Some Changes in Canon Law
#11
(09-17-2016, 03:03 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 01:47 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 05:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 03:59 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:29 PM)Zea mays Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:05 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: Am I misunderstanding something here?

"- Catholics of one rite may receive the sacraments in another Catholic Church; by doing so they do not become formal members of the other rite."

I thought we could do that anyway.

You're right, we could and we can.  Nothing new about that one. :eyeroll:  (Maybe the pope was reiterating it for emphasis or for those who were unaware of that.  Who knows...?)

too me it sounds like sacraments of initiation.

I interpret it that way too.

(09-16-2016, 02:18 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Any Catholic of whatever Rite can receive sacraments in whatever Rite. The issue I have is this business of allowing Catholic priests to baptize Orthodox babies for the Orthodox Church. That is ridiculous!

Not only is it a perfectly acceptable theological opinion amongst Orthodox that Catholics have no priests,no grace and no sacraments, on the Catholic side it implicitly denies that Rome and Byzantium are separated and fosters indifferentism. Most Orthodox and most conservative Catholics will see this as absurd and ridiculous.

This is Rome trying to whitewash the real differences between itself and the Orthodox,differences no devout Catholic or devout Orthodox can or should sweep under the rug in the name of ecumenism.

Maybe this trying to address an issue in regions where there are many more Eastern Catholics and Orthodox (such as Europe/Asia)? I would rather see us make overtures to the Orthodox than the happy-clappy form of Protestants.

We have a handful of Orthodox in these parts, and no regular Orthodox church. The priest is by only a few times of a year, and from what I gather it's sporadic at best. The rest of the time, they will sometimes randomly show up at our Latin-rite parish (and probably sometimes at the local Ukrainian-rite one too). I would rather see us baptizing those babies, even if we don't "keep" them, instead of waiting a long time (or having to travel a long distance) to get them done and risking their immortal souls.

No doubt there are circumstances where this practice has some possible justification,but at least officially the Orthodox are allowed to be of the opinion that Catholics have no grace and no priesthood at all.  Depending on the jurisdiction or parish that child would be "rebaptized" eventually by Orthodox anyway.

The rationale for this is laid out nicely in Father Peter Alban Heers book.  In essence how can,say, a non member of a club initiate someone into a club they don't belong to? For many Orthodox it's nonsensical to say like Catholics that even atheists can baptize. You can't give what you don't have.

Personally I'm glad Rome actually teaches that the Orthodox have grace and true sacraments, I think it better reflects reality than the very rigid, strict view of some Orthodox,but I still don't think we can sweep under the rug the very real ecclesial differences that divide us.

Do you really have Orthodox attending modern Latin Rite parishes? That's interesting.

Just for the record, FB (and you probably know this anyway  :) ), and for greater clarity, there ARE major Orthodox jurisdictions, at least in this country, that do accept Catholic and Protestant (as long as it is done "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", and with water) baptism and that do consider that the Catholic Church has grace and true sacraments.  I speak specifically of the OCA and the Antiochians, both of which I have experience with.

The Greek Orthodox do as well; the Metropolia of Denver has guidelines on what groups' baptisms are acceptable on their website. It is considered an act of oikonomia to accept heterodox baptism. Russians traditionally receive Catholic converts by a renunciation of error and Chrismation; Catholic baptisms are considered "true," but only grace-filled upon reception into the Orthodox Church. The view that ALL non-Orthodox sacraments are without grace seems to be a bit of an extreme position, especially with respect to Baptism. It's a more common view with the other mysteries.

The Greek monastery around here affiliated with Elder Ephraim will not let non Orthodox stand outside the narthex during their services. They do not consider Chrismation to be a valid method of reception. Most the traditional centers of Orthodoxy have similar rules, places like Mount Athos, old world ROCOR parishes, monasteries and churches in Russia etc. Catholic baptism is not valid, most especially through anything other than triple immersion.

