P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, I believe you are correct. The Assyrian Church of the East isn’t part of the Orthodox Church, but their sacraments are recognized by the RCC.
- Status
T
The_Prodigal
Guest
The liceity of a sacrament refers to the question of whether its administration conforms to liturgical law, not whether the minister has been ordained.
Orthodox, as I understand it, don’t recognize non-Orthodox ordinations, period. That’s all that matters, no? The concept of liceity has no bearing on this. You can’t violate the law with regard to the administration of a sacrament if the sacrament cannot be confected in any event.
G
GKC
Guest
You stretch my knowledge, though not necessarily my understanding (as, that illicit and non-efficacious are not synonymous). My point: the RCC recognizes the validity of the orders of not only the Orthodox, but those of the PNCC, the OCs (assuming the factors as noted), as stated, for the reasons stated. Further, deponent sayeth not.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Terminology is tricky. Validity is certainly related to liturgical confomity, licitness to authority to exercise the litugical forms.
And sure, the Orthodox do not use the concept “licit”. As I said."
GKC
T
The_Prodigal
Guest
Listening to Father Corapi’s program just now and his discussion of the Eucharist, I was able to put my finger on why the current use of the word “valid” irks me (just a bit). I think the original sense of the term in use by the Church applied only to form and matter. As a kind of shorthand, this restricted sense of the term “valid” has been extended to include the meaning “efficacy” of the sacrament.
GKC, I get the feeling that no amount of back and forth will convince either of us to change his mind
GKC, I get the feeling that no amount of back and forth will convince either of us to change his mind
G
GKC
Guest
I think you might be right. In my study of Apostolicae Curae, I find that validity is a judgment that can be made on all aspects of a sacrament: matter, minister, intent and form. But I have little opinion on the concept of efficacy, resulting from that judgment (if valid and illicit, that is), it not forming part of the matter under discussion in 1896 (to coin a phrase or two). Au fond, I think I might agree with you.Listening to Father Corapi’s program just now and his discussion of the Eucharist, I was able to put my finger on why the current use of the word “valid” irks me (just a bit). I think the original sense of the term in use by the Church applied only to form and matter. As a kind of shorthand, this restricted sense of the term “valid” has been extended to include the meaning “efficacy” of the sacrament.
GKC, I get the feeling that no amount of back and forth will convince either of us to change his mind
Either way, no reason not to talk, if there is occasion.
GKC
T
The_Prodigal
Guest
Before Benediction last night, I checked our parish’s OCP hymnal. It specifies the Orthodox, the PNCC, and the Assyrian Church of the East. It says words to the effect that members of those churches may be admitted to communion, but urges them to respect the discipline of their respective churches regarding this. It refers to canon 844, sections 3 and 4, which I quote here from the Vatican website:
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
So you see, the neither the PNCC not the ACOE is mentioned explicitly here at all, only the “Eastern Churches” or what we have referred to as the Orthodox in this thread.
Section 3 mentions “other churches which… are in the same condition.” This would cover the ACOE or that part of the ACOE that recently came into full communion.
It should be clear that these sections of the law only specify who may be admitted to communion, penance, and anointing, and only obliquely refer to the status (“validity” if you insist) of the sacraments in those other churches, with the words “provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments.”
I think the reticence of the law to name any other churches or communion of churches speaks volumes. For the RCC to acknowledge the sacraments - leaving aside baptism and marriage - outside communion with Rome and the Eastern Churches, would be to lend authority to those other churches.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Prodigal, I may have seen the same program recently and if so, Fr. Corapi does not distinguish between VALID and LICIT but instead between ILLEGAL and LICIT, correct? (I am totally capable of getting the terminology mixed up, and if so, please forgive me.)Listening to Father Corapi’s program just now and his discussion of the Eucharist, I was able to put my finger on why the current use of the word “valid” irks me (just a bit). I think the original sense of the term in use by the Church applied only to form and matter. As a kind of shorthand, this restricted sense of the term “valid” has been extended to include the meaning “efficacy” of the sacrament.
