Exactly what is meant by the term "illicit?"

[RKO]

I’m a cradle Catholic, who, through my own doing, cannot receive sacraments in the Catholic Church. I am strongly considering the eastern Orthodox religion and have had numerous conversations with an Orthodox priest.

Because my family has been Catholic, and VERY Catholic, for over 200 years, I am having trouble with the term “Illicit” when used about the Orthodox sacraments.

Does the RCC teach that the sacraments are “illicit” to God? Does He consider them as having little or no value? Or does that mean illicit to Catholics only? As in it’s a violation to the church for a Catholic to receive sacraments, but the sacraments are fully valid in terms of salvation?

I understand that some will answer that since I am asking this question, I must still be “catholic.” I will always consider myself ethnically Catholic, but at the same time, I can fully embrace Orthodoxy as a valid path to God.

 

[tbtcom1213]

il·lic·it
   /ɪˈlɪsɪt/ Show Spelled[ih-lis-it] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful.
2.
disapproved of or not permitted for moral or ethical reasons.

Something that is illicit is against ecclesial (canon) law, but can be valid.

For instance the consecration of the four bishops by the late Monsignor Lefebvre was illicit because Blessed Pope John Paul II didn’t approve of these consecrations nor appoint them. However all bishops have the power and authority of holy orders and can thus validly ordain priests and consecrate bishops with or without the approval of his holiness. It would be valid but illicit and would produce quarreling

In your case The Orthodox Church has valid priests, bishops, clerics and thus valid sacraments. However, they are not in union with the Pope and thus Catholics *in ordinary circumstances *may not receive the sacraments from Orthodox clerics.

It would be illicit to receive Communion in an Orthodox Church but you would effectively receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

For more reading:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit#cite_note-0

1. ^ Apostolicae Curae, “Whenever there is no appearance of simulation on the part of the minister, the validity of the sacrament is sufficiently certain…”
2. ^ [1] Redemptionis Sacramentum, Chapter III, Number 1.
3. ^ Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 924 §2; Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 320.
4. ^ [2] The Catholic Legate (scroll down to “Valid or Illicit?” section.)
5. ^ Dr. Ludwig Ott,(1952), Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. p. 456. “Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (set. Certa). Cf. D 855, 860; CIC 2372.”

 

[Usige]

Since you were presumably baptized and confirmed (?) in the Roman Catholic Church you are bound by canon law. In this case illicit means that you are contemplating doing something valid, but “illegal” under canon law. Under normal circumstances Roman Catholics are obligated to receive the sacraments in a Latin Rite Church.

To receive the sacraments licitly in an Eastern Orthodox Church you would need to formally transfer to that rite. As I understand it at that point you would be release from being bound by RCC canon law and be bound by the ecclesiastic laws of that rite. The priest from the Orthodox church should be able to help you transfer rites, but until then should still respect that you are bound to the Latin Rite at this time.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m a cradle Catholic, who, through my own doing, cannot receive sacraments in the Catholic Church. I am strongly considering the eastern Orthodox religion and have had numerous conversations with an Orthodox priest.

Because my family has been Catholic, and VERY Catholic, for over 200 years, I am having trouble with the term “Illicit” when used about the Orthodox sacraments.

Does the RCC teach that the sacraments are “illicit” to God? Does He consider them as having little or no value? Or does that mean illicit to Catholics only? As in it’s a violation to the church for a Catholic to receive sacraments, but the sacraments are fully valid in terms of salvation?

I understand that some will answer that since I am asking this question, I must still be “catholic.” I will always consider myself ethnically Catholic, but at the same time, I can fully embrace Orthodoxy as a valid path to God.

Just a question that comes to mind, and you can either answer or not as I do not wish to be personal, but it seems to me that if something is keeping you from receiving the sacraments in the Catholic Church, would not this same matter prevent you from receiving them in the Orthodox Church? Are they more liberal on your particular issue? For instance, there are many Catholics in the sad situation of not being able to obtain an anullment of a previous marriage and are therefore not permitted to receive the sacraments. Do the Orthodox take a different view? I know that we are extremely close in doctrine and belief and so it surprises me that they would take a different view of any matter that would prevent the reception of the sacraments.

Thanks.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Since you were presumably baptized and confirmed (?) in the Roman Catholic Church you are bound by canon law. In this case illicit means that you are contemplating doing something valid, but “illegal” under canon law. Under normal circumstances Roman Catholics are obligated to receive the sacraments in a Latin Rite Church.

To receive the sacraments licitly in an Eastern Orthodox Church you would need to formally transfer to that rite. As I understand it at that point you would be release from being bound by RCC canon law and be bound by the ecclesiastic laws of that rite. The priest from the Orthodox church should be able to help you transfer rites, but until then should still respect that you are bound to the Latin Rite at this time.

