Should canon law allow Orthodox to commune in Catholic Churches?

[Peter_J]

In case anyone’s looking for additional resources, I just came across this:

east2west.org/ecumenism.htm#intercommunion

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Not quite accurate… You may say that, in your opinion, the canon is misguided. To call it an “error,” however, is to judge the Church! The Church is not protected from establishing disciplines that are flawed, but if you persist in calling the canon erroneous you could be considered to be calling for disobedience to the Church and that is against the unity of the Church. In fact, the First Vatican Council requires you to accept, as valid, the canons of the Church even if you disagree with them. You may still believe them to be misguided (or outright erroneous) but you may not persist in public denigration of the canons.

Clearly you are of a different mind than the legislator (the pope) on this issue. You’ve made your position clear. I submit that what you have said is sufficient.

Deacon Ed

Thank you, Deacon Ed. Very well said.

Michael

 

[blackrobe]

If I did this, I would have to reject the 1917 Code of Canon law

Excellent idea since the 1917 code is abrogated by the 1983 code. While you may disagree, the direction of the Church is clear.

JSA+

 

[NicPais83]

Only those in communion with the Catholic Church, that is, only those who accept every article of the Catholic faith and submit to the authority of the Church, should receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church.

I don’t know how appropriate it is, in the case of Orthodoxy, to say that they exactly reject any article of the Catholic Faith, other than really the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox strictly hold to Ecumenical Councils, which are valid, before the Great Schism, which is valid Catholic Teaching. Some of what they reject are theological developments since that time period, not saying that they are a new theology, but a newer understanding of the same Church teaching. Protestantism, on the other hand, flat out rejects Catholic Teaching, such as transubstantiation, while the Orthodox accept it. Likewise, while they do not necessarily hold the Immaculate Conception, I wouldn’t say it is because of a rejection of theology as much as a differing point of view.

 

[Padua_Minded]

The Orthodox are indeed heretics because they reject infallible and binding dogmas on papal infallibility and the immaculate conception. Canon law defines heresy as “the obstinate denial or doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith”. The commonly purported myth that Byzantines have somehow acquired a dispensation to refuse assent to “western” infallible dogmas is ridiculous.

The eastern Churches have always been notorious for their propensity to fall into all sorts of dreadful heresies and schisms.

The Church views the Orthodox as Catholics.

Do you have any proof for this claim? Any documents from the magisterium?

 

[bilop]

The Orthodox are indeed heretics because they reject infallible and binding dogmas on papal infallibility and the immaculate conception. Canon law defines heresy as “the obstinate denial or doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith”. The commonly purported myth that Byzantines have somehow acquired a dispensation to refuse assent to “western” infallible dogmas is ridiculous.

The eastern Churches have always been notorious for their propensity to fall into all sorts of dreadful heresies and schisms.

Do you have any proof for this claim? Any documents from the magisterium?

The fact that the Church allows the Orthodox to receive communion, at any time, shows they are considered to be Catholics. They are Catholics in a form of separation, just like the SSPX.

They are not heretics in any way. They have added no “new doctrine” nor have denied any Catholic doctrine, so can not be called heretics. They have differences with the Church on the implications of certain doctrines (Papal Primacy, Immaculate Conception, Infallibility) but do not dismiss the doctrines themselves.

If they were in communion in 1000, they must not reject any Catholic doctrine, b/c doctrine can’t change, our understanding can only evolve.

God Bless

 

[Dauphin]

Excellent idea since the 1917 code is abrogated by the 1983 code. While you may disagree, the direction of the Church is clear.

JSA+

The 1917 Code of Canon Law is in conformity with Divine Law. The 1983 Code is not.

It should be changed to reflect the reality that non-Catholics are not free to receive Holy Communion.

 

[Dauphin]

They are not heretics in any way. They have added no “new doctrine” nor have denied any Catholic doctrine, so can not be called heretics. They have differences with the Church on the implications of certain doctrines (Papal Primacy, Immaculate Conception, Infallibility) but do not dismiss the doctrines themselves.

This is 100% wrong. The Orthodox reject those Catholic doctrines. This is a matter of factual accuracy.

 

[Dauphin]

Likewise, while they do not necessarily hold the Immaculate Conception, I wouldn’t say it is because of a rejection of theology as much as a differing point of view.

Here’s the definition of the Immaculate Conception:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”

Every person is bound to believe it. Absolutely no exception is offered. If a person does not hold the Immaculate Conception to be true, they are a heretic. Period.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.