GKC, I get the feeling that no amount of back and forth will convince either of us to change his mind
If I remember correctly, in the program Fr. Corapi used the example of using unleavened bread v. leavened bread for the Host. (So this is not about FORM, it is about MATTER, but the example is still pertinent.) Leavened bread would be ILLEGAL but still LICIT, and therefore the sacrament would be operational. In contrast, adding milk, eggs, and/or sugar to the mix to make the bread would be ILLICIT and therefore the sacrament would not even be operational. In other words, those persons receiving the sacrament using such bread would be receiving bread only, the sacrament would not operate. It seems to me that VALID and LICIT may be pretty much the same thing, but that sometimes, through circumstance, a sacrament may be illegal but still operational, and therefore valid/licit.
But of course, I could have got it wrong too.
T
The_Prodigal
Guest
Yes, it was the same program we heard.
Father Corapi’s point was that in the Latin Church (not necessarily the other Catholic Churches), unleavened bread is the liturgical norm. Adding leaven makes the matter illicit in the Latin church, but the sacrament will still be confected if the proper form is observed, and the minister is a priest. So, “illicit” means “not allowed” according to the norms or laws, but technically the leavened bread is transsubstantiated, and the sacrament is efficacious, i.e. confers grace. Adding anything else besides leaven makes the substance no longer bread, and therefore, no longer valid matter, at least in the eyes of the church.
Just so with the consecrations of the SSPX bishops in 1988 (to take a notorious example) - they were illicit, because the papal mandate was not given, and so were outside the norms. But no one has cast doubt on the actual consecrations, because (presumably) the proper form was observed, and the minister was himself a bishop.
So I think the church teaches that grace can be conferred, even if in a particular instance, the norms are not strictly observed. In that case the sacrament is “valid” to use the popular term, but illicit.
Father Corapi’s point was that in the Latin Church (not necessarily the other Catholic Churches), unleavened bread is the liturgical norm. Adding leaven makes the matter illicit in the Latin church, but the sacrament will still be confected if the proper form is observed, and the minister is a priest. So, “illicit” means “not allowed” according to the norms or laws, but technically the leavened bread is transsubstantiated, and the sacrament is efficacious, i.e. confers grace. Adding anything else besides leaven makes the substance no longer bread, and therefore, no longer valid matter, at least in the eyes of the church.
Just so with the consecrations of the SSPX bishops in 1988 (to take a notorious example) - they were illicit, because the papal mandate was not given, and so were outside the norms. But no one has cast doubt on the actual consecrations, because (presumably) the proper form was observed, and the minister was himself a bishop.
So I think the church teaches that grace can be conferred, even if in a particular instance, the norms are not strictly observed. In that case the sacrament is “valid” to use the popular term, but illicit.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Hi Prodigal,
It seems to me, and I’ll “butt out” after this, that before continuing any theological discussion, that these terms need to be precisely defined. From Fr. Corapi, I understood “valid” to be the pretty much the same as “licit” but NOT the same as “illegal” (with illegal meaning that some part was not proper.) Other parts of this thread appear to distinguish “valid” from “licit”, unless I just do not understand what has been written (which is always possible.)
Hence, before proceeding, I would suggest that a definition of terms be established, and perhaps you and GKC may find more common ground. He’s an Anglo Catholic after all and many so described are Latin Rite Catholics in practically every way there is. Certainly their priests, when they convert, do not need to change much.
Of course, in establishing definitions, you may NOT find more common ground, so it’s just a suggestion.
It seems to me, and I’ll “butt out” after this, that before continuing any theological discussion, that these terms need to be precisely defined. From Fr. Corapi, I understood “valid” to be the pretty much the same as “licit” but NOT the same as “illegal” (with illegal meaning that some part was not proper.) Other parts of this thread appear to distinguish “valid” from “licit”, unless I just do not understand what has been written (which is always possible.)
Hence, before proceeding, I would suggest that a definition of terms be established, and perhaps you and GKC may find more common ground. He’s an Anglo Catholic after all and many so described are Latin Rite Catholics in practically every way there is. Certainly their priests, when they convert, do not need to change much.
Of course, in establishing definitions, you may NOT find more common ground, so it’s just a suggestion.
G
GKC
Guest
We may have common ground, but I can’t tell. Valid/validity are technical terms used, for example, by Ott, and in Apostolicae Curae, with respect to the basic description of sacraments, order most particularly. In this I’m following what I certainly understand to be basic RC terminolgy.Hi Prodigal,
It seems to me, and I’ll “butt out” after this, that before continuing any theological discussion, that these terms need to be precisely defined. From Fr. Corapi, I understood “valid” to be the pretty much the same as “licit” but NOT the same as “illegal” (with illegal meaning that some part was not proper.) Other parts of this thread appear to distinguish “valid” from “licit”, unless I just do not understand what has been written (which is always possible.)
