ROCOR Western Rite Charter

[jeannetherese]

a consecrated Host, placed in a cup of water, will eventually disintegrate and quit being the Body of Christ, quit being a sacrament.

I’m not sure about this. Do you have any sources that you might share?

 

[ReaderT]

But a priest who sins is still a priest. I would think that a spouse who sins is still a spouse.
I’m not sure how the undoing of the sacrament would occur.

We don’t have the doctrine of “indelible mark” - a priest who is defrocked isn’t seen as a priest and doesn’t celebrate sacraments in extremis. Likewise a convert who goes off the deep end isn’t considered Orthodox anymore (unlike in Catholicism where “one a Catholic, always a Catholic”).

With priesthood and marriage, we recognize someone can be called to a vocation - and then lose it. It doesn’t mean his ordination didn’t happen, and we don’t say the wedding never happened (annulment) but their actions make them unable to carry out their calling anymore.

This is exactly the idea I was going to bring out. As you say, a sinful priest remains a priest, and a baptized sinner remains baptized as well. The only thing that would remotely make sense — getting back to my “the sacrament dies” scenario (in which I humbly submit to the magisterium) — is that matrimony does not confer an eternal character to the souls of the spouses, and that it is a sacrament between two people (no other sacrament is like that), such that a breakdown of the bonds between them, could indeed “dissolve” the sacrament in the same way that a consecrated Host, placed in a cup of water, will eventually disintegrate and quit being the Body of Christ, quit being a sacrament.

I think the issues in your post could be answered with my reply to Jeanne directly above ^

 

[ReaderT]

Again, as I said above, “better quality control on the front end”.

I realize that such a characterization may raise the hackles of some, who might say that I am challenging the “dignity of the human person” by allegedly reducing prospective spouses to commodities being screened for quality, but my point should be clear. The military does the exact same thing — as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said in his otherwise unrepeatable soliloquy from Full Metal Jacket, “my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps”. Ditto for seminaries and convents — “sorry, we know this hurts, but despite what you might want or feel, this is not your vocation”.

Then I assume there must be major changes coming down the pipelines in the RCC, so that the vast majority of marriages before the tribunals aren’t found to be invalid? Surely the frightening amount of invalid sacraments is a high-priority problem that the church is urgent to fix. Could you tell me more about how they are planning to do this?

 

[commenter]

But a priest who sins is still a priest. I would think that a spouse who sins is still a spouse.
I’m not sure how the undoing of the sacrament would occur.

It’s not the undoing of a sacrament, it’s investigation that discerns a valid sacrament never took place. Suppose a man was “ordained” by an imposter, who himself was later investigated and proven to not ever having been a priest or bishop.

This investigation wouldn’t “undo” Holy Orders it would mean it never happened. The issue with Matrimony is more complicated because it’s a bond between two people. But somewhat similar.

We don’t hear about civil annulments much nowadays because civil divorces are so simple to get. But historically many government jurisdictions granted civil annulments, recognizing the difference between divorce and annulments.

 

[jeannetherese]

We don’t have the doctrine of “indelible mark” - a priest who is defrocked isn’t seen as a priest and doesn’t celebrate sacraments in extremis. Likewise a convert who goes off the deep end isn’t considered Orthodox anymore (unlike in Catholicism where “one a Catholic, always a Catholic”).

With priesthood and marriage, we recognize someone can be called to a vocation - and then lose it. It doesn’t mean his ordination didn’t happen, and we don’t say the wedding never happened (annulment) but their actions make them unable to carry out their calling anymore.

Would this hold across all branches of Orthodoxy?
If I am reading this rightly, being Orthodox or being a priest, or being married is a temporary state. I’m not sure that temporary is the best word, perhaps conditional or relational would work? The idea is new to me and I’m trying to work my way through it.

 

[ReaderT]

If I am reading this rightly, being Orthodox or being a priest, or being married is a temporary state. I’m not sure that temporary is the best word, perhaps conditional or relational would work?

The other Orthodox faithful can answer the question better, but it comes down to one’s actions. The priesthood isn’t temporary in essence. Good priests can stay priests. But if you’re a priest and you’re having an affair (let’s say), you’re not going to be a priest anymore.

Would this hold across all branches of Orthodoxy?

To my knowledge yes

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

a consecrated Host, placed in a cup of water, will eventually disintegrate and quit being the Body of Christ, quit being a sacrament.

I’m not sure about this. Do you have any sources that you might share?

