Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AugustTherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AugustTherese

Guest
It is rather common knowledge to understand that the Orthodox Church’s Sacraments are valid due to apostolic succession and maintaining the proper form and intention in their rites.

However, are the Orthodox Sacraments licit, lawful?
 
The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Church Laws as having force-of-law as they pertain to Orthodox persons and Orthodox discipline. The exception is that we do not recognize the Orthodox legal principle of oikonomia which permits a second or third (but generally not 4th) marriage when the first spouse is still living.

Some Orthodox do not like the term “canon law” but prefer other terms instead, so I sometimes try to avoid using that term, and instead will say Church Law or Ecclesiastical Law. Most readily use the term “canon law.”
 
@FrDavid96

Is that a yes or a no?

So, if the Orthodox Church has the power to govern themselves with their own ecclesial law, does that make their Sacraments inherently licit? Does the sacredotal power that an Orthodox priest has and maintains, does that come from the Orthodox Church and its ecclesial law, or, does it come from the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
 
AugustTherese said:
@FrDavid96

Is that a yes or a no?
Click to expand...
It is exactly as I wrote it.

They are licit in-so-far as they follow the Orthodox laws. If an Orthodox priest acts contrary to Orthodox law, he acts illicitly. If he acts according to Orthodox law, he acts licitly.
So, if the Orthodox Church has the power to govern themselves with their own ecclesial law, does that make their Sacraments inherently licit?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as sacraments being inherently licit. I have no idea what you mean by that phrase. It makes no sense. It is a non-sense phrase. Nothing can be “inherently licit” It is either lawful or it is not lawful. Since laws are subject to change, the criteria of “inherently?” makes no sense. Now, one might say that Divine Law is inherently licit—but I gather that’s far from what you’re asking here.

Licit means “according to the law.” So again, when the Orthodox persons (clergy or lay) act in accordance with their laws, they act licitly. When they act contrary to their laws, they act illicitly.

It appears as if you are asking the question of whether or not the Orthodox have the authority to make church laws. Yes, they do. They have the authority to make laws to govern themselves. No one disputes this. Indeed, the Catholic Church specifically affirms it.
Does the sacredotal power that an Orthodox priest has and maintains, does that come from the Orthodox Church and its ecclesial law, or, does it come from the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
Click to expand...
I cannot possibly explain that to you until you FIRST understand the fundamental principles behind the question that you ask. You are nowhere near that point.
 
Proof that the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of Orthodox Church laws

#16 Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.
Vatican II
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
 
Further proof
  1. Following the Second Vatican Council, and in the light of earlier tradition, it has again become usual to refer to the particular or local Churches gathered around their Bishop as “Sister Churches”. In addition, the lifting of the mutual excommunications, by eliminating a painful canonical and psychological obstacle, was a very significant step on the way towards full communion.
57…Contact with this glorious tradition is most fruitful for the Church. As the Council points out: “From their very origins the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Church of the West has amply drawn for its liturgy, spiritual tradition and jurisprudence”

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II

UT UNUM SINT

On commitment to Ecumenism

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

Commentary: The very act of recognizing the Orthodox Churches as Sister Churches means that we recognize their ability to govern themselves. Put another way, their ability to promulgate their own ecclesiastical laws.
 
Father bless,

So if they are both valid and licit, then I take it you would also contend they are not in schism from the Roman Church?

If they are valid, licit, and not in schism, then we need to ask: what possible reason would they have for reestablishing full communion with the Holy See?

Also, if they are both valid and licit, yet are not in schism, then shouldn’t we be saying “I believe in Two, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Churches”?

I was a Russian Orthodox Catechumen for almost a year - I reverted back to the Roman Church one week before I was received into Russian Orthodoxy via baptism and Chrismation.

I also attend a Ukrainian Catholic Church now.

But in my mind, the Eastern Orthodox are Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - but they are NOT One because they are in schism from the Holy Roman Church.
 
Last edited:
Further proof

Both current codes of Canon Law, for the West the 1983 Code and for the East the 1990 Code state in the first canon of each code

The 1982 Latin Code applies ONLY to the Latin Church

The 1990 Eastern Code applies ONLY to the Eastern Catholic Churches

That leave NO OTHER PLACE for Orthodox governance other-than the Orthodox laws themselves.

Since the Catholic Church holds the Orthodox to be true Churches, and a necessary element of BEING a church is the power of governance, it necessarily follows that the Orthodox Churches have the authority to govern themselves—to promulgate their own laws.
 
Spyridon said:
Father bless,

So if they are both valid and licit, then I take it you would also contend they are not in schism from the Roman Church?

If they are valid, licit, and not in schism, then we need to ask: what possible reason would they have for reestablishing full communion with the Holy See?

Also, if they are both valid and licit, yet are not in schism, then shouldn’t we be saying “I believe in Two, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Churches”?

I was a Russian Orthodox Catechumen for almost a year - I reverted back to the Roman Church one week before I was received into Russian Orthodoxy via baptism and Chrismation.

I also attend a Ukrainian Catholic Church now.

