Licit Sacraments

[K2CDS]

Are the sacraments of break away churches, such as Old Catholic, Polish National, Liberal Catholic, etc. licit? Do they have all seven sacraments?

 

[c659smith]

Are the sacraments of break away churches, such as Old Catholic, Polish National, Liberal Catholic, etc. licit? Do they have all seven sacraments?

If out of communion with Rome and Rome states they are not then they are not valid. They do not have the authority to perform the Sacraments esspecially Absolution,Commmunion, Confirmation, Ordination, blessing of the sick (last rights).

Without valid ordination then no priests or Bishops to perform such sacraments.

 

[w_stewart]

Are the sacraments of break away churches, such as Old Catholic, Polish National, Liberal Catholic, etc. licit? Do they have all seven sacraments?

No valid apostolic succession, no licit sacraments.

 

[GKC]

If out of communion with Rome and Rome states they are not then they are not valid. They do not have the authority to perform the Sacraments esspecially Absolution,Commmunion, Confirmation, Ordination, blessing of the sick (last rights).

Without valid ordination then no priests or Bishops to perform such sacraments.

The RCC considers the Old Catholics (historically, not necessarily today) and the PNCC, along with the Orthodox, as possessing valid, but not licit orders and hence valid, but not lict sacraments, where valid orders are required to confect them. Communion with Rome is necessary for validity, not licitness.

GKC

 

[Cluny]

Communion with Rome is necessary for validity, not licitness.

Didn’t you mean “licitness, not validity”?

 

[GKC]

Communion with Rome is necessary for validity, not licitness.

Didn’t you mean “licitness, not validity”?

Lemme think a moment.

Yep. Oops.

Must remember, first coffee, then type.

And it’s type, read, post, not type, post, read. Much safer.

GKC

 

[K2CDS]

Thank you all for your answers. And GKC, a cup of hot coffee is really necessary first
before any engagement of any type of conversation. I learned the HARD way!

Again, many thanks all.

 

[GKC]

Thank you all for your answers. And GKC, a cup of hot coffee is really necessary first
before any engagement of any type of conversation. I learned the HARD way!

Again, many thanks all.

For my part, you are very welcome.

And, yep. You’re right.

GKC

 

[The_Prodigal]

The RCC considers the Old Catholics (historically, not necessarily today) and the PNCC, along with the Orthodox, as possessing valid, but not licit orders and hence valid, but not lict sacraments, where valid orders are required to confect them. Communion with Rome is necessary for validity, not licitness.

GKC

GKC,

I have seen a few posts in various threads (some may have been by you) indicating that the CC considers the orders maintained, and therefore the sacraments valid, in these other churches. Of course it is easy to find such a teaching regarding the Orthodox Churches, but I’m coming up empty when I try to verify this idea with regard to the Old Catholics and the PNCC.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I have seen a few posts in various threads (some may have been by you) indicating that the CC considers the orders maintained, and therefore the sacraments valid, in these other churches. Of course it is easy to find such a teaching regarding the Orthodox Churches, but I’m coming up empty when I try to verify this idea with regard to the Old Catholics and the PNCC.

Yes, that could have been me, I’ve done it often enough. I’m not sure I could find the back-up, either, but what I posted is accurate. Validity, in the eyes of the RCC, inheres in apostolic succession, not in communion with Rome. Communion with Rome is what determines licitness.

Be aware that the OCs of Utrecht are suspect in this matter (so to speak) these days, since they appear to be laying hands on hairspray. Apostolic succession is only maintained while the validity of the form, intent, matter and minister are maintained. It was the form and intent points (intertwined) that are cited against Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae.

As an Anglican, I have a different view of that matter, of course.

Now, let’s see if I got them backwards again.

GKC

 

[The_Prodigal]

Validity, in the eyes of the RCC, inheres in apostolic succession, not in communion with Rome. Communion with Rome is what determines licitness.

I understand, and this is a consequence of the Catholic understanding of how the sacraments work (ex opere operato and so forth).

On the other hand, it would be surprising to me if the Church ever took the step of acknowledging the validity of orders outside the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches, for reasons that I think are obvious.

 

[ralphinal]

That which is invalid is ALWAYS illicit. That which is illicit may still be valid.

 

[GKC]

I understand, and this is a consequence of the Catholic understanding of how the sacraments work (ex opere operato and so forth).

On the other hand, it would be surprising to me if the Church ever took the step of acknowledging the validity of orders outside the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches, for reasons that I think are obvious.

Surprising it may be, but it is true. The best explication I can find on hand is Ott, p. 458,

“Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishop, can validly dispense the sacrament of order, providing he has the requisite intent, and follows the essential external rite”.

Matter would also have to be IAW his reference on P. 459, of course.