I’m sure I could dig up something, but in the broadest sense, you have Aquinas and his discussion of substance and accidents. When the Host ceases to have the accidents of bread — taste, smell, consistency, appearance, feel, and so on — It ceases to be a Host, ceases to appear to be bread, and thus ceases to be the Body of Christ. Put a Host in a cup of water. Wait for It to get saturated, to become a clump of white mush, foam, and milky water. It no longer has the accidents of bread. It is the same as when you receive communion. After 10-15 minutes or thereabout — please forgive the imagery — It begins to digest and to turn into those elements that nourish our body and are eventually eliminated. When that happens, It ceases to be the sacrament.

We do have this from Jone’s Moral Theology:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There’s no reason to think a Host dissolved in water would be different from a Host dissolved in the digestive process, though it would probably happen a bit more slowly in water. Water is a less aggressive solvent than digestive juices and enzymes.

jeannetherese:

But a priest who sins is still a priest. I would think that a spouse who sins is still a spouse.

I’m not sure how the undoing of the sacrament would occur.

We don’t have the doctrine of “indelible mark” - a priest who is defrocked isn’t seen as a priest and doesn’t celebrate sacraments in extremis. Likewise a convert who goes off the deep end isn’t considered Orthodox anymore (unlike in Catholicism where “one a Catholic, always a Catholic”).

With priesthood and marriage, we recognize someone can be called to a vocation - and then lose it. It doesn’t mean his ordination didn’t happen, and we don’t say the wedding never happened (annulment) but their actions make them unable to carry out their calling anymore.

You say “isn’t seen” or “isn’t considered”, but this is (looking at it through Latin goggles here) not the same thing as saying simply “isn’t”.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Again, as I said above, “better quality control on the front end”.

I realize that such a characterization may raise the hackles of some, who might say that I am challenging the “dignity of the human person” by allegedly reducing prospective spouses to commodities being screened for quality, but my point should be clear. The military does the exact same thing — as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said in his otherwise unrepeatable soliloquy from Full Metal Jacket, “my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps”. Ditto for seminaries and convents — “sorry, we know this hurts, but despite what you might want or feel, this is not your vocation”.

Then I assume there must be major changes coming down the pipelines in the RCC, so that the vast majority of marriages before the tribunals aren’t found to be invalid? Surely the frightening amount of invalid sacraments is a high-priority problem that the church is urgent to fix. Could you tell me more about how they are planning to do this?

I don’t think they are “trying to fix it”. I know what I’d do, if I were running the show, but alas, I am not. All I have is the ability to stand on this little free soapbox that might be read by a few hundred people on a good day.

My scenario of living in a kind of “lay novitiate” and going through “scrutinies” before getting married is probably only suitable for those people who eat, drink, live, breathe, and sleep Catholicism, and who would humbly submit, and accept it as God’s Will, if they were told by the Church “sorry, we can’t sign off on this marriage, there are just too many issues, it’s very likely you’re just going to end up back here in a few years petitioning for a declaration of nullity”. The typical couple who approaches the Church for marriage are in love up to their eyeballs, are convinced beyond persuasion to the contrary that they’ve “found the right one”, and in this day and age, are probably sleeping together, and very likely are living together as well. Many of them would not cotton to the idea of having to wait a year, a fortiori being told “no, you can’t get married”. And as I noted above, in our culture, there are other options, and people don’t hesitate to exercise them.

And, yes, I know, “people have a natural-law right to marry”. Natural-law rights aren’t absolute. We also have a natural-law right to defend ourselves, but if the person behind me in line at the grocery store slaps my arm and calls me a doo-doo head, I don’t have the right to beat him senseless (or worse) under the rubric of “self-defense”.

 

[ReaderT]

You say “isn’t seen ” or “isn’t considered ”, but this is (looking at it through Latin goggles here) not the same thing as saying simply “isn’t”.

“Is not” works fine also: a priest who is returned to the lay state is not a priest any longer and doesn’t celebrate sacraments in extremis

I don’t think they are “trying to fix it”.

That is surprising (and a little confusing) - surely they wouldn’t let this massive problem (the staggeringly high number of marriages that are found invalid) continue. I can’t see the RCC standing idly by if the majority of their eucharists were judged “invalidly consecrated” - why is this sacramental situation any different?

And I see you mentioned there are “other options” (couples can get married at the courthouse) but that shouldn’t stop you guys from doing what you believe is correct, no? “A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it, and the truth is the truth even if nobody believes - or does - it”

 

[Xarto]

As in Patriarch Kirill

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow - Wikipedia

 

[Xarto]

Ah I see now, thought we got our wires crossed lol

 

[dochawk]

Well first of all the annulment process not only allows divorce, it requires a civil divorce before the proceedings begin.