It is possible that you are confusing the Orthodox with the Eastern Catholics. So far I as I understand, there is no restriction on Eastern or Western Catholics participating in each others’ sacraments, and there may be ways to transfer from one rite to the other.

The Orthodox, however, are not in communion with Rome and since Catholicism obviously thinks Catholicism is right, from the Catholic prespective there is no valid reason to leave Catholicism for anything else, Orthodoxy included (even though we do have a lot of respect for the Orthodox and agree with them on many many things).

 

[Bballer32]

Just a question that comes to mind, and you can either answer or not as I do not wish to be personal, but it seems to me that if something is keeping you from receiving the sacraments in the Catholic Church, would not this same matter prevent you from receiving them in the Orthodox Church? Are they more liberal on your particular issue? For instance, there are many Catholics in the sad situation of not being able to obtain an anullment of a previous marriage and are therefore not permitted to receive the sacraments. Do the Orthodox take a different view? I know that we are extremely close in doctrine and belief and so it surprises me that they would take a different view of any matter that would prevent the reception of the sacraments.

Thanks.

Yes i would like to hear the answer to this. I disagree strongly with Catholics leaving the Church do to the fact that it’s like leaving Jesus. Now, what is keeping you from receiving the Sacraments. Is it a sin? Because if that is the case i would recommend seeing a priest immediately.

 

[Vincent1984]

Does the RCC teach that the sacraments are “illicit” to God? Does He consider them as having little or no value? Or does that mean illicit to Catholics only? As in it’s a violation to the church for a Catholic to receive sacraments, but the sacraments are fully valid in terms of salvation?

I will always consider myself ethnically Catholic, but at the same time, I can fully embrace Orthodoxy as a valid path to God.

Orthodoxy likes to think of itself as the path to God … I’m not sure how pleased they would be to receive a convert who did not fully accept all of Orthodox teaching, in an attempt to skirt Catholic canon law.

Valid in terms of salvation? Interesting question. For a baptised Catholic, deliberately receiving or attempting to receive sacraments from non-Catholic ministers (apart from the lawful exceptions given in canon 844) is a sin. So going to confession to a non-Catholic priest is itself a sin requiring absolution. You see the problem?

Furthermore, going to confession requires you to have a “purpose of amendment”; an intention to stop your sins (canon 959). But if you are intending to remain Orthodox, how can you do that?

In general, Orthodox sacraments are valid. But in the case of a schismatic Catholic, there are serious obstacles (above) that may hinder or even prevent any soteriological benefit.

 

[RKO]

Valid in terms of salvation? Interesting question. For a baptised Catholic, deliberately receiving or attempting to receive sacraments from non-Catholic ministers (apart from the lawful exceptions given in canon 844) is a sin. So going to confession to a non-Catholic priest is itself a sin requiring absolution. You see the problem?

Furthermore, going to confession requires you to have a “purpose of amendment”; an intention to stop your sins (canon 959). But if you are intending to remain Orthodox, how can you do that?

In general, Orthodox sacraments are valid. But in the case of a schismatic Catholic, there are serious obstacles (above) that may hinder or even prevent any soteriological benefit.

Nice. So, by seeking salvation outside the RCC, I am in fact condemning myself? Thats a nice little catch 22. I hope God isnt so tricky that he allows people to be tripped up by asking for his grace. Yikes.

 

[Vincent1984]

Nice. So, by seeking salvation outside the RCC, I am in fact condemning myself?

Yes, exactly. If you fully believe 100% that Eastern Orthodoxy is the one true religion and that Catholicism is false, then you wouldn’t care about this part of Catholic belief. I am picking up the impression that you do not believe that; merely that something in your life is making Catholicism difficult for you, and you are looking for a ‘loophole’.

The Church does not kick anyone out or make them leave. Perhaps we should remember what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said about the divorced and remarried (it applies equally, I think, to someone who marries a divorcee):

Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive holy communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons, as well as the common good of the church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the church’s teaching. Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine.

This does not mean that the church does not take to heart the situation of these faithful, who moreover are not excluded from ecclesial communion. She is concerned to accompany them pastorally and invite them to share in the life of the church in the measure that is compatible with the dispositions of divine law, from which the church has no power to dispense. On the other hand, it is necessary to instruct these faithful so that they do not think their participation in the life of the church is reduced exclusively to the question of the reception of the eucharist. The faithful are to be helped to deepen their understanding of the value of sharing in the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, of spiritual communion, of prayer, of meditation on the word of God, and of works of charity and justice.

If this is your situation, I would suggest reading the whole document here.

You say you have talked to an Orthodox priest; have you tried a meeting with a Catholic priest about your problem?!