Of course this is not the case everywhere, but I'm just pointing out that within Orthodoxy it is a fully traditional and acceptable opinion that there are no grace filled sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. That there is no unified view on this makes this new Roman position quite problematic I think.
Reply
#12
(09-17-2016, 03:54 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 03:03 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 01:47 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 05:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 03:59 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:29 PM)Zea mays Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:05 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: Am I misunderstanding something here?

"- Catholics of one rite may receive the sacraments in another Catholic Church; by doing so they do not become formal members of the other rite."

I thought we could do that anyway.

You're right, we could and we can.  Nothing new about that one. :eyeroll:  (Maybe the pope was reiterating it for emphasis or for those who were unaware of that.  Who knows...?)

too me it sounds like sacraments of initiation.

I interpret it that way too.

(09-16-2016, 02:18 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Any Catholic of whatever Rite can receive sacraments in whatever Rite. The issue I have is this business of allowing Catholic priests to baptize Orthodox babies for the Orthodox Church. That is ridiculous!

Not only is it a perfectly acceptable theological opinion amongst Orthodox that Catholics have no priests,no grace and no sacraments, on the Catholic side it implicitly denies that Rome and Byzantium are separated and fosters indifferentism. Most Orthodox and most conservative Catholics will see this as absurd and ridiculous.

This is Rome trying to whitewash the real differences between itself and the Orthodox,differences no devout Catholic or devout Orthodox can or should sweep under the rug in the name of ecumenism.

Maybe this trying to address an issue in regions where there are many more Eastern Catholics and Orthodox (such as Europe/Asia)? I would rather see us make overtures to the Orthodox than the happy-clappy form of Protestants.

We have a handful of Orthodox in these parts, and no regular Orthodox church. The priest is by only a few times of a year, and from what I gather it's sporadic at best. The rest of the time, they will sometimes randomly show up at our Latin-rite parish (and probably sometimes at the local Ukrainian-rite one too). I would rather see us baptizing those babies, even if we don't "keep" them, instead of waiting a long time (or having to travel a long distance) to get them done and risking their immortal souls.

No doubt there are circumstances where this practice has some possible justification,but at least officially the Orthodox are allowed to be of the opinion that Catholics have no grace and no priesthood at all.  Depending on the jurisdiction or parish that child would be "rebaptized" eventually by Orthodox anyway.

The rationale for this is laid out nicely in Father Peter Alban Heers book.  In essence how can,say, a non member of a club initiate someone into a club they don't belong to? For many Orthodox it's nonsensical to say like Catholics that even atheists can baptize. You can't give what you don't have.

Personally I'm glad Rome actually teaches that the Orthodox have grace and true sacraments, I think it better reflects reality than the very rigid, strict view of some Orthodox,but I still don't think we can sweep under the rug the very real ecclesial differences that divide us.

Do you really have Orthodox attending modern Latin Rite parishes? That's interesting.

Just for the record, FB (and you probably know this anyway  :) ), and for greater clarity, there ARE major Orthodox jurisdictions, at least in this country, that do accept Catholic and Protestant (as long as it is done "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", and with water) baptism and that do consider that the Catholic Church has grace and true sacraments.  I speak specifically of the OCA and the Antiochians, both of which I have experience with.

The Greek Orthodox do as well; the Metropolia of Denver has guidelines on what groups' baptisms are acceptable on their website. It is considered an act of oikonomia to accept heterodox baptism. Russians traditionally receive Catholic converts by a renunciation of error and Chrismation; Catholic baptisms are considered "true," but only grace-filled upon reception into the Orthodox Church. The view that ALL non-Orthodox sacraments are without grace seems to be a bit of an extreme position, especially with respect to Baptism. It's a more common view with the other mysteries.

The Greek monastery around here affiliated with Elder Ephraim will not let non Orthodox stand outside the narthex during their services. They do not consider Chrismation to be a valid method of reception. Most the traditional centers of Orthodoxy have similar rules, places like Mount Athos, old world ROCOR parishes, monasteries and churches in Russia etc. Catholic baptism is not valid, most especially through anything other than triple immersion.

Of course this is not the case everywhere, but I'm just pointing out that within Orthodoxy it is a fully traditional and acceptable opinion that there are no grace filled sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. That there is no unified view on this makes this new Roman position quite problematic I think.

