Invalid sacraments within the Catholic Church

[Tinkinen]

I wonder if it has been at all common in the ancient church that sacraments were performed invalidly within the Catholic Church. What did the church fathers think about it? Most church ordinances then and later considered the case of recognizing the baptisms of heretics and schismatics, but it was always assumed that the baptisms of the Catholic Church were valid. Nowadays, you may have heard about all kinds of variations on the matter and form of the sacraments, rendering them invalid.

I think the indefectibility of the Church implies that the approved forms and rites always constitute valid sacraments. Thus, claiming the invalidity of the post-Vatican II rites, for example, is inconsistent with regard to the indefectibility. On the other hand, this does not address the issue of unfaithful ministers.

I consider this issue disturbing, because during the Donatist controversy it was established that the Church has intrinsic holiness that no unfaithful minister can defile. However, by administering sacraments invalidly, they can, at least partly.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

In the modern Catholic Church, there is no such thing as invalidly administered Sacriments, unless, of course, they were administered by a laicized priest-which is highly unlikely.
The professions of those who are anti-Vatican II are not only schismatic, in many cases they are heretical. Those who profess beliefs that there has been no valid Pope after Pius XII and that the Sacriments administered since that time are every bit as heretical and wrong as Martin Luther, and if they were Baptised and Confirmed in the Church are committing a grievious sin by promoting their heresy.
End of Argument

 

[Bookcat]

In the modern Catholic Church, there is no such thing as invalidly administered Sacriments

Sure there can be…(but such is not a normal experience of course.)

(note I am only responding to the first sentence…not supporting those with some off ideas)

 

[LilyM]

Sure there can be…(but such is not a normal experience of course.)

(note I am only responding to the first sentence…not supporting those with some off ideas)

Only if the form, matter or intent are not those required by the church for validity, or if the minister is not one who can validly confect the sacrament.

In fact Trent anathametised anyone who suggested that the approved rites and ceremonies employed by the Church were even ‘incentives to impiety’ let alone that they were invalid!

So much for people who lay the blame for declining belief in the Real Presence and the like at the feet of the Ordinary Form. That certainly sounds to me like they are saying that an office or rite approved by the Church (as opposed to abuses of said office or rite) is an ‘incentive to impiety’.

 

[RyanBlack]

In the modern Catholic Church, there is no such thing as invalidly administered Sacriments, unless, of course, they were administered by a laicized priest-which is highly unlikely.
The professions of those who are anti-Vatican II are not only schismatic, in many cases they are heretical. Those who profess beliefs that there has been no valid Pope after Pius XII and that the Sacriments administered since that time are every bit as heretical and wrong as Martin Luther, and if they were Baptised and Confirmed in the Church are committing a grievious sin by promoting their heresy.
End of Argument

A laicized priest retains his priestly character, so he can validly, though not licitly, celebrate Eucharist. The only case in which he can licitly administer a sacrament would be in the case of hearing the confession of a dying penitent.

 

[YoungTradCath]

In the modern Catholic Church, there is no such thing as invalidly administered Sacriments, unless, of course, they were administered by a laicized priest-which is highly unlikely.
The professions of those who are anti-Vatican II are not only schismatic, in many cases they are heretical. Those who profess beliefs that there has been no valid Pope after Pius XII and that the Sacriments administered since that time are every bit as heretical and wrong as Martin Luther, and if they were Baptised and Confirmed in the Church are committing a grievious sin by promoting their heresy.
End of Argument

It is very possible to confer invalid sacraments. For example, to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Mother, and of the Daughter, and of the Sanctifier,” would be as invalid as invalid gets. No baptism takes place. It has nothing to do with “the modern Church.”

 

[Bookcat]

Only if the form, matter or intent are not those required by the church for validity, or if the minister is not one who can validly confect the sacrament.

Yes of course.

 

[Tinkinen]

So, we can agree that abuses in the Church can result in invalid sacraments. Someone has yet to answer if this issue was encountered in the ancient, or not so ancient, church, and how it was regarded.

