Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit?

[FrDavid96]

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.

Yes I am a Catholic priest in perfectly good standing.

And you have no right to turn YOUR ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE OF THE TOPIC and your own stubbornness (which, at this point, is quite pathetic) into such an accusation against me.

 

[AugustTherese]

personally I think EO Sacraments are inherently valid/licit, but to us they are illicit

No one is denying the validity. How can you say they are inherently licit, but to us they are illicit? They are objectively licit, but to the Catholic Church, the one that has the authority of the Sacredotal power, they are subjectively illicit?

 

[FrDavid96]

I pray your Bishop sees this.

That’s funny!!!

It reminds me of something that happened a few years ago:

I was wearing a hat in church during Mass.

A parishioner didn’t like it. He really did not like it. He insisted that I stop wearing it. He made all kinds of threats against me if I should continue to wear it. He finally threatened to tell the bishop.

Eventually, he wrote a letter to the bishop.

Sure enough, I got a phone call a few days later.

“Father, we need to talk. I have this letter here in which a certain person tells me that you are wearing a hat at Mass. Is that true?”

“Yes, Bishop. It’s true. I’ve worn it every Sunday for the past few months.”

“That’s great. I thought it looked a little too small for you when I was in the store.”

“No Bishop. Perfect fit. And thank you so much for remembering that I wanted a biretta. I know you had a lot of things to do when you travelled and I appreciate that you thought about me.”

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

I pray your Bishop sees this.

That’s funny!!!

It reminds me of something that happened a few years ago:

I was wearing a hat in church during Mass.

A parishioner didn’t like it. He really did not like it. He insisted that I stop wearing it. He made all kinds of threats against me if I should continue to wear it. He finally threatened to tell the bishop.

Eventually, he wrote a letter to the bishop.

Sure enough, I got a phone call a few days later.

“Father, we need to talk. I have this letter here in which a certain person tells me that you are wearing a hat at Mass. Is that true?”

“Yes, Bishop. It’s true. I’ve worn it every Sunday for the past few months.”

“That’s great. I thought it looked a little too small for you when I was in the store.”

“No Bishop. Perfect fit. And thank you so much for remembering that I wanted a biretta. I know you had a lot of things to do when you travelled and I appreciate that you thought about me.”

Did you call that parishioner “ignorant” and they “didn’t know what they were talking about”?

Or did you turn the other cheek like Our Blessed Lord suggests?

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

There we have it!

The word “illicit” does not mean that something is done without the approval of the Holy See. That’s simply not the definition of the word.

Illicit means that is is somehow contrary to the law, or against the law, or in violation of the law. It is a synonym for “illegal.” The definition of the word has nothing to do with Rome.

In church language, we usually say “illicit” to refer to violation of church laws, but say “illegal” when speaking of civil laws. Not that there is a difference, but simply to make a distinction between the 2 kinds of laws.

 

[Melchior_1]

No one is denying the validity. How can you say they are inherently licit, but to us they are illicit? They are objectively licit, but to the Catholic Church, the one that has the authority of the Sacredotal power, they are subjectively illicit?

I believe they’re inherently licit because they are following their Code of Canon Law. Breaking away from your Code changes that. We can’t judge their valid Sacraments based on our Code because they are not bound by it. It would be the same with the Eastern Rites; we do not judge them by the Code of 1983, they have their own Code to determine the canonical licitness of their Sacraments.

Meanwhile, we as “Western Catholics” (for lack of a better term) are bound by the Code of 1983, so it would be illicit for us to partake unless certain criteria within the Code of 1983 is met by us.

 

[Elf01]

While the example I give goes to validity more than licity it may help.

Catholic’s are bound by the Catholic form of marriage or have to get a dispensation in order to marry outside the Church. Non Catholics are not. If two non Catholics marry outside the Church the marriage is recognized as valid, if one of them is Catholic and there is no dispensation it is not recognized as valid.

It’s a matter of jurisdiction.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

No one is denying the validity. How can you say they are inherently licit, but to us they are illicit? They are objectively licit, but to the Catholic Church, the one that has the authority of the Sacredotal power, they are subjectively illicit?

I believe they’re inherently licit because they are following their Code of Canon Law. Breaking away from your Code changes that. We can’t judge their valid Sacraments based on our Code because they are not bound by it. It would be the same with the Eastern Rites; we do not judge them by the Code of 1983, they have their own Code to determine the canonical licitness of their Sacraments.

Meanwhile, we as “Western Catholics” (for lack of a better term) are bound by the Code of 1983, so it would be illicit for us to partake unless certain criteria within the Code of 1983 is met by us.

If a Catholic Bishop under Latin Canon Law were to, without permission, join the EO and ordain a priest, it is illicit solely because of what Latin Canon Law states. But, once he has fully joined the EO, those Sacraments that belong to the Catholic Church, he licitly administers Catholic Sacraments simply because he is bound by EO canon law?

 

[twf]

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

The Orthodox I know in real life have no issue with the term “sacrament” because they realize that it means the same thing…“sacred mystery”.

 

[twf]

Not true. SOME Orthodox authorities teach this. Others do not. A distant cousin of mine is an Orthodox priest and he believes that Catholic sacraments convey grace.

