Question concerning valid Sacraments outside the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
Every now and then, this question popped up in my mind, but it’s only now I decided to ask it. I’ll provide the question first, and afterwards will outline some of the thoughts that I had that brought me to this.

The question is basically this: Why do valid Sacraments exist outside the Catholic Church, if she is the One True Church?

Thoughts that brought me there, if any of them is wrong from a Catholic point of view, please correct me:


  1. *]Catholic Sacraments are entirely valid and licit.
    *]Some groups in schism (Orthodox, etc.) have valid, but illicit Sacraments.
    *]In each of the Sacraments, it’s not really the priest who effects the result of the specific Sacrament (Transubstantiation, forgiveness of sins, imprint on the soul in Baptism, Ordination and Confirmation), but rather it is God who effects the change. The priest is only the channel through which He works.

    In light of these thoughts, I’d like to make my question more precise. If the Catholic Church is the One True Church, as I believe it is, and schism is against God’s will, why does He give credence or validity to Sacraments outside the Church? For example: Why does God imprint the indelible mark on a person who is ordained priest in Eastern Orthodoxy? Why doesn’t He just choose not to effect that imprint?

    As I understand them, Sacraments and the actions and words involved are distinguished from magic and superstition. That is, in that they don’t presume that simply because one utters certain words (like “This is My Body, do this in remembrance of Me”) or performs certain actions (like laying on of hands) one manipulates God or some strange force into causing some effect to happen.

    Can someone clear my problem up? 🙂 Thanks.
 
Sacraments are conduits for actual grace. Just as actual grace in general exist outside the Church, so too do valid sacraments exist outside the Church. Even though they are performed by non-Catholics, they are still, in essence*, Catholic sacraments.

*I specify essence since their are parts of canon law that treat sacraments occurring outside the Church differently than those occurring within the Church, even though they are essentially the same.
 
I banged my head on that a while, but once I got it through my head the Church was given “Authority”. The answer distills to “Because we said so” and the follow up in “why do they say so” but that is a very different question.
 
CutlerB said:

  1. If the Catholic Church is the One True Church, as I believe it is, and schism is against God’s will, why does He give credence or validity to Sacraments outside the Church? For example: Why does God imprint the indelible mark on a person who is ordained priest in Eastern Orthodoxy? Why doesn’t He just choose not to effect that imprint?
Click to expand...

  1. There were twelve Apostles (eleven by the time of the Ascension, excluding Judas). Only one of them became Bishop of Rome (ie, Peter). There were Churches established apart from Roman evangelical influence by other Apostles. These are our Eastern brethren. They share our Apostolic origin and Episcopal succession, and thus our full Apostolic ministry.

    The Church has always recognized the validity of Orders even when the Consecration was performed by a valid Bishop acting schematically. A famous modern example is the episcopal Ordinations performed by the valid but schismatic French Bishop Michael Lefebvre; all four Bishops (and Lefebvre) were declared excommunicated, as they were acting under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. But Pope Benedict-16 later lifted the excommunication of all four, and they were thus considered valid Bishops of the Church without the need for “conditional ordination.”
 
Hi Cutler,

Sacraments work* ex opere operato (through the work done)*, that is as a result of the action and words effected, rather than as a result of the disposition or character of the minister. Thus, pouring of water with the words of baptism effects baptism, no matter who does the actions. The consecration done by a priest in mortal sin is illicit but valid.

Sacramentals, on the other other hand, work ex opere operantis (through the work of the worker), that is they depend on the dispositions of the person doing the action. If I say the rosary, the spiritual benefits I can derive depend on my internal dispositions.

Orthodox bishops and priest are validly ordained through apostolic succession. The first schismatics who ordained orthodox candidates did it illicitly but validly :* ex opere operato…*

Of course the better the internal dispositions, the more spiritual benefits can accrue to someone receiving a sacrament. But the esssence of the sacrament does not depend on them.

Is that clear to you?

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi Cutler,

Sacraments work* ex opere operato (through the work done)*, that is as a result of the action and words effected, rather than as a result of the disposition or character of the minister. Thus, pouring of water with the words of baptism effects baptism, no matter who does the actions. The consecration done by a priest in mortal sin is illicit but valid.

Sacramentals, on the other other hand, work ex opere operantis (through the work of the worker), that is they depend on the dispositions of the person doing the action. If I say the rosary, the spiritual benefits I can derive depend on my internal dispositions.

Orthodox bishops and priest are validly ordained through apostolic succession. The first schismatics who ordained orthodox candidates did it illicitly but validly :* ex opere operato…*

Of course the better the internal dispositions, the more spiritual benefits can accrue to someone receiving a sacrament. But the esssence of the sacrament does not depend on them.

Is that clear to you?

Verbum
Click to expand...
Hi Verbum!

