The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[Peter_J]

Where is this coming from? I’d like to read the entire text.

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html

 

[Peter_J]

You do know that Pastor Aeternus clearly states that anyone who says that the Pope is merely First Among Equals is anathemized, right?

Newman’s statement aside, I think it’s quite possible that that anathema has been lifted by recent popes – even if they didn’t do so explicitly. In practical terms, if someone is already in communion with the Pope (as distinct from the case of someone deciding to convert to Catholicism) but doesn’t believe in Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction, the Pope isn’t going to excommunicate him/her for that reason.

 

[Vico]

But does the Church deny the validity of such Mass? See, there is a difference between, “no you cannot do that” and “no that is impossible”. Even the Eucharist outside of a Mass, the Catholic Church does not deny it is possible. Canon Law says one must not, under any circumstance, consecrate outside of a Liturgy. But where does the Church says this is invalid? Per Church teaching as long as a priest says the words of institution on bread and wine correctly, and with the intention of the Church, that the Sacrament is valid. But from the Orthodox perspective the Eucharist is inseprable from the Divine Liturgy. You cannot have the Eucharist without at least doing the entire Anaphora and with a gathered people (that is, one person and a priest at least).

The validity of confection requires the correct intention, matter, and form, as you stated. The liturgical norms do supply an approved form and are established by the head of the Church sui iuris and approved by the Holy See.

The presence of more than a celebrant is not a matter of divine law but ecclesiastical law, so also can change.

CIC Can. 900
§1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

CCEO Can. 699

1. Only bishops and presbyters have the power of celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

Also the Newman document:

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html

From this:

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Orthodox Churches don’t say that such Liturgies are invalid either, so far as I kn(w. They’re simply not allowed, and not part of the tradition; there is no rule on validity one way or another. If I may be so bold, you seem to be taking a very legalistic approach to this subject.

Peace and God bless!

Well, they generally do not comment on what is valid or not outside of their own Church. They believe anything apart from the Orthodox Church is suspect at best. I’m just doing a comparisson here on what their own requirements are with their own Liturgy, and how it relates to how we do our Liturgies.

 

[Ghosty]

Well, they generally do not comment on what is valid or not outside of their own Church. They believe anything apart from the Orthodox Church is suspect at best. I’m just doing a comparisson here on what their own requirements are with their own Liturgy, and how it relates to how we do our Liturgies.

Then the most you can say is that oikonomia is given in the Latin tradition where it is not in the Byzantine. That doesn’t seem to rise to a question of validity.

Do you have anything official from the Orthodox that says that a solitary Liturgy is invalid?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Then the most you can say is that oikonomia is given in the Latin tradition where it is not in the Byzantine. That doesn’t seem to rise to a question of validity.

Do you have anything official from the Orthodox that says that a solitary Liturgy is invalid?

Peace and God bless!

I dunno. It’s hard for me even to conceive of a liturgy without people, considering the word’s etymological roots.

 

[Vico]

I dunno. It’s hard for me even to conceive of a liturgy without people, considering the word’s etymological roots.

We do have the faithful in the Theotokos and Saints though not visible to us.

 

[Ghosty]

I dunno. It’s hard for me even to conceive of a liturgy without people, considering the word’s etymological roots.

I concur completely, and I’m not supporting widespread solitary liturgies. I just don’t think it’s a clear question of validity, but rather one of appropriateness. I’m not aware of any Orthodox ruling or canon that would make it a question of validity, as Latins use the term.

As it stands it seems like an oikonomia question for me. I mean, would we really say that a priest who can’t have a congregation is cut off from the Eucharist? That doesn’t mesh well with my understanding.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

I concur completely, and I’m not supporting widespread solitary liturgies. I just don’t think it’s a clear question of validity, but rather one of appropriateness. I’m not aware of any Orthodox ruling or canon that would make it a question of validity, as Latins use the term.

As it stands it seems like an oikonomia question for me. I mean, would we really say that a priest who can’t have a congregation is cut off from the Eucharist? That doesn’t mesh well with my understanding.

Peace and God bless!

An isolated priest can’t give himself absolution either.

 

[Ghosty]

An isolated priest can’t give himself absolution either.

True enough. They can Commune themselves, though, even if only from a reserved supply.

Peace and God bless!

 

[TEPO]

We do have the faithful in the Theotokos and Saints though not visible to us.

YES! How could this possibly have been overlooked? Therefore no Mass can ever exist without the faithful -because the faithful are always in fact present in heaven whenever Mass is performed. What’s even more interesting is that the priest assumes the position of almost some sort of ‘interceder’ on the behalf of the Church on earth with the Church in heaven and God Himself… Seems almost like a ‘Saintly’ thing to do.