 

[twf]

Of course the Church views their sacraments as licit. Think about it. Why were SSPX confessions and marriages deemed invalid (until very recently when Pope Francis graciously chose to confer limited faculties to their priests)? Because a priest without proper faculties cannot validly absolve sin nor witness a wedding. As we have always (and not just since Vatican II - but ALWAYS) recognized an Orthodox priest’s power to absolve sin and witness weddings…obviously they have faculties. If not from a Catholic bishop, then from who? Their Orthodox bishop… thus, the Catholic Church has always recognized Eastern Law as it applies to Eastern Christians.

Your use of “priest” in regards to Fr. David is also incredibly offensive. Father has long been an active and valued member of this forum.

 

[Spyridon]

After further research I will say it does appear to me that EO Sacraments are both valid and licit.

The validity and legality of their Sacraments is however a separate issue from their Communion with Rome, and I understand better now than I did before - I was conflating the ideas that liceity derives from Communion with the Holy See, which is not necessarily the case.

I will say too however, that your suspicion of me wanting to be proven right instead of learning was wrong.

I was legitimately ignorant about the intricacies and specifics of this issue. This thread led to my further catechesis.

 

[twf]

Not true. The Orthodox Churches are not considered the equivalent of rogue individual schismatic bishops. Your opinion does not trump the opinion of the Magisterium…as expressed here by the good Father.

 

[Melchior_1]

If a Catholic Bishop under Latin Canon Law were to, without permission, join the EO and ordain a priest, it is illicit solely because of what Latin Canon Law states. But, once he has fully joined the EO, those Sacraments that belong to the Catholic Church, he licitly administers Catholic Sacraments simply because he is bound by EO canon law?

Administration of the Sacraments within the Western and Eastern Rites revolves around faculties. Without faculties, then Sacraments become illicit (Mass, Holy Orders) or invalid (Confirmation, Marriage, Confession). There’s also the issue of being canonically suspended.

In both examples you provide, a Bishop who joins the EO with or without permission wouldn’t have faculties to perform Catholic Sacraments (unless someone is dying) - unless they receive permission from valid canonical authorities such as the Pope.

Why were SSPX confessions and marriages deemed invalid (until very recently when Pope Francis graciously chose to confer limited faculties to their priests)?

It was just for Confession, IIRC. Their marriages and confirmations are still invalid.

 

[Melchior_1]

I was legitimately ignorant about the intricacies and specifics of this issue. This thread led to my further catechesis.

I wouldn’t say you were ignorant. Canon Law is one of those things that can get complicated in a hurry

 

[Spyridon]

The EO are in a different situation from schismatic RC.

It’s quite the quagmire - it took me the entire afternoon researching and studying to understand the issue. It simply wasnt making sense to me a few hours ago. Now it does.

 

[FrDavid96]

After further research I will say it does appear to me that EO Sacraments are both valid and licit.

The validity and legality of their Sacraments is however a separate issue from their Communion with Rome, and I understand better now than I did before.

I will say too however, that your suspicion of me wanting to be proven right instead of learning was wrong.

I was legitimately ignorant about the intricacies and specifics of this issue. This thread led to my further catechesis.

It wasn’t suspicion.

Sometimes we just don’t see things because we’ve convinced ourselves they aren’t there.

I lose my keys that way all the time. They’re right in front of me but because I say “I’ve already looked there.” I don’t see them.

All I wanted you to do was to sort of “start over”

When I said that you didn’t want to see it, that was nothing personal.

You were getting ahead of yourself. You were looking at consequences of the answer instead of looking at the question.

Nothing personal.

 

[SerraSemper]

That’s funny!!!

It reminds me of something that happened a few years ago:

I was wearing a hat in church during Mass.

A parishioner didn’t like it. He really did not like it. He insisted that I stop wearing it. He made all kinds of threats against me if I should continue to wear it. He finally threatened to tell the bishop.

Eventually, he wrote a letter to the bishop.

Sure enough, I got a phone call a few days later.

“Father, we need to talk. I have this letter here in which a certain person tells me that you are wearing a hat at Mass. Is that true?”

“Yes, Bishop. It’s true. I’ve worn it every Sunday for the past few months.”

“That’s great. I thought it looked a little too small for you when I was in the store.”

“No Bishop. Perfect fit. And thank you so much for remembering that I wanted a biretta. I know you had a lot of things to do when you travelled and I appreciate that you thought about me.”

As soon as I read the word “hat” I immediately thought of the biretta! What a funny story! I love it when people don’t like my advice and say they need to ask their (or my) clergy/bishop, seeing that plenty of clergy ring me up for my professional advice! I haven’t picked up my biretta yet, but that’s because I’m waiting for the right to wear a four horned biretta instead of a three horned one!

 

[twf]

Correct. No one has denied that their communion with Rome is imperfect. There is a problem…a lack of unity that we are striving to resolve.
When an individual bishop “goes rogue”, as the late Archbishop Lefebvre did, the priests he ordain do not licitly celebrate the sacraments. This applies to the SSPX.
In the case of the Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox Churches, an entire branch of the universal Church drifted away from communion with Rome…but their Churches, which had their own laws, remained “in tact”. Their bishops were still true bishops who continue to operate under the laws that were in place at that time.

 

[Spyridon]

I don’t feel anything personal or any animosity towards you.

You legitimately helped me to conform myself to the Magisterium of the Church. Had this thread never existed, I would still hold a belief contrary to what Holy Mother Church teaches - God forbid!

Sometimes it takes great amounts of patience to educate people on religious topics, trust me I know!