood.
D:

If you want to know what would be illicit for an Orthodox priest regarding the celebration of the Eucharist in an Orthodox church, then you must ask the Orthodox.

Actually that’s not what concerns me on this topic. IMV schism also plays a part in what makes something licit vs illicit
D:

When the Eucharist is celebrated, for example on June 29 for the Feast of Ss. Peter & Paul by the Pope, a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarch comes to Rome and is present in celebration of the Apostolic Foundation of the Church in Rome: Ss. Peter and Paul.

Again, for clarity, if you already answered this above, ignore this question.

who is it that JPII concelebrated the Eucharist with? Homily: Let No Difficulty Hinder Us

Am I reading concelebration with Bartholomew incorrectly or correctly?
D:

Similarly, on November 30th, a delegation from the Holy See (and in 2014 the Holy Father himself) goes for the celebration of the Eucharist by the Ecumenical Patriarch in celebration of the Apostolic Foundation of the Church of Constantinople: St. Andrew.

In place of concelebration and communion, the sign of peace is exchanged at these Masses/Divine Liturgies as a gesture of the very real but impaired communio in sacris that exists between Catholics and Orthodox. Neither delegation shun the divine liturgy, as we would do for an illicit celebration rather each recognises that the head of each Church is celebrating according to their norms and traditions and we see and recognize that truly Mass is being offered by the successors of Peter and of Andrew.

Again If you’ve already answered this then just ignore the question.

Who did JPII concelebrate the Eucharist with? Homily: Let No Difficulty Hinder Us
D:

The question keeps being reformulated, I have to believe, in order to arrive at a predetermined answer by certain ones. I have answered the question…and others have articulated essentially the same response and have done so essentially the correct process of linear thought.

I prefer linear thought to circular as well.
D:

It’s a very precise answer because we are not where we were in Catholic Orthodox relations in 1963 or any other age. “After many centuries of silence” (Common Declaration of Pope Francis & Patriarch Bartholomew I) that dramatically changed and a dialogue was begun that has borne much progress in more than 50 years. The way that we interact with each other reflects that progress and is not locked in an epoch that, properly, belongs in a past we have left behind.

Presently, the communion between Catholics and Orthodox is real though imperfect. That is the declaration of five popes since 1964.

Both Catholics and Orthodox look forward to the future moment when the communion will be complete such as to find expression in the common celebration of the Eucharist. It is nearer than it was 52 years ago but it is not yet here.

I think it is fruitless to continue responding to this carousel. Those who read this thread and are sincere in their search can profit from reading the work of The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and where Catholics and Orthodox actually are in our journey together.

It’s a big subject with lots of layers and lots of effort by a whole lot of people over the years.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

%between%

 

[steve_b]

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.

I personally am for calling it what it still is. Schism.
2089*, schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him
R:

To remove all restrictions would suggest a degree of perfect communion which does not currently exist.

Agreed.