It clears things up a little bit, but created a new question: I have heard of ex opere operato, but I fail to see how that differs from the definition of magic? No offence intended. If it’s merely saying the words and doing something, where is God’s position in all of this? That’s what I mean by point 3.

Thanks.
 
CutlerB said:
It clears things up a little bit, but created a new question: I have heard of ex opere operato, but I fail to see how that differs from the definition of magic?
Click to expand...
I think you got the terms mixed up. Ex opere operato (through the work done) is how EVERYTHING happens. It is how my lawn gets mowed. It is how my dinner gets cooked. My lawn does not mow itself, and my dinner does not cook itself. A worker (normally me or my wife) has to do that work. It ain’t magic (though that would be really nice).

I think you are asking how ex opere operantis (through the work of the worker) differs from magic, because this relates to the disposition of the worker, and not only to the actual work.

I would say that human society judges many actions according to the disposition of the person doing the action. For example, a person might kill another person, but this action might be considered reprehensible or permissible, depending only on the disposition of the killer. The act might be the same, but the person’s disposition affects how we judge his actions.

If we can judge such actions based on the disposition of another, cannot God also judge our actions based on our disposition?
 
DavidFilmer said:
I think you got the terms mixed up. Ex opere operato (through the work done) is how EVERYTHING happens. It is how my lawn gets mowed. It is how my dinner gets cooked. My lawn does not mow itself, and my dinner does not cook itself. A worker (normally me or my wife) has to do that work. It ain’t magic (though that would be really nice).

I think you are asking how ex opere operantis (through the work of the worker) differs from magic, because this relates to the disposition of the worker, and not only to the actual work.

I would say that human society judges many actions according to the disposition of the person doing the action. For example, a person might kill another person, but this action might be considered reprehensible or permissible, depending only on the disposition of the killer. The act might be the same, but the person’s disposition affects how we judge his actions.

If we can judge such actions based on the disposition of another, cannot God also judge our actions based on our disposition?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. But I have some sort of disconnect.

Is it correct, as I presumed, that it is God who effects the change in, say, the Host when the priest says the words? I understand the difference of the two things you just explained, but I don’t quite see the analogy of the lawnmower to the Eucharist.

I’ll try reiterating my line of thought, and you could perhaps explain where I’m wrong? 🙂
  1. God effects the substantial change, when the priest says the words.
  2. Orthodox priests are not in communion with the One True Church, but have valid Orders.
  3. Jesus wants us all to be one in His Church.
    → So, if God effects the change, and desires us all to be one in His Church with valid and licit priests, and if God is free, why doesn’t he just not change the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist? God isn’t some obscure force that can be manipulated or forced to do something?
 
Hi Cutler,

It is Catholic doctrine that that the sacraments originated with Jesus Christ, that is God. With their institution, God obliged Himself to follow through with His grace whenever the actions and words prescribed take place. If the effectiveness of the sacraments depended on other factors, we would never be sure of this effectiveness. Did the minister really believe in what he was doing? Was he in the state of grace? etc.

This is a case of God’s consideration for our human weakness and our desire for security. We should be thankful and take advantage of these wonderful means of grace.

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi Cutler,

It is Catholic doctrine that that the sacraments originated with Jesus Christ, that is God. With their institution, God obliged Himself to follow through with His grace whenever the actions and words prescribed take place. If the effectiveness of the sacraments depended on other factors, we would never be sure of this effectiveness. Did the minister really believe in what he was doing? Was he in the state of grace? etc.

This is a case of God’s consideration for our human weakness and our desire for security. We should be thankful and take advantage of these wonderful means of grace.

Verbum
Click to expand...
Now that makes a lot of sense! Thank you! 🙂
 
CutlerB said:
Y2. Orthodox priests are not in communion with the One True Church, but have valid Orders.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox are just as much a part of the “One True Church” as (Latin) Catholics. The Orthodox communions were established by Apostles, but not by Peter (in particular) or the Church of Rome.

The Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Latin) Churches were in complete communion for half of the Christian Era - there was only “One True Church” which encompassed both (and still does). East and West became separated over a disagreement about leadership (schism), not doctrine (heresy). Latin Catholics claimed primacy of jurisdiction through the Office of Peter. Eastern Catholics disputed this claim because they do not acknowledge that Peter was prime among the Apostles.

East and West are, unfortunately, not presently in communion with each other, but each mutually recognizes that both are fully Catholic and possess seven valid Sacraments.
 
DavidFilmer said:
The Orthodox are just as much a part of the “One True Church” as (Latin) Catholics. The Orthodox communions were established by Apostles, but not by Peter (in particular) or the Church of Rome.

The Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Latin) Churches were in complete communion for half of the Christian Era - there was only “One True Church” which encompassed both (and still does). East and West became separated over a disagreement about leadership (schism), not doctrine (heresy). Latin Catholics claