Should canon law allow Orthodox to commune in Catholic Churches?

[Dauphin]

This is an outrage. Someone who rejects the Catholic Church and her Divine teaching approaches the altar and receives Holy Communion – and it’s permitted by Canon Law.

What a disgrace. What a sacrilege.

**Moderator Note: **
While it is acceptable to question policies and practices of any church, it is also important to stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in. The focus of the Eastern Catholicism forum is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage.

The comment on the prudence of Roman Catholic canon law allowing Orthodox to receive generated enough off-topic posts to create this new thread from them in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. Please limit this conversation to the prudence of the current canon laws concerning intercommunion. See here to discuss the Orthodox bishop’s reception of communion in an Eastern Catholic church.

 

[CatholicNerd]

An Orthodox metropolitan archbishop approaches the chalice and is received as an equal to the bishops in communion with the Pope of Rome. This is an incredible gesture on the part of Rome: It sends the message that our belief in the validity of their orders is not mere lip-service.

Why exactly the Metropolitan decided to do this is another matter. Maybe his reception of the Eucharist at a liturgy offered in communion with the Pope of Rome signifies that he, too, is now in communion with us? What a wonderful miracle that would be! Why assume that this is a sacrilege?

 

[Dauphin]

An Orthodox metropolitan archbishop approaches the chalice and is received as an equal to the bishops in communion with the Pope of Rome. This is an incredible gesture on the part of Rome: It sends the message that our belief in the validity of their orders is not mere lip-service.

Why exactly the Metropolitan decided to do this is another matter. Maybe his reception of the Eucharist at a liturgy offered in communion with the Pope of Rome signifies that he, too, is now in communion with us? What a wonderful miracle that would be! Why assume that this is a sacrilege?

It’s sacrilege because this Bishop publicly rejects the Catholic faith.

He rejects the filioque, the immaculate conception and Papal supremacy. These are dogmatic articles of the Catholic faith. It is sinful to reject them.

Anyone who rejects any article of the Catholic faith may not receive Communion. Period. If they do, they have committed a sacrilegious act.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Dauphin,

You may want to check the settings in your profile. Your posts are appearing (well, on my screen anyways) with extremely large letters.

Also, byzcath (David) is quite correct. In canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law you’ll find the following:

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.

So the only real issue here is on the Orthodox side.

Hope that helps,
Peter.

 

[Dauphin]

I think that if you study Eastern Orthodoxy, and Eastern tradition in general, you’ll find that the situation is not as clear cut as you’re painting it. The Metropolitan doesn’t necessarily reject anything of the Catholic Faith (thought he might, I don’t know; my point is that merely being Orthodox is not an immediate proof that he does), though he does operate outside the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church.

Peace and God bless!

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.

 

[bilop]

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.

Incorrect. Read your missalette at Church. Orthodox (any Orthodox) are allowed to receive communion as long as they approach on their own free will.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are not heretical in any fashion; they share all the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they just express it differently and disagree on the implications of the primacy of Rome.

It is similar to the SSPX, there is a schismatic situation, but it is no bar to intercommunion.

God bless

 

[Dauphin]

Incorrect. Read your missalette at Church. Orthodox (any Orthodox) are allowed to receive communion as long as they approach on their own free will.

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.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are not heretical in any fashion; they share all the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they just express it differently and disagree on the implications of the primacy of Rome.

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

 

[Ghosty]

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.

You don’t think it’s imprudent of you to toss out the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, the Catechism, and lived tradition, all of which endorse this kind of sharing? If you’re so intent on obedience to the Pope as a certain marker of Catholicity, perhaps you should be obedient yourself and accept that the Pope has ruled, in Canon Law, that sharing the Sacraments with the Orthodox is totally acceptable.

It’s not as simple as just “joining the Catholic Church”. He’s a Bishop who is responsible to his flock, as commended to him by God in the Sacrament of Ordination he received. Assuming that he DOES agree with the Catholic Church on a general level, he is still obligated as a Romanian Orthodox Bishop to help guide his own Church towards full Communion, and to not abandon the souls entrusted to him to those who do not share his vision.