I think It Just has to be considered acceptable then.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

I don’t really know about this, to be honest. The people are typically said to be represented by the chanter, not the priest. I’m not sure if any bishops today would be comfortable allowing for a priest to say a liturgy while completely alone out of economy, just as I don’t think any bishops would allow for a priest to celebrate the liturgy twice in one day or for the liturgy to be celebrated on the same altar twice in one day (this rule is strictly observed at our parish, for example).

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, that is my understanding, that the priest represents the people of God to God. Or at least, that is PART of his role.

I looked around the I-net for representative statements from EO, and here is what I got:
Further, Orthodox theology of the priesthood emphasizes the character of the priest, not his sex, and understands the priest as representing the people to God rather than representing Christ or the Father to the people. (OrthodoxWiki article on “Ordination of Women”)

Btw, I am not sure about the statement that the priest does not represent Christ or the Father to the people, because I have read other EO websites indicate that the doctrine of in persona Christi is also present in the EOC. For example, I read at an EO website a while back, in its explanation of the Divine Liturgy, that when the priest turns his back to the people, he is leading the congregation as representative of the people before God, while when he turns facing the people, he is the representative of God to the people. E.g., from a website I just recently googled (not the same that I mentioned earlier): “The priest is the sacramental witness who represents both Christ and His people.” (stnicholastemecula.com/about-orthodoxy/sacraments).

I’m not touching upon the actual issue here of the physical presence of the congregation. Just saying that the basic theological principle that Latin Catholics use (that the priest can represent the people of God) is not “totally alien” to Eastern Orthodoxy.

I think this just goes to show that people should not be so quick to try to pidgeonhole Holy Orthodoxy, or overgeneralize what one particular theologian or writer might say, whether in favor of or against it, especially if that involves trying to exaggerate distinctions between the Latin and Eastern Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, that is my understanding, that the priest represents the people of God to God. Or at least, that is PART of his role.

I looked around the I-net for representative statements from EO, and here is what I got:
Further, Orthodox theology of the priesthood emphasizes the character of the priest, not his sex, and understands the priest as representing the people to God rather than representing Christ or the Father to the people. (OrthodoxWiki article on “Ordination of Women”)

Btw, I am not sure about the statement that the priest does not represent Christ or the Father to the people, because I have read other EO websites indicate that the doctrine of in persona Christi is also present in the EOC. For example, I read at an EO website a while back, in its explanation of the Divine Liturgy, that when the priest turns his back to the people, he is leading the congregation as representative of the people before God, while when he turns facing the people, he is the representative of God to the people. E.g., from a website I just recently googled (not the same that I mentioned earlier): “The priest is the sacramental witness who represents both Christ and His people.” (stnicholastemecula.com/about-orthodoxy/sacraments).

I think this just goes to show that people should not be so quick to try to pidgeonhole Holy Orthodoxy, or overgeneralize what one particular theologian or writer might say, whether in favor of or against it.

There is only one priest, Jesus Christ. That is why we say the priest acts in persona Christi. Because they, and also everyone of us, share in the priesthood of Christ.

But this belief also contradicts the RC teaching that the priesthood is a permanent mark on one’s soul in the sense that a priest can leave the Church and still be a priest. In Orthodoxy, a priest detached from the Church is nothing.

 

[Peter_J]

There is only one priest, Jesus Christ. That is why we say the priest acts in persona Christi. Because they, and also everyone of us, share in the priesthood of Christ.

But this belief also contradicts the RC teaching that the priesthood is a permanent mark on one’s soul in the sense that a priest can leave the Church and still be a priest. In Orthodoxy, a priest detached from the Church is nothing.

As a certain Bishop recently said: one, some, all.

 

[Ghosty]

There is only one priest, Jesus Christ. That is why we say the priest acts in persona Christi. Because they, and also everyone of us, share in the priesthood of Christ.

But this belief also contradicts the RC teaching that the priesthood is a permanent mark on one’s soul in the sense that a priest can leave the Church and still be a priest. In Orthodoxy, a priest detached from the Church is nothing.

This is simply a matter of practical application, and the same holds true for the Catholic Church. An Orthodox priest who leaves and comes back is not re-ordained, because though a priest can’t act outside the Church they don’t lose their ordination simply by leaving. So the Eastern belief is that a priest’s ordination is a permanent mark on the soul, albeit one (like Baptism) that can be pushed aside by sin and schism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

But this belief also contradicts the RC teaching that the priesthood is a permanent mark on one’s soul in the sense that a priest can leave the Church and still be a priest. In Orthodoxy, a priest detached from the Church is nothing.

