Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit?

[AugustTherese]

Because administering the Sacraments without the permission and authority of the Church they belong to is just that, illicit.

 

[Spyridon]

Illicit to me always meant “celebrated outside of lawful norms which are prescribed by the Roman Church”, or “celebrated without the blessing of the Holy See”.

You have to separate the terms illicit and invalid.

Invalid would be “in efficacious, ineffective, having no real Sacramental value”.

Hence, the EO have valid but illicit Sacraments.

 

[Spyridon]

In that case it would be licit by way of the dispensation granted by the Priests.

Had it been the other wau around, I doubt the EO would have agreed to it. The EO officially view the RCC as schismatic and heretical with no Sacraments.

 

[Spyridon]

swers
Christine,
It is unlikely, due to the unfortunate situation between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches, that you will be able to celebrate your marriage with the 2 priests jointly performing the ceremony.
There is also an additional issue to consider. If you are married in the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church will not recognize the validity of the wedding and your fiance will be refused the sacraments. On the other hand if you get married in the Orthodox Church the Roman Catholic Church will recognize the wedding as valid.
If you were to get married in the Roman Catholic there would be no requirement for your fiance to convert.
Hope that’s helpful.

– Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), July 26, 2003.

 

[Spyridon]

I think it’s about time the RCC puts its foot down with the EO.

They need to start reciprocating the charity we extend to them, or we need to back up on our dialogue.

All the advances the RCC has made to the EO have fallen on deaf ears.

The EO officially teach the RCC is schismatic, heretical, and has illicit invalid Sacraments.

 

[Spyridon]

The EO would not agree to it because to them it’s impossible.

According to the EO the RCC is schismatic and heretical with invalid illicit sacraments.

 

[Spyridon]

You could interpret it as pointing to the truth of the RCC.

The RCC extends charity to the EO which the EO do not reciprocate; therefore the RCC is more charitable.

The True Church is obviously the more charitable Church.

Therefore the RCC is true while the EO are technically in schism from the True Church.

 

[Spyridon]

And the EO saying I’m a schismatic heretic who is hellbound for rejecting the EOC is incredibly offensive to me.

 

[jas84173]

The Orthodox are vilified a lot on this site.
The schism of 1054, although working it’s way up centuries before that was the fault of both sides.
I am Catholic but I believe and I think even the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople today acknowledge the unfortunate break of east and west was the fault of both sides.
It is a problem I have with the 20 Answers booklet on The Church . It only tells the side of the story from the Catholic point of view. It fails to acknowledge Rome actually requested Greek speaking churches to abandon their traditions first. Constantinople then did the same.
Look the Pope is infallible but to what extent? Prior to the schism he was the first among equals. That is now the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Although in Schism the Orthodox Churches are completely valid. They have different traditions but that doesn’t mean anything. It all comes to Papal authority which they do not believe in in the same way Rome does. They acknowledge a hierarchy very similar to Rome.
Although in Schism that doesn’t mean it is permanent. Reconciliation would be an amazing thing for the Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

The Orthodox are vilified a lot on this site.
The schism of 1054, although working it’s way up centuries before that was the fault of both sides.
I am Catholic but I believe and I think even the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople today acknowledge the unfortunate break of east and west was the fault of both sides.
It is a problem I have with the 20 Answers booklet on The Church . It only tells the side of the story from the Catholic point of view. It fails to acknowledge Rome actually requested Greek speaking churches to abandon their traditions first. Constantinople then did the same.
Look the Pope is infallible but to what extent? Prior to the schism he was the first among equals. That is now the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Although in Schism the Orthodox Churches are completely valid. They have different traditions but that doesn’t mean anything. It all comes to Papal authority which they do not believe in in the same way Rome does. They acknowledge a hierarchy very similar to Rome.
Although in Schism that doesn’t mean it is permanent. Reconciliation would be an amazing thing for the Church.

I think some may be misunderstanding and over-analyzing the purpose of this post. This was in no way, shape, or form meant to inadvertently or deliberately denigrate the Eastern Churches, their Sacraments, and/or their intentions. Let us not become over-sensitive and lose sight of what is trying to be constructively discoursed. All I was initially seeking clarification and substantiation for was if the Orthodox Sacraments were licit or illicit. I have never once heard from a “priest” that the EO Sacraments were licit, until @FrDavid96.

 

[Melchior_1]

We consider the Orthodox have valid Sacraments due to maintaining the validity of their Holy Orders (unlike Protestants). We no longer consider them excommunicated nor are they suspended, so that eliminates any canonical penalties if they were under the Code of 1983 - which they aren’t anyway, due having their own Code of Canon Law.

The mutual excommunications being lifted is a recent thing. Blessed Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted them in 1965. Before that, I think it’s possible that their Sacraments were considered illicit.

For what it’s worth, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together in 1995. Take from that what you will.

 

[AugustTherese]

We consider the Orthodox have valid Sacraments due to maintaining the validity of their Holy Orders (unlike Protestants). We no longer consider them excommunicated nor are they suspended, so that eliminates any canonical penalties if they were under the Code of 1983 - which they aren’t anyway, due having their own Code of Canon Law.

The mutual excommunications being lifted is a recent thing. Blessed Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted them in 1965. Before that, I think it’s possible that their Sacraments were considered illicit.