I know that some Orthodox churches use oikonomia to allow people to live with those who are not their true spouses, but I have no idea how that is supposed to exempt from Luke 16:18:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced by her husband commits adultery.”

 

[RKO]

I guess the difference for me is, I don’t think any religion is the “one true religion.” Nor do I believe many religions are necessarily “false.” If God is a loving God, I don’t think he will condemn you to hell because you lived a good life, but were raised in a non-Catholic denomination. Man will, but God won’t. But that’s a discussion for the philosophy forum, I guess.

 

[Usige]

It is possible that you are confusing the Orthodox with the Eastern Catholics. So far I as I understand, there is no restriction on Eastern or Western Catholics participating in each others’ sacraments, and there may be ways to transfer from one rite to the other.

The Orthodox, however, are not in communion with Rome and since Catholicism obviously thinks Catholicism is right, from the Catholic perspective there is no valid reason to leave Catholicism for anything else, Orthodoxy included (even though we do have a lot of respect for the Orthodox and agree with them on many many things).

Iron Donkey, thanks for clarifying. I had inadvertently typed rite instead of church and led myself into the weeds.

Let me give a more concrete example. If the OP is baptized as a Roman Catholic, but wants to licitly receive the sacraments in say a Greek Orthodox church the process would have been something like:

• Formally leave the Roman Catholic Church by sending a formal declaration of defection to the bishop of the baptismal diocese.

This used to release you from conformance to certain parts of canon law *, but also disqualified you from receiving the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it was also noted in the baptismal register.

• Be chrisimated (and perhaps baptized) in the Greek Orthodox Church. They might also have to formally renounce their Roman Catholic faith, similar to how protestants used to have to proclaim their rejection of heresy when joining the RCC.

This would make them a member of the Greek Orthodox Church and allow them to licitly receive the sacraments under Orthodox Canons.

I agree that the RCC holds that they hold the fullness of truth, but they do accept Orthodox sacraments as valid. I was merely attempting to point out that the illicitness of an act is based on canon law of the Church to which you belong.

Note: I mention “used to be” and “would have been” in the example, because there were some changes a few years ago that imply formal defection has little, if any, impact on the canonical state of a Catholic. ***

 

[Usige]

I guess the difference for me is, I don’t think any religion is the “one true religion.” Nor do I believe many religions are necessarily “false.” If God is a loving God, I don’t think he will condemn you to hell because you lived a good life, but were raised in a non-Catholic denomination. Man will, but God won’t. But that’s a discussion for the philosophy forum, I guess.

That may be true to a point, but you stated that you want to receive the sacraments for salvation. That would seem to imply you believe that their is something spiritually significant in receiving the sacraments.

You state that you cannot receive the sacraments in the RCC, but many of the same things would disqualify you from receiving the sacraments in an Orthodox Church. You also mentioned that you will always consider yourself “culturally catholic” but being Catholic isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a cultural thing; it’s about truth and salvation.

The real question is if you want to receive the sacraments as a expression of faith and to receive grace or instead do you just like the physical and emotional act of receiving the sacrament, but don’t feel it impacts you spiritually? If it’s the latter then I’m sure the Orthodox churches would prefer you not profane the sacraments in their church any more than the RCC would.

 

[Vincent1984]

"Usige:

This used to release you from conformance to certain parts of canon law *, but also disqualified you from receiving the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it was also noted in the baptismal register.*No. It was never the case that Catholics who had formally defected were released from their legal and moral obligation to marry in the Church. What you are referring to was the provision that, even if they failed to keep that obligation, they could still enter into a valid marriage. As of Omnium in mentem (2009), this is not the case.

Note: I mention “used to be” and “would have been” in the example, because there were some changes a few years ago that imply formal defection has little, if any, impact on the canonical state of a Catholic. **

Defection by a formal act – if the bishop of a diocese processes such an act; not all do – does nothing to change your obligations in the Catholic Church. It would only affect a few things like admissibility to Holy Orders should you return. Defection from the Church and adscription into another religion, even an Orthodox Church, does not affect your obligations in and to the Catholic Church. These would include Sunday Mass attendance, receiving communion at least once a year, raising your children as Catholic &c.

Helpfully, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts has published a letter it wrote to the bishops of the world, clarifying the question of ‘defection by a formal act’. Note particularly that
PCILT:

1. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

It may be licit in Orthodox law but (unless I’ve got the wrong end of the stick) we are talking here about whether it could be licit by the standards of the Catholic Church. In the example you gave, Usige, it would not be.

 

[RKO]

That may be true to a point, but you stated that you want to receive the sacraments for salvation. That would seem to imply you believe that their is something spiritually significant in receiving the sacraments.