So...it *seems* as if where grace is is a matter of opinion.  ??? :O  Doesn't do much for those plagued by doubt or of uncertain faith, eh?
Reply
#13
(09-17-2016, 04:25 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 03:54 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 03:03 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 01:47 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 05:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 03:59 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:29 PM)Zea mays Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:05 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: Am I misunderstanding something here?

"- Catholics of one rite may receive the sacraments in another Catholic Church; by doing so they do not become formal members of the other rite."

I thought we could do that anyway.

You're right, we could and we can.  Nothing new about that one. :eyeroll:  (Maybe the pope was reiterating it for emphasis or for those who were unaware of that.  Who knows...?)

too me it sounds like sacraments of initiation.

I interpret it that way too.

(09-16-2016, 02:18 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Any Catholic of whatever Rite can receive sacraments in whatever Rite. The issue I have is this business of allowing Catholic priests to baptize Orthodox babies for the Orthodox Church. That is ridiculous!

Not only is it a perfectly acceptable theological opinion amongst Orthodox that Catholics have no priests,no grace and no sacraments, on the Catholic side it implicitly denies that Rome and Byzantium are separated and fosters indifferentism. Most Orthodox and most conservative Catholics will see this as absurd and ridiculous.

This is Rome trying to whitewash the real differences between itself and the Orthodox,differences no devout Catholic or devout Orthodox can or should sweep under the rug in the name of ecumenism.

Maybe this trying to address an issue in regions where there are many more Eastern Catholics and Orthodox (such as Europe/Asia)? I would rather see us make overtures to the Orthodox than the happy-clappy form of Protestants.

We have a handful of Orthodox in these parts, and no regular Orthodox church. The priest is by only a few times of a year, and from what I gather it's sporadic at best. The rest of the time, they will sometimes randomly show up at our Latin-rite parish (and probably sometimes at the local Ukrainian-rite one too). I would rather see us baptizing those babies, even if we don't "keep" them, instead of waiting a long time (or having to travel a long distance) to get them done and risking their immortal souls.

No doubt there are circumstances where this practice has some possible justification,but at least officially the Orthodox are allowed to be of the opinion that Catholics have no grace and no priesthood at all.  Depending on the jurisdiction or parish that child would be "rebaptized" eventually by Orthodox anyway.

The rationale for this is laid out nicely in Father Peter Alban Heers book.  In essence how can,say, a non member of a club initiate someone into a club they don't belong to? For many Orthodox it's nonsensical to say like Catholics that even atheists can baptize. You can't give what you don't have.

Personally I'm glad Rome actually teaches that the Orthodox have grace and true sacraments, I think it better reflects reality than the very rigid, strict view of some Orthodox,but I still don't think we can sweep under the rug the very real ecclesial differences that divide us.

Do you really have Orthodox attending modern Latin Rite parishes? That's interesting.

Just for the record, FB (and you probably know this anyway  :) ), and for greater clarity, there ARE major Orthodox jurisdictions, at least in this country, that do accept Catholic and Protestant (as long as it is done "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", and with water) baptism and that do consider that the Catholic Church has grace and true sacraments.  I speak specifically of the OCA and the Antiochians, both of which I have experience with.

The Greek Orthodox do as well; the Metropolia of Denver has guidelines on what groups' baptisms are acceptable on their website. It is considered an act of oikonomia to accept heterodox baptism. Russians traditionally receive Catholic converts by a renunciation of error and Chrismation; Catholic baptisms are considered "true," but only grace-filled upon reception into the Orthodox Church. The view that ALL non-Orthodox sacraments are without grace seems to be a bit of an extreme position, especially with respect to Baptism. It's a more common view with the other mysteries.

The Greek monastery around here affiliated with Elder Ephraim will not let non Orthodox stand outside the narthex during their services. They do not consider Chrismation to be a valid method of reception. Most the traditional centers of Orthodoxy have similar rules, places like Mount Athos, old world ROCOR parishes, monasteries and churches in Russia etc. Catholic baptism is not valid, most especially through anything other than triple immersion.

