The sacrament of confession requires the authority of the Church to bind and loose sins, hence, any priest not in communion with Rome does not have faculties and cannot forgive sins. The SSPX has been given faculties from Pope Francis to hear confessions on an indefinite basis. Other groups not in communion with Rome do not have this privilege.
So what I understand this Apostolic Catholic Church of Antioch is in schism then that means that reconciliation in a normal setting is invalid but I assume that people who go to a church there think it is, this seems pretty messed up that a Church not in accordance with Rome could think they could do these things without Rome.
Think about all those people that are being decieved because of this.
They are valid for their own members and so that we do not need to re “do” them if they come over to us.
There may be I suppose some ordinary therapeutic effect in a Catholic confessing to an Eastern Orthodox priest if he is a wise fellow-Christian but the principles stated in Catholic rules for the restoring of actual or formal communion with the Catholic Church are there.
Sacraments require jurisdiction which is granted by the bishop. The orthodox don’t have valid confession and sacramental marriage since they lack jurisdiction. The SSPX lack jurisdiction for marriage. For confirmation it requires a valid bishop or a priest that got approval from his bishop to confer confirmation validly. Last rites may be administered if a catholic (non schismatic or heretical) priest cannot be reached the the orthodox and schismatic priest have the jurisdiction to administer last rites.
The Eastern rite Orthodox have valid Sacraments. Though a Catholic of the Roman Rite could not receive absolution from an Eastern Rite Priest unless it was in a life threatening emergency.
These Churches [Orthodox], although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.
Even marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic of an Eastern Rite is valid, though may be illicit.
Can. 1127 §1. The prescripts of ⇒ can. 1108 are to be observed for the form to be used in a mixed marriage.
Nevertheless, if a Catholic party contracts marriage with a non-Catholic party of an Eastern rite, the canonical form of the celebration must be observed for liceity only; for validity, however, the presence of a sacred minister is required and the other requirements of law are to be observed.
Obviously, Rome is a city and not the head of the church. Christ is. As a matter of fact, there is no plural - no churches - there is but one church: The Una sancta Catholica et Apostolica ecclesia . It doesn’t say romana. No one denies jurisdictional primacy of the bishop of Rome, but Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. As you say, it is a reference to the rites. Pretty simple.
Both accept the bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ, of course.
We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out.
I’m not going to quibble with you any further, but I will not be ashamed to call all Catholics Roman Catholics, for it has been acknowledged from the beginning that Rome is the source of all unity in the church:
After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.
I missed some complexity on this issue. In the case of the Orthodox, bishops of apostolic churches with defined territory are in schism. I think it works like this: the territorial bishop grants faculties to hear confession. Since the orthodox have valid territorial churches, they have valid confessions.
The SSPX prior to being given special permission had no territory. Freelance bishops with no territory have no faculties to grant, such as the SSPX bishops. Other traditionalist groups not in communion with the SSPX still lack faculties to grant valid confessions.
“head of all churches” … nice one
I guess I thought you were trying to say something else - sorry for the sigh.
Anyway, as it seems we both believe in the the very same church, there is no need to quibble any further indeed.