Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter user1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the answer from tradition :

Orthodox sacraments are valid but illicit. Due to schism they are non-efficacious. However this is only true in the case of persons who are formal schismatics.
You don’t cite a source, “tradition” is too vague to count.

And you contradict yourself. Either they are valid or they are non-efficacious. They can’t be both at the same time. And we know that the Catholic Church regards them as valid, so it follows that they are efficacious.
 
You don’t cite a source, “tradition” is too vague to count.

And you contradict yourself. Either they are valid or they are non-efficacious. They can’t be both at the same time. And we know that the Catholic Church regards them as valid, so it follows that they are efficacious.
This is not a contradiction. They can be valid and non-efficacious at the same time. The sacraments in themselves have grace but this grace is not conferred upon a heretical or schismatic receiver

Validity only speaks to the reality of the sacrament, not its efficacy. Those are separate things

*ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
[IIIa, q. 82, art. 7, ad 3um.]

“The priest, in reciting the prayers of the Mass, speaks in the person of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks in the person of Christ, whose place he holds by the power of his Orders. Consequently a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass, not having lost the power of Order, he consecrates Christ’s true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church,** his prayers have no efficacy***.”
 
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.
No its only a catholic liturgy of the catholic church that can fulfill your obligation. Only in extreme circumstances where its is too difficult or impossible to go to a Catholic liturgy can a permitted non- catholic (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the Eaat etc) fulfill this obligation.
 
The idea that the sacraments of the Orthodox are not efficacious is inconsistent with the teaching of both the CCC (819) and Unitatis Redintegratio (3).
 
*ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
[IIIa, q. 82, art. 7, ad 3um.]

“The priest, in reciting the prayers of the Mass, speaks in the person of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks in the person of Christ, whose place he holds by the power of his Orders. Consequently a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass, not having lost the power of Order, he consecrates Christ’s true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy.*”

POPE BONIFACE VIII: Unam Sanctam

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins”

St. Thomas states the case quite explicitly an is self explanatory. Unam Sanctam makes an important statement concerning schismatic and heretical sacraments. Concerning the remission of sins offered through the sacrament of confession and penance, if this were truly efficacious, then there would be a remission of sins for these persons. As seen the reality of their sacraments is acknowledged in St Thomas but yet he and Pope Boniface explicitly deny that the grace in them transfers to the receiver or to the man saying the prayers (they are not efficacious in this sense, that although they have grace, it is not communicated)
 
The idea that the sacraments of the Orthodox are not efficacious is inconsistent with the teaching of both the CCC (819) and Unitatis Redintegratio (3).
No its authentic catholic doctrine taught by a pope and a doctor of the Catholic Church. Nevermind the saints unanimously teach this.

This is objectively the situation in the Orthodox Churches. However like I said, subjectively, if one is only a material schismatic, then the sacraments are efficacious for them as they are part of the Catholic Church in a way known to Christ alone for outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation nor the remission of sins.
 
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO

"We say that those who receive Baptism outside the communion of the Church, among heretics or in any schism whatsoever, obtain no profit of it in so far as they partake in the perversity of the heretics or schismatics"
(De Baptismo Contra Donatistas lib. Ill, no. 13) Cf. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Rome 1921, p. 339.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
 
No its authentic catholic doctrine taught by a pope and a doctor of the Catholic Church. Nevermind the saints unanimously teach this.

This is objectively the situation in the Orthodox Churches. However like I said, subjectively, if one is only a material schismatic, then the sacraments are efficacious for them as they are part of the Catholic Church in a way known to Christ alone for outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation nor the remission of sins.
I think you will find very few who would agree with your interpretation of Unitatis Redintegratio. There is a real discontinuity between Unitatis Redintegratio’s vision of the Church and St. Augustine’s that can’t be papered over that easily.
 