Of course this is not the case everywhere, but I'm just pointing out that within Orthodoxy it is a fully traditional and acceptable opinion that there are no grace filled sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. That there is no unified view on this makes this new Roman position quite problematic I think.

So...it *seems* as if where grace is is a matter of opinion.  ??? :O  Doesn't do much for those plagued by doubt or of uncertain faith, eh?

That's one issue I take with Orthodoxy, their inconsistency on this very serious matter. You could be a member of a thriving Antiochian parish and move to a ROCOR church in another state or visit the Holy Mountain and if you were originally recieved by Chrismation neither place might accept you as Orthodox unless you undergo rebaptism.

Throughout history there have been all sorts of practices, everything from receiving converts through simple confession and vesting in the case of priests, simple confession with layman, Chrismation or rebaptism. It's not as cut and dry.  Lately most conservative to traditionalist Orthodox in my own estimation take a view like that of Father Peter Alban Heers, that there is probably no grace outside of Orthodoxy and that oikonomia ought to be a very last resort due to it leading to doubtful validity.

As for me, I'm definitely more Orthodox in my approach to most things, but I do not believe my triple immersion Roman Catholic baptism was invalid, nor do I believe that Catholic priests have no true sacraments. The experience I had of that FSSP priest driving out the demonic in an ex girlfriend right in front of me forever cured me of that type of doubt.

In some ways I believe that the post conciliar ambiguity and large hearted attitude towards other christians is a good thing. Perhaps because of that and despite my severe critiques of much of Roman Catholicism post Trent I must remain wedded to Rome, but more like the late Benedictine Old Believer sympathiser Father Ambrose Mooreman than anything else. 

In the 70's and 80's he had an Old Rite Russian chapel near the OSB monastery in Oregon, and I think if memory serves he even offered the DL according to that Rite.
Reply
#14
(09-17-2016, 05:21 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 04:25 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 03:54 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 03:03 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 01:47 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 05:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 03:59 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:29 PM)Zea mays Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:05 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: Am I misunderstanding something here?

"- Catholics of one rite may receive the sacraments in another Catholic Church; by doing so they do not become formal members of the other rite."

I thought we could do that anyway.

You're right, we could and we can.  Nothing new about that one. :eyeroll:  (Maybe the pope was reiterating it for emphasis or for those who were unaware of that.  Who knows...?)

too me it sounds like sacraments of initiation.

I interpret it that way too.

(09-16-2016, 02:18 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Any Catholic of whatever Rite can receive sacraments in whatever Rite. The issue I have is this business of allowing Catholic priests to baptize Orthodox babies for the Orthodox Church. That is ridiculous!

Not only is it a perfectly acceptable theological opinion amongst Orthodox that Catholics have no priests,no grace and no sacraments, on the Catholic side it implicitly denies that Rome and Byzantium are separated and fosters indifferentism. Most Orthodox and most conservative Catholics will see this as absurd and ridiculous.

This is Rome trying to whitewash the real differences between itself and the Orthodox,differences no devout Catholic or devout Orthodox can or should sweep under the rug in the name of ecumenism.

Maybe this trying to address an issue in regions where there are many more Eastern Catholics and Orthodox (such as Europe/Asia)? I would rather see us make overtures to the Orthodox than the happy-clappy form of Protestants.

We have a handful of Orthodox in these parts, and no regular Orthodox church. The priest is by only a few times of a year, and from what I gather it's sporadic at best. The rest of the time, they will sometimes randomly show up at our Latin-rite parish (and probably sometimes at the local Ukrainian-rite one too). I would rather see us baptizing those babies, even if we don't "keep" them, instead of waiting a long time (or having to travel a long distance) to get them done and risking their immortal souls.

No doubt there are circumstances where this practice has some possible justification,but at least officially the Orthodox are allowed to be of the opinion that Catholics have no grace and no priesthood at all.  Depending on the jurisdiction or parish that child would be "rebaptized" eventually by Orthodox anyway.

