Should canon law allow Orthodox to commune in Catholic Churches?

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m aware of Canon 844. This Canon is a tremendous error and an invitation to sacrilege.

If you reject any article of the Catholic faith, you cannot receive Communion. Period. This is a Divine law which does not change.

Are we allowed to reject the Canon law of the Catholic Church? This isn’t a smart-alec question, I just always assumed good catholics had to accept canon law.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

First in regards to the old Code of Canon Law.

Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

Are we allowed to reject the Canon law of the Catholic Church? This isn’t a smart-alec question, I just always assumed good catholics had to accept canon law.

Now this question.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who were baptised in the catholic Church or received into it, and who have a sufficient use of reason and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, who have completed their seventh year of age.

Can. 12 §1 Universal laws are binding everywhere on all those for whom they were enacted.

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

 

[Harmony1988]

I’m aware of Canon 844. This Canon is a tremendous error and an invitation to sacrilege.

If you reject any article of the Catholic faith, you cannot receive Communion. Period. This is a Divine law which does not change.

Nonsense. The Orthodox reject explicitly defined articles of Catholic dogma. To deny this is absurd.

The last time I checked it wasn’t you that was in authority to define Canon Law or deem what is sacrilege or not. Leave that up to the religious orders. Until then, don’t go around spreading your OPINION which contradicts Canon Law.

First you tell us it is sacrilege and against Catholicism and then you tell us the Catholic Canon Law in that part is in error.

 

[Harmony1988]

It’s hilarious reading your posts Dauphin, you contradict your posts one after the other, or two after the other (for those keeping track) and affirm papal supremacy and then dismiss it.

Rather indecisive aren’t we?

1. Orthodox Churches are valid churches - Pope Benedict XVI has affirmed this
2. They believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
3. Their priests and ordination of bishops are valid as affirmed by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XVI (that I know of) and I’m sure the other popes agree.

There is nothing more to discuss here.

 

[Peter_J]

Are we allowed to reject the Canon law of the Catholic Church? This isn’t a smart-alec question, I just always assumed good catholics had to accept canon law.

Harmony1988, Byzcath, Neil_Anthony, porthos11, and Dauphin,

In case you’re interested I pm’ed you a link, re: Canon Law.

 

[Peter_J]

Harmony1988, Byzcath, Neil_Anthony, porthos11, and Dauphin,

In case you’re interested I pm’ed you a link, re: Canon Law.

On second thought, I think I may have bent the forum rules a little there. Sorry everyone.

 

[GreenLantern]

If you reject any article of the Catholic faith, you cannot receive Communion. Period. This is a Divine law which does not change.

Wait, so it’s ok for the Orthodox bishop to partake of Eucharis tin his own church, a sacremant which would be valid but illicit.

But for some reason it’s bad for him to partake of the Eucharist in a Catholic church in which the sacrament is both valid and licit?

 

[Dauphin]

Wait, so it’s ok for the Orthodox bishop to partake of Eucharis tin his own church, a sacremant which would be valid but illicit.

But for some reason it’s bad for him to partake of the Eucharist in a Catholic church in which the sacrament is both valid and licit?

I was under the impression that the moderator had banned this discussion, but since I’m being attacked, I think it’s fair that I be allowed to respond.

Simply because sacrilege occurs at other churches, this just not justify its occurrence at a Catholic Church. There’s simply no argument here.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Wait, so it’s ok for the Orthodox bishop to partake of Eucharis tin his own church, a sacremant which would be valid but illicit.

But for some reason it’s bad for him to partake of the Eucharist in a Catholic church in which the sacrament is both valid and licit?

I have a question. How long has the canon been in effect that states Orthodox sacraments are valid but illicit? I ask this because it seems to me traditionalist Catholics seem to be less inclined to allow Orthodox to commune than others.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Dauphin]

First in regards to the old Code of Canon Law.

Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

Now this question.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who were baptised in the catholic Church or received into it, and who have a sufficient use of reason and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, who have completed their seventh year of age.

Can. 12 §1 Universal laws are binding everywhere on all those for whom they were enacted.

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

Yes. We are bound to obey Canon law.

If Canon Law forbade me from criticizing Canon Law, then I would be in violation.

Since Canon Law does not prohibit criticism, I am not in violation of it.

Seeing the lack of clear thinking and argumentation on this thread is truly frustrating. It seems that some modern Catholics are incapable of conceiving of an obedient Catholic who doesn’t check his intellect and his reason at the door. There is nothing in Canon Law which prevents me from criticizing it. It is perfectly permissible for a Catholic to criticize that which is clearly imprudent.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s hilarious reading your posts Dauphin, you contradict your posts one after the other, or two after the other (for those keeping track) and affirm papal supremacy and then dismiss it.

Rather indecisive aren’t we?

I urge you to read the comments I have made carefully, so you can understand how you have misinterpreted them.

Criticism of Canon law is not a denial of Papal Supremacy. I have never said that the 1983 Code of Canon Law is not the law of the Church, officially promulgated by a Pope. It clearly is.