Sacraments administered outside the Church must be illicit since they can only be celebrated lawfully with the authority of the Church. The Church does not give the Eastern Orthodox (who are in schism) the right to celebrate the sacraments so they are illicit. However, in case of need a Catholic can receive the sacraments from any validly ordained priest even if he is in schism. An Eastern Orthodox in invincible ignorance who received the Eucharist would profit from it because he would have Faith given him through baptism which he had not knowingly sinned against and would therefore be a Catholic in spirit. He would receive the Sacrament of Penance validly too, but perhaps only if the priest was in invincible ignorance too, because in a case where the priest and penitent mistakenly believe that the priest has faculties to absolve the Church validates the sacrament even though they were mistaken. I think this only applies if both parties presume that the priest has faculties.

This is to the best of my understanding but I could be wrong.
 
The point is, Roman-Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox sacraments since Vatican II, i am not wrong. Before that it did not recognize, so, not much to debate here.
 
No its only a catholic liturgy of the catholic church that can fulfill your obligation. Only in extreme circumstances where its is too difficult or impossible to go to a Catholic liturgy can a permitted non- catholic (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the Eaat etc) fulfill this obligation.
I you cannot reasonably get to a Catholic Church to fulfil your Sunday obligation the obligation ceases. It would be dangerous to the virtue of faith to go to a church severed from Rome, and absolutely unnecessary.
 
I you cannot reasonably get to a Catholic Church to fulfil your Sunday obligation the obligation ceases. It would be dangerous to the virtue of faith to go to a church severed from Rome, and absolutely unnecessary.
Hypothetical question. What if your job assigned you to a remote part of Russia with no Catholic parish for hundred of miles, but an Orthodox parish right in the town. Would it be better to stay home every Sunday or to avail yourself of the graces of attending the Divine Liturgy?
 
Hypothetical question. What if your job assigned you to a remote part of Russia with no Catholic parish for hundred of miles, but an Orthodox parish right in the town. Would it be better to stay home every Sunday or to avail yourself of the graces of attending the Divine Liturgy?
It would be sinful to go and live somewhere where you could not get to the sacraments for any length of time unless you where genuinely compelled. You would have to get a different job, but assuming you and your family would be made homeless otherwise, you could go. It would be better under these circumstances to remain at home and pray, making spiritual communions. I cannot believe you would receive graces from participating in schismatic worship but it would certainly be a danger to faith. I would probably kneel down outside the Church and say my own prayers to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament or go in there to pray when there was no service. Perhaps you could stand at the back and pray your own prayers and so still be present at the Mass but not participating in anything else.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
You realize this is not a refutation of anything I have said? In fact it affirms everything I have said

This is covered contained in the phrase “material schismatic” (people who inherit and are not culpable for schism) see for example cardinal Cardinal Journet’s explanation of hoe the Church and the sacraments relate to other churches:

The Dissident Churches, pp. 531-532

"Insofar as the dissident Churches carried away with them fragments of the true Church and still retain genuine Christian elements, something of her nature may still be found there, in a debased state; and therefore also something of her influence. The notes may then in a manner be present, no doubt attenuated and altered, even in the dissident Churches. Far from demonstrating the ineffectiveness of these notes to indicate the true Church, this imperfect presence attests the existence of remnants of the true Church in the very core of the sects that have left her. They enable us to recognize, under the debris, something of the splendor of the original design. Catholic apologists have often recognized the presence of signs of a Christian origin in the separated Churches. They have even proposed to call them “negative notes”, that is to say notes accompanying the true Church but insufficient to reveal her. It is, I think, preferable to think of them as debased or mutilated notes. When compared with the notes in their state of perfection and integrity they witness at once to the presence of Christian elements in the dissident Churches and to the alteration they have undergone. One may say, for example, that the Oriental Churches, where the power of order has been validly transmitted, possess a partial and mutilated apostolicity."
 
