The Eastern Orthodox do not need the permission of the Church of Rome or from the Pope to celebrate the Sacraments. The Orthodox have their own authority to follow the will of God. This authority is the same as it is in the Church of Rome. It is the Holy Spirit which resides in the Church that guarantees this authority. While Rome enjoys her authority so do the Orthodox. The problem with Catholics is not understanding this authority that resides in the Orthodox Church. The problem is also within Orthodoxy which needs to accept the authority that resides in Rome. We need as Catholics and Orthodox to come to accept each other’s authority as an important link to the Apostolic authority that God had given for us. To say it is illicit is a slap on the face on God who had originate His Orthodox Church. Again it is also wrong for the Orthodox to say things about the Catholic Church that can be damaging to their relationship with each other and to God. The Pope and the Papacy is an important link to this Apostolic authority but it is also true that the collegitive authority that resides in Orthodoxy is another important link to this Apostolic foundation. What God is seeking from us is for us to acknowledge each other’s authority without diminishing our own. Once we do this unity will be possible.I am pretty sure that Eastern Orthodox churches have valid apostolic succession, so their priests are valid and likewise all the sacraments are also valid. However, I have heard that they are also illicit. Can someone clearlify what this means?
Thanks,
Pietro Contolini
The Orthodox believe that Heresy is among the gravest sins, as in the Early Church, ie, in the Orthodox and Catholic Church.
I am not sure this is right?
Catholics are required by Canon Law to attend a liturgy in Communion with the Catholic Church, which, unfortunately, does not presently include the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Whether it satisfies that “obligation” or not depends on whom you ask. Even canon lawyers are not unanimous in saying it doesn’t. As I’ve said several times before in this forum, a very strong argument can be made that it does.
Can you tell me please what that means?
If they are “non efficacious” then it would seem that they’re simply not valid. But of course even Rome says they ARE valid. And as for the last sentence … huh??? What??? Its illicit still but the efficacious for those who are in invincible ignorance and material schism.
The schismatic sacraments are valid. Validity means that they are real sacraments and that these acts are not just a performance I fancy clothes like the Anglicans. Illicit means that although there is a real sacrament, it is performed illegally or uncanonically because it is being performed without the authority of the Catholic Church for sacraments belong to the Church of Christ. Schismatic perform these sacraments of the Church without the authority given to them by the church. The sacraments in schismatic churches lack efficacy. That is the grace in them is not conferred to the receiver of the sacrament despite the sacrament being real for only in Christ’s church can grace be received though the sacraments.Can you tell me please what that means?
I don’t have the canons at hand, but I belive the Code of Canon Law says the Liturgy must be of a “Catholic rite” to fulfill the obligation. Some Canon lawyers interpret “Catholic rite” as meaning it has to be a liturgy celebrated by a Catholic priest. Other Canon lawyers interpret “Catholic rite” as any liturgy that is valid according to the Catholic Church, whether it is celebrated by a Catholic, Eastern, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East priest. I think the latter interpretation makes more sense. Legalists would agree with the former interpretation.
Some say that such arcane and unnecessary legalism is what keeps many Protestants and Orthodox away from the Catholic Church…