We can construct a hierarchy of severity in case of an invalid sacraments. I think the most important case consists of the sacraments that are not to be repeated: baptism, confirmation and ordination. An invalid baptism is an especially severe problem, since it leads to the invalidity of all other sacraments. Occasional invalid eucharist is probably not critical for salvation, an unnoticed invalid absolution is not a problem, if it is not going to be the last one, since the next valid absolution will compensate for it.

The issue of invalid acts and the uncertainty they bring is not unique to the sacraments. It is also dealt with in civil law. Legal acts and contracts can be invalid for a multitude of reasons. There the solution is bona fides rules and statutes of limitations. Bona fides rules that that if a legal act is publicly recognized and there is no apparent reason to doubt its validity, the beneficient gets to enjoy its effects even though it were objectively invalid. Statutes of limitations maintain that the validity of an act must be challenged within a reasonable time, and it will not be investigated later on. Together, these principles provide legal certainty. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has not authoritatively adopted any of these principles with regard to invalid baptisms or other sacraments.

 

[Tinkinen]

I could point out that according to the custom of the Church, conditional baptisms should only be carried out if there is legitimate doubt regarding the validity or existence of the previous attempt. This suggests a bona fides rule regarding the validity of the sacrament, otherwise conditional baptisms should be offered without limitation for the salvation of souls.

 

[dans0622]

…
The issue of invalid acts and the uncertainty they bring is not unique to the sacraments. It is also dealt with in civil law. Legal acts and contracts can be invalid for a multitude of reasons. There the solution is bona fides rules and statutes of limitations. Bona fides rules that that if a legal act is publicly recognized and there is no apparent reason to doubt its validity, the beneficient gets to enjoy its effects even though it were objectively invalid. Statutes of limitations maintain that the validity of an act must be challenged within a reasonable time, and it will not be investigated later on. Together, these principles provide legal certainty. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has not authoritatively adopted any of these principles with regard to invalid baptisms or other sacraments.

Hello Tinkinen,

(Unless I am forgetting something), the law of the Church contains no statute of limitations with regard to this issue. However, your first principle has a corresponding norm in canon law: “Canon 124 §2. A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.”

While the administration/reception of some Sacraments does not include a “juridic act,” the principle applies to all the Sacraments: if everything was apparently done according to the essential rules, validity is presumed. This is not the same as saying “even if a Sacrament is actually invalid, if it looks valid then it’s valid.” But, it does provide some standards.

As far as the practice in the early Church goes, I don’t know anything about that.

Dan

 

[johnnykins]

So, we can agree that abuses in the Church can result in invalid sacraments.

Some abuses - yes. Others - no

Someone has yet to answer if this issue was encountered in the ancient, or not so ancient, church, and how it was regarded.

Without researching it, I know both Cyprian and Augustine considered the issue. How much further back do you want to go? Look 'em up.

We can construct a hierarchy of severity in case of an invalid sacraments.

No you can’t because invalid is invalid. You could construct a hierarchy of severity surrounding the facts of why the sacrament was invalid and how that creates problems. But, any invalid sacrament simply is not a sacrament.

I think the most important case consists of the sacraments that are not to be repeated: baptism, confirmation and ordination.

Maybe…need more info for such a broad statement.

An invalid baptism is an especially severe problem, since it leads to the invalidity of all other sacraments.

The sacraments are valid ex opere operato. Their validity is not dependent on the state of grace of the recipient (or the minister for that matter). Whether the grace of the sacrament flows to the recipient is a different matter. Thus, an invalidly baptized person may receive a validly confected Eucharist - but the grace for that reception is not conveyed to that person…yet, the Eucharist is valid. True, as you say above, that would be a serious matter, but the validity of the sacrament depends only on the proper matter, proper form and proper intent of the minister of the sacrament.

I suppose where the valid matter is a baptized person - marriage, ordination -that a special case, but again it’s not invalidity per se as a radical sanation can correct the defect in the marriage. If the sacrament is invalid - it simply doesn’t exist. Not sure if an ex post baptism could remedy the defect in ordination. Without research, my guess is yes it would.