I simply have an issue with one of the canons contained in this code. There is nothing disobedient about this. If you can present some law of the Church which requires me to say that every law of the Church is “good”, please do.

1. Orthodox Churches are valid churches - Pope Benedict XVI has affirmed this

Indeed they are, and I believe this firmly. However, this has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. The fact that the Orthodox have maintained apostolic succession does not give them licence to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. What you are proposing is just another form of cafeteria Catholicism, whereby we are free to reject certain doctrines of Catholic Church, while still receiving the Eucharist.

1. They believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Indeed they do.

Again, this fact has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. Simply because there is no heresy on this point does not disprove the reality that the Orthodox do not hold the Catholic faith.

1. Their priests and ordination of bishops are valid as affirmed by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XVI (that I know of) and I’m sure the other popes agree.

Yes. This is another stunningly irrelevant fact. We are discussing whether people who reject the Catholic faith are free to receive the Eucharist.

I have acknowledged that the Orthodox have the technical right to do this under Canon law. But, as G.K. Chesterton said:

“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”

We are discussing whether it is right for a non-Catholic to receive the Eucharist. Please stick to the facts which are relevant to this question.

 

[Dauphin]

Are we allowed to reject the Canon law of the Catholic Church? This isn’t a smart-alec question, I just always assumed good catholics had to accept canon law.

We have to obey Canon Law.

If Canon Law tells you to do something or prohibits you from doing it, you must obey.

Canon Law does not forbid me from criticizing it, nor does it require me to affirm that everything contained within it is “good”. Therefore, I am not in violation.

There’s a tremendous problem among conservative Catholics of an over-simplified notion of obedience. To conservative Catholics, obedience means accepting all the actions of the Pope, and all the official acts of the Church as “good”, even if they clearly harm souls or contradict Sacred Tradition. This is a corrupt form of obedience, which must be rejected.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Traditionalist Catholics accept that the Eucharist confected by Orthodox priests is valid.

We do not believe, however, that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether they should be permitted to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. Assent to an identical apostolic faith is the measure of communion, not the validity of a Sacrament.

Are there two bodies of Christ? Is there a difference between a host consecrated in an Orthodox Church and a Catholic church? Are we members of two different bodies of Christ?

 

[catherineajt]

Are there two bodies of Christ? Is there a difference between a host consecrated in an Orthodox Church and a Catholic church? Are we members of two different bodies of Christ?

I understand what Dauphin is saying. Receiving Communion in a church, from both the Catholic and Orthodox perspective, is an outward sign of being a member of that church.

From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox ARE part of the Church, so they are welcome to receive Communion in a Catholic church. From the Orthodox perspective, however, they do not see themselves as part of the Roman Catholic Church (from an earthly point of view) and so do not permit their parishioners to receive at a Catholic church, since to do so would imply that the churches are truly one and the same. They would also frown on a Catholic attempting to receive Communion at an Orthodox church.

I hope that makes sense. This is how it was explained to me when I was Orthodox.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes. We are bound to obey Canon law.

If Canon Law forbade me from criticizing Canon Law, then I would be in violation.

Since Canon Law does not prohibit criticism, I am not in violation of it.

We have to obey Canon Law.

If Canon Law tells you to do something or prohibits you from doing it, you must obey.

Canon Law does not forbid me from criticizing it, nor does it require me to affirm that everything contained within it is “good”. Therefore, I am not in violation.

You are correct. You are not bound to not criticize Canon Law, you are not bound to agree with it. You are bound to follow it.

But you are not just criticizing Canon Law here.

You said;

I’m aware of Canon 844. This Canon is a tremendous error and an invitation to sacrilege.

The Church can not Teach error. To say this is to raise yourself up to authority that you do not have. You do more than criticize or disagree with it, you are judging it and the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

I have a question. How long has the canon been in effect that states Orthodox sacraments are valid but illicit? I ask this because it seems to me traditionalist Catholics seem to be less inclined to allow Orthodox to commune than others.

Yours in Christ
Joe

You shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet. Just because GreenLantern called Orthodox sacraments “illicit” doesn’t make it so. (It would be illicit for a Catholic to receive Orthodox eucharist, unless there were special circumstances.)

 

[Dauphin]

The Church can not Teach error. To say this is to raise yourself up to authority that you do not have. You do more than criticize or disagree with it, you are judging it and the Church.

This is a misunderstanding. This canon is not a teaching. It’s a law. There is absolutely nothing in the Catholic faith which forbids me from calling it an error.

 

[Dauphin]

Are there two bodies of Christ? Is there a difference between a host consecrated in an Orthodox Church and a Catholic church? Are we members of two different bodies of Christ?

Protestants are also members of the Body of Christ through baptism. This does not mean, however, that they should be allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church.

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.

 

[Dragoro]

If he doesn’t reject the Catholic faith, he should join the Catholic Church. Since he hasn’t, it is completely imprudent to grant him Holy Communion.

I’m sorry, when did you become the Pope?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

This is a misunderstanding. This canon is not a teaching. It’s a law. There is absolutely nothing in the Catholic faith which forbids me from calling it an error.

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