Engaging with the Eastern Orthodox liturgy

[DuxLux]

Is attending and engaging in their liturgy via bowing, kneeling, kissing icons, etc., permissible?

[Michael Wilson]

No, this is called "communicatio in sacris" i.e. Participating in non-Catholic worship; this is strictly forbidden by Divine Law. If you want to take part in an Eastern Liturgy, try one of the various Eastern Catholic rites, such as the Ukranians; Ruthenians; Russian; Maronite; Melkite etc. Same rites, but are united to the Catholic Church. 

[LausTibiChriste]

It's fine, don't listen to Michael (with all due respect to him)

They have valid sacraments....if the priest walks out with a chalice of consecrated hosts, you better bow, that's Christ in his hands.

Catholic antagonism towards the Orthodox (and vice versa) is born of political ideologies and mars the truth of what is really behind our differences. A lack of nuance, coupled with tribalism, is why we're never going to solve our differences on a human level - it will take Christ's direct intervention to get things back as they were.

The Catholics and Orthodox are like the two brothers of a mob boss. They come from the same father but set up their own factions and have blood lust for the other brother, but both still love their father.

It's ridiculous for Catholics to say it's a mortal sin to attend an Orthodox liturgy, then turn around and say it's ok to receive their sacraments on your death bed.

So at the one time in your life your soul is most vulnerable, when the devil is working his hardest to snatch you from grace, you're suddenly allowed to commit what would otherwise be a mortal sin? Give me a break.


Bowing, kneeling and kissing icons is fine - most, I'd wager 90%, of their icons are of saints from pre-schism, so no issues there. What - we can kiss an icon of St Nicholas if it says Catholic on the door, but if it says Orthodox suddenly it's a sin? Nonsense.

I would not commune (they wouldn't let you anyways) because while valid their sacraments are illicit.

But it's murky waters - APPARENTLY St Pius X allowed communicatio in sacris for Russian Catholics under certain circumstances. I have yet to come across anything confirming this though, so take it with a grain of salt (though if I ever do, I'm singing it from the hilltops).

[Michael Wilson]

L.T.B.
It isn't "fine" at all. The differences between us are essential and not due to tribalism. Christ only founded one Church with Peter at its head, not a series of "autocephalus" national "churches" based on one's country of origin or ethnic group.
Catholics and Orthos are not two brothers, but two different species; one belonging to the Mystical Body and one belonging to a man made organization, that apes the true Church.
It is not ridiculous at all to hold that those who actively participate in the religious services of a false religion, are by that very fact, making a public manifestation and avowal that this religion is the one true Church.
The bowing and kissing of icons during a non-Catholic religious service is in fact manifesting one's adherence to this non-Catholic sect. The very same icon can be venerated outside of said religious service, as long as it is a saint of the Catholic Church. If one were to venerate an icon say of "St. Pothius" who was the originator of the Greek schism, even outside of a religious service, would be the equivalent of honoring him for his sinful actions and it would be participating in his sin. 
The receiving absolution from a non-Catholic minister one one's death bed, is a merciful provision by the Catholic Church for its children who have no other certain means to obtain forgiveness of their sins and peace of souls in their final moments.

[Stubborn]

It's ridiculous for Catholics to say it's a mortal sin to attend an Orthodox liturgy, then turn around and say it's ok to receive their sacraments on your death bed.

So at the one time in your life your soul is most vulnerable, when the devil is working his hardest to snatch you from grace, you're suddenly allowed to commit what would otherwise be a mortal sin? Give me a break.

But it is a mortal sin and it's not ridiculous:

Council of Trent
CHAPTER VII.
On the Reservation of Cases:
"...Neither is it to be doubted, seeing that all things, that are from God, are well ordered but that this same may be lawfully done by all bishops, each in his own diocese, unto edification, however, not unto destruction, in virtue of the authority, above (that of) other inferior priests, delivered to them over their subjects, especially as regards those crimes to which the censure of excommunication is annexed. But it is consonant to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."