The logic works like this. Assume it’s around AD 1000, and all bishops are validly consecrated, and in communion with Rome. Then occurs the Schism. Orthodox bishops are still validly consecrated, as they were the day before. Thus they are valid ministers to confect the sacrament of order. And, assuming they maintain the proper matter, and the proper intent ((facere quod facit ecclesia) and the external rite (valid form), the sacrament will be confected. That is, Donatism is rejected. The orders thus transmitted are valid, but, since the minister is not in communion with Rome, the authority to confect that sacrament is lacking. Hence they are not licit (legal) orders. The Orthodox don’t make the same distinction. Licit is not a concept they use, at all.

This is also how the orders of the Old Catholics (historically) and the PNCC are judged. Valid, but illicit. Other than the break with Rome, there is no change (historically) in the matter, form or intent (as judged by external actions) of these Churches, that would invalidate the transmission of valid orders. And Rome recognizes their orders, in that sense.

This logic applies to Anglicans and* Apostlicae Curae*, too. The reason that nowhere in AC is there a reference to the Anglicans not being in communion with Rome, as determining the validity of Anglican orders (rather it’s the presumed invalidity of intent and form, connected), is that communion with Rome is not the test for valid orders. It is for licit orders.

Surprising, maybe, but true.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

I understand, and this is a consequence of the Catholic understanding of how the sacraments work (ex opere operato and so forth).

On the other hand, it would be surprising to me if the Church ever took the step of acknowledging the validity of orders outside the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches, for reasons that I think are obvious.

It’s not obvious to me which reasons, specifically, you have in mind.

 

[scott122]

Our parish and many others in North America use a Missal and Hymnal from Oregon Catholic Press. Inside the front cover is an article about “Who May Receive Communion.” It lists Orthodox Christians and members of the Polish National Catholic Church and the Church of Antioch as being allowed to receive in the Catholic Church. From this I assume that their sacraments are valid.

A few years ago a Polish National Catholic Church priest in Rochester, NY, joined the Catholic Church. There was no re-ordination, just incardination - i.e., he was put under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rochester. Sounds like his ordination in the PNCC was valid in the first place.

 

[K2CDS]

In thinking back now, the RCC does recognize as licit and valid the rites (sacraments) of
baptism and confirmation of many protestant churches even though they are not in communion with the Church. But then, isn’t this really a matter for the Pope, Magisterium, and/or College of Bishops singly or in conjunction to decide, under advisement of the “Theologians”?

 

[GKC]

In thinking back now, the RCC does recognize as licit and valid the rites (sacraments) of
baptism and confirmation of many protestant churches even though they are not in communion with the Church. But then, isn’t this really a matter for the Pope, Magisterium, and/or College of Bishops singly or in conjunction to decide, under advisement of the “Theologians”?

Might be one way to look at it. Regardless, the RCC recognizes the orders of the Orthodox, the historical Old Catholics, and the PNCC as valid, but illicit.

GKC

 

[The_Prodigal]

Surprising it may be, but it is true. The best explication I can find on hand is Ott, p. 458,

“Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishop, can validly dispense the sacrament of order, providing he has the requisite intent, and follows the essential external rite”.

Matter would also have to be IAW his reference on P. 459, of course.

The logic works like this. Assume it’s around AD 1000, and all bishops are validly consecrated, and in communion with Rome. Then occurs the Schism. Orthodox bishops are still validly consecrated, as they were the day before. Thus they are valid ministers to confect the sacrament of order. And, assuming they maintain the proper matter, and the proper intent ((facere quod facit ecclesia) and the external rite (valid form), the sacrament will be confected. That is, Donatism is rejected. The orders thus transmitted are valid, but, since the minister is not in communion with Rome, the authority to confect that sacrament is lacking. Hence they are not licit (legal) orders. The Orthodox don’t make the same distinction. Licit is not a concept they use, at all.

This is also how the orders of the Old Catholics (historically) and the PNCC are judged. Valid, but illicit. Other than the break with Rome, there is no change (historically) in the matter, form or intent (as judged by external actions) of these Churches, that would invalidate the transmission of valid orders. And Rome recognizes their orders, in that sense.

This logic applies to Anglicans and* Apostlicae Curae*, too. The reason that nowhere in AC is there a reference to the Anglicans not being in communion with Rome, as determining the validity of Anglican orders (rather it’s the presumed invalidity of intent and form, connected), is that communion with Rome is not the test for valid orders. It is for licit orders.

Surprising, maybe, but true.

GKC

I’m not sure if I’m making myself clear: I understand completely that in rejecting the Donatist position as heresy, the Church priviliges the “automaticity” of the sacraments confected by the minister. It’s interesting to see from a sociological point of view the confusion that would result if (some version of or an extreme version of) the Donatist position were affirmed. Since we can’t examine the souls of the ministers of the sacraments, the efficacy of every instance of every sacrament would be in doubt!

