Receiving a blessing from an Orthodox priest

[AlNg]

What quotes are you talking about?
I don’t see the doctrinal quote which says it is wrong to receive a blessing from an Orthodox priest ?

 

[AlNg]

Where is the reference from other popes which say it is wrong to receive a blessing from an Orthodox priest?

 

[AlNg]

Orthodox priests do not need faculties from Catholic bishops in order to confect the Sacraments or to bless validly.

 

[AlNg]

What are you talking about? I am speaking about receiving a blessing from an Orthodox priest.
Do you claim it was sinful or sacrilegious for Pope Francis to ask Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew for a blessing for himself and for the whole Catholic Church?

 

[ReaderT]

And yet, apparently, Christ still shows up at our Eucharist? Why would He be going there? That seems like a very confusing thing for Christ to do.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This is logically impossible, because either a person fully accepts the faith, sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance (this is necessary to be in communion with the Church), or he does not.
[/quote]

I am just going with the current practice of the Church (permitting communicatio in sacris under what, compared with past practice, are fairly liberal circumstances), and how Rome refers to the Orthodox as “sister Churches”. I am going to assume — and I will welcome correction or clarification — that the ancient sees of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem are regarded by Rome as still existing (not sure about Moscow, they came along later), though not in communion with Rome, not accepting the Bishop of Rome as (at least titular) temporal head of the Church, and are a prorupted part of the One True Church. In other words, these particular Churches did not cease existing when the schism took place. As particular Churches, then, do they still retain authority — in the eyes of Rome — even though there is a situation of schism? Or do they derive, in the Catholic view, all of their authority to do anything — including granting faculties to administer sacraments and even to bless — from Rome, and rejecting Rome, they lose that authority? That certainly does not seem to be the present view and approach of the Church, if indeed it ever was. If I am understanding Rome’s position correctly, that is why “uniatism” is now rejected — “look, it was bad ecclesiology, we admit that, we shouldn’t have erected uniate churches as parallel structures to yours, your Churches are true, particular, apostolic Churches, that didn’t disintegrate with the schism, what’s done is done, but we wouldn’t do it again”. Am I correct on this?

@dochawk, I know I am going to owe you a steak dinner (or at least lunch at that In-N-Out near the SSPX chapel) if my son and I ever make it out to Las Vegas, I pester you so much on matters Eastern, but can you weigh in on this?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Much can be said about canon 844, which I won’t get into here, but the truth of the matter is that because canonical exceptions are subject to strict interpretation (c. 18), the communicatio in sacris permitted is much narrower than what a cursory glance over the canon may indicate at first sight.
[/quote]

“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.”

To my lights, the portion in bold is pretty liberal, at least as compared to such things as danger of death.

They retain material Apostolic Succession, as they have validly ordained bishops who possess the power of orders. However, they do not have formal Apostolic Succession, because they lack jurisdiction.
[/quote]

I didn’t know apostolic succession could be bifurcated into “formal” and “material”. I have always thought of valid, tactile apostolic succession as a case of “you either have it or you don’t”.

 

[ReaderT]

If we are heretics and/or schismatics, Jesus would not come to our services and grace us with His Body and Blood. He’s God, He can do what He wants, He is not constrained by any rules, and it makes little sense for Him to come to the altars of those who (apparently) want to dismember His Bride.

The same is more evident for the Episcopi Vagantes with even more heretical and evil beliefs (yet an apparently valid priesthood as long as they don’t change form and intent).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If we are heretics and/or schismatics, Jesus would not come to us and grace us with His Body and Blood. He’s God, He can do what He wants, He is not constrained by any rules, and it makes little sense for Him to come to schismatic altars (i.e. the altars of those who apparently want to dismember His Bride).

The same is even more true of the Episcopi Vagantes with even more heretical and evil beliefs (yet an apparently valid priesthood as long as they don’t change form and intent).

I realize that this reflects the Orthodox point of view, but in the Catholic (Roman/Latin/Western) point of view, even heretics and schismatics can confect valid sacraments. In all honesty, I would prefer that the Orthodox idea were true — I do not want to see Our Lord “held hostage” by those who possess those orders illicitly — but as in all things, I accept the Roman Church’s judgment on the matter.

And I know you know this, but heretics and schismatics generally don’t perceive themselves as doing anything improper, wrong, or evil. They genuinely believe they are doing the right thing.

 

[ReaderT]

in the Catholic (Roman/Latin/Western) point of view, even heretics and schismatics can confect valid sacraments.

So, by logical conclusion, the Arian heretics like Ulfilas and Eusebius of Nicomedia (who believed that Christ was a creature and not God) could still confect the Eucharist and bring the divine Christ to their sacraments (Whom they did not believe in and flatly rejected) because they were ordained in the (valid) ancient Roman ordination rite?

That would seem to be problematic. The heretics were influenced by demons, and “ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

And I know you know this, but heretics and schismatics generally don’t perceive themselves as doing anything improper, wrong, or evil. They genuinely believe they are doing the right thing.

Yes, that is true. Even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, right to his Last Will and Testament.

 

[ReaderT]

Coincidentally, we (EOs) don’t believe in the indelible mark, but that’s another topic.

Even heretics and schismatics can have valid sacraments as long as they have a valid priesthood.

And that’s the part that I was telling HomeschoolDad is problematic - because it means that people who don’t even believe Jesus was God (like the Arians) can still make Him be present, as long as their ordination was “valid”.

That doesn’t seem to make sense and is contradicted by Scripture. The heretics were influenced by demons (Tradition firmly holds this), and “ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

 

[AlNg]

Do you say that Pope Francis is cooperating with evil when he asks for a blessing from Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Coincidentally, we (EOs) don’t believe in the indelible mark, but that’s another topic.

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying, but am I correct in understanding that Orthodox believe “the orders and sacraments derive their power from the Church”? I believe we had this conversation in a slightly different form, and I think I used the “spiritual jumper cables” or “spiritually on-the-grid” analogy — the orders have to be attached to the Church, otherwise there is no “energy” (that is probably a very clumsy way of characterizing it, but my point should be clear). According to this view, orders that are in schism, vagante, etc., “aren’t plugged into the power source” and “don’t work”. I am also aware, however, that (again, forgive me if I’m unintentionally trampling on any of this) the Orthodox are far more concerned with where divine grace is, rather than where it is not. Is that correct?

Even heretics and schismatics can have valid sacraments as long as they have a valid priesthood.

Seen the Orthodox way, yes, it is problematic, but Catholicism recognizes that sacraments confected by men with valid orders, as long as they intend to “do what the Church does”, are valid. Gravely illicit, yes, a sin to confect them illicitly, yes, but nonetheless valid.

 

[Aulef]

This is a false dichotomy…

I am no authority here. I only quote other authorities who Pope Francis happen to be bound to. It is him against others superior to him (Jesus Christ and previous Popes who declared anathemas e dogmas in regard of schismatics)

 

[Aulef]

Being valid is not enough to receive Sacraments nor sacramentals, folks. This is my main point…

 

[PickyPicky]

You will forgive my ignorance, I hope, but is the act of blessing a sacrament, such that it requires a validly ordained minister, or is it a prayer to God which may perhaps be particularly efficacious if spoken by a priest, but which may be prayed by any of us?

When I was a child my nightly prayer included a request that God should bless my parents and my siblings. And Tiny Tim was much too young to be in orders.

 

[ReaderT]

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying, but am I correct in understanding that Orthodox believe “the orders and sacraments derive their power from the Church”? I believe we had this conversation in a slightly different form, and I think I used the “spiritual jumper cables” or “spiritually on-the-grid” analogy — the orders have to be attached to the Church, otherwise there is no “energy” (that is probably a very clumsy way of characterizing it, but my point should be clear). According to this view, orders that are in schism, vagante , etc., “aren’t plugged into the power source” and “don’t work”.

Yes, that’s a good analogy. Christ is the Power. If you are connected to Christ (through His Church), you are connected to His power. But if you leave Christ, you have no power, just like when you unplug your TV from the electric system.

I am also aware, however, that (again, forgive me if I’m unintentionally trampling on any of this) the Orthodox are far more concerned with where divine grace is , rather than where it is not . Is that correct?

That is true in the sense that we don’t sit and judge the thousands of non-Orthodox denominations to determine what quantity of grace they (may) have, where they might be on some sliding scale, etc. It wouldn’t help us anyway: we’re not the Judge, and if we want to focus on a thousand denominations then we will lose sight of focusing on our own souls. Like Jesus said: "If I will that he [i.e. someone else] remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

Seen the Orthodox way, yes, it is problematic, but Catholicism recognizes that sacraments confected by men with valid orders, as long as they intend to “do what the Church does”, are valid. Gravely illicit, yes, a sin to confect them illicitly, yes, but nonetheless valid.

