Catholic/Orthodox valid/illicit?

[user1234]

I heard somewhere that Orthodox sacraments are considered illicit. I started a thread about this (Wrong subforum. Sorry ). forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13547950#post13547950

You need to read through that forum to understand my question

I cannot find a clear answer. If it isn’t illicit, and the orthodox churches don’t need permission from Rome, then why can’t Catholic’s fufill their Sunday/holy day obligation at an Orthodox Church?

This is really confusing me

Pietro Contolini

 

[Rohzek]

I heard somewhere that Orthodox sacraments are considered illicit. I started a thread about this (Wrong subforum. Sorry ). forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13547950#post13547950

You need to read through that forum to understand my question

I cannot find a clear answer. If it isn’t illicit, and the orthodox churches don’t need permission from Rome, then why can’t Catholic’s fufill their Sunday/holy day obligation at an Orthodox Church?

This is really confusing me

Pietro Contolini

Well, one answer would be because the Orthodox priest would refuse you communion due to you not being Orthodox. You would be impeded in fulfilling your Sunday obligation to the fullest extent due to the priest’s discretion.

As for what illicit does or does not entail is difficult to really get at. From reading that thread you linked, it seems that according to one interpretation (Wandile’s) it means that the Eucharistic sacrament has no affect whatsoever on individuals who are in schism. However, for a Catholic receiving communion from an Orthodox priest, the Eucharist would be efficacious. I hope that I have not misrepresented this view, however, if I have then I apologize.

On the above mentioned interpretation of illicit, I have to disagree with its logical coherency on the basis that it confuses validity with licitness. If the efficacy of a the sacraments depends upon the believer themselves, then the priest’s orders aren’t valid at all because the bestowal or endowment of the sacrament of priesthood was not efficacious either (because the priest was in schism). Therefore, it would be well-nigh impossible for the Eucharist to have any efficaciousness for a Catholic either. The only solution to this conundrum would be to somehow distinguish some innate differences between these forms of grace (the Eucharist and the priesthood), and I haven’t seen anyone explain that convincingly. And when they do try to explain it, they usually only wind up discussing their applicable functions rather than their nature.

As for what I think, I think they would be efficacious as long as the heart is sincere of the believer, heretic or schismatic or neither. To me, what matters most is the validity of the sacrament. Licitness more or less in my view is just a formality of institutional loyalty and is comparably irrelevant to validity. Not everyone agrees with this view, of course. However, at least from my understanding, the last time that this issue was seriously discussed at length was during the lifetime of Augustine of Hippo and the great debates with the Donatists. Validity and licitness were discussed at great lengths at the time, and you might find the works of Tychonius and St. Optatus pretty interesting on these issues, even though they only concern themselves with baptism.

 

[Peter_J]

I heard somewhere that Orthodox sacraments are considered illicit.

Orthodox don’t really have a concept of a sacrament being licit/illicit. But loosely speaking, if e.g. an Orthodox priest was deposed by his synod, and he continued to celebrate the sacraments, then presumably the Orthodox would consider those sacraments to be something along the lines of “illicit”.

I’m a Catholic so I don’t think it’s really my business anyhow.

 

[gazelam]

FWIW, here is a link regarding Catholic canon law and why Catholics are permitted to marry in an Orthodox ceremony. I hope this helps…

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/10/10/why-catholic-permitted-to-marry-in-an-orthodox-ceremony/

 

[tee_eff_em]

Well, one answer would be because the Orthodox priest would refuse you communion due to you not being Orthodox. You would be impeded in fulfilling your Sunday obligation to the fullest extent due to the priest’s discretion.

Except the obligation is to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, not to receive Communion.

tee

 

[Rohzek]

Except the obligation is to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, not to receive Communion.

tee

No, obligation consists of many things, one of which is the reception of the Eucharist in a communal celebration should one feel called.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, one answer would be because the Orthodox priest would refuse you communion due to you not being Orthodox. You would be impeded in fulfilling your Sunday obligation to the fullest extent due to the priest’s discretion.