[Michael Wilson]

Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical "Mortalium Animus" (1928), condemned the modern Ecumenical heresy, and explained the true doctrine of the Catholic Church on the uniqueness, of the Catholic Church. This doctrine can not just be applied to Orthodoxy, but to any other non-Catholic denomination that claims to believe in Christ.
1.Christ founded a Church, only one.
2.The Church must be visible and apparent.
3. Composed of a body of faithful, under one government; teaching authority; agreeing and confessing one and the same doctrine.
4. Not a heterogeneous collection of individuals professing different doctrines; under different leaders.
5. This Church, by our Lord's solemn promise, would endure to the end of the World.
The whole Encyclical, which is very short, is worthwhile reading. 

We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations."[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?"[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]

[Mushroom]

It's fine, don't listen to Michael (with all due respect to him)

They have valid sacraments....if the priest walks out with a chalice of consecrated hosts, you better bow, that's Christ in his hands.

Catholic antagonism towards the Orthodox (and vice versa) is born of political ideologies and mars the truth of what is really behind our differences. A lack of nuance, coupled with tribalism, is why we're never going to solve our differences on a human level - it will take Christ's direct intervention to get things back as they were.

The Catholics and Orthodox are like the two brothers of a mob boss. They come from the same father but set up their own factions and have blood lust for the other brother, but both still love their father.

It's ridiculous for Catholics to say it's a mortal sin to attend an Orthodox liturgy, then turn around and say it's ok to receive their sacraments on your death bed.

So at the one time in your life your soul is most vulnerable, when the devil is working his hardest to snatch you from grace, you're suddenly allowed to commit what would otherwise be a mortal sin? Give me a break.


Bowing, kneeling and kissing icons is fine - most, I'd wager 90%, of their icons are of saints from pre-schism, so no issues there. What - we can kiss an icon of St Nicholas if it says Catholic on the door, but if it says Orthodox suddenly it's a sin? Nonsense.

I would not commune (they wouldn't let you anyways) because while valid their sacraments are illicit.

But it's murky waters - APPARENTLY St Pius X allowed communicatio in sacris for Russian Catholics under certain circumstances. I have yet to come across anything confirming this though, so take it with a grain of salt (though if I ever do, I'm singing it from the hilltops).

Aren't they okay with divorce and contraception?

[queen.saints]

Yes, they are.

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/some-orthodox-voices-on-contraception/

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Yes, they are.

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/some-orthodox-voices-on-contraception/

IMO, this is a smoking gun.

No true religion was ever wrong on bedroom issues.

[LausTibiChriste]

It's irrelevant to the conversation.

Do they teach it? Some do, yes, and is it wrong? Absolutely. It's a far greater reason for me never switching sides than the Papacy is.

The question was about kneeling, kissing icons etc, within an Orthodox Church.

[tradne4163]

It depends on the context. If you're doing your own reverences yourself apart from the Divine Liturgy and just merely while it happens to be in progress I don't see the problem. Actively following along with actions that are customary during an EO Divine Liturgy is what is forbidden.

The difference is in the intent to unite with non-Catholic worship.

[Michael Wilson]

Here is a couple of excerpts from an article on Communicatio in Sacris by a Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.
might help to clear up some questions:
Praying With Non-Catholics — Is it Possible?
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm

By Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.

Fr. D. Prummer OP, writing in 1910, affirms in his Manuale Theologiæ Moralis that it is never licit for a Catholic to take part in a non-Catholic cult with the intention of worshipping God in the manner of non-Catholics, more acatholicorum. Such an act, he declares, is nothing other than a denial of the Catholic faith.2 In the same year, writing an article on 'Heresy' for the Catholic Encyclopœdia, Fr. J. Wilhelm SJ affirms that a Catholic may attend non-Catholic services, but only 'provided no active part be taken in them'. In an article on the same subject, the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique reiterates, in 1920, that active participation in non-Catholic rites is toujours interdite (always prohibited) – the reason being that it is 'equivalent to a denial of the Catholic faith'. In 1930, Fr. B. Merkelbach OP in his Summa Theologiæ Moralis writes that 'active participation in the sacred things of a [non-Catholic] public cult is illicit, since it implies approval of the worship and a recognition of the sect.'3 Using a slightly different terminology but teaching the same doctrine, Fr. L. Fanfani OP writes, in 1950, 'material communicatio in sacris ['material' in the sense that the person in question does not mean to renounce his Catholic faith], if it is active and immediate, is never permissible for Catholics.'4 The reason for this, he explains, is that such behaviour necessarily manifests a commitment to a heretical or at least an illegitimate cultus.

