Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?

[Augustine]

“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.)

Then pray, tell, how is it that the Catholic Church does not baptize again those converts who were baptized with the Trinitarian formula, not in other churches, but in ecclesial communities without apostolic succession?

What a saint says, even a father and doctor of the Church, one of her greatest ones, is secondary to what the Church teaches.

Christus natus est!

 

[Augustine]

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.

The Orthodox Churches are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church too. Schism does not change this and that’s why reunion is possible.

Christus natus est!

 

[recentrevert]

The Orthodox Churches are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church too. Schism does not change this and that’s why reunion is possible.

Christus natus est!

Of course schism separates you from the Church! Reunion is possible because there is division. To reunite the separated churches must renounce their error and be subject to the pope - it has happened before and by the grace of God it can happen again.

There is only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and that is the Catholic Church. The other churches separated themselves through unlawful disobedience and heresy. Individual members of these churches may be members of the True Church in spirit if their heresy and schism isn’t gravely culpable.

 

[Rohzek]

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.

I think it is better to quote the full passage from Augustine:

1. Therefore Cyprian writes to Jubaianus as follows, “concerning the baptism of heretics, who, being placed without, and set down out of the Church,” seem to him to “claim to themselves a matter over which they have neither right nor power. Which we,” he says, “cannot account valid or lawful, since it is clear that among them it is unlawful.” Neither, indeed, do we deny that a man who is baptized among heretics, or in any schism outside the Church, derives no profit from it so far as he is partner in the perverseness of the heretics and schismatics; nor do we hold that those who baptize, although they confer the real true sacrament of baptism, are yet acting rightly, in gathering adherents outside the Church, and entertaining opinions contrary to the Church. But it is one thing to be without a sacrament, another thing to be in possession of it wrongly, and to usurp it unlawfully. Therefore they do not cease to be sacraments of Christ and the Church, merely because they are unlawfully used, not only by heretics, but by all kinds of wicked and impious persons. These, indeed, ought to be corrected and punished, but the sacraments should be acknowledged and revered.

1. Cyprian, indeed, says that on this subject not one, but two or more Councils were held; always, however, in Africa. For indeed in one he mentions that seventy-one bishops had been assembled, — to all whose authority we do not hesitate, with all due deference to Cyprian, to prefer the authority, supported by many more bishops, of the whole Church spread throughout the whole world, of which Cyprian himself rejoiced that he was an inseparable member.

1. Nor is the water “profane and adulterous” over which the name of God is invoked, even though it be invoked by profane and adulterous persons; because neither the creature itself of water, nor the name invoked, is adulterous. But the baptism of Christ, consecrated by the words of the gospel, is necessarily holy, however polluted and unclean its ministers may be; because its inherent sanctity cannot be polluted, and the divine excellence abides in its sacrament, whether to the salvation of those who use it aright, or to the destruction of those who use it wrong. Would you indeed maintain that, while the light of the sun or of a candle, diffused through unclean places, contracts no foulness in itself therefrom, yet the baptism of Christ can be defiled by the sins of any man, whatsoever he may be? For if we turn our thoughts to the visible materials themselves, which are to us the medium of the sacraments, every one must know that they admit of corruption. But if we think on that which they convey to us, who can fail to see that it is incorruptible, however much the men through whose ministry it is conveyed are either being rewarded or punished for the character of their lives?

He also said the following:

There are two propositions, moreover, which we affirm—that baptism exists in the catholic Church, and that in it alone can it be rightly received—both of which the Donatists deny. Likewise there are two other propositions which we affirm—that baptism exists among the Donatists, but that with them it is not rightly received, of which two they strenuously confirm the former, that baptism exists with them; but they are unwilling to allow the latter, that in their Church it cannot be rightly received. Of these four propositions, three are peculiar to us; in one we both agree. For that baptism exists in the catholic Church, that it is rightly received there, and that it is not rightly received among the Donatists, are assertions made only by ourselves; but that baptism exists also among the Donatists, is asserted by them and allowed by us.

