Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is said to have valid Holy Orders, doesn't that indirectly mean that they have a valid Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xixxvmcm85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Atreyu said:
Madaglan, do you think that the fourth through seventh Ecumenical Councils should be binding on the Oriental Orthodox should they desire full Communion with the Eastern Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Good question. The Councils subsequent to Chalcedon certainly build on the two natures theology espoused in 451. Many Eastern Orthodox imagine a reunion of the EO and the OO without having to impose these Councils. The idea is if the OO would only be willing not to condemn these Councils, it would be all right. I personally, along with many Eastern Orthodox, would disagree. The OO would need to accept the legitimacy of these Councils in order to come back to communion with the EO.

The issue affects the EO and the OO; it also affects the Latin Church, since there are several non-Chalcedonian Churches in communion with Rome.
 
Originally Posted by peary:
Click to expand...
I understand the concept of schism and its implications; however, if the sacrament is valid, it is valid - one receives the graces of God and Christ through them. If the Eucharist in the Western Church authentically contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord, and the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox churches authentically contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord, THEN BOTH ARE VALID AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PROHIBITION ON ANY SIDE TO RECEIVE. “You can receive my Christ but I can’t receive your Christ” is one of the most foolish of logistics I’ve ever encountered.
Click to expand...
Yes, this makes sense, and you would be right, if both sides held to to the same viewpoint. The Latin Church officially holds the Orthodox sacraments to be valid, but the Orthodox Churches do not all stand to this point. Many Orthodox believe Latin Catholic sacraments to be without grace; therefore, the Latin Church does not have the Body and Blood of Christ, since the Latin Church is separated from the Church. This is not the view of all Orthodox, but of a great many. Inter-communion is difficult when there is not agreement on the Eucharist being offered on the other side.
 
inJESUS said:
Am surrounded by Maronite-Catholic churches, Roman Catholic churches and Orthodox churches. I go to all 🤷
Click to expand...
The Roman Catholic and Maronite Catholic Churches are Licit for you to attend, however the Orthodox Churches are Illicit for you to attend.
 
Yes, they have a valid Eucharist, but we are not in communion with the Orthodox churches.

Furthermore, just because a Eucharist is valid doesn’t mean that it is licit for us to partake in it. If I commit a mortal sin, I cannot receive communion until I go to confession. It would be illicit for me to do so, even if the Eucharist is valid.
 
Madaglan said:
Yes, this makes sense, and you would be right, if both sides held to to the same viewpoint. The Latin Church officially holds the Orthodox sacraments to be valid, but the Orthodox Churches do not all stand to this point. Many Orthodox believe Latin Catholic sacraments to be without grace; therefore, the Latin Church does not have the Body and Blood of Christ, since the Latin Church is separated from the Church. This is not the view of all Orthodox, but of a great many. Inter-communion is difficult when there is not agreement on the Eucharist being offered on the other side.
Click to expand...
Very good point. As an aside, are there specific Orthodox churches that believe this, or is it people within the various churches who have different beliefs about the Catholic Eucharist?
 
Atreyu said:
To stray off-topic though, how does it make you feel, Luke, that the only other examples of Apostolic Christians - being the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches - have exactly the same doctrine as the Catholics? Other than the Supremacy of the Pope I mean, and a few cosmetic differences. The Orthodox would reject Protestant doctrines such as:
  • the rejection of the priesthood
  • the rejection of the Real Presence
  • the rejection of the authority of the Church
  • the rejection of Tradition
  • sola fide
  • sola scriptura
as being mere innovations which cannot be found in the historical Church and were not taught by the apostles. You would think that if Protestantism had any claims to authenticity, that these things would be found somewhere among historical Christians at some place or other in some time or other.
Click to expand...
To stray more… not all Protestants reject all of those doctrines. My communion does not reject the Real Presence, Tradition, nor does it embrace sola fide or sola scriptura.
 
holdencaulfield said:
The Roman Catholic and Maronite Catholic Churches are Licit for you to attend, however the Orthodox Churches are Illicit for you to attend.
Click to expand...
Now I thought a Catholic CAN attend an Orthodox Liturgy AS LONG AS s/he makes it a point to still fulfill their obligation at their own church AND they don’t partake of the Orthodox church’s eucharist?

Essentially can’t a Catholic attend an EO church (or any church for that matter) just as a “spectator”?
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Now I thought a Catholic CAN attend an Orthodox Liturgy AS LONG AS s/he makes it a point to still fulfill their obligation at their own church AND they don’t partake of the Orthodox church’s eucharist?

Essentially can’t a Catholic attend an EO church (or any church for that matter) just as a “spectator”?
Click to expand...
Yes, they can they just cannot receive the Eucharist.
 
Madaglan said:
The Latins had no right to add to the Creed. It was the universal Creed confirmed at Nicaea and then at Constantinople, and guarded from any change.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to derail the thread any further. However, I encourage you to read through the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. This is where the “guarded from any change” thing you speak of happens, as far as I can determine. Look at exactly what it is that they’re supposedly guarding from change.
 
The Eastern Orthodox have a valid Eucharist and valid Sacraments in general, but there are serious disagreements between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics on several points of theological teaching and understanding.
 
bobzills said:
The Eastern Orthodox have a valid Eucharist and valid Sacraments in general, but there are serious disagreements between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics on several points of theological teaching and understanding.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. I really don’t even know why this thread exists.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Yes, of course. I really don’t even know why this thread exists.
Click to expand...
This thread exists because I was hoping a Catholic or Orthodox member here could explain how another church can have valid sacraments, however not valid enough to allow their parishoners to partake in them. It just seemed a little contradictory at first. Though the answer to this question may seem perfectly obvious to you, it didn’t necessarily seem so obvious to this catechumen.

For all those who have shown patience in my asking questions, I thank you.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
This thread exists because I was hoping a Catholic or Orthodox member here could explain how another church can have valid sacraments, however not valid enough to allow their parishoners to partake in them. It just seemed a little contradictory at first. Though the answer to this question may seem perfectly obvious to you, it didn’t necessarily seem so obvious to this catechumen.

For all those who have shown patience in my asking questions, I thank you.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry if I offended. Do you have your answer now? Congratulations on your journey into the Catholic Faith.
 
valient_Lucy said:
Yes, they have a valid Eucharist, but we are not in communion with the Orthodox churches.

Furthermore, just because a Eucharist is valid doesn’t mean that it is licit for us to partake in it. If I commit a mortal sin, I cannot receive communion until I go to confession. It would be illicit for me to do so, even if the Eucharist is valid.
Click to expand...
If I am ever offered Communion in an Orthodox church, you may be sure that I will accept it openly. I reject any sense of ‘illicitness’ . This whole matter of “My Jesus is licit and yours isn’t” has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard. Christ is present in the Eucharist. Period. This goes beyond anything the Church may decide when it comes to a valid sacrament…in my opinion.
 
peary said:
If I am ever offered Communion in an Orthodox church, you may be sure that I will accept it openly. I reject any sense of ‘illicitness’ . This whole matter of “My Jesus is licit and yours isn’t” has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard. Christ is present in the Eucharist. Period. This goes beyond anything the Church may decide when it comes to a valid sacrament…in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Not in either of the Churches opinion however. To practice open Communion would destroy the Oneness of the Church.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Not in either of the Churches opinion however. To practice open Communion would destroy the Oneness of the Church.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The way I see it, to practice open Communion between the Catholic and Orthodox would begin the healing process. The Eucharist is the key to unity. When both ‘lungs’ of the Church recognize that fact, the Holy Spirit will “breathe more deeply.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top