I am neither attacking nor criticizing the annulment process of the western church.

I am merely noting that it is intellectually dishonest to state that either RCC or EO “allows” divorce, and that both are subjecte to similar fair criticism.

Secondly, what you are telling me is not what I have been told by different Orthodox priests.

Even if you have been told something by the Patriarch of Constantinople, it is not reasonable to state that that is the position of orthodoxy. That’s just not how the Orthodox world works.

Does not the following OCA link imply

I don’t even have to look at it to tell you that whatever it says, you can’t state that Orthodoxy says the same thing.

You’re looking at Orthodoxy through a western lens, and there is nothing productive to come of this.

Further, according to wiki:

Again, same problem.

Orthodoxy just doesn’t have a central source to make such statements after the last recognized council. When you read something about what “Orthodoxy” teaches, it’s actually what that particular person (or occasionally that particular church) believes.

You CANNOT have a source that says authoritatively anything that isn’t in the seven councils.

It seems to me that what you proposed is a direct contradiction

Not at all.

I’m stating that it would not be difficult for actual theologians (as opposed to myself and other random people on the internet) to harmonize what each church has said.

I again refer to the first article of Brest, about not understanding one another because we don’t want to . . .

And my bottom line (and probably a better way of stating it anyway) is that however a particular church deals with ekonomia in a particular circumstance, even if often the same, that is a far cry from “allowing” the circumstances that lead to exercise in the first place . . .

We don’t have the doctrine of “indelible mark” - a priest who is defrocked isn’t seen as a priest and doesn’t celebrate sacraments in extremis.

more specifically, the indelible mark is the Augustinian view, historically taken by the RCC, whereas the East generally adheres to the Cyprianic view, which sees orders as only existing in communion with a church

I’ve seen observations that the west may be/is drifting to a more cyprianic view, but lack the expertise to assert that myself (and dont’ ahve any links handy).

Until the repose of Fr. Serge Kehler of blessed memory a couple (few?) years ago, one could find him celebrating the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy in Irish in Dublin. (noone would have suggested a different name for that language to him!!!)

 

[AlNg]

Constantinople, in its 2020 document, For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church , says: “The Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of safe and non-abortifacient contraceptives within the context of married life, not as an ideal or as a permanent arrangement, but as a provisional concession to necessity” (§ 24)."

Even if you have been told something by the Patriarch of Constantinople, it is not reasonable to state that that is the position of orthodoxy. That’s just not how the Orthodox world works.

So, do you then claim that this document is mendacious when it says “The Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of safe and non-abortifacient contraceptives within the context of married life, not as an ideal or as a permanent arrangement, but as a provisional concession to necessity” ?

That’s just not how the Orthodox world works.

So the Ecumenical Patriarch who issued the document, does not know how the Orthodox world works, but you do? And it is mendacious for me to report the teaching given in this document?

 

[dochawk]

So, do you then claim that this document is mendacious

No, I’m stating that there aren’t any circumstances in which someone can state the position of the Orthodox Church, as opposed to personal opinion or the position of one specific Orthodox Church.

So the Ecumenical Patriarch who issued the document, does not know how the Orthodox world works, but you do?

No, that seems to deliberately misconstrue what I wrote.

The EP cannot speak on behalf of the other Orthodox churches, even if he tries to.

Many Orthodox over the years have attempted to do so, and such statements are not accepted as statements of Orthodoxy in general–by the rest of Orthodoxy.

You can find statements of orthodox prelates to support just about any position, just as you can find statements of Church Fathers to support just about any position . . .

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

You say “isn’t seen ” or “isn’t considered ”, but this is (looking at it through Latin goggles here) not the same thing as saying simply “isn’t”.

“Is not” works fine also: a priest who is returned to the lay state is not a priest any longer and doesn’t celebrate sacraments in extremis

But as I’m sure you know, once a priest is ordained in Catholicism, he is a priest forever (tu es sacerdos in aeternum), his soul always has the indelible mark of ordination on it, and he can administer certain sacraments validly (if illictly).

HomeschoolDad:

I don’t think they are “trying to fix it”.

That is surprising (and a little confusing) - surely they wouldn’t let this massive problem (the staggeringly high number of marriages that are found invalid) continue. I can’t see the RCC standing idly by if the majority of their eucharists were judged “invalidly consecrated” - why is this sacramental situation any different?