Hence, before proceeding, I would suggest that a definition of terms be established, and perhaps you and GKC may find more common ground. He’s an Anglo Catholic after all and many so described are Latin Rite Catholics in practically every way there is. Certainly their priests, when they convert, do not need to change much.
Of course, in establishing definitions, you may NOT find more common ground, so it’s just a suggestion.
Got no particular animus against contrary opinion, to be sure. Just am not convinced.
Oh. Almost forgot. Thanks.
GKC
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Hi GKC,
You’re welcome. Just making an effort to be helpful and hoping to make a a move toward clarity.
I started out, decades ago, as Episcopalian (within 3 weeks of birth) which, I have since learned is probably “low Church Anglican” (and I’ve wondered for years what my Mother used to mean by “High Church”, I think I’m finally beginning to understand.) (As a separate matter, perhaps the Episcopal Church in the USA is LOW low church now
.) Then, decades passed, and awhile back I “came home” to the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons.
I’d like to think the Anglicans will beat the Lutherans back “home”, as a group, but in the meantime, it would be great just to be sure that we don’t disagree on anything simply through misunderstanding.
You’re welcome. Just making an effort to be helpful and hoping to make a a move toward clarity.
I started out, decades ago, as Episcopalian (within 3 weeks of birth) which, I have since learned is probably “low Church Anglican” (and I’ve wondered for years what my Mother used to mean by “High Church”, I think I’m finally beginning to understand.) (As a separate matter, perhaps the Episcopal Church in the USA is LOW low church now
.) Then, decades passed, and awhile back I “came home” to the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons.I’d like to think the Anglicans will beat the Lutherans back “home”, as a group, but in the meantime, it would be great just to be sure that we don’t disagree on anything simply through misunderstanding.
G
GKC
Guest
As it always was, the Episcopal Church is a mixture of high and low (which primarily refers to “churchmanship” (how many candles on the altar) and another range, running from reformed/evangelical to Anglo-Catholic, which latter is more related to doctrine (real presence, or no, etc). This distinction is a little artificial, in that most high church folk are also Anglo-Catholic, or over on that side, but the origins of each are slightly different, Anglo-Catholics raising from the Oxford movement, high church from the slightly later Ritualist movement.Hi GKC,
You’re welcome. Just making an effort to be helpful and hoping to make a a move toward clarity.
I started out, decades ago, as Episcopalian (within 3 weeks of birth) which, I have since learned is probably “low Church Anglican” (and I’ve wondered for years what my Mother used to mean by “High Church”, I think I’m finally beginning to understand.) (As a separate matter, perhaps the Episcopal Church in the USA is LOW low church now
I’d like to think the Anglicans will beat the Lutherans back “home”, as a group, but in the meantime, it would be great just to be sure that we don’t disagree on anything simply through misunderstanding.
But what has happened to the current Episcopal Church is that one not only has to measure along those dimensions, but also an added one, of orthodoxy/apostasy, with respect to mere Christianity.
Me, I have no idea who is going which way, if any, or who might get where first.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
T
The_Prodigal
Guest
I don’t think it’s the terminology that’s the stumbling block here. When GKC and others say that the sacrament is valid, they mean that the sacrament confers grace and does what it’s supposed to do. I just think that “valid” has a more restricted application, and refers to whether the form of the sacrament, or the matter of the sacrament, conforms strictly to the liturgical law. I prefer the term efficacious to refer to the sacrament as a whole, but we know what each other is saying. I’m no theologian, either, so take anything I write here with a large grain of salt.Hi Prodigal,
It seems to me, and I’ll “butt out” after this, that before continuing any theological discussion, that these terms need to be precisely defined. From Fr. Corapi, I understood “valid” to be the pretty much the same as “licit” but NOT the same as “illegal” (with illegal meaning that some part was not proper.) Other parts of this thread appear to distinguish “valid” from “licit”, unless I just do not understand what has been written (which is always possible.)
