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

[bobzills]

I don’t think it’s a matter of refusal but more of the fact that the western Church has “moved on” whereas the Orthodox churches have, for the most part, remained in the same mode and have not developed theologically for over a thousand years. The main theological difference seems to be the role of the papacy in the unity of the Church. They seemed to have resolved the filioque problem already. I also think there is still much prejudice on the side of the Orthodox churches (the Greek and Russian being the most prejudicial) with regard to everything ‘Latin’. Those are the two barriers I see barring further unity.

Unfortunately, what a westerner might see as prejudice on the part of an Eastern Orthodox, might be considered orthodoxy in the East. There are a large number of differences that the Eastern Orthodox see as preventing reunion. It is not just one or two issues.

 

[peary]

The problem here is if you look at the Anglican Church were a few of their priests have been ordained validly by the Old Catholic Church or by the Eastern Orthodox. The Anglican Church is a mish mash of heretical concepts and practices and even the highest Anglican is likely to reject the Churches teaching on our Lady (but will accept that she intercedes for us), won’t accept the Pope and doesn’t believe in the Sacrament of confession. Although the Sacraments might be valid would you really accept the Eucharist from a Church that teaches wrong faith and heresy?

If we look to the model of the early Church we see that the Church has schismed like this before (Donatist heresy), with two sides both with valid sacraments. However neither would communicate in another’s Church on the grounds that they would be agreeing to what was taught in that Church. To receive the Lord in an Orthodox Church when there is a Catholic Church around is to say that you agree with their denial of Purgatory, the Papacy and our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.

We have valid sacraments in common but to partake of another Churches sacraments, valid or not, is to say that as a Catholic you accept their teachings. As Catholics we hold to the Sacraments above all but we also claim to have the full truth concerning Christ whereas other Churches are laking, we cannot compromise that truth.

Yes, it can be confusing, but I am specifically thinking about the Orthodox churches which flourished when the Latin part of the Church did. These are the “two lungs” of the Christ’s Church - east and west. I don’t think it helps bringing the anglican denomination in the discussion, or the OCC, for that matter, although I understand your point.

 

[drforjc]

Unfortunately, what a westerner might see as prejudice on the part of an Eastern Orthodox, might be considered orthodoxy in the East. There are a large number of differences that the Eastern Orthodox see as preventing reunion. It is not just one or two issues.

The Catholic Church would likely see it in exactly the opposite perspective.
Your own words “refusing to budge” obviously apply equally to the Orthodox if they see them as preventing reunion.

 

[porthos11]

I understand the logic, but, to me, it is a waste of time. As the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments, then they should be licit for any Catholic to partake in them, and vice versa. I do not consider any valid sacrament to be ‘illicit’. If it’s valid, it’s ‘licit’.

Valid means the sacrament takes place.

Licit means it takes place legally.

We are indeed permitted to receive Communion at Orthodox churches, but we are also required (by the Catholic Church) to respect the disciplines of the Orthodox, which currently state that Catholics are NOT permitted to receive communion at an Orthodox church.

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic Church would likely see it in exactly the opposite perspective.
Your own words “refusing to budge” obviously apply equally to the Orthodox if they see them as preventing reunion.

They maintain that they have kept the faith as it was in 1000 AD, but the the RCC has changed its teaching since then. I understand that they would like to see the RCC change its teaching on a few issues and after that a reunion would be possible.

 

[peary]

Valid means the sacrament takes place.

Licit means it takes place legally.

We are indeed permitted to receive Communion at Orthodox churches, but we are also required (by the Catholic Church) to respect the disciplines of the Orthodox, which currently state that Catholics are NOT permitted to receive communion at an Orthodox church.

Well, I was invited, and I never turn down an invitation to eat at the Lord’s table.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I understand the logic, but, to me, it is a waste of time. As the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments, then they should be licit for any Catholic to partake in them, and vice versa. I do not consider any valid sacrament to be ‘illicit’. If it’s valid, it’s ‘licit’.