They may have no choice but to tolerate the present situation. Prior to a few decades ago, the Church was very parsimonious with annulments, and subjective psychological grounds were unknown. When you open the floodgates to annulments for such subjective reasons, you’re going to have many more of them — in all honesty, the bar is set pretty low. The Church can’t have it both ways. For the Church to say “now that we find so many marriages null and void, we’ve got to practice greater diligence for couples seeking marriage, it’s going to take longer, it’s going to be much more intrusive, and, yes, some people are going to get weeded out”, would drive a lot of people away. For openers, you’d have to subject every engaged couple to a psychological evaluation. There would also have to be several interviews, attempts by the facilitator (“Marital Discernment Director”?) to tease out reasons why this marriage may be trouble just waiting to happen, and all of this would, in today’s world and today’s Church, drive many (and possibly most) couples away — “this is just too much hassle, we’ll just go ahead and get married civilly, then in a few years, when we’ve proven ourselves, we’ll get it convalidated”. (For what it’s worth, I knew of a couple, wife Ukrainian Orthodox from UA, husband American non-Orthodox who was discerning conversion, who did precisely that.) So while “quality control on the front end” is, in theory, a good idea, it might not be doable.

Your analogy of “invalidly consecrated Eucharists” may not be the best one. For the Eucharist, you have form, matter, and intention, and if the priest is validly ordained, it’s pretty hard to mess up. Matrimony is different. The “matter” is two imperfect, flawed, weak, sinful human beings. No other sacrament is like that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And I see you mentioned there are “other options” (couples can get married at the courthouse) but that shouldn’t stop you guys from doing what you believe is correct, no? “A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it, and the truth is the truth even if nobody believes - or does - it”

Of course such marriages would be invalid, for Catholics bound by the laws of the Church regarding marriage. But that does not stop a lot of them. For far too many, the marriage is between the two spouses, “their own private thing”, and the Church is more of an afterthought, with the Catholic nuptials a combination of formality, cultural expectation, and pleasing aesthetics. If it were made too hard, it would drive a lot of people away. Yet again, the tail wags the dog.

 

[AlNg]

It is not “allowed” by any EO, in spite of this being repeated on a regular basis on CA.

In each and every case, it is a matter of economia .

Calling it “allowed” is as false/disingenuous/mendacious/whatever as stating that the annulment process “allows” divorce.

No, that seems to deliberately misconstrue what I wrote.

Did you not say that calling artificial birth control allowed is mendacious? And yet the Ecumenical Patriarch in an official ecumenical document condones the use of artificial contraception within certain limits, No? Now this document is published with the official blessing of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Holy Synod. It specifically says that the Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of artificial birth control within certain limits, No? Do you agree it specifically says so? Is this document mendacious or not since by all measures it condones the use of artificial birth control within certain limits, No?
Here is proof that the document is published with the official approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch:
https://www.goarch.org/documents/32...ment.pdf/2320f220-2f4e-4654-a609-b419aa3e9bf5

 

[dochawk]

Did you not say that calling artificial birth control allowed is mendacious?

I said that the word “allowed” is deliberately misleading, with mendacious as one of the appropriate words.

It specifically says that the Orthodox Church h

What part of “there is no individual, including the EP, that cannot speak authoritatively on behalf of Orthodoxy” isn’t clear?

You are trying to put things in boxes and either/or choices that are inconsistent with Eastern thinking, let alone Ortbodoxy.

The EP is not an eastern pope. Even if he does mnake a statement, calling that the position of “Orthodoxy” is [insert verb here about inaccurate statements’

 

[jeannetherese]

I marriage preparation is more extensive in my archdiocese and is a requirement prior to a Catholic marriage.

 

[AlNg]

What part of “there is no individual, including the EP, that cannot speak authoritatively on behalf of Orthodoxy” isn’t clear?

Then does that mean that you are not speaking authoritatively on behalf of Orthodoxy when you say that calling it “allowed” is false/disingenuous/ mendacious /whatever? Do you agree that there is an official document published by His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch, states point blank that the Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of artificial birth control within certain limits? I do not doubt that you disagree with his official statement, but what if an Orthodox married couple reads this - do you think that they are going to believe that it is a sin for them to use artificial birth control within the limitations mentioned in the document? And add to that many Orthodox priests will say it is not a sin within certain limitations. His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is not a Pope of course, but many Orthodox faithful are going to listen to what he has to say? No?

I said that the word “allowed” is deliberately misleading,

Can you kindly explain the difference between the following two expressions:
the Church allows artificial birth control within certain limitations
and
the Church has no dogmatic objection to artificial birth control within certain limitations.
I don’t see much of a difference, but i am not an expert in the use of the English language.
I know already that you do not agree with these two statements, but do you see a difference between their meaning?