Occasional invalid Eucharist is probably not critical for salvation, an unnoticed invalid absolution is not a problem, if it is not going to be the last one, since the next valid absolution will compensate for it.

who knows…maybe it’s quite severe…what of viaticum?

The issue of invalid acts and the uncertainty they bring is not unique to the sacraments. It is also dealt with in civil law. Legal acts and contracts can be invalid for a multitude of reasons. There the solution is bona fides rules and statutes of limitations. Bona fides rules that that if a legal act is publicly recognized and there is no apparent reason to doubt its validity, the beneficient gets to enjoy its effects even though it were objectively invalid. Statutes of limitations maintain that the validity of an act must be challenged within a reasonable time, and it will not be investigated later on. Together, these principles provide legal certainty. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has not authoritatively adopted any of these principles with regard to invalid baptisms or other sacraments.

You, as many here, seem to confuse “invalidity” with “illiceity.”
An invalid sacrament is not a sacrament at all. It can’t be made a sacrament as one never existed. The civil legal issue you raise is more properly associated with liceity. Liceity refers to the legality of the manner in which the sacrament is performed. As such, there are many illicit acts surrounding the sacraments - some result in illegal but valid sacraments and some result in no sacrament at all (invalidity). Liceity concerns the laws for the performance of the sacraments to assure validity.

Sometimes people raise Ecclesia Supplet as an answer - but that deals only with incomplete sacraments - a liceity issue and/or a reception issue - but it can’t make valid what is invalid. Ecclesia supplet doesn’t work with invalidity because it’s not that the sacrament is incomplete in some way - it’s non-existent.

Many discussions here concern illicit actions of the priest and those illicit actions lead people to wonder if the sacrament is valid -All of which is proof of the need to confect the sacraments in accordance with the laws - so that through a licit ritual validity is not questioned.

Now in extreme situations there may be reasons to not follow the law, e.g., priests in concentration camps who used a grape (hopefully fermented to a bit of wine that almost certainly wasn’t at the legal alcoholic minimum content of the law at that time) yet, through God’s goodness probably was valid though illicit. Here is an example where a clearly illicit and possibly invalid sacrament was confected with little culpability if any on the part of the priest.

 

[Tinkinen]

Without researching it, I know both Cyprian and Augustine considered the issue. How much further back do you want to go? Look 'em up.

Am I right if it seems that you cannot provide references or information on the situations considered?

No you can’t because invalid is invalid.

The hierarchy referred to the idea that the invalidity of one sacrament is more severe than another, not the reason why it could be invalid. This is a simple and certain Church teaching.

Not sure if an ex post baptism could remedy the defect in ordination. Without research, my guess is yes it would.who knows…

I am quite certain it would not. Ordination and confirmation would have to be reattempted after a valid baptism.

maybe it’s quite severe…what of viaticum?

It is not considered necessary for salvation by anyone. Absolution may be, that is what I meant when I said that an invalid absolution is a problem if it is going to be the last one, otherwise not.

You, as many here, seem to confuse “invalidity” with “illiceity.”
An invalid sacrament is not a sacrament at all. It can’t be made a sacrament as one never existed. The civil legal issue you raise is more properly associated with liceity.

Validity means whether the sacrament takes place with the intended effect. Illiceity implies that someone commits a sin and may be subject to ecclesiastical punishments. The civil law comparison corresponds more properly to validity that to liceity.

For example, there is a principle in property law that no-one can give what one does not have. Normally, such an act is invalid, null and void. Yet in a bona fides situation the innocent recipients can enjoy the effects of a legal act even though someone gave something what was not theirs to give. If the recipient were not bona fide, the act would be declared null. Law may still demand punishment or other sanctions for the guilty due to the illegality. It is specifically the case in civil law that the passage of time or public recognition can compensate for an objective invalidity.

 

[johnnykins]

Am I right if it seems that you cannot provide references or information on the situations considered?