But in my mind, the Eastern Orthodox are Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - but they are NOT One because they are in schism from the Holy Roman Church.
Click to expand...
Exactly! We might as all well join the Orthodox Church, I mean, their Sacraments are just as licit as the Catholic Church’s.
 
I would refer you to St John Paul II in his letter Ut Unum Sint.

He answers your questions there.

No, I’m not dismissing the questions. I’m saying that he can answer things better than I.

The problem with your opening question is that you are making the same mistake as the OP of this thread: confusing the idea of being in Communion with Rome as being synonymous with the word “licit.”

Licit does not mean “in communion with Rome” it means “in accordance with the law.”
 
Father bless,

So in your opinion, Reverend Father, are the EO technically in schism, or not?

I understand from our Roman POV they have valid Mysteries (they dont like the term Sacraments).

I also understand that according to the EO themselves, they are lawful…

But from a Roman POV, aren’t they in schism from the Roman Church? And wouldn’t that schism mean they are celebrating the Sacraments illictly? Does not the Pope have supreme judicial jurisdiction over all of the Church?

And if we argue the EO have both valid AND licit Sacraments, can’t the same argument be made for groups like the SSPX?

My understanding up to this point has been that the EO have valid Sacraments, but they are celebrated illictly since they are technically in Schism from the Holy See.

Have I had a flawed understanding the past few years?
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
…

But from a Roman POV, aren’t they in schism from the Roman Church? And wouldn’t that schism mean they are celebrating the Sacraments illictly? …
Click to expand...
We are an an imperfect, wounded state of Communion.

AGAIN: you are still making the same mistake in the vocabulary.

Outside of the visible Communion with Rome IS NOT THE SAME THING as being “illicit.”

It won’t matter how many times you repeat the question. The two phrases do not meant the same thing.

Outside of the visible Communion means one thing.
Illicit means something else.

They are NOT equivalent terms or equivalent concepts.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
… And wouldn’t that schism mean they are celebrating the Sacraments illictly?
Click to expand...
No.

That truly is the answer to that question. No.

This is the very core of the misunderstanding.

We cannot get anywhere, we cannot discuss the topic at all, unless that point is made clear. That’s why I isolated it.

Schism and illicit are 2 entirely different words that refer to 2 entirely different concepts.

The two cannot be conflated or seen as equivalent terms or concepts.
 
Last edited:
FrDavid96 said:
Outside of the visible Communion with Rome IS NOT THE SAME THING as being “illicit.”
Click to expand...
That is exactly what it means! You are basically saying that it is licit and lawful for a bona fide Catholic Bishop to join a schismatic Church and ordain priests.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
Outside of the visible Communion with Rome IS NOT THE SAME THING as being “illicit.”
Click to expand...
That is exactly what it means! You are basically saying that it is licit and lawful for a bona fide Catholic Bishop to join a schismatic Church and ordain priests.
Click to expand...
In which you prove yet again your complete lack of any understanding of ecclesial laws.
 
FrDavid96 said:
40.png
AugustTherese:
40.png
FrDavid96:
Outside of the visible Communion with Rome IS NOT THE SAME THING as being “illicit.”
Click to expand...
That is exactly what it means! You are basically saying that it is licit and lawful for a bona fide Catholic Bishop to join a schismatic Church and ordain priests.
Click to expand...
In which you prove yet again your complete lack of any understanding of ecclesial laws.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you keep saying that without correcting anything or substantiating your stance.
 
I’m trying to understand Father, bare with me here.

So if the EO have both valid AND licit Sacraments, then what are the practical implications of their schism from the Holy See? Are you telling me the schism is just a technical schism, not an actual rupture from the Church?

Why would they want to reestablish Communion with us if we view them as having both licit and valid Sacraments?

Are you aware the EO view of the RCC? They don’t use the terms licit or valid, but the essentially say that not only is the RCC in schism, but the RCC is also heretical with both illicit and invalid Sacraments.

Why are we giving them so much when they give us so little? Isn’t that attitude reinforcing the schism by taking away any incentive for them to reestablish full Communion?
 
I do good for both reasons.

Also, it’s always been my understanding that the EO have valid Mysteries, but they are both illicit, and the EO are also in schism from the Holy See.

Seeing a Priest tell me I’ve been wrong for years was a shock.

He’s telling me they are both valid AND licit Sacraments.

Which then makes me think: if that’s the case, then the schism is a mere technicality - in other words, if that’s the case, the EO are de jure in schism, but de facto they are not.

And if they are de facto not in schism, yet de jure are in schism, yet they have both valid and licit Sacraments - then that makes me think: that must mean the EO are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

If the EO have both valid and licit Sacraments, to me, it becomes indefensible to then say they are in schism. How can they be in schism if they have valid and licit Sacraments - unless they are the One True Church, and in fact the RCC is in schism from them.

Why would an RC converting to EO be wrong if they have valid and licit Sacraments?

And since the EO say the RCC is a schismatic heretical church with invalid illicit sacraments, then wouldn’t a person be better off joining the EO?

If the RCC are right, then the EO is the True Church.

If the EO are right, the RCC is essentially demonic.

Wouldn’t you be better off being EO then, just in case the EO are the ones who are right?
 
Big sigh of relief!!! Thank you so very much for your insight!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top