A reader writes:
I have a friend who is Greek Orthodox. Our questions are about being a sponsor for a Baptism, a witness at a wedding and about receiving the Eucharist.
– Will the Roman Rite accept Baptism godparents or wedding witnesses who are Greek Orthodox, and vice versa?
Here’s what The Principles and Norms on Ecumenism say about Catholics and Orthodox serving as godparents at each others’ baptisms:
Because of the close communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is permissible for a just cause for an Eastern faithful to act as godparent; together with a Catholic godparent, at the baptism of a Catholic infant or adult, so long as there is provision for the Catholic education of the person being baptized, and it is clear that the godparent is a suitable one.
A Catholic is not forbidden to stand as godparent in an Eastern Orthodox Church, if heshe is so invited. In this case, the duty of providing for the Christian education binds in the first place the godparent who belongs to the Church in which the child is baptized [no. 98].
And here’s what the norms say about wedding witnesses:
136. Members of other Churches or ecclesial communities may be witnesses at the celebration of marriage in a Catholic church. Catholics may also be witnesses at marriages which are celebrated in other Churches or ecclesial communities.
When documents of this sort refer to "other churches," they have in mind churches with validly ordained bishops, which includes the Orthodox. "ecclesial communities" are those Christian communities without validly ordained bishops, which means (mostly) Protestants.
– I believe that I have heard that in the absence of a Catholic Church, the Roman Rite permits reception of the Eucharist at Orthodox churches, including the Greek Orthodox, but I am not sure. My friend does not know if the Greek Orthodox would permit him to attend a Roman Rite church in the absence of a Greek Orthodox church, in order to meet the Sunday obligation. Do you have some insight into this?
My understanding is that discipline on this question varies depending on which Eastern Orthodox church one is talking about. He would have to consult his own church to find out what their practice is.
For its part, the Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox to receive Communion in particular cases. The Code of Canon Law states:
Can. 844 ยง3. 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.
Saying that Catholic ministers administer these sacraments licity means that it is lawful (licit) for priests to do so on the indicated conditions.
"Properly disposed" means the usual conditions that one needs to fulfill in order to receive Communion, such as being in a state of grace and having fasted for an hour before Communion.
Hope this helps!
I have a sort of similar question. A friend of mine attends an Anglican church that uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The minister is a former Catholic priest who defected from the Church some years ago and is now married with three kids. My friend has argued to me that I ought to agree that his parish has a valid Eucharist because the minister is a properly ordained Catholic priest and this priest’s and this Anglican denomination’s understanding of the Eucharist is indistinguishable from the Catholic understanding. (At least I can’t understand how they’re different — they affirm transubstantiation even though the Articles of Religion in the back of the prayer book deny it. Needless to say, it’s not the mainline Episcopal Church.) I can’t imagine it would be licit for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist in such a place, but could he be right that these folks have a valid Eucharist?
they affirm transubstantiation even though the Articles of Religion in the back of the prayer book deny it
Why stay Anglican, then? Why bother to belong to a group whose theology you reject?
they affirm transubstantiation even though the Articles of Religion in the back of the prayer book deny it
Why stay Anglican, then? Why bother to belong to a group whose theology you reject?
sorry for the double post.
Well, there are unorthodox Catholic parishes too. It’s just that the proportions are reversed.
I think you’ll find that orthodox Anglicans consider themselves catholics, just as orthodox Lutherans do.
Obviously the situation is more complicated than that, but those are valid data.
Well, there are unorthodox Catholic parishes too.
Yes there are, but the same question applies to them: If they don’t believe what the Church teaches, why bother to belong???
When I stopped believing what my previous church taught, I left and joined a Church whose doctrines I do believe.
pha,
Thing is, those orthodox Anglicans are staying (or were?) because they believed that they were in the English-speaking section of the one, holy Catholic Church. Probably trusting God to remove heresy over time.
Just as American Catholics have endured “spirit of” masses for quite some time.
They aren’t, in their thinking about church, the same as low-kirk Protestants, who no longer see a difference between credobaptistic congregations of various denominations, seeing it al as one church, with no more change involved than between, say, Benedictines and Franscicans.
To your average Anglican (see MidwestConservative) leaving the Church of England would be like leaving the Roman Catholic Church. As long as there are a few orthodox bishops somewhere, many stay in.
pha,
Thing is, those orthodox Anglicans are staying (or were?) because they believed that they were in the English-speaking section of the one, holy Catholic Church. Probably trusting God to remove heresy over time.
Just as American Catholics have endured “spirit of” masses for quite some time.
They aren’t, in their thinking about church, the same as low-kirk Protestants, who no longer see a difference between credobaptistic congregations of various denominations, seeing it al as one church, with no more change involved than between, say, Benedictines and Franscicans.
To your average Anglican (see MidwestConservative) leaving the Church of England would be like leaving the Roman Catholic Church. As long as there are a few orthodox bishops somewhere, many stay in.
those orthodox Anglicans are staying (or were?) because they believed that they were in the English-speaking section of the one, holy Catholic Church
You seem to be missing my point.
The Anglican Church officially and emphatically teaches that transubstantiation (or doctrines that amount to the same thing) is a “heresy.” You cannot be a good Anglican and believe it, you cannot be an “orthodox” Anglican and believe it, because it’s contrary to real Anglican doctrine. If you believe in transubstantiation, you’re a dissident Anglican (thank God!).