That, of course, is assuming that he simply accepts everything the Catholic Church does and has no reservations on a personal level, and that’s a big assumption. A more likely scenario is that he agrees with the Catholic Faith, which is the same as the Orthodox Faith, but has reservations about the way certain things are handled in the Catholic Church (such as the exercise of Papal Primacy, if not the teaching itself) and wants to ensure that all difficulties are settled before his Church is absorbed and destroyed in a Reunion (which has happened to Eastern Churches in the past). Such reservations would not preclude receiving the Sacraments in a Catholic Church, at least not according to Catholic standards issued by the Pope himself, so again we don’t have any sacrilege occuring on the Catholic side (many Orthodox are upset by his actions, however).

From the Latin Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II:

§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.

This identical Canon can be foun in part 3 of Canon 671 of the Eastern Code of Canons (which would be the Canon Law applicable in this case, not the Latin Code).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

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.

Ironically, you reject Papal supremacy, apparently.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Dauphin]

Ironically, you reject Papal supremacy, apparently.

Peace and God bless!

No. I reject this scandalous discipline,

 

[Ghosty]

No. I reject this scandalous discipline,

Taught and enforced by the Bishop of Rome, who is the final arbiter of Church discipline.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bilop]

This is just mushy thinking. Either the Orthodox hold the Catholic faith or they do not. There is no mystical “in between”.

If they can assent to the immaculate conception, the filioque, and Papal supremacy, then they should join the Catholic Church. If they cannot assent to these doctrines, then they should not be receiving Holy Communion. Period.

As Ghosty had pointed out, ironically, YOU are rejecting Papal Supremacy.

Rome has spoken, they are free to receive in Catholic Churches.

The Church views the Orthodox as Catholics. Seperated, but not heretical. Just like the SSPX.

Don’t you want reunion with the Orthodox?

God Bless

 

[Dauphin]

You don’t think it’s imprudent of you to toss out the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, the Catechism, and lived tradition, all of which endorse this kind of sharing?

The tradition of the Church does **not **endorse this form of sacrilege. Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, it was explicitly rejected:

It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church. - Canon 731 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law

If you’re so intent on obedience to the Pope as a certain marker of Catholicity, perhaps you should be obedient yourself and accept that the Pope has ruled, in Canon Law, that sharing the Sacraments with the Orthodox is totally acceptable.

If I did this, I would have to reject the 1917 Code of Canon law and the clear direction of the Catholic Church.

It’s not as simple as just “joining the Catholic Church”. He’s a Bishop who is responsible to his flock, as commended to him by God in the Sacrament of Ordination he received. Assuming that he DOES agree with the Catholic Church on a general level, he is still obligated as a Romanian Orthodox Bishop to help guide his own Church towards full Communion, and to not abandon the souls entrusted to him to those who do not share his vision.

He should refrain from receiving Holy Communion until this has been done, since he is not in communion.

That, of course, is assuming that he simply accepts everything the Catholic Church does and has no reservations on a personal level, and that’s a big assumption. A more likely scenario is that he agrees with the Catholic Faith, which is the same as the Orthodox Faith, but has reservations about the way certain things are handled in the Catholic Church (such as the exercise of Papal Primacy, if not the teaching itself) and wants to ensure that all difficulties are settled before his Church is absorbed and destroyed in a Reunion (which has happened to Eastern Churches in the past). Such reservations would not preclude receiving the Sacraments in a Catholic Church, at least not according to Catholic standards issued by the Pope himself, so again we don’t have any sacrilege occuring on the Catholic side (many Orthodox are upset by his actions, however).

If holds the Catholic faith, he should convert. Only then should He receive Communion.

 

[Dauphin]

As Ghosty had pointed out, ironically, YOU are rejecting Papal Supremacy.

I do not reject Papal Supremacy. This Canon is the law of the Church, it’s just not a good law.

I’m defending the Catholic faith and decrying an indefensible sacrilege.

 

[Dauphin]

Taught and enforced by the Bishop of Rome, who is the final arbiter of Church discipline.