Then I would be curious to hear what @(name removed by moderator) and you make of that Bible verse, which I see has not been addressed although I have brought it up twice (and now a third time):

“Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

If the demon-following heretics (like Arius etc.) can still confect the Lord’s Supper, then I am confused how we’d even respond: should one take the Lord’s supper because it’d be the Lord? But then we’re also at the table of demons. It’s a Catch-22. And then why would the Lord be at the table of demons? How can a demonic minister command the Lord to come and the Lord has no power (apparently) to refuse, lest he change the whole setup of His Church and how Orders work? Etc. Etc. Etc. It just makes no sense to me.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Seen the Orthodox way, yes, it is problematic, but Catholicism recognizes that sacraments confected by men with valid orders, as long as they intend to “do what the Church does”, are valid. Gravely illicit, yes, a sin to confect them illicitly, yes, but nonetheless valid.

Then I would be curious to hear what @(name removed by moderator) and you make of that Bible verse, which I see has not been addressed although I have brought it up twice (and now a third time):

“Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons .” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

If the demon-following heretics (like Arius etc.) can still confect the Lord’s Supper, then I am confused how we’d even respond: should one take the Lord’s supper because it’d be the Lord? But then we’re also at the table of demons. It’s a Catch-22. And then why would the Lord be at the table of demons? How can a demonic minister command the Lord to come and the Lord has no power (apparently) to refuse, lest he change the whole setup of His Church and how Orders work? Etc. Etc. Etc. It just makes no sense to me.

You are right, it really doesn’t “make sense”. You would think, that in those dire circumstances, Our Lord would withhold His Real Presence — and He may, for all we know. They are ultimately His sacraments and His orders, not ours, and He can do whatever He wills with them. There is one of those apocryphal stories about how a vain, sinful lady was attempting to receive communion, and Our Lord withdrew Himself from the Host before she received It, as He simply could not unite with someone so evil. That is a fantastic (in the original etymological sense of the word) story and cannot be proven even to have happened.

However, following the Augustinian view of sacraments (as opposed to the Cyprianic view that Orthodox hold), the sacraments are “sticky” and cannot cease to be sacraments, even when they are confected for nefarious purposes, as long as the minister intends to “do what the Church does”, and even if he does not believe in it himself. I may not “like” that, I might prefer that the Cyprianic view were true (to save Our Lord from sacrilege in a Eucharist confected by heretics), but in the end, I must accept what is true, whether it’s palatable to me or not. And the Catholic Church teaches that the Augustinian view is true.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I would also add that the Arians did not know they were “demon-following heretics” — they thought they had the truth, and that orthodox Catholic Christianity did not. This is, to be sure, an oversimplification, but they were the early-medieval equivalent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the LDS — they professed Christ, but their very idea of Christ was not the same as ours. I’m not entirely clear, then, that “the table of demons” reference applies to schismatics and (at least material) heretics. Generally speaking, heretics don’t know they are heretics, rather, they maintain, sometimes to the death, that orthodox Catholic Christianity is wrong and they are right, that they have a mandate from Almighty God to do what they do, and to believe what they believe.

I would be interested to know how, assuming they did, that the Fathers of the Church interpreted the “table of demons” reference, and what traditional Catholic commentators such as Haydock and Challoner had to say about it.

 

[ReaderT]

He may, for all we know, [withhold His presence]. They are ultimately His sacraments and His orders, not ours, and He can do whatever He wills with them.

If God “can do whatever He wills”, don’t we apparently already know what God willed? He willed a Sacrament of Holy Orders which from the beginning was built on valid form, matter, and intent. These are the rules He apparently approved and established, and never was it heard in the 2000 year history of Catholicism that someone with a valid ordination would be unable to confect the Eucharist - even when they’re apparently in mortal sin.

There is one of those apocryphal stories about how a vain, sinful lady was attempting to receive communion, and Our Lord withdrew Himself from the Host before she received It, as He simply could not unite with someone so evil. That is a fantastic (in the original etymological sense of the word) story and cannot be proven even to have happened.

Then I’d wonder why He wouldn’t just do that any time anyone would have received unworthily. After all, He’s not impinging on their free will - He has the power to go where He pleases, and so it’s entirely dependent on His will and not someone else’s.