P
prodromos
Guest
What exactly needs to be settled?
- Status
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Do you all do post-humously, just to set the record straight?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
This is using terminology that has no meaning to theology and ecclesiology as done today. Quite the opposite.
And in Jesus’ day as well, actually, since He Himself said that the one who desired to be the greatest must make himself the least and the servant of all – which, of course, is why one of the Pope’s titles is Servus Servorum Dei…the servant of the servants of God. The Petrine ministry is, at its essence, a service.
For over 20 years, the theological community has been assessing and formulating a response to the invitation by Pope Saint John Paul II on how the Petrine office and the exercise of the Petrine ministry could be reformed and re-visioned in order to better realize its purpose for Church unity rather than hindering it…as the Saint was himself the first to acknowledge is the case in the contemporary Church. He understood in a profoundly personal way. It is a profound theological question and the answer, accepted, will ultimately result in dramatic changes.
Why is there such a confrontational mien encountered so frequently here? Do people come from the purpose of arguing? One does not see such a fashion of behaving either in conversations among Catholic theologians or in dialogue between Catholic and non Catholic theologians. God be thanked.
Such argumentativeness seems very ill considered and hardly likely to be persuasive. It is certainly not the model of Jesus. It is also not the model of the Holy Father. Indeed, this reminds me of a comment he made recently that the Orthodox have taught, and continue to teach, us much on the issue of synodality…something very dear to the heart of His Holiness and something much more in the future of the Roman Catholic Church, just as it is something at the heart of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I hope not.
Seriously, I pity anyone who mistakes the Roman Catholic Church for a web forum.
(Not naming names, but you know who you are.)
S
steve_b
Guest
Jesus wanted perfect unity not only with his apostles but those who came to faith through them. John 17:20-23
Jesus said the following about the Holy Spirit John 16:12-15 . So when Paul taught the following on “division” διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition, διχοστασίας dichostasia] is used in both Rom 16:17…. And Gal 5:19-20. , THAT teaching really came from Jesus
Those passages are expanded later
D:
D:
Did Peter desire to be the greatest? No. He was chosen by God for his role
Being the servant of the servants doesn’t mean the pope has no authority over the Church
D:
How has Petrine authority damaged the Church or damaged Church unity?
If there was NO papacy, would division end?
D:
I would suggest, redirecting someone to answer a question is not arguing.
D:
Has division in Christianity lessened or gotten worse with current dialogue among “theologians” ?
I see the equivalent of division on steroids in Christianity.
D:
Who taught Paul the following on division?
Romans 16:17-20 (links operational)
Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The
Galatians 5:19-21
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας] sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.
I’d say that’s pretty darn direct. No nuance. Is there an expiration date on that warning? No
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It is beyond bizarre, from the perspective of this theologian.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It is also not the model of the Holy Father. Indeed, this reminds me of a comment he made recently that the Orthodox have taught, and continue to teach, us much on the issue of synodality…something very dear to the heart of His Holiness and something much more in the future of the Roman Catholic Church, just as it is something at the heart of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Given this insult to our present Holy Father, my exchange with you is now closed.speaking of nuance
To be perfectly clear: synodality, which Pope Francis is promoting within the Roman Church, is a concept essentially recovered to the Roman Church by Blessed Paul VI. It is a gift of the Churches of the East. It has been, is, and will continue to be a blessing to the Roman Church and an ever greater help to her in the future. It is not synonymous with collegiality although it is an exercise of collegiality. Neither synodality or collegiality are an expression of conciliarism.
Pope Saint John Paul II’s own words speak for themselves. They are freely available to anyone who seeks them.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It’s wearisome to read this sort of stuff.
I can only say to you, in all sincerity, that “this kind of talk,” which truly belongs in a past left behind, is foreign to Rome, to the Holy Father, and to the dicasteries of the Holy See today. A corner was turned in 1964. Pope Francis well models, by his words and by his gestures, what is the thought of the Catholic hierarchy and of the Catholic theological community.
To read such things would of course be very discouraging to you. I find it discouraging that this mindset is still to be found although I have delineated where it is not found. In that, look to what the Bishop of Rome does and is doing…to what the Holy See says and does…to what the bishops of the Catholic world are saying and doing, for that is what ultimately matters.
It was a singular moment when Francis bowed to Bartholomew and asked the successor of Andrew to bless the successor Peter and his Church. That is a memory that the Church will still be cherishing and contemplating for a long time to come. It was an inspired gesture. And it will be an inspiration.