Peace and God bless!

I don’t reject the fact that the Canon is the law of the Church, or deny that the Pope has the authority to promulgate it. If I did, I would be rejecting Papal Supremacy.

What I reject is the sacrilege which it permits to occur. Saying that something is a bad law is hardly a rejection of the authority of the lawmaker. The fact that you’ve made this baseless accusation is the surest sign that you’ve lost the argument.

You don’t seem to have a rebuttal. Should people who reject the Catholic faith receive Holy Communion or not? A straightforward answer would be nice.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t reject the fact that the Canon is the law of the Church, or deny that the Pope has the authority to promulgate it. If I did, I would be rejecting Papal Supremacy.

What I reject is the sacrilege which it permits to occur. Saying that something is a bad law is hardly a rejection of the authority of the lawmaker.

In this case you believe that the “lawmaker” is the measure and rule of the Faith. To oppose the Pope on the smallest level is to be against the Catholic Church, and therefore to be against the True Faith. Am I right?

If someone opposes the right of the Pope to direct the Church, stands against the abuses of the Papacy in directing the affairs of the Church, and against abuses by the Pope towards authentic Tradition, are they Orthodox heretics, or “more Catholic than the Pope” Latins who pick and choose the rules they’ll obey?

From my position I can’t tell the difference, and I’d like to know what it is exactly.

At worst this Bishop takes the same position you do, namely that the Catholic Faith is correct, but that there are errors in its application and he wants to work carefully towards any acceptance of the moves the Pope has made. Sound familiar?

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

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.

Hahaha, the irony of this is hilarious. You claim to profess papal supremacy but then you reject the canons which are approved by the pope. It seems that western Catholics reject papal supremacy just as much as the east does. The only difference is that in the west they claim to support it. You have the SSPX and other groups who break communion with Rome. You have regular Catholics who reject various canons like the one in question.

 

[jimmy]

The tradition of the Church does **not **endorse this form of sacrilege. Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, it was explicitly rejected:

It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church. - Canon 731 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law

If I did this, I would have to reject the 1917 Code of Canon law and the clear direction of the Catholic Church.

He should refrain from receiving Holy Communion until this has been done, since he is not in communion.

If holds the Catholic faith, he should convert. Only then should He receive Communion.

The 1917 code is absolutely 100% meaningless. It is not in effect. The Code of 1983 is what is binding and in effect. The fact is that the pope, the supreme pontiff as you will admit has determined that it needed rewritten. You either accept his rewriting it or you reject his authority. It is that clear.

And to address your later posts; if the pope writes sacriligeous canons which is basically what you are saying, then his authority is not from heaven. The whole point of the canon is to allow non-Catholic eastern Christians to recieve communion. If that is sacriligious then so is the canon itself. In efffect what you are saying is that Pope John Paul II supported sacreligiousness.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:
While it is acceptable to question policies and practices of any church, it is also important to stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in. The focus of this forum is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage. Please take any further discussion on the prudence of canon law allowing Orthodox to commune to another thread.

Posts outside the stated purpose of the forum will be deleted.

 

[josephdaniel29]

For some of us, that is the $64K question. What is boldy asserted to be the correct teaching often times appears to be speculation, private opinion or the tradition of living memory.

You both know good and well that the deposit of faith, the Holy Tradition of the Church doesn’t consist entirely of written canons, it the living experience of the Church in time. That being said the 46th article of the Apostolic Canons says this.

1. We command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives the baptism, or the sacrifice of heretics, be deprived: “For what agreement is there between Christ and Belial? or what part hath a believer with an infidel?”

A member of the clergy of layman who communes with heretics is to be either deposed or excommunicated. Shared communion isn’t an interim step to reconciliation between the two Churches, it is the culmination of that reconciliation. Receiving the Eucharist in either an Orthodox church or a Catholic church means that person professes everything that particular Church teaches. The bottom line is if you don’t believe **everything **the Catholic Church teaches you must not receive in a Catholic church and vice versa, to do otherwise is sacrilege.

Yours in Christ
Joe