CONTINUED

Quote from: Survivals From The Power Of Order, pp. 504-505

"The hierarchy is indivisible. But it can, in certain regions, be broken by force so that fragments of it subsist in a mutilated state beyond the field of the Church. Thus, in lands overrun by schism or by heresy we may find not only the sacramental powers deriving from Baptism and Confirmation, but the hierarchical power of order.** The violent disjunction of the power of order from the power of jurisdiction – which latter disappears of itself whenever there is a rupture with the Sovereign Pontiff – its persistence in the uprooted state to which it is then reduced, its transmission, valid but not licit, beyond its proper and natural sphere, is always the sign of a terrible spiritual catastrophe, a partial victory of the spirit of evil over the Church of Christ**, which henceforth will move through history as though divided in herself, and become a scandal to the Gentiles. However, the Church is not in reality divided. She is indivisible like the hierarchy from which she is suspended. Peoples who have received her and belonged to her can fall away from her in consequence of schism and heresy; yet, despite failing her in this way, they can still carry away with them some of her treasures and certain relics of her royalty. What then remains of her among them may, at first glance, suggest a division; but to a wider knowledge and a deeper perception these scattered riches will themselves witness to her unicity. They are rays from one same original centre of life and activity. Those who are responsible before God for a schism or a heresy may carry away with them the valid succession of the sacrament of Holy Order. They do so in the darkness of a personal sin by which they partially rend the Church; and insofar as their own hearts are closed to the good influence of the sacraments they are like sick men taking to others medicines which they do not know how to use for their own benefit. But their followers in later times, who inherit a patrimony of schism or heresy from their birth, are not culpable on that account. They can grow in spiritual stature by remaining in good faith. The sanctifying influence of the sacraments, NO LONGER FINDING THE SAME OBSTACLES IN THE WILL, can result in graces of a high order [1048]. What they still lack in order to be fully and openly of the Church is the divinely assisted orientation of the jurisdictional power. But, from this standpoint, the uninterrupted transmission of the valid exercise of the power of order within the dissident Churches is a moving witness to the depth of the salvific will of God. By thus continuing to dispense the graces of contact by way of His sacrifice and His sacraments, and thereby closely conforming to Christ many whose spiritual situation is in itself very precarious, He reveals an astonishing design: that of beginning, in a way, to form the Church outside the Church, to collect His “other sheep” as in a flock, and to draw them to the one fold by a strangely powerful ontological desire, a “virtual act” not far removed from ‘act achieved’.

When St. Augustine declares that the sacraments do not confer grace outside the Church, he takes it for granted, as Billot rightly remarks, that they are received by those who are personally guilty of heresy or schism: “We say that those who receive Baptism outside the communion of the Church, among heretics or in any schism whatsoever, obtain no profit of it in so far as they partake in the perversity of the heretics or schismatics”
(De Baptismo Contra Donatistas lib. Ill, no. 13) Cf. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Rome 1921, p. 339.)
 
I think you will find very few who would agree with your interpretation of Unitatis Redintegratio. There is a real discontinuity between Unitatis Redintegratio’s vision of the Church and St. Augustine’s that can’t be papered over that easily.
Many people don’t read the documents properly nor are familiar with the past teaching to know how to interpret these documents without causing scandal to the faith. Under Pope Benedict’s papacy, they tried hard to clarify many erroneous interpretations of church documents since Vatican II. I’ve read these clarifications and documents and that’s how I know what I’m saying is right. Nevermind how many cardinals have spoken clearly what I say. There is one faith, no rupture, just bad and reckless interpretation.
 
The point is, Roman-Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox sacraments since Vatican II, i am not wrong. Before that it did not recognize, so, not much to debate here.
It always recognised them.
 
I you cannot reasonably get to a Catholic Church to fulfil your Sunday obligation the obligation ceases. It would be dangerous to the virtue of faith to go to a church severed from Rome, and absolutely unnecessary.
It naturally ceases but if you wish to go to church you can go to a schismatic body for fulfillment of the obligation and it will be valid. This is canon law. Let me look for it quickly
 
Cardinal Jounert also said in the same interview speaking of the Eastern Orthodox and all schismatics:

"Those dissident groups of the Reformed in which Baptism is still validly administered—whose marriages are therefore held by the Roman Church to be authentically sacramental—can still participate, but in an attenuated way, in the sacramental benefits: the sacerdotal power of Christ is imparted to them only in Baptism, sacramental grace ONLY in Baptism and the sacrament of Matrimony."

See again that only because the Catholic Church recognised/gives authority to these two acts performed by schismatic bodies with valid sacraments are thee two (baptism and marriage) efficacious.

Abd again this is said under the assumption that these persons are formal schismatics (culpable for schism)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top