Such a response shows a lack of depth to your theological thinking. By that logic, any priest, bishop who breaks away from Rome, though validly ordained, could have anyone follow him so long as the sacraments are valid. This, even though their own theology may be flawed and they could lead the people to error. I strongly suggest you re-think your position.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[peary]

Such a response shows a lack of depth to your theological thinking. By that logic, any priest, bishop who breaks away from Rome, though validly ordained, could have anyone follow him so long as the sacraments are valid. This, even though their own theology may be flawed and they could lead the people to error. I strongly suggest you re-think your position.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

**I do not think that my response shows any lack or depth of theological thinking. What I am saying (and which many in here are denying) is that the Eucharist - which is VALID AND LICIT in both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches with a VALID AND LICIT PRIESTHOOD should use this as a moment of reconciliation and union. I am not discussing heresy. I do not think that the Orthodox are “theologically flawed” whatsoever. Perhaps the theology is not as developed as that of the Catholic Church but not ‘flawed’. There is a difference. It is not necessary to rethink my position. My position is: since the Eucharist and Priesthood in both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are licit and valid, then this is the starting point for reconciliation and reunion. **

 

[bobzills]

**I do not think that my response shows any lack or depth of theological thinking. What I am saying (and which many in here are denying) is that the Eucharist - which is VALID AND LICIT in both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches with a VALID AND LICIT PRIESTHOOD should use this as a moment of reconciliation and union. I am not discussing heresy. I do not think that the Orthodox are “theologically flawed” whatsoever. Perhaps the theology is not as developed as that of the Catholic Church but not ‘flawed’. There is a difference. It is not necessary to rethink my position. My position is: since the Eucharist and Priesthood in both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are licit and valid, then this is the starting point for reconciliation and reunion. **

Unfortunately, although Catholics and other Westerners may think that the theological differences between the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church are small, I don’t believe that this is the opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Until the RCC changes its teaching on several different points, I don;t think that the Eastern Orthodox are going to go for a reunion.

 

[peary]

Unfortunately, although Catholics and other Westerners may think that the theological differences between the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church are small, I don’t believe that this is the opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Until the RCC changes its teaching on several different points, I don;t think that the Eastern Orthodox are going to go for a reunion.

**It will happen regardless because the Holy Spirit will see to it that it happens, and once He begins, there is no stopping Him **

 

[bobzills]

**It will happen regardless because the Holy Spirit will see to it that it happens, and once He begins, there is no stopping Him **

You could be right, but my impression is that the Eastern Orthodox are not buying into a reunion unless the RCC changes its teachings to correspond with the way the EO say they were before the division took place in 1054. And there are several theological issues that are of importance for the Orthodox.

 

[Atreyu]

Exactly!
Explain.

If Papal Supremacy is true then it is necessarily singular.

Certainly Rome was the pre-eminent Church at that time. Later it was Constantinople. So then all must agree with Constantinople too.

You ignored the reason Irenaeus gives for Rome’s pre-eminence: its superior origin. This can never change.

…and Antioch…and Alexandria…and Jerusalem.

Let’s assume you are right, and for our church to be orthodox we must agree with the church at Antioch and Alexandria and Jerusalem and Constantinople. But:

1. 
   *]These churches do not all agree with each other.
   *]These churches have all changed their teaching. As proof of this, I offer the evidence of the respective Patriarchs of Constantinople who were Iconoclasts.
   
   Therefore, by either 1 or 2, the gates of hell have overcome the church (and there is no way of knowing if our church is orthodox), which is impossible. Therefore, the premise must be wrong.

 

[Atreyu]

I do not think that my response shows any lack or depth of theological thinking. What I am saying (and which many in here are denying) is that the Eucharist - which is VALID AND LICIT in both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches with a VALID AND LICIT PRIESTHOOD

Rome does not consider the Eastern Orthodox orders as licit does she? I would have thought that to be licit, an order must be done in Communion with the Pope.

should use this as a moment of reconciliation and union. I am not discussing heresy. I do not think that the Orthodox are “theologically flawed” whatsoever.