Just not going to do research you can do yourself…Lot’s of info out there on Augustine and Cyprian - and I suppose others…

The hierarchy referred to the idea that the invalidity of one sacrament is more severe than another, not the reason why it could be invalid. This is a simple and certain Church teaching.

I would have to see exactly the Church teaching you’re referring to…As you phrased it I disagree.

I am quite certain it would not. Ordination and confirmation would have to be reattempted after a valid baptism.

Ok - you may be right. As I said, I’m unsure…but think it may indeed.

It is not considered necessary for salvation by anyone. Absolution may be, that is what I meant when I said that an invalid absolution is a problem if it is going to be the last one, otherwise not.

The difficulty of discussions on a forum…Admittedly my antecedents were not crystal clear. In any event, absent specific facts, you simply can’t make the statement stand.

Validity means whether the sacrament takes place with the intended effect. Illiceity implies that someone commits a sin and may be subject to ecclesiastical punishments. The civil law comparison corresponds more properly to validity that to liceity.

We disagree - validity refers to the sacrament being confected. That simply requires valid matter, valid intent and a proper minister of the sacrament. Then it happens ex opere operato. Do not confuse “intended effect” with intent. Illiciety is certainly a matter as to law - which seems to far closer to civil law than sacramental theology…

For example, there is a principle in property law that no-one can give what one does not have. Normally, such an act is invalid, null and void. Yet in a bona fides situation the innocent recipients can enjoy the effects of a legal act even though someone gave something what was not theirs to give. If the recipient were not bona fide, the act would be declared null. Law may still demand punishment or other sanctions for the guilty due to the illegality. It is specifically the case in civil law that the passage of time or public recognition can compensate for an objective invalidity.

In sacramental theology it can’t, so again licitness is more akin to civil law - because both deal with the law.

 

[Tinkinen]

I would have to see exactly the Church teaching you’re referring to…As you phrased it I disagree.

Trent Session 7 Canon 3

 

[johnnykins]

Here is what Trent says:

CANON III.-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html

Here is what you said which is clearly something very different:

We can construct a hierarchy of severity in case of an invalid sacraments. I think the most important case consists of the sacraments that are not to be repeated: baptism, confirmation and ordination. An invalid baptism is an especially severe problem, since it leads to the invalidity of all other sacraments. Occasional invalid eucharist is probably not critical for salvation, an unnoticed invalid absolution is not a problem, if it is not going to be the last one, since the next valid absolution will compensate for it.

emphasis added

Here is what I said - dealing with invalidity and in no way at odds with Trent. Your comment concerns invalidity - not the relative value of the sacraments themselves. Trent in this Canon is silent on invalid sacraments and on the severity of same:

No you can’t because invalid is invalid. You could construct a hierarchy of severity surrounding the facts of why the sacrament was invalid and how that creates problems. But, any invalid sacrament simply is not a sacrament.

You then go on - which is clearly unsupported by your reference. You are reading waaaayyy too much into this Canon of Trent:

The hierarchy referred to the idea that the invalidity of one sacrament is more severe than another, not the reason why it could be invalid. This is a simple and certain Church teaching.

 

[Tinkinen]

The focus of this thread is stated in the initial message. The above offshoot misses the mark. What we should be discussing here is whether anyone can provide specific references to the church fathers where they consider the possibility of invalid sacraments within the Catholic Church. What has been given thus far does not provide anything that I would not already know.

Also, what is the status of someone who has been baptized with an invalid form, is probably registered and regarded as baptized, and the defect is unknown? Similarly for confirmation, ordination etc. The ministers of the Church should administer valid sacraments. Is it a problem with regards to the holiness of the Church, its intrinsic mark, if the abuses of the ministers deprive innocent people of the sacraments? The Catholics stated during the Donatist controversy that even priests in mortal sin can confect the sacraments, but they probably did not consider abuses involving variations in the form or matter.

I already pointed out the practice of conditional baptism, which should not be carried out unless there is reasonable doubt. This suggests bona fides rule regarding the objective validity of the sacraments.