The rationale for this is laid out nicely in Father Peter Alban Heers book.  In essence how can,say, a non member of a club initiate someone into a club they don't belong to? For many Orthodox it's nonsensical to say like Catholics that even atheists can baptize. You can't give what you don't have.

Personally I'm glad Rome actually teaches that the Orthodox have grace and true sacraments, I think it better reflects reality than the very rigid, strict view of some Orthodox,but I still don't think we can sweep under the rug the very real ecclesial differences that divide us.

Do you really have Orthodox attending modern Latin Rite parishes? That's interesting.

Just for the record, FB (and you probably know this anyway  :) ), and for greater clarity, there ARE major Orthodox jurisdictions, at least in this country, that do accept Catholic and Protestant (as long as it is done "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", and with water) baptism and that do consider that the Catholic Church has grace and true sacraments.  I speak specifically of the OCA and the Antiochians, both of which I have experience with.

The Greek Orthodox do as well; the Metropolia of Denver has guidelines on what groups' baptisms are acceptable on their website. It is considered an act of oikonomia to accept heterodox baptism. Russians traditionally receive Catholic converts by a renunciation of error and Chrismation; Catholic baptisms are considered "true," but only grace-filled upon reception into the Orthodox Church. The view that ALL non-Orthodox sacraments are without grace seems to be a bit of an extreme position, especially with respect to Baptism. It's a more common view with the other mysteries.

The Greek monastery around here affiliated with Elder Ephraim will not let non Orthodox stand outside the narthex during their services. They do not consider Chrismation to be a valid method of reception. Most the traditional centers of Orthodoxy have similar rules, places like Mount Athos, old world ROCOR parishes, monasteries and churches in Russia etc. Catholic baptism is not valid, most especially through anything other than triple immersion.

Of course this is not the case everywhere, but I'm just pointing out that within Orthodoxy it is a fully traditional and acceptable opinion that there are no grace filled sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. That there is no unified view on this makes this new Roman position quite problematic I think.

So...it *seems* as if where grace is is a matter of opinion.  ??? :O  Doesn't do much for those plagued by doubt or of uncertain faith, eh?

That's one issue I take with Orthodoxy, their inconsistency on this very serious matter. You could be a member of a thriving Antiochian parish and move to a ROCOR church in another state or visit the Holy Mountain and if you were originally recieved by Chrismation neither place might accept you as Orthodox unless you undergo rebaptism.

Throughout history there have been all sorts of practices, everything from receiving converts through simple confession and vesting in the case of priests, simple confession with layman, Chrismation or rebaptism. It's not as cut and dry.  Lately most conservative to traditionalist Orthodox in my own estimation take a view like that of Father Peter Alban Heers, that there is probably no grace outside of Orthodoxy and that oikonomia ought to be a very last resort due to it leading to doubtful validity.

As for me, I'm definitely more Orthodox in my approach to most things, but I do not believe my triple immersion Roman Catholic baptism was invalid, nor do I believe that Catholic priests have no true sacraments. The experience I had of that FSSP priest driving out the demonic in an ex girlfriend right in front of me forever cured me of that type of doubt.

In some ways I believe that the post conciliar ambiguity and large hearted attitude towards other christians is a good thing. Perhaps because of that and despite my severe critiques of much of Roman Catholicism post Trent I must remain wedded to Rome, but more like the late Benedictine Old Believer sympathiser Father Ambrose Mooreman than anything else. 

In the 70's and 80's he had an Old Rite Russian chapel near the OSB monastery in Oregon, and I think if memory serves he even offered the DL according to that Rite.

I understand what you're saying but I meant by my statement above to include Catholics in that, too.  Are there not or have there not been Catholics, including popes, who claim that there is no grace outside the Catholic Church; that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, with Protestants and Orthodox being amongst those outside the Catholic Church?  If that's the case, how can there then be someone coming along, in the RCC, who claims that there IS grace outside the RCC, that there is at least the implication of salvation outside the RCC?  See what I mean?  Grace and salvation boiled down to a matter of opinion?  Oy vey ist mir!!  What that all says to me, in my heretical mind, is that God determines whom He will bestow grace upon and/or save, not man, including bishops of whatever ilk or a pope here or there;  that "membership" in a particular "Church" does NOT guarantee grace or salvation, or *necessarily* bring any given individual closer to it; that reception of grace and salvation are possible, by means quite probably unknown to us, despite our hubris and all-knowing attitudes, to many people who have nothing to do with either the RCC or the OC or this church or that church. 
Reply
#15
Back to the topic at hand, if this is about the sacraments of initiation, then what does that change? It was already the case that people could be baptized in one Church sui juris but be canonically inscribed in another. Among Eastern Catholics in the West, that's extremely common; it is certainly not unheard of for canonical Latins to be baptized in an Eastern Church, either. This is very common at my Ruthenian parish; no one seems to be under the impression they are made Ruthenian by that alone.
Reply
#16
(09-17-2016, 08:17 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: Back to the topic at hand, if this is about the sacraments of initiation, then what does that change? It was already the case that people could be baptized in one Church sui juris but be canonically inscribed in another. Among Eastern Catholics in the West, that's extremely common; it is certainly not unheard of for canonical Latins to be baptized in an Eastern Church, either. This is very common at my Ruthenian parish; no one seems to be under the impression they are made Ruthenian by that alone.

Maybe it was already the practice, but was never spelled out?

One thing that I think is changing is that if the child's parents are one Eastern and one Latin, the parents can elect which rite the child belongs to (as long as they agree) and that the child may opt later on. As it stands currently, I believe the rule is that it's automatically the rite of the father, but perhaps I am misinformed.
Reply
#17
(09-17-2016, 03:54 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 03:03 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 01:47 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 05:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 03:59 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:29 PM)Zea mays Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 01:05 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(09-16-2016, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: Am I misunderstanding something here?

"- Catholics of one rite may receive the sacraments in another Catholic Church; by doing so they do not become formal members of the other rite."

I thought we could do that anyway.

You're right, we could and we can.  Nothing new about that one. :eyeroll:  (Maybe the pope was reiterating it for emphasis or for those who were unaware of that.  Who knows...?)

too me it sounds like sacraments of initiation.

I interpret it that way too.

(09-16-2016, 02:18 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Any Catholic of whatever Rite can receive sacraments in whatever Rite. The issue I have is this business of allowing Catholic priests to baptize Orthodox babies for the Orthodox Church. That is ridiculous!

Not only is it a perfectly acceptable theological opinion amongst Orthodox that Catholics have no priests,no grace and no sacraments, on the Catholic side it implicitly denies that Rome and Byzantium are separated and fosters indifferentism. Most Orthodox and most conservative Catholics will see this as absurd and ridiculous.

This is Rome trying to whitewash the real differences between itself and the Orthodox,differences no devout Catholic or devout Orthodox can or should sweep under the rug in the name of ecumenism.

Maybe this trying to address an issue in regions where there are many more Eastern Catholics and Orthodox (such as Europe/Asia)? I would rather see us make overtures to the Orthodox than the happy-clappy form of Protestants.

We have a handful of Orthodox in these parts, and no regular Orthodox church. The priest is by only a few times of a year, and from what I gather it's sporadic at best. The rest of the time, they will sometimes randomly show up at our Latin-rite parish (and probably sometimes at the local Ukrainian-rite one too). I would rather see us baptizing those babies, even if we don't "keep" them, instead of waiting a long time (or having to travel a long distance) to get them done and risking their immortal souls.

No doubt there are circumstances where this practice has some possible justification,but at least officially the Orthodox are allowed to be of the opinion that Catholics have no grace and no priesthood at all.  Depending on the jurisdiction or parish that child would be "rebaptized" eventually by Orthodox anyway.

The rationale for this is laid out nicely in Father Peter Alban Heers book.  In essence how can,say, a non member of a club initiate someone into a club they don't belong to? For many Orthodox it's nonsensical to say like Catholics that even atheists can baptize. You can't give what you don't have.

Personally I'm glad Rome actually teaches that the Orthodox have grace and true sacraments, I think it better reflects reality than the very rigid, strict view of some Orthodox,but I still don't think we can sweep under the rug the very real ecclesial differences that divide us.