You state that you cannot receive the sacraments in the RCC, but many of the same things would disqualify you from receiving the sacraments in an Orthodox Church. You also mentioned that you will always consider yourself “culturally catholic” but being Catholic isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a cultural thing; it’s about truth and salvation.

The real question is if you want to receive the sacraments as a expression of faith and to receive grace or instead do you just like the physical and emotional act of receiving the sacrament, but don’t feel it impacts you spiritually? If it’s the latter then I’m sure the Orthodox churches would prefer you not profane the sacraments in their church any more than the RCC would.

I don’t want to get into an argument here, but I have no intention of profaning anybody’s sacraments. If the OC offers sacraments for my salvation, knowing the situation I’m in, and I come to them in contrition, knowing my sins and being truly sorry for them, is that profane?
You know what? Never mind. I made a mistake by posting this on this forum and I apologize.

 

[Usige]

I don’t want to get into an argument here, but I have no intention of profaning anybody’s sacraments. If the OC offers sacraments for my salvation, knowing the situation I’m in, and I come to them in contrition, knowing my sins and being truly sorry for them, is that profane?
You know what? Never mind. I made a mistake by posting this on this forum and I apologize.

RKO, I am the one that should appologize. I did not mean to imply that you are profaning the sacraments. I was just trying to understand if you believe the sacraments are to provide us with graces for salvation.

If you feel the Orthodox Churches are where you belong and their is no impediment under their canons then I see no reason for you not to follow that path. I personally just know some people that receive the sacraments because they see it as their right, but do not beleive it has anything to do with salvation. When I hear people refer to themselves as “culturally catholic” that is what I hear. Those who receive the sacraments as a cultural rather than a spiritual act are the ones that I ment were profaning them.

Again please accept my apologies for implying anything about your belief in the sacraments.

 

[RKO]

RKO, I am the one that should appologize. I did not mean to imply that you are profaning the sacraments. I was just trying to understand if you believe the sacraments are to provide us with graces for salvation.

If you feel the Orthodox Churches are where you belong and their is no impediment under their canons then I see no reason for you not to follow that path. I personally just know some people that receive the sacraments because they see it as their right, but do not beleive it has anything to do with salvation. When I hear people refer to themselves as “culturally catholic” that is what I hear. Those who receive the sacraments as a cultural rather than a spiritual act are the ones that I ment were profaning them.

Again please accept my apologies for implying anything about your belief in the sacraments.

That’s very kind of you. Thanks.

 

[Usige]

No. It was never the case that Catholics who had formally defected were released from their legal and moral obligation to marry in the Church. What you are referring to was the provision that, even if they failed to keep that obligation, they could still enter into a valid marriage. As of Omnium in mentem (2009), this is not the case.
Defection by a formal act – if the bishop of a diocese processes such an act; not all do – does nothing to change your obligations in the Catholic Church. It would only affect a few things like admissibility to Holy Orders should you return. Defection from the Church and adscription into another religion, even an Orthodox Church, does not affect your obligations in and to the Catholic Church. These would include Sunday Mass attendance, receiving communion at least once a year, raising your children as Catholic &c.

Helpfully, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts has published a letter it wrote to the bishops of the world, clarifying the question of ‘defection by a formal act’.

                 Originally Posted by **PCILT**

Vincent, thank for the additional info. I had thought that the section you quote from the PCILT refereed to the the Church Triumphant, but not necessarily the Church Militant. I agree that formal defection does not change baptismal character, etc. The canonical state on the other hand is where the debat comes. I was more trying to look at it from the stand point of the Orthodox licitity.

 

[Vincent1984]

I had thought that the section you quote from the PCILT refereed to the the Church Triumphant, but not necessarily the Church Militant.

Wow! I never even considered that possibility. I can’t recall any documents attempting to determine membership of the Church Triumphant, apart from formal canonisations. Can you help me out?

 

[RKO]

Vincent, thank for the additional info. I had thought that the section you quote from the PCILT refereed to the the Church Triumphant, but not necessarily the Church Militant. I agree that formal defection does not change baptismal character, etc. The canonical state on the other hand is where the debat comes. I was more trying to look at it from the stand point of the Orthodox licitity.

Regarding this business of a catholic not being released from the responsibilities of canon law even if he leaves the Church, I did know that, but it seems to me a dangerous business, this passing eternal judgment on someone who no longer considers themselves under the rule of the Church.
I know it’s been done for 2000 years, but it seems bully-ish and supports the contention that some in the church are more interested in controlling the masses (no pun intended) than they are their salvation.
Unless I miss my guess, the OC doesn’t really presume to judge people who aren’t Orthodox…I’m sure there have been lapses in the past 1000 years, though.

HAving said that, I’m not trying to be critical. It was just my unlearned observation…