For what it’s worth, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together in 1995. Take from that what you will.

Does this make the EO Sacraments licit?

 

[Spyridon]

I get the feeling some posters are not clear on the differentiation in RC thought between validity and legality.

Nobody in this thread contended the EO were evil or had invalid Sacraments.

I am with @AugustTherese that up to today, I had always been taught the EO have valid yet illicit Sacraments and that they are orthodox and catholic but technically in schism.

Now me and apparently @AugustTherese have been scandalized because a Priest has told us we were wrong and in fact the EO have both valid and licit Sacraments.

Which is why we are both still questioning and seeking clarification.

 

[FrDavid96]

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?

Here is the problem:

You are trying to answer a question. You are arriving at that answer based on the consequences of the answer, instead of the question itself.

Let me give an analogy.

Let’s say that there is a bridge over a very deep chasm. The road is 55 MPH speed limit. The bridge collapses. You ask me "has the city installed a sign that says ‘bridge out’ to warn drivers? I answer you “no, the city has not installed a sign.” You then come back and say “well, that cannot be true, because if it were true then unaware drivers would fall into the chasm.” I say “well, there is no sign.” Again, you come back and say “it can’t be true, if it’s true, the consequences would be terrible.” I say again “the city has not installed a sign.” You respond “you’re wrong. You are absolutely wrong. There must be a sign because the consequences of no sign would be horrible.” I say to you “the fact is, there is no sign.” You respond: “I cannot fathom how that could be true because people will die.” It would not matter how you re-phrase the question. Either a sign is there or not. The consequences don’t change the fact.

See where I"m going here?

You keep changing the question.

The question is whether or not the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Canon Law as being legitimate.

The answer to that question is “Yes. We recognize Orthodox laws as those laws apply to the Orthodox.”

Because you don’t like what you see as the consequences to the answer, you keep repeating it.

The consequences don’t change the fact.

It just does not matter what anyone on CAF posts or asks. It will not change the plain fact of the matter.

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Church Laws as it applies to them.

That fact will not change. No one posting on CAF can change it.

 

[AugustTherese]

as those laws apply to the Orthodox

That is ecclesial relativism. Using that definition we can presuppose that any schismatic Bishop can lawfully ordain priests.

 

[FrDavid96]

Does this make the EO Sacraments licit?

WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF THE WORD LICIT ???

I am afraid we will get nowhere before addressing this directly.

Again: what is your definition of the word licit?

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

as those laws apply to the Orthodox

That is ecclesial relativism. Using that definition we can presuppose that any schismatic Bishop can lawfully ordain priests.

You keep doing it to yourself.

You cannot help it.

You are like a moth drawn to a flame.

You keep proving that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Now you throw out the word “relativism” in a way that does not apply.

You need to get a dictionary. You keep using words without understanding their definitions.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

FrDavid96:

as those laws apply to the Orthodox

That is ecclesial relativism. Using that definition we can presuppose that any schismatic Bishop can lawfully ordain priests.

You keep doing it to yourself.

You cannot help it.

You are like a moth drawn to a flame.

You keep proving that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Now you throw out the word “relativism” in a way that does not apply.

You need to get a dictionary. You keep using words without understanding their definitions.

Are you a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church? Until you answer this, I have no choice but to speculate that you are an SSPX priest or some other kind of priest not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Which is why we are both still questioning and seeking clarification.

Because you will not take the time to even try to understand what I am attempting to explain to you.

You have this notion stuck in your head, the phrase “valid but illicit.” You’ve heard it over and over again. Since you’ve heard it so many times, you take it at face value to be absolutely true.

Step 1 is to learn the definition of the words. One cannot use words without first understanding what they mean.

You have a pre-conceived notion that somehow the phrase “valid but illicit” is some sort of absolute truth.

Consequently, when I try to explain the situation to you, you won’t take the time to think about it. You simply respond automatically with “if that goes against the truism of valid but illicit I won’t listen to anything.”

You are not seeking clarification. Instead, you’re trying to prove me wrong.

What I am expressing is not my opinion. It is not something that is subject to anyone’s opinion. It is a simple matter of either the Church does or does not recognize Orthodox church law. And, like it or not, the Church does.

 

[Melchior_1]

Does this make the EO Sacraments licit?

It depends. Remember that although they are not bound by our Canon Law, we still are. That means although their Liturgy may be licit, it would be illicit for us to attend.

The “Canon Law Made Easy” tackled the question on if a Catholic can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. According to our Canon Law, we can’t unless certain criteria is applicable. When the criteria is met, it becomes licit for us to attend.

This might be different than the SSPX, as their Masses are inherently illicit due to their canonical place within the Church. Although I believe it was Benedict XVI said that one could fulfill their Sunday obligation provided they go due to a person’s love of the Extraordinary Form, there was no other nearby options for attending the EF, and that you don’t go there with a schismatic mindset. So in that case, it’s something inherently illicit that becomes licit for the person attending if certain criteria is met.

With all this in mind, personally I think EO Sacraments are inherently valid/licit, but to us they are illicit due to us being bound by the Code of 1983.

Which would mean @FrDavid96 is correct, and the people who have taught you in the past are also correct.