Anglican vs. Orthodox Orders

[GKC]

I’m not that big of a fan of this site, but this article about anglican, catholic, and orthodox orders was at least an interesting read and the writer seemed to make a decent argument. It at least touches on what you are asking, GKC.

religioustolerance.org/tony02.htm

I thank you for the link. I had to make a hurried reading of it, but, unless I missed something, it doesn’t address the issues of licit/ illicit orders, from the Roman perspective, which is the topic of discussion here. This is not the same as “doubtful” orders (in the original discussions of the 8 comissioners who first examined Anglican orders for Leo XIII, leading to the the issuing of Apostolicae Curae, half were of the opinion that Anglican orders were either vaild, or possibly valid/doubtful).

The points about economy and the details of *Apostolicae Curae *also do not touch on the concept of licit/illict. For that matter, (I’m something of a specialist on AC, it doesn’t adequately address the technical details of the findings of defect of form and defect of intention, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and its use in the
16th century.

I appreciate the link, but unless there’s another page that I missed, it is not addressing the pertinent point. IMO.

Thanks again.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

Ok.

Are there any RCs here with anything to contribute on the “Orthodox orders are valid but illicit (because not in communion with the Pope” issue? That is how I usually see it expressed.

GKC

I went through Ott last night, and didn’t see anything that would form the basis for the distinction, perhaps given more time? I don’t have the energy nor inclination to search any more at present.

I suppose we should have to hear from a Canon Lawyer of the Latin Catholic church. That is not to say I would expect the final word on the subject to come from such a person, what I am expecting is a clear explanation of Latin theory on the subject.

Personally (my theory), I do not think one can make a distinction between valid and licit when it comes to the sacraments of God. Either they are true and effective or not, but for us mere men either one knows or does not know (which is not the same as stating we know something is not).

On can not know where the Holy Spirit and God’s Grace does not flow and one can not pronounce that the Holy Spirit and God’s Grace flows somewhere that it should not! (which is how I see “valid but illicit”) Therefore I believe the question of licity is irrelevant.

In my opinion, not even a Patriarch or Pope can say the Holy Spirit is at work where it should not be. No mortal human creature should have the temerity to pronounce such a claim.

If anyone should be so brazen as to say they can know an ordination or any other sacrament is valid (or true) and yet improper or unapproved, they are judging the hand of God.

That is hamartia.

 

[GKC]

I went through Ott last night, and didn’t see anything that would form the basis for the distinction, perhaps given more time? I don’t have the energy nor inclination to search any more at present.

I suppose we should have to hear from a Canon Lawyer of the Latin Catholic church. That is not to say I would expect the final word on the subject to come from such a person, what I am expecting is a clear explanation of Latin theory on the subject.

Personally (my theory), I do not think one can make a distinction between valid and licit when it comes to the sacraments of God. Either they are true and effective or not, but for us mere men either one knows or does not know (which is not the same as stating we know something is not).

On can not know where the Holy Spirit and God’s Grace does not flow and one can not pronounce that the Holy Spirit and God’s Grace flows somewhere that it should not! (which is how I see “valid but illicit”) Therefore I believe the question of licity is irrelevant.

In my opinion, not even a Patriarch or Pope can say the Holy Spirit is at work where it should not be. No mortal human creature should have the temerity to pronounce such a claim.

If anyone should be so brazen as to say they can know an ordination or any other sacrament is valid (or true) and yet improper or unapproved, they are judging the hand of God.

That is hamartia.

I didn’t find anything in Ott, either.

I know another place to look. If I find anything, I’ll report.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Personally (my theory), I do not think one can make a distinction between valid and licit when it comes to the sacraments of God.

I don’t agree. If I, a Catholic, were to go to an Orthodox bishop and be ordained, that would clearly be illicit since I’m not in full communion with him. (The Orthodox would, I’d imagine, frown on such an act for the very same reason.)

In fact, even with the bishop of Providence, RI, were to ordain a new bishop without first consulting any other bishops (the Bishop of Rome in particular), then I would see that as an illicit ordination – in other words, an ordination that violates the (man-made) law of the church.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. I just started a thread called “Validity of orders” over at ByzCath. (It’s in the East-N-West forum).