If someone believes that official Anglican teaching is wrong (like me), they should get outta Dodge (like I myself did) and find a Church that teaches true doctrine (there are plenty of English-speaking churches that have maintained apostolic succession that officially teach transubstantiation [or doctrines that amount to the same thing]).
I don’t need to be told what Anglicans are like. I come from a very devout, traditional Anglican family and I grew up Anglican. And when I rejected Anglican doctrines, I couldn’t get out of there soon enough.
Hi there,
I’d just like to point out that non-Orthodox are never allowed to serve as sponsors in an Orthodox baptism or wedding. Orthodox would be forbidden to serve as godparents in a heterodox baptism or wedding. Orthodox are never allowed to receive communion from anyone but an Orthodox clergyman. And there’s no “Sunday obligation” for Orthodox, so if an Orthodox can’t get to an Orthodox church then they are supposed to stay home and try again the following Sunday, and they definitely should not attend a heterodox church instead.
The Roman Catholic allowances are pretty much moot when it comes to us, because the Orthodox Church refuses to recognize a “close communion” that doesn’t exist.
Matrona: While what you say may be true of your experience as an Orthodox, it is not true of all within the broader Orthodox communion.
Dear Jimmy,
Nearly any Orthodox clergy would tell you the same thing I did. I say “nearly” because there might be an occasional pastoral exception, I won’t be so arrogant as to presume I speak for the entire body of Orthodox clergy in the entire history of the Church, but in all other cases, this is what you’re going to get. That said, I’d like to know how and where you conducted your research, the research that led you to answer as you did.
Jimmy,
Matrona is correct. The Orthodox do not recognize the validity of Catholic orders and sacraments. A candidate for God parent must be Orthodox. There are other requirements as well. The candidate must also be of the same sex as the child and there is only one God parent. God parents and their families can not inter marry with the family of the children that they are God parents too since they are now spiritually united.
Since the Orthodox Churches have the same faith and this is a matter of the faith, there is no difference between Orthodox jurisdictions on the matter. Different jurisdictions don’t imply a different faith.
Matrona & Perry–
I’ve personally attended Orthodox liturgies where Catholics were invited every week to receive the Eucharist, known Orthodox people who asked Catholics to serve as godparents, known Catholics who have invited Orthodox Christians to be godparents, and known several Catholics and Orthodox who’ve intermarried. All of these things happen regularly, whether they’re officially allowed or not, and saying “there is no difference between Orthodox jurisdictions on the matter” doesn’t change the facts.
Your statements may, as Jimmy said, “be true of your experience as an Orthodox, it is not true of all within the broader Orthodox communion.”
You know, I was poking around online tonight and I discovered this fascinating Catholic organization called “FutureChurch”. Now, I suppose you might think that your religion doesn’t support women’s ordination, but clearly that’s not true of all within the broader Catholic communion.
I suppose you might think that your religion doesn’t support women’s ordination,
We do, and that’s because it doesn’t.
but clearly that’s not true of all within the broader Catholic communion.
If you’re going to attribute any belief held by any person who calls himself a Catholic — truly or falsely — to the Church, you will go far astray.
Dear Mary,
I was trying to point out how ridiculous pha’s statement was with regard to the Orthodox Church. Just because a few unnamed, anonymous Orthodox “priests” will allegedly allow heterodox godparents, or commune any heterodox, does not mean it is actually allowed or even smiled upon by Orthodox. So I used an issue that was likely to be familiar, the issue of supporters of womens’ ordination within Roman Catholicism. I had hoped that upon seeing that it might be realized just how un-Orthodox and unorthodox it is for an Orthodox priest to commune a heterodox, just as it is unorthodox for a Roman Catholic to support womens’ ordination.
I would like to see pha come up with even one Orthodox bishop who would say otherwise on the issue of communing any heterodox without having been thoroughly condemned, and I would like to see Jimmy Akin study Orthodox canons and practices a little more closely before presuming to speak for them again.
…A candidate for God parent must be Orthodox.
Are you kidding me?!! Read this article.
This was the christening of a Greek Prince in a Greek Orthodox Cathedral! And his godfather is a heretical Anglican.
“Are you kidding me?!! Read this article.
This was the christening of a Greek Prince in a Greek Orthodox Cathedral! And his godfather is a heretical Anglican.”
That’s an instance of a pastoral exception, as I mentioned above.
This “pastoral exception” seems a betrayal of the very principles you outlined above. Or if you admit the principle of an exception, than the principles outlined can’t be as black and white as you’ve made them.
“This “pastoral exception” seems a betrayal of the very principles you outlined above. Or if you admit the principle of an exception, than the principles outlined can’t be as black and white as you’ve made them.”
Did you read the article? The kid has *eight* godparents. That tells me (as I’m sure it told you) that perhaps there’s more to their selection of godparents than their traditional function. Not ideal in any case, and certainly not consistent with Orthodox teaching and near-universal-practice, but if you are waiting for all Orthodox, or even Orthodox royalty, to be perfectly pious, you will be waiting a long time.
The Catholic church tends to be more tolerant of the Orthodox than the Orthodox are of us. For example, most Orthodox priests will not knowingly administer Communion to a Catholic. They seem to especially dislike us Eastern Catholics, because they consider us to be turncoats. The Orthodox came up with the term “uniate” to describe us, and we consider it pejorative. We did not “unite” with the Roman church. We merely agreed, as an autocephalus church, to enter into communion with the Pope, in his role as supreme pontiff of the universal church, while retaining our own church structure, bishops, married clergy, and distinctive forms of liturgy and worship.