Do you really have Orthodox attending modern Latin Rite parishes? That's interesting.

Just for the record, FB (and you probably know this anyway  :) ), and for greater clarity, there ARE major Orthodox jurisdictions, at least in this country, that do accept Catholic and Protestant (as long as it is done "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", and with water) baptism and that do consider that the Catholic Church has grace and true sacraments.  I speak specifically of the OCA and the Antiochians, both of which I have experience with.

The Greek Orthodox do as well; the Metropolia of Denver has guidelines on what groups' baptisms are acceptable on their website. It is considered an act of oikonomia to accept heterodox baptism. Russians traditionally receive Catholic converts by a renunciation of error and Chrismation; Catholic baptisms are considered "true," but only grace-filled upon reception into the Orthodox Church. The view that ALL non-Orthodox sacraments are without grace seems to be a bit of an extreme position, especially with respect to Baptism. It's a more common view with the other mysteries.

The Greek monastery around here affiliated with Elder Ephraim will not let non Orthodox stand outside the narthex during their services. They do not consider Chrismation to be a valid method of reception. Most the traditional centers of Orthodoxy have similar rules, places like Mount Athos, old world ROCOR parishes, monasteries and churches in Russia etc. Catholic baptism is not valid, most especially through anything other than triple immersion.

Of course this is not the case everywhere, but I'm just pointing out that within Orthodoxy it is a fully traditional and acceptable opinion that there are no grace filled sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. That there is no unified view on this makes this new Roman position quite problematic I think.

That there is no unified authority shows why we need the Pope.
Reply
#18
(09-17-2016, 11:29 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 08:17 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: Back to the topic at hand, if this is about the sacraments of initiation, then what does that change? It was already the case that people could be baptized in one Church sui juris but be canonically inscribed in another. Among Eastern Catholics in the West, that's extremely common; it is certainly not unheard of for canonical Latins to be baptized in an Eastern Church, either. This is very common at my Ruthenian parish; no one seems to be under the impression they are made Ruthenian by that alone.

Maybe it was already the practice, but was never spelled out?

One thing that I think is changing is that if the child's parents are one Eastern and one Latin, the parents can elect which rite the child belongs to (as long as they agree) and that the child may opt later on. As it stands currently, I believe the rule is that it's automatically the rite of the father, but perhaps I am misinformed.

This was already spelled out in the Code of 1983.
Reply
#19
The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church began an eight-day meeting on September 15.

The meeting, hosted by the Archdiocese of Chieti-Vasto, is devoted to the commission’s newest draft document, “Towards a common understanding of Synodality and Primacy in service to the Unity of the Church.”

According to the Holy See Press Office, participants will examine whether the draft “adequately reflects the currently existing consensus on the delicate question” or whether additional work on the draft is needed.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=29361

I wonder if they addressed any of the changes in Canon Law?
Reply
#20
(09-16-2016, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: Am I misunderstanding something here?

"- Catholics of one rite may receive the sacraments in another Catholic Church; by doing so they do not become formal members of the other rite."

I thought we could do that anyway.

You could and can.

The question comes later, when you have decided that despite being a Latin-rite Catholic you are going to exclusively attend Eastern-rite liturgies, be married in the Eastern-rite, Baptize your children in the Eastern rite, etc.

At some point there's a question as to which laws apply. That's especially the case for marriages. For Easterns the priest's blessing is necessary for validity of marriages. In the West, no. So, the question then is the person an Eastern or Latin Catholic. That's especially important when looking at nullity of marriage cases.

Often that's solved by asking about the rite of Baptism, but that's not always definitive. For instance, perhaps a Latin Catholic fleeing Fr. Jimmy and his technicolor chasuble, has been going to a Byzantine church for 20 years, had his children baptized there, but finally a Latin Mass comes his way and he goes back. What's the status of the children, or his status?

Is one who has never de jure changed rites, but de facto has, Latin or Eastern?

Now the question is clear. One has to formally (de jure) change rites, and mere reception of sacraments, even for a long time, is insufficient.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)