The blessing of God be upon you and yours.
I can only say to you, in all sincerity, that “this kind of talk,” which truly belongs in a past left behind, is foreign to Rome, to the Holy Father, and to the dicasteries of the Holy See today. A corner was turned in 1964. Pope Francis well models, by his words and by his gestures, what is the thought of the Catholic hierarchy and of the Catholic theological community.
To read such things would of course be very discouraging to you. I find it discouraging that this mindset is still to be found although I have delineated where it is not found. In that, look to what the Bishop of Rome does and is doing…to what the Holy See says and does…to what the bishops of the Catholic world are saying and doing, for that is what ultimately matters.
It was a singular moment when Francis bowed to Bartholomew and asked the successor of Andrew to bless the successor Peter and his Church. That is a memory that the Church will still be cherishing and contemplating for a long time to come. It was an inspired gesture. And it will be an inspiration.
The blessing of God be upon you and yours.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Stay on the topic of the OP please.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I was thinking of saying this anyhow, but it seems all the more appropriate in view of this post and the other four most recent posts: I take comfort in the fact that there isn’t much new in this discussion compared with one that Steve b and I had a year or two ago (and a year or two before that, and a year or two before that …)
You mentioned “turning a corner” … I think you’re words on this thread have helped me to turn a corner as well, in terms of not needing to rehash old discussions. Especially when I consider that there are many other things to discuss on CAF (and, of course, not forgetting that this thread is originally about the Orthodox Eucharist).
S
steve_b
Guest
And what did we learn from the last synod in Rome on the family?
D:
I wasn’t talking about the holy Father.
I was making a nuanced statement on my own comment… My own observation on my view, NOT even about your immediate previous statement either.
You do remember previously lecturing me on using nuance a few posts ago…correct?
D:
Given this subject of synodality from the Eastern perspective, here is something to learn from that POV
academia.edu/3265629/Primacy_Synodality_and_Collegiality_in_Orthodoxy_A_Liturgical_Model
Based on that perspective I will address a few points
D:
Did you note the following comment in that doc I quoted from, Re: Ut Unum Sint?
{All emphasis mone)
“Unfortunately, few Orthodox have responded to Ut unum sint DeVille has explained the background underpinning the paucity of Orthodox responses to John Paul II‘s invitation. 6 Among the many explanations for the absence of an Orthodox response, two of DeVille‘s assertions are particularly notable: that Orthodoxy lacks an internal mechanism that would create a unified response, and that many Orthodox have a deep ―mistrust of ecumenism in general and of Rome in particular. 7 Orthodox mistrust of the papacy largely centers on the exercise of primacy, as honestly stated by the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation at Georgetown University in 2010. 8. Primacy has several derivative issues, three of which are particularly pertinent to the future trajectory of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue: synodality, collegiality, and reception of teaching by the laity.”…
Catch that?
Don,
if the Orthodox even read ut unum sint, they don’t have the internal mechanism for dealing with a unified response to it, so where does THAT leave this? What is it that we are to learn from that?
- Then one needs to consider as that doc points out, the Orthodox have deep mistrust of ecumenism in general, and Rome (the papacy & primacy) in particular,
And what is THE issue that it always boils down to? AUTHORITY. PRIMACY of authority. It was there in the upper room when the apostles were in an argument over this, and it is still the problem today. And Jesus already settled that argument about primacy of authority …IN THE UPPER ROOM. #[30 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12641120&postcount=30)
Until that issue of unity with Peter gets settled, Catholics receiving Eucharist from an Orthodox priest requires extraordinary circumstances.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I can only believe that, somehow, you failed to see the comment from the moderator, Mr. Eric Hilbert.
I am sure you have made an oversight since I trust you are not seeking, either for yourself or any of the rest of the participants, to be out of compliance with his very clear directive.
The only point in what you wrote related to the original post is the one about Catholics receiving the Eucharist from Orthodox priests and your statement that it requires extraordinary circumstances. The Church does not agree with you. A Catholic may licitly receive the Eucharist, confession and anointing in the following circumstances and I may licitly administer the same three sacraments to the Orthodox in the following circumstances…notwithstanding the points you continue to raise.
*Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for 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.*
Canon 844 §2 would accommodate a situation as non-extraordinary as an elderly widow, Catholic, who could not always get to the Catholic Church across town but could seek the sacraments from the Orthodox priest next door to her, should he be agreeable to granting them to her…just as I would do in the reverse situation, according to §3.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Noted. This stand is quite familiar on this Forum. I have seen it a few times here on Orthodox related threads. It is nevertheless an unilateral stance on the side of the Church. Going by what Orthodox posters mentioned here, the Orthodox priests may not administer you the Sacraments if he know that you are Catholics.
S
steve_b
Guest
Eucharistic ministers go to hospitals all the time. My wife and I take Eucharist to the sick and inform in their homes all the time. And we are in a parish of 3000 families.
As I said, this is about a Catholic Receiving Eucharist from an Orthodox priest…
Using canon 844
If Orthodox Eucharist is valid and licit, why is the following even an issue for Catholics
- provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided
- the Christian *faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible** to approach a Catholic minister*
What about physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister? Why does it have to reach impossible levels, before reception can licitly take place?
Don’t these seem to you to be extraordinary circumstances?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Various Orthodox respond in various ways. That decision rests with them.
The canon notes that we priests of the Roman Rite, who are governed by this code, are in no sense to see providing these sacraments to our brothers and sisters of the Orthodox Churches (and such others deemed in equivalent circumstance by the Holy See) as requiring some extraordinary circumstance. Relative to Catholic faithful of the Roman Rite, the circumstances of the request would have to be within the parameters set by the law. If the legislator had left the wording at “Whenever necessity requires it” or had said “Whenever grave necessity requires it”, canonically one would be speaking of an extraordinary circumstance for justification. But, since he qualified it with “or true spiritual advantage suggests it,” the threshold is lower.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
So in English it means that Orthodox can just attend Catholic mass anytime if he chooses to without extraordinary circumstances.
That is a bit vague, lots of grey areas there, isn’t it? What is a spiritual advantage for a Catholic to receive Holy Communion from the Orthodox? Practically I would think a lower threshold would encompass a Catholic to simply decide which church is convenient to go to or which one is more pleasant. In other word, the Catholic himself decides and justifies his decision rather than being limited by extraordinary circumstances. He is much less free than his Orthodox counterpart who receives from a Catholic priest for sure, but in real sense, minus the extraordinary circumstances, not very limited either.
Now the real question here, is the Orthodox Eucharist licitly received by this elderly Catholic widow or just valid?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Assuredly the Orthodox may attend a Catholic Mass anytime. An Orthodox, or one in the same circumstance according to the mind of the Holy See, may receive Communion, go to confession or be anointed by a Catholic priest, according to what the canon stipulates. They must present themselves of their own volition. We urge the Orthodox to follow the laws and prescriptions of their own Church in these matters but, from our side, they are able to receive these sacraments and this canon is governing the action of the Catholic priest in saying what he should do, if he is approached by someone who is Orthodox.
Canon law in many instances provides a latitude in which one must make a prudential decision. It would be the widow herself who would make the determination of what constitutes “a true spiritual advantage” – perhaps with assistance from her pastor or another competent to advise, if she were in doubt.
The qualification, “a true spiritual advantage,” asks that the person weigh carefully their evaluation with true deliberation. However, if the spiritual advantage is really and truly there, the person can proceed.
Canon Law cannot foresee every circumstance that one billion Catholics may find themselves in and proceed to legislate for each one…hence, the law provides latitude
Finally, this does not sanction indifferentism. One is either Catholic or not. One is either Orthodox or not. The fact that our sacraments are each valid such that one is validly absolved, anointed or truly receives the Body and Blood of Christ by a priest of the other does not mean that one may go to one or the other with indifference and without actually identifying as either. That would be to be abuse the grant. If one is using Canon 844, to seek the sacraments from an Orthodox, by necessity one must be Catholic of the Latin Rite to invoke this canon. (Those who are part of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches are governed by their own Code of Canon Law.)
The Eucharist could only be received licitly in both instances cited in this canon. “Licit” is synonymous with “lawful.” If the law permits it, it is lawful by definition. Of course, the Catholic widow should not do this by stealth but rather should be respectful of their norms just as they are of our norms.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Ok. Clear and fair enough. Thank you very much.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Comparison are generally not black and white but in this case, based on all my years of studying Orthodoxy, I believe I can safely tell you that it’s the other way around: Orthodoxy is more restrictive than Catholicism, both in terms of not allowing members to receive communion in other churches and also in terms of priests not being allowed to give communion to non-members.
In less formal terms, the Orthodox make Catholics look like Anglicans.
- Status