Well some things are simply not up to you to decide. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It has a hierarchy, and you are being flatly disobedient to that hierarchy. If you cannot be obedient to your spiritual fathers on Earth - appointed by God Himself - then will you be obedient to God the Father in the next life?

Perhaps the theology is not as developed as that of the Catholic Church but not ‘flawed’. There is a difference. It is not necessary to rethink my position. My position is: since the Eucharist and Priesthood in both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are licit and valid, then this is the starting point for reconciliation and reunion.

Of course it is. But I don’t see what you’re going to achieve by spitting on the canon law of both Churches.

Be obedient to your bishops. This is something that the Orthodox and Catholics not only agree on, but insist.

 

[peary]

originally posted by Atreyu
Well some things are simply not up to you to decide.

Well, I guess that ends my opinion on this subject then.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Picking and choosing what one wants to believe, when those choices do not reflect the teaching and practice of Holy Mother Church, is as we have said before cafeteria Catholicism. I want a little of this, all of that, none of that, etc. This brings us back to one basic statement. To be** truly** Catholic, one must believe ALL that the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. If you do not, you are putting yourself up as your own arbiter of truth, which is protestant relativism.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[peary]

Picking and choosing what one wants to believe, when those choices do not reflect the teaching and practice of Holy Mother Church, is as we have said before cafeteria Catholicism. I want a little of this, all of that, none of that, etc. This brings us back to one basic statement. To be** truly** Catholic, one must believe ALL that the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. If you do not, you are putting yourself up as your own arbiter of truth, which is protestant relativism.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

**Like I said before…“I got more Jesus in my eucharist than your church has yours…” **

 

[Atreyu]

**Like I said before…“I got more Jesus in my eucharist than your church has yours…” **

Peary, nobody knows all of Revelation. No one has it perfect - not even the Pope. But obedience to your bishop is a basic principle of Catholic (and Orthodox for that matter) theology. You sarcastically said above that your opinion on this matter is at an end. Would that that were so. Once we have been corrected on a matter, even if we do not like it, then we must show humility and accept that it is so. I may not like it that my bishop tells me that contraception is contrary to the Natural Law. But once he demonstrates to me that this is so, I must adhere to that truth. We must pick up our cross to follow Christ.

So why is this not at an end, do you not believe we should be obedient to our bishops?

By the way, I’m not saying you can’t be of the opinion that an open Communion between Catholics and Orthodox would be a beneficial thing. You are definitely entitled to this opinion. But as things stand at the moment, our bishops have deemed it that we do not have an open Communion. Acting against this command is bordering on a schismatic act. It could even be heretical - if you deny the necessity of Episcopal obedience.

Or do you know something that everyone else does not?

 

[peary]

By the way, I’m not saying you can’t be of the opinion that an open Communion between Catholics and Orthodox would be a beneficial thing. You are definitely entitled to this opinion. .

That was my whole opinion on my posts! And I said that if both sides of the Church wanted unity, they could do so in a matter of minutes. I just stated my opinion that they should take the opportunity to forge ahead with unification through the Eucharist and priesthood. I did not call for anarchy!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

That was my whole opinion on my posts! And I said that if both sides of the Church wanted unity, they could do so in a matter of minutes. I just stated my opinion that they should take the opportunity to forge ahead with unification through the Eucharist and priesthood. I did not call for anarchy!

While the Eucharist is the source and foundation of all that is truly Catholic, there are theological differences between the two Churches reconciliation on doctrine and theology can be had only if one side agrees with the other. Doctrine cannot be compromised for the sake of unity.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[peary]

While the Eucharist is the source and foundation of all that is truly Catholic, there are theological differences between the two Churches reconciliation on doctrine and theology can be had only if one side agrees with the other. Doctrine cannot be compromised for the sake of unity.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

But there is no theological differences between the two churches on matters of the Eucharist.