Perhaps you are speaking from an Orthodox viewpoint, and if that is the case, then I have nothing to say. If you are commenting on Catholic’s obligation, then I would like to make a correction:

A Catholic’s Sunday or Holy days of obligation is fulfilled as long as he/she attend valid mass, regardless whether he/she receive Holy Communion. The question is more on whether an Orthodox mass is considered valid by Catholics, and if it does, a Catholic attending it would fulfill his Sunday obligation. Nothing more is required.

Receiving Holy Communion is optional, its profound meaning notwithstanding to the recipients. Catholics themselves would not necessarily receive Holy Communion in a mass, which would depend on the state of his/her ‘eligibility’ at that point in time. For example, a Catholic may not receive Holy Communion if he/she has not prepared sufficiently for it, like coming late or did not has an Eucharistic fast. He/she, nevertheless, has fulfilled his/her Sunday obligation by attending the mass.

 

[Rohzek]

Perhaps you are speaking from an Orthodox viewpoint, and if that is the case, then I have nothing to say. If you are commenting on Catholic’s obligation, then I would like to make a correction:

A Catholic’s Sunday or Holy days of obligation is fulfilled as long as he/she attend valid mass, regardless whether he/she receive Holy Communion. The question is more on whether an Orthodox mass is considered valid by Catholics, and if it does, a Catholic attending it would fulfill his Sunday obligation. Nothing more is required.

Receiving Holy Communion is optional, its profound meaning notwithstanding to the recipients. Catholics themselves would not necessarily receive Holy Communion in a mass, which would depend on the state of his/her ‘eligibility’ at that point in time. For example, a Catholic may not receive Holy Communion if he/she has not prepared sufficiently for it, like coming late or did not has an Eucharistic fast. He/she, nevertheless, has fulfilled his/her Sunday obligation by attending the mass.

I’m well aware of this. However, as I was taught growing up Catholic, if one was eligible and also felt the call to receive the Eucharist, they were to receive it. The specific circumstances of an eligible individual is what I am speaking to. Choosing to go to an Orthodox service, where communion would be denied, would be less rewarding than going to a Catholic service where one could receive freely. Therefore, I would argue that the former is in some sense less complete than the latter. I am not saying that one is sinful neglect while the other isn’t. And neither am I saying that attending an Orthodox service does not fulfill Sunday Obligation, I think it does even lacking communion. However, I am merely pointing out that generally one ought to attend to the most complete one available, because it would naturally be more rewarding spiritually.

 

[Elizium23]

No, obligation consists of many things, one of which is the reception of the Eucharist in a communal celebration should one feel called.

The Catholic obligation to receive the Eucharist is a Precept of the Church, colloquially known as the “Easter duty” and says we only need to receive once a year.

 

[recentrevert]

Perhaps you are speaking from an Orthodox viewpoint, and if that is the case, then I have nothing to say. If you are commenting on Catholic’s obligation, then I would like to make a correction:

A Catholic’s Sunday or Holy days of obligation is fulfilled as long as he/she attend valid mass, regardless whether he/she receive Holy Communion. The question is more on whether an Orthodox mass is considered valid by Catholics, and if it does, a Catholic attending it would fulfill his Sunday obligation. Nothing more is required.

Receiving Holy Communion is optional, its profound meaning notwithstanding to the recipients. Catholics themselves would not necessarily receive Holy Communion in a mass, which would depend on the state of his/her ‘eligibility’ at that point in time. For example, a Catholic may not receive Holy Communion if he/she has not prepared sufficiently for it, like coming late or did not has an Eucharistic fast. He/she, nevertheless, has fulfilled his/her Sunday obligation by attending the mass.

You cannot fulfil your Sunday obligation at a non-Catholic church even if the Mass is valid because the obligation is to participate at a Catholic Mass. The Church is hardly going to make laws obliging Catholics to enter non-Catholic churches and participate in their illicit Masses.

 

[Rohzek]

The Catholic obligation to receive the Eucharist is a Precept of the Church, colloquially known as the “Easter duty” and says we only need to receive once a year.

Once again, all I am saying is that both fulfill the obligation, but only that one should go out of their way to fulfill it to the fullest extent possible.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m well aware of this. However, as I was taught growing up Catholic, if one was eligible and also felt the call to receive the Eucharist, they were to receive it.

Did you also learn that, outside of extraordinary circumstances

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone,

who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone

???


tee

 

[Rohzek]

Did you also learn that, outside of extraordinary circumstances

???


tee

Yes, I was taught that. And I personally don’t think that licitness is nearly as important as validity. Feel free to disagree. Most Orthodox would even disagree with me on this point, and even many of them don’t distinguish between validity and licitness.

 

[RyanBlack]

You cannot fulfil your Sunday obligation at a non-Catholic church even if the Mass is valid because the obligation is to participate at a Catholic Mass. The Church is hardly going to make laws obliging Catholics to enter non-Catholic churches and participate in their illicit Masses.

The CCC (1399) and chapter III of Unitatis redintegratio provide ample refutation of any notion of Orthodox Divine Liturgies as being illicit.

 

[Reuben_J]

You cannot fulfil your Sunday obligation at a non-Catholic church even if the Mass is valid because the obligation is to participate at a Catholic Mass. The Church is hardly going to make laws obliging Catholics to enter non-Catholic churches and participate in their illicit Masses.

Of course, that goes without saying.

It is the exceptional circumstances where there is no Catholic church around (I used to travel though I have never set foot inside an Orthodox church, but hypothetically … ) and if another church, hypothetically not a Catholic church, has a valid mass where Catholic can fulfill his Sunday obligation, he can go there and fulfill it without the need to receive Holy Communion.

I was responding to a post that seemed to imply, if I understood correctly, that one’s Sunday obligation is not completely fulfilled without receiving the Holy Communion. I was merely saying, it should not be so. The obligation is fulfilled as long as one attend the mass even if one does not receive Holy Communion, which in fact, is optional (depending on whether one fulfill the requirement of receiving it).

I was not talking about Catholics going to another church as a choice to fulfill his/her Sunday obligation and I thought that was not the issue in this thread, and if it was, I was not addressing that surely.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Yes, I was taught that. And I personally don’t think that licitness is nearly as important as validity. Feel free to disagree.

Thanks, I will.

Liceity is orthogonal to validity – They are both important, for different reasons. Do you think God is impressed by those who break the rules (illicit) to receive (steal?) the sacraments?

tee

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks, I will.

Liceity is orthogonal to validity – They are both important, for different reasons. Do you think God is impressed by those who break the rules (illicit) to receive (steal?) the sacraments?

tee

Generally, if an Orthodox priest sees someone he doesn’t know in the communion line, he will ask them if they are Orthodox before giving them communion. So this ^^ really wouldn’t be an issue unless a non-Orthodox actually lied and claimed to be Orthodox.

 

[prodromos]

Orthodox don’t really have a concept of a sacrament being licit/illicit. But loosely speaking, if e.g. an Orthodox priest was deposed by his synod, and he continued to celebrate the sacraments, then presumably the Orthodox would consider those sacraments to be something along the lines of “illicit”.

As the defrocked priest would no longer be in possession of the Antimins from his bishop, it would not be possible for him to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. The priest can only perform the sacraments under the authority of his bishop. Without that authority he can do nothing.
In a sense, the priest is merely an extension of the bishop’s hand.

 

[recentrevert]

The CCC (1399) and chapter III of Unitatis redintegratio provide ample refutation of any notion of Orthodox Divine Liturgies as being illicit.

I don’t see it. To celebrate Mass the priest must have permission from the Church, from which comes his authority, but the priests of separated churches do not have this authority from the Church, in fact they reject the authority of the Church! They may be without culpability for this but that only means there is no formal sin, it does not mean they have permission.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t see it. To celebrate Mass the priest must have permission from the Church, from which comes his authority, but the priests of separated churches do not have this authority from the Church, in fact they reject the authority of the Church! They may be without culpability for this but that only means there is no formal sin, it does not mean they have permission.

From Unitatis redintegratio:

“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.”

The “disciplines proper to them” certainly include the disciplines pertaining to the administration of sacraments.

Also, in Understanding Sacramental Healing, Msgr. John C. Kasza states that Orthodox sacraments are licit, and in making this claim, references Unitatis redintegratio, 15, just as I have. Msgr. Kasza received his doctorate in sacramental theology from the Pontifical Atheneum Sant’ Anselmo in Rome. He has also served on the faculty of Sacred Heart Major Seminary and Ss. Cyril and Methodius Seminary, Orchard Lake.

books.google.com/books?id=85…0licit&f=false