Hence, before proceeding, I would suggest that a definition of terms be established, and perhaps you and GKC may find more common ground. He’s an Anglo Catholic after all and many so described are Latin Rite Catholics in practically every way there is. Certainly their priests, when they convert, do not need to change much.
Of course, in establishing definitions, you may NOT find more common ground, so it’s just a suggestion.
The real difference of opinion is whether communions outside the RCC have these sacraments that do in fact confer grace, and whether Rome has spoken on that issue. If you look at the evidence of apostolic succession, and therefore whether the priesthood has been handed on, some theologians have come to the conclusion that the sacraments are in fact maintained outside the RCC, because the ordinations have all the necessary elements to do what they’re supposed to do. However, I’ve been pointing out that with the exception of the Eastern Churches the RCC is most reluctant to acknowledge the priesthood in other churches. From Rome’s point of view, at some level that would be sending the message to schismatics that it’s just fine to stay right where they are.
F
Filioque
Guest
I did not read the entire thread, so forgive me if I am redundant.
Traditional Catholic teaching says:
Baptism that is administered by anyone who has reached the age of reason, who uses potable water, and recites the trinitarian formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)” with the intention of doing what the Church does, be they Catholic, Protestant, or even Hindu, confects the sacrament validly. If the baptism is done this way because of grave need, it is both valid and licit. Otherwise a Catholic should be baptized by the Pastor of his or her local parish, or one designated by him.
IIRC, Pope Paul VI, when he and Patriarch Athanagoras or the Greek Orthodox Church simultaneously lifted the decrees of excommunication on each other’s Churches, Pope Paul VI wrote that Orthodox priests and bishops have jurisdiction over their own people. That being so, Orthodox Sacraments are considered both valid and licit within their own communities.
As for Anglicans and Episcopalians, the position of the Holy See is that Anglicans do not as a body have valid orders, there are some Anglicans (Episcopalians in much of the USA) who did seek orders through Old Catholic bishops. Another tangled web… So according to the Catholic Church some Anglicans have valid Masses, and Orders. Aside from those who followed the lead of Bishop Pike (Episcopalian) and baptized in the “Name of the Creator, the Savior and the Sustainer” or some such formula, Episcopal/Anglican baptism as most Protestant baptisms are valid.
Traditional Catholic teaching says:
Baptism that is administered by anyone who has reached the age of reason, who uses potable water, and recites the trinitarian formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)” with the intention of doing what the Church does, be they Catholic, Protestant, or even Hindu, confects the sacrament validly. If the baptism is done this way because of grave need, it is both valid and licit. Otherwise a Catholic should be baptized by the Pastor of his or her local parish, or one designated by him.
IIRC, Pope Paul VI, when he and Patriarch Athanagoras or the Greek Orthodox Church simultaneously lifted the decrees of excommunication on each other’s Churches, Pope Paul VI wrote that Orthodox priests and bishops have jurisdiction over their own people. That being so, Orthodox Sacraments are considered both valid and licit within their own communities.
As for Anglicans and Episcopalians, the position of the Holy See is that Anglicans do not as a body have valid orders, there are some Anglicans (Episcopalians in much of the USA) who did seek orders through Old Catholic bishops. Another tangled web… So according to the Catholic Church some Anglicans have valid Masses, and Orders. Aside from those who followed the lead of Bishop Pike (Episcopalian) and baptized in the “Name of the Creator, the Savior and the Sustainer” or some such formula, Episcopal/Anglican baptism as most Protestant baptisms are valid.
G
GKC
Guest
The Anglican Communion began joint consecration of bishops with the Old Catholics/Utrecht, in 1932, and with the PNCC, in 1946. The Dutch Touch is pervasive throughout the communion, from that. No other infusion of episcopal lines would be relevant. And, logically, that should raise some interesting points, re: Apostolicae Curae. Bu I am unaware of any position taken on that, by the RCC, officially.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Valid would also have to include consideration of the intent of the minister, as a minimum,
facere quod facit eccelsia. It was the combination of intent and form (and the two had to be considered together) that is cited in Apostolicae Curae.
I remain convinced, absent a definitive contrary citation, that the RCC holds the OC and PNCC orders to be valid (restrictions as cited previously). Ott certainly supports that. If you have something to balance it on the opposite side, I’d be interested in seeing it. As to efficacy, I remain untutored. It does not fall within the field I study.
GKC
- Status