Actually, there is not a solid teaching on this matter in Orthodoxy. There are those who believe that, and there are those who profess the principle of “we don’t know what is outside the Church.” There are also different things to be considered between the situation of a priest who grows up outside the Orthodox Church, and a priest who leaves the Orthodox Church. So don’t try to pidgeonhole Orthodoxy.

The Catholic Church’s principle is not that far from Orthodoxy. Those outside the Catholic Church CANNOT perform Sacraments in the Church. If they try to do so outside the Church, they do so SINFULLY (barring the mitigations of invincible ignorance), only to their condemnation. And even those who receive Sacraments from such priests with knowledge of their state do so sinfully (barring the mitigations of invincible ignorance). It is interesting that in the ancient Canons, clerics who returned to the Church after falling away were either laicized or allowed to be retained WITHOUT re-ordination, depending on the practical circumstances of the local Church. We see both the Orthodox (on the one hand) and the Catholic (on the other) praxis (and theology?) existing side by side in the united Church of the first millenium. Who are these opponents of ecumenism to say that we cannot coexist today as one Church, at least based on these examples you bring up?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

My understanding is that Orders are subject to the Church, under the power of binding and loosing. A man who the Church says has no ability to function as a priest has no ability to function as a priest. If he performs a liturgy and the Church has declared that he has no ability to celebrate the Sacrament, then his celebration of the Eucharist remains without grace. There is in some sense, no category of valid and invalid, only of licit and illicit.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is simply a matter of practical application, and the same holds true for the Catholic Church. An Orthodox priest who leaves and comes back is not re-ordained, because though a priest can’t act outside the Church they don’t lose their ordination simply by leaving. So the Eastern belief is that a priest’s ordination is a permanent mark on the soul, albeit one (like Baptism) that can be pushed aside by sin and schism.

Peace and God bless!

They don’t lose their ordination, that is true. But they lose the application of it. But a person baptized is not guaranteed salvation if they hold onto sin. If I cut off your hand, that is still your hand. But you cannot use it, and your hand is useless. If I reattach your hand (say I am a surgeon) then with proper healing you can use your hand again.

The priest doesn’t stop being a priest, he just stops functioning as a priest because the priesthood belongs to the Church, not the person. If the person leaves the Church then they lose the functionality of a priest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, there is not a solid teaching on this matter in Orthodoxy. There are those who believe that, and there are those who profess the principle of “we don’t know what is outside the Church.” There are also different things to be considered between the situation of a priest who grows up outside the Orthodox Church, and a priest who leaves the Orthodox Church. So don’t try to pidgeonhole Orthodoxy.

The Catholic Church’s principle is not that far from Orthodoxy. Those outside the Catholic Church CANNOT perform Sacraments in the Church. If they try to do so outside the Church, they do so SINFULLY (barring the mitigations of invincible ignorance), only to their condemnation. And even those who receive Sacraments from such priests with knowledge of their state do so sinfully (barring the mitigations of invincible ignorance). It is interesting that in the ancient Canons, clerics who returned to the Church after falling away were either laicized or allowed to be retained WITHOUT re-ordination, depending on the practical circumstances of the local Church. We see both the Orthodox (on the one hand) and the Catholic (on the other) praxis (and theology?) existing side by side in the united Church of the first millenium. Who are these opponents of ecumenism to say that we cannot coexist today as one Church, at least based on these examples you bring up?

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, they existed in the First Millennium side-by-side. But things changed. So much more for the West given the development of doctrine and dogma, from St. Aquinas to the Council of Trent to the Marian Dogmas and Papal Dogma. We were side by side in the First Millennium because we had a lot of commonality then, but not anymore. That was 1000 years ago. As Patriarch Bartholomew said, we have grown to be ontologically different.

 

[Ghosty]

My understanding is that Orders are subject to the Church, under the power of binding and loosing. A man who the Church says has no ability to function as a priest has no ability to function as a priest. If he performs a liturgy and the Church has declared that he has no ability to celebrate the Sacrament, then his celebration of the Eucharist remains without grace. There is in some sense, no category of valid and invalid, only of licit and illicit.

If this were absolutely true then the Orthodox Churches would not recognize the ordinations performed by non-Orthodox Churches, but priests ordained by Catholic Bishops are not ordained if they become Orthodox. Bishops ordain by the power of the Church, yet non-Orthodox ordinations are indeed recognized.

At most we can say that there is no firm, set theology on the matter in Orthodoxy, and therefore we can’t say that the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are incompatible in this regard.

Peace and God bless!