[As an aside, it’s the **efficacy of the sacrament we are talking about, isn’t it? For some reason the rather imprecise term validity has replaced the proper term, I think. I don’t know what “valid” means in theological terms, but I do understand efficacy].

And so in a technical sense if the sacrament is confected with proper form, matter, and intent of the minister, the sacrament is efficacious, (valid if you will), we agree.

What is at stake is how willing the Church is to recognize explicitly these consequences of rejecting the Donatist position. Because the great danger here is an endless schismatic tendency. That is why the RCC to my knowledge, rarely or never acknowledges the presence of real sacraments in other churches (again, leaving the Orthodox Churches out of the discussion).

Our parish and many others in North America use a Missal and Hymnal from Oregon Catholic Press. Inside the front cover is an article about “Who May Receive Communion.” It lists Orthodox Christians and members of the Polish National Catholic Church and the Church of Antioch as being allowed to receive in the Catholic Church. From this I assume that their sacraments are valid.

A few years ago a Polish National Catholic Church priest in Rochester, NY, joined the Catholic Church. There was no re-ordination, just incardination - i.e., he was put under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rochester. Sounds like his ordination in the PNCC was valid in the first place.

What’s printed in a hymnal really has no bearing at all - it has no authority on matters like these. In any case, I believe you may have read “Assyrian Church of the East” as opposed to “Church of Antioch”. Apparently one of their - the former’s - dioceses has recently entered into communion with Rome.

Regarding the situation in Rochester diocese, no offense to the poster is intended, but I’m skeptical. If it happened, I’d like to know why the bishop chose to take this step, assuming he offered an explanation.

If this priest was incardinated without ordination by a Catholic bishop, it might be implicit recognition of the validity of the PNCC’s ordinations. But I wonder how Rome felt about the case…

 

[The_Prodigal]

It’s not obvious to me which reasons, specifically, you have in mind.

To the extent that to acknowledge the priesthood outside the Church, is therefore to promote the staus quo, which is undesireable.

 

[GKC]

I’m not sure if I’m making myself clear: I understand completely that in rejecting the Donatist position as heresy, the Church priviliges the “automaticity” of the sacraments confected by the minister. It’s interesting to see from a sociological point of view the confusion that would result if (some version of or an extreme version of) the Donatist position were affirmed. Since we can’t examine the souls of the ministers of the sacraments, the efficacy of every instance of every sacrament would be in doubt!

[As an aside, it’s the **efficacy

of the sacrament we are talking about, isn’t it? For some reason the rather imprecise term validity has replaced the proper term, I think. I don’t know what “valid” means in theological terms, but I do understand efficacy].

And so in a technical sense if the sacrament is confected with proper form, matter, and intent of the minister, the sacrament is efficacious, (valid if you will), we agree.

What is at stake is how willing the Church is to recognize explicitly these consequences of rejecting the Donatist position. Because the great danger here is an endless schismatic tendency. That is why the RCC to my knowledge, rarely or never acknowledges the presence of real sacraments in other churches (again, leaving the Orthodox Churches out of the discussion).

What’s printed in a hymnal really has no bearing at all - it has no authority on matters like these. In any case, I believe you may have read “Assyrian Church of the East” as opposed to “Church of Antioch”. Apparently one of their - the former’s - dioceses has recently entered into communion with Rome.

Regarding the situation in Rochester diocese, no offense to the poster is intended, but I’m skeptical. If it happened, I’d like to know why the bishop chose to take this step, assuming he offered an explanation.

If this priest was incardinated without ordination by a Catholic bishop, it might be implicit recognition of the validity of the PNCC’s ordinations. But I wonder how Rome felt about the case…

I suspect the priest in question might have been ordained sub conditione, but I know not. It’s happened twice, to Anglican priests going over the river.

The term validity is a proper one, theologically, and mainly to be used of the orders themselves, in this discussion. Valid but illicit orders may confect illicit or non efficacious sacraments. Certainly, the Orthodox, not recognizing the concept of licitness, make all orders outside the One Church (and that’s not you or us) “empty”, incapable of conveying grace.

The RCC does recognize the concept of valid (not “real”) sacraments outside communion with Rome (and not just baptism and matrimony) and the logic is the same whether respecting Orthodox, OCs, or PNCC. Valid minister, form, matter, intent = sacrament. Again, I note Ott, on the transmission of Orders, and, IIRC, there’s something in the CIC, which I can’t locate my copy of, at the moment.

If you are unconvinced, I can add little to this. Unless I recall a source.

GKC