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

of which Catholics should be able to freely partake (and vise versa)?

I’m sorry, on second thought maybe this thread belongs in “Liturgy and Sacraments” to which I’ll graciously concede if the mods agree.

The Orthodox Church has Valid Sacraments. However they are Illicit for any Catholic to partake in, without grave need. Death would be an example of when it was permissible, if no Catholic Church was near.

So what about their Eucharist / Liturgy makes it an illicit one?

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’.

You might try studying the concept of schism and its implications.

They’re outside the Catholic Church, all valid sacraments outside the Catholic Church are automatically illicit (with the aforementioned exception of when in danger of death)

Their liturgy is licit as well as valid when in full communion with the Apostolic See, for example when the same liturgy is used by Greek Catholic Churches

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

Move down to heading “Possible Exceptions”

Am surrounded by Maronite-Catholic churches, Roman Catholic churches and Orthodox churches. I go to all :shrug:

Sounds like much ado about nothing.

The fact that they explicitly reject the Supremacy of the Pope - and have replaced it with “primacy of honour” nonsense, as a primacy of honour really means not a primacy at all - as well as the binding aspect of all Ecumenical Councils since the 10th century.

They are not in Communion with the bishop of Rome, hence they are not in Communion with the Catholic Church. This is what “not being in Communion” means - that you can’t licitly participate in their Communion. They are most welcome to come back in Communion with the bishop of Rome, and all it will take is acceptance of the doctrine of the Supremacy of the Pope.

The ostensible reason as to why the Orthodox broke Communion with Rome was because of the supposed illegality of the Romans adding the word filioque to the Creed. However, the Romans had as much right to add to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as the Greeks had to add to the Nicene Creed to make the Nicene-Constantinopolitan in the first place. So yes, it is much ado about nothing.

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:
[list]*]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[/list]
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.

The fact that they explicitly reject the Supremacy of the Pope - and have replaced it with “primacy of honour” nonsense, as a primacy of honour really means not a primacy at all - as well as the binding aspect of all Ecumenical Councils since the 10th century.

They are not in Communion with the bishop of Rome, hence they are not in Communion with the Catholic Church. This is what “not being in Communion” means - that you can’t licitly participate in their Communion. They are most welcome to come back in Communion with the bishop of Rome, and all it will take is acceptance of the doctrine of the Supremacy of the Pope.

I’ve always found it somewhat contradictory that the Latin Church declare the Eastern Orthodox have valid orders and a valid Eucharist and yet are not in full communion with the Church. Latin Catholics forget Eucharistic ecclesiology: where Christ is [in his sacraments] there is the Church. This was said by none other than the early Christian bishop and martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch. The Eucharist is the entire Body of Christ, and the Church Catholic is fully realized in the local Church, since Christ cannot be separated.

Rome invented supremacy. The Orthodox would accept the Latins back into communion if they returned to the position they enjoyed during the first millenium of the Church.

If you’re going to take the attitude that all “ecumenical”] councils since the 10th century are binding on the East as well as the West, then you might as well excommunicate the Eastern Catholic Churches right now, since many of their bishops and people see these later Latin councils as only pertaining to the Latin Church, and not bearing the mark of an ecumenical council.

The Orthodox do have valid Orders and valid Sacraments. There is nothing “indirect” about that.

However, that doe NOT mean Catholics can “freely” partake of their Sacraments and “vice versa.”

Catholics are bound by Catholic Canon Law which states:

Can. 844 §1.** Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone**, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§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.

As to the Orthodox, their own canons prohibits them from receiving in the Catholic Church and do not allow non-Orthodox to receive in their Churches.

The Catholic Church teaches that Orthodox churches are true local churches. So there is no contradiction.

Rome invented supremacy. The Orthodox would accept the Latins back into communion if they returned to the position they enjoyed during the first millenium of the Church.

And here’s the rub. Catholics do not believe that Rome invented Supremacy, but that it was passed on to the bishops of Rome by Peter. Sacerdotal unity derives from Rome. And that is a quote that was not invented in the 10th Century…

If you’re going to take the attitude that all “ecumenical”] councils since the 10th century are binding on the East as well as the West, then you might as well excommunicate the Eastern Catholic Churches right now, since many of their bishops and people see these later Latin councils as only pertaining to the Latin Church, and not bearing the mark of an ecumenical council.

I don’t know about this. Perhaps you are right.

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?

Originally Posted by atreyu:

The ostensible reason as to why the Orthodox broke Communion with Rome was because of the supposed illegality of the Romans adding the word filioque to the Creed. However, the Romans had as much right to add to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as the Greeks had to add to the Nicene Creed to make the Nicene-Constantinopolitan in the first place. So yes, it is much ado about nothing.

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. Pope John VII sent legates to the Council of Constantinople of 879, which condemned such an addition to the Creed. Pope John VII furthermore writes of addition to the Creed as “blasphemy,” and places those who add to the Creed with Judas. Pope John VII does not concern the filioque addition “much ado about nothing,” but as “a scandal.” At least one Roman Pontiff believed the filioque addition to be a great evil, it would seem.

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:

But they don’t have the same doctrine as the Catholics. What you’re saying is like declaring, “dogs and wolves really are the same as cats when you get down to it: they are mammals, have fur, walk on fours, etc.” The Latin Church sees the beliefs of these Churches as very similiar to itself; but such is not the same perspective of many in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They instead see a wide gulf between the Latin Church and the EOC.

[LIST]
*]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[/LIST]

Relative to the Protestants, the Orthodox are in many ways more similiar to the Latin Catholics; but this does not mean they are similiar to the Latin Catholics. 1,000 is closer to 1 than is 1,000,000, but this does not mean 1,000 is close to 1.

as being mere innovations which cannot be found in thes 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.

Right. It’s like looking for examples of papal supremacy in the early Church. :thumbsup:

Topic drift: Some on this forum have turned this in to a debate on the Schims. The OPs question is about validity of Orders and inter-communion.

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.

True local churches means that the local church is the full realization of the Church Catholic.

Of course Latin Catholics do not believe it to be an invention. They also do not believe Purgatory to be an invention.

The letter of Pope John VII comes from a Western manuscript.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.