On Baptism Against the Donatists Book I, Chapter 3.4

What you’re referring to speaks to correct reception (licitness), not efficacy (validity). Augustine would not agree that those who receive the sacraments outside the church do not benefit from the grace. He only intended to emphasize that licitness was very important to him. Under your interpretation, an infant baptism outside the church would be of no profit at all and thus the Original Sin would remain in the child. I sincerely doubt that Augustine would ever intend that. This calls into question the whole framework of baptism. Baptism is supposed to be concerned with the powers of God alone, according to both Optatus and Augustine. Faith or correct belief is also extremely important to both of them, but only insofar that correct and true belief yields optimal growth in the closeness to God. The idea that a child in the Orthodox Church, who has little understanding of his or her beliefs has efficaciousness from the Eucharist only until they come of the age of reason seems to be silly.

 

[steve_b]

Not to speak for anyone, but I think the question(s) being asked

how is schism & dissidence, a sign of unity and charity by those who do that or are in that, AND keep it going, even when the power of “orders” within their group(s) is transmitted validly?

The Eucharist is the sign of complete unity. Not partial but complete.

That’s why, in order that scandal or indifferentism isn’t projected by a Catholic, a Catholic isn’t to take communion from an Orthodox priest unless it is extreme circumstances. It’s pretty easy for Catholics to contact a Catholic priest masstimes.org/

What does the Church teach about Catholics receiving Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church and participating in its liturgy?

Then there is the issue of a Catholic fulfilling Sunday mass obligation.

 

[RyanBlack]

I am not sure this is right?

If (from the Catholic stance) Orthodox sacraments are valid and licit, why does attendance to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy (even without reception of the Eucharist) not satisfy the obligation to assist at Mass?

tee

Please read Chapter III of Unitatis redintegratio and 1399 from the CCC. Orthodox sacraments are not illicit.

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

The Catholic Church permits and encourages communion in sacris with the Orthodox “given suitable circumstances and approval of Church authority.” Given this, how do you justify your claim? If it were dangerous to faith to attend an Orthodox church, why would the Catholic Church ever encourage Eucharistic sharing?

 

[RyanBlack]

The Church does not give the Eastern Orthodox (who are in schism) the right to celebrate the sacraments so they are illicit.

This is incorrect, per Unitatis redintegratio (III, 16).

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

This is not consistent with the mind of the Church.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1399

The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

 

[AnthonyJ]

The Catholic Church permits and encourages communion in sacris with the Orthodox “given suitable circumstances and approval of Church authority.” Given this, how do you justify your claim? If it were dangerous to faith to attend an Orthodox church, why would the Catholic Church ever encourage Eucharistic sharing?

I’m glad people like recentrevert do not represent official Church teaching. I can’t believe some of the outlandish thing being said about the Orthodox on this thread. It is like some people are stuck in the 13th century.

 

[Wandile]

Of course schism separates you from the Church! Reunion is possible because there is division. To reunite the separated churches must renounce their error and be subject to the pope - it has happened before and by the grace of God it can happen again.

There is only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and that is the Catholic Church. The other churches separated themselves through unlawful disobedience and heresy. Individual members of these churches may be members of the True Church in spirit if their heresy and schism isn’t gravely culpable.

Amen.

This is the faith.

Some people here are nearing branch theory

 

[Wandile]

I’m glad people like recentrevert do not represent official Church teaching. I can’t believe some of the outlandish thing being said about the Orthodox on this thread. It is like some people are stuck in the 13th century.

Are they not objectively a schismatic body? Or is schism imaginary now too?

 

[Wandile]

This is incorrect, per Unitatis redintegratio (III, 16).

Actually he is correct. The paragraph referenced says nothing about the church granting them authority to celebrate the sacraments outside herself. In fact the paragraph is speaking about Eastern Catholics and their right to govern themselves according to their own custom without this causing harm to the unity of the church

16. “Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity”.

And even if this paragraph included eastern orthodox, it only comments on their right to govern themselves according to their traditions. Nowhere does it speak about the church granting them authority to celebrate the sacraments outside herself.

 

[Wandile]

Please read Chapter III of Unitatis redintegratio and 1399 from the CCC. Orthodox sacraments are not illicit.

Nowhere does chapter III say the EO sacraments are licit, it only states that they are valid.
Neither does that paragraph of the catechism. They both comment only on the validity of the sacraments.

You mean well but you are causing harm to some faithful by spreading incorrect information.

 

[Wandile]

Then pray, tell, how is it that the Catholic Church does not baptize again those converts who were baptized with the Trinitarian formula, not in other churches, but in ecclesial communities without apostolic succession?

Baptism does not need to be performed by a priest. It can be performed by any Christian. However it is a discipline within within the church for the clergy to baptize. You do not need holy orders to baptize someone

What a saint says, even a father and doctor of the Church, one of her greatest ones, is secondary to what the Church teaches.

Christus natus est!

YES but the Church hasn’t taught differently, that’s the thing. The Chuech can’t ever, has never and will never change her teaching on such a matter. It concerns the doctrine of the unity of the church. You will see the testimony unanimously proclaimed in the saints and popes and councils.

People have just been confused by the manner in which Vatican II speaks because foe the first time a church council was speaking proactively and positively rather than reactively and negatively/condemningly with regards to the same teachings.

 

[RyanBlack]

Actually he is correct. The paragraph referenced says nothing about the church granting them authority to celebrate the sacraments outside herself. In fact the paragraph is speaking about Eastern Catholics and their right to govern themselves according to their own custom without this causing harm to the unity of the church

16. “Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity”.

And even if this paragraph included eastern orthodox, it only comments on their right to govern themselves according to their traditions. Nowhere does it speak about the church granting them authority to celebrate the sacraments outside herself.

It is not speaking of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome, as the larger context of chapter 3 makes clear. Furthermore, governing themselves according to their own traditions obviously includes the administration of sacraments.

 

[Wandile]

This does no harm to what I’ve said.

For the very same cardinal affirms the teaching of St. Augustine but just points out that the Holy doctor said what he said (about no grace received in schismatic sacraments) on the assumption that all in that situation were culpable

 

[Wandile]

The Orthodox Churches are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church too. Schism does not change this and that’s why reunion is possible.

Christus natus est!

This is branch theory. A heresy that the Catholic Church has condemned even at and after Vatican II.

 

[Wandile]

It is not speaking of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome, as the larger context of chapter 3 makes clear. Furthermore, governing themselves according to their own traditions obviously includes the administration of sacraments.

That paragraph speaks to the unity of the church. The unity of the church concerns those who are in it. Para 16 is talking about eastern Catholics. The wider chapter is speaking about eastern churches as a whole both EO and EC. Each sub-paragraph addresses one or the other or both. 15 for example speaks about the EO… Para 16 is about eastern Churches within the catholic church and states affirmatively their right to govern according to custom without this causing any scandal on the unity of the church.

Even if the EO are being spoken of, the authority to administer sacraments wasn’t granted to them outside the church. Only to govern according to their custom and canons. This authority of administering sacraments was not given. That is given by itself more explicitly like in the case of Pope Francis and SSPX confession. Or in the case of reunion it is implicitly given by there statement of faith of a returning schismatic when this is accepted by th le Church and the priest I put back in good standing to practice.

 

[RyanBlack]

Nowhere does chapter III say the EO sacraments are licit, it only states that they are valid.
Neither does that paragraph of the catechism. They both comment only on the validity of the sacraments.

You mean well but you are causing harm to some faithful by spreading incorrect information.

Licity is not explicitly mentioned. Neither is illicity.

However, what is mentioned renders assertions of the illicity of Orthodox sacraments absurd. How can that which is illicit (unlawful) be celebrated with “great love” when love of God is characterized by obedience?

Furthermore, why would the Church encourage sharing in sacraments that are unlawful? To do so would be nonsense.