S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Given by whom? Normally a bishop gives authority to his priests to represent him, nothing else is needed, except to maintain unity among churches (ie among bishops)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Wandile
Guest
The Catholic Church… Those outside need to have it given them in order to licitly administer sacraments for the sacraments belong to the catholic church alone.Given by whom? Normally a bishop gives authority to his priests to represent him, nothing else is needed, except to maintain unity among churches (ie among bishops)
W
Wandile
Guest
Because even protestants worship God with great love while protesting against his holy Catholic Church and its unity. Not a crazy idea.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?
W
Wandile
Guest
This is the truth of the church. You can accept it or reject it but this has taught this since the beginning through the saints and councils. This is tradition and it never changes. Lording over them is an exaggeration. A correct understanding of Catholic ecclesiology is needed to know why it works this way. The sacraments belong to Christ’s church and no other. So how can one object when she (the Church) determines the rules on how they are administered?
A
Augustine
Guest
This is a bit of a stretch, for Protestants do not have priests and severed apostolic succession. Yet, they actually and truly worship God, even if falling short of perfect worship in the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass.Because even protestants worship God with great love while protesting against his holy Catholic Church and its unity. Not a crazy idea.
Christus nauts est!
W
Wandile
Guest
Not all protestants have lost apostolic succession. Old Catholics for example still have some left among their ranks. My point was to show that worshipping God with true love can be done even without the sacraments, whereas Ryan was trying to use EO sacramental worship of God in try love as an argument for sacramental licity which is obviously a stretch.This is a bit of a stretch, for Protestants do not have priests and severed apostolic succession. Yet, they actually and truly worship God, even if falling short of perfect worship in the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass.
Christus nauts est!
R
RyanBlack
Guest
In Understanding Sacramental Healing, Msgr. John C. Kasza states that Orthodox sacraments are licit, and in making this claim, references Unitatis redintegratio, 15, just as I have. Msgr. Kasza received his doctorate in sacramental theology from the Pontifical Atheneum Sant’ Anselmo in Rome.
books.google.com/books?id=85vCqmxZnZMC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=orthodox+sacraments+licit&source=bl&ots=J8a55rUj44&sig=KfXrQPiEpIBG6ZixMXK_KmwJF2E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYooSR9o3KAhUL32MKHRfrBlg4ChDoAQgpMAI#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20sacraments%20licit&f=false
books.google.com/books?id=85vCqmxZnZMC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=orthodox+sacraments+licit&source=bl&ots=J8a55rUj44&sig=KfXrQPiEpIBG6ZixMXK_KmwJF2E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYooSR9o3KAhUL32MKHRfrBlg4ChDoAQgpMAI#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20sacraments%20licit&f=false
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think, which ever group you look at (Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants for that matter) you’ll see some who are extreme – in particular, some who are ultra-liberal and some who are ultra-conservative. (And it’s a lot easier to find them on the Internet than in real life.)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.
S
steve_b
Guest
Just thinking out loud,This is a bit of a stretch, for Protestants do not have priests and severed apostolic succession. Yet, they actually and truly worship God, even if falling short of perfect worship in the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass.
Christus nauts est!
one can ask a few questions,
- the ***Creator ***established His Church, His sacraments, in the 1st century, and insisted on perfect unity and how to worship Him in the Eucharist. Protestantism OTOH was started in the 16th century by creatures who protested the Creator’s Church and His sacraments. So the question is, comparing those two scenerios, what exactly qualifies as actual and true worship of God? Can the latter even do that?
- As the Creator taught, without the Eucharist one has no life in them. John 6:51-59 therefore, how can one worship God properly doing what He commands, without the Eucharist?
- Here’s a 3rd issue regarding not having the Eucharist. #[10 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13087542&postcount=10) , #[32 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13003872&postcount=32) ,
- maintain perfect unity with what the Creator established John 17:20-23 and said He wants
- And in extension of not having that unity, then don’t celebrate a valid Eucharist, the sign of that perfect unity and life within a soul,
- there prospects are disastrous.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
The quoted paragraph refers to Protestants, which is what the word “Reformed” means. Protestants have only two valid Sacraments, Baptism and Matrimony, because they have no valid bishops in apostolic succession. It certainly does NOT refer to the Eastern Orthodox, who have valid bishops and, therefore, all seven valid Sacraments.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)
W
Wandile
Guest
Yes this is true, I apologize for that.The quoted paragraph refers to Protestants, which is what the word “Reformed” means. Protestants have only two valid Sacraments, Baptism and Matrimony, because they have no valid bishops in apostolic succession. It certainly does NOT refer to the Eastern Orthodox, who have valid bishops and, therefore, all seven valid Sacraments.
W
Wandile
Guest
Quotation? Something? I’m not going to buy a book for one quote. Secondly even if he did, he goes against the very doctors of the church and councils. Paragraph 15 only speaks to validity of EO sacraments saying that they are “true scaraments”. No sacraments celebrated outside the church are licit.In Understanding Sacramental Healing, Msgr. John C. Kasza states that Orthodox sacraments are licit, and in making this claim, references Unitatis redintegratio, 15, just as I have. Msgr. Kasza received his doctorate in sacramental theology from the Pontifical Atheneum Sant’ Anselmo in Rome.
books.google.com/books?id=85vCqmxZnZMC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=orthodox+sacraments+licit&source=bl&ots=J8a55rUj44&sig=KfXrQPiEpIBG6ZixMXK_KmwJF2E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYooSR9o3KAhUL32MKHRfrBlg4ChDoAQgpMAI#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20sacraments%20licit&f=false
M
malphono
Guest
And around and around we go … :hypno:
W
Wandile
Guest
ST.THOMAS AQUINAS (Doctor of the Church): SUMMA, THEOLOGICA PART 3, QUESTION 82
Article 7. Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?
Objection 1. It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says (Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that “there is no such thing as a true sacrifice outside the Catholic Church”: and Pope Leo I says (Ep. lxxx; cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere “(i.e. than in the Church which is Christ’s body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice.” But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are severed from the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.
Objection 2. Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as saying: “Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism.” But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the dignity of the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
Objection 3. Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the Church to act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates the Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church, such as those who are heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate, are not able to consecrate the Eucharist.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “Just as Baptism remains in them,” i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, “so do their orders remain intact.” Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.
I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.
Reply to Objection 1. Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (Question 80, Article 3), that the sinner receives Christ’s body sacramentally, but not spiritually.
Reply to Objection 2. Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if 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.
Article 7. Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?
Objection 1. It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says (Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that “there is no such thing as a true sacrifice outside the Catholic Church”: and Pope Leo I says (Ep. lxxx; cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere “(i.e. than in the Church which is Christ’s body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice.” But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are severed from the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.
Objection 2. Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as saying: “Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism.” But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the dignity of the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
Objection 3. Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the Church to act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates the Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church, such as those who are heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate, are not able to consecrate the Eucharist.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “Just as Baptism remains in them,” i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, “so do their orders remain intact.” Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.
I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.
Reply to Objection 1. Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (Question 80, Article 3), that the sinner receives Christ’s body sacramentally, but not spiritually.
Reply to Objection 2. Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if 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.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
While canon lawyers and theologians debate, I have no doubt about the validity and licity (efficaciousness and graceful) of canonical Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as well as Assyrian Church Sacraments. With no objection from either hierarchs, as with the Syriac Orthodox in particular, I would have no problem receiving Eucharist while attending Divine Liturgy.
W
Wandile
Guest
Licity concerns legality. Efficacy (graceful fruits imparted to participates of sacraments) is a different matter but follows licity.While canon lawyers and theologians debate, I have no doubt about the validity and licity (efficaciousness and graceful)
St Thomas Aquinas
"Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church [illicit/illegally]. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit [no efficacy], although it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament [Valid]; thus it was stated above (Question 80, Article 3), that the sinner [schismatic]** receives Christ’s body sacramentally, but not spiritually** [no efficacy]."
*notes in brackets mine to help unfamiliar readers understand better
If you did, they would be efficacious to you.of canonical Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as well as Assyrian Church Sacraments. With no objection from either hierarchs, as with the Syriac Orthodox in particular, I would have no problem receiving Eucharist while attending Divine Liturgy.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Click on the link.Quotation? Something? I’m not going to buy a book for one quote.
W
Wandile
Guest
I did. It takes you to page about the book, its authors, write a review etc. Not to excerpts from the relevant page which you have in mind. Nevermind you never addressed my other objectionsClick on the link.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
When I click on the link, it takes me to page 108, where Msgr. Kasza states that Eastern Orthodox sacraments are “considered both valid and licit by the Roman Catholic Church.”I did. It takes you to page about the book, its authors, write a review etc. Not to excerpts from the relevant page which you have in mind. Nevermind you never addressed my other objections
W
Wandile
Guest
Sadly, it doesn’t take me there. What is his support for such a statement? Paragraph 15 of Unitatis Redintegratio only makes a statement on the validity of Eastern Orthodox sacraments, so he must have more support for this I assume.When I click on the link, it takes me to page 108, where Msgr. Kasza states that Eastern Orthodox sacraments are “considered both valid and licit by the Roman Catholic Church.”
Paragraph 15 uses the scholastic formula of “true sacraments” ,which speaks to sacramental validity, when it says :
"These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged."
Read the quotes above from St. Thomas Aquinas for further demonstration of this.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.