And from the same article:

The traditional teaching of Catholic theology on whether Catholics may participate in non-Catholic religious services is summed up by St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, 'It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them'.1 The reason for this teaching is clear: religious commitments are naturally manifested by outward acts; and to perform an outward act expressive of a false religious commitment is a sin against the true faith. This is true even if the man in question retains the true faith in his heart. So to take the classic example, Christians in the Roman Empire realised that they must not throw incense before a statue of the Emperor, even if they had no belief at all in his divinity – for the act was of itself, in their context, expressive of such a belief, and hence sinful.

The Orthodox also have a false theology on the divine nature, positing that God is divided between His essence and His energies; therefore positing that there are two eternal beings in God.

[EastWest7]

Here is a couple of excerpts from an article on Communicatio in Sacris by a Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.
might help to clear up some questions:
Praying With Non-Catholics — Is it Possible?
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm

By Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.

Fr. D. Prummer OP, writing in 1910, affirms in his Manuale Theologiæ Moralis that it is never licit for a Catholic to take part in a non-Catholic cult with the intention of worshipping God in the manner of non-Catholics, more acatholicorum. Such an act, he declares, is nothing other than a denial of the Catholic faith.2 In the same year, writing an article on 'Heresy' for the Catholic Encyclopœdia, Fr. J. Wilhelm SJ affirms that a Catholic may attend non-Catholic services, but only 'provided no active part be taken in them'. In an article on the same subject, the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique reiterates, in 1920, that active participation in non-Catholic rites is toujours interdite (always prohibited) – the reason being that it is 'equivalent to a denial of the Catholic faith'. In 1930, Fr. B. Merkelbach OP in his Summa Theologiæ Moralis writes that 'active participation in the sacred things of a [non-Catholic] public cult is illicit, since it implies approval of the worship and a recognition of the sect.'3 Using a slightly different terminology but teaching the same doctrine, Fr. L. Fanfani OP writes, in 1950, 'material communicatio in sacris ['material' in the sense that the person in question does not mean to renounce his Catholic faith], if it is active and immediate, is never permissible for Catholics.'4 The reason for this, he explains, is that such behaviour necessarily manifests a commitment to a heretical or at least an illegitimate cultus.

And from the same article:

The traditional teaching of Catholic theology on whether Catholics may participate in non-Catholic religious services is summed up by St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, 'It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them'.1 The reason for this teaching is clear: religious commitments are naturally manifested by outward acts; and to perform an outward act expressive of a false religious commitment is a sin against the true faith. This is true even if the man in question retains the true faith in his heart. So to take the classic example, Christians in the Roman Empire realised that they must not throw incense before a statue of the Emperor, even if they had no belief at all in his divinity – for the act was of itself, in their context, expressive of such a belief, and hence sinful.

The Orthodox also have a false theology on the divine nature, positing that God is divided between His essence and His energies; therefore positing that there are two eternal beings in God.

Hello Michael,
Respectfully, the comment on the Orthodox Church's teaching on God's essence and energies is not correct. The divine nature is not divided. 
The teaching is that God essence is unknowable by mankind. What we are able to participate in however, is God's energies, ie., God's grace in our lives. Eg., the Mass and the sacraments.   

[EastWest7]

Relative to the Orthodox Church's teaching on God's essence and energies, for what it's worth there are several books that might be of interest to some:

In The Image and Likeness of God by Vladimir Lossky (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974)
The Mystical Theology of The Eastern Church (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976)
St Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality by Fr John Meyendorff (St Vladimir's Seminary, 1974)

Fr Meyendorff was my spiritual director and professor during my time at St Vladimir's, 1975-1983.

[LausTibiChriste]

Fr Meyendorff was my spiritual director and professor during my time at St Vladimir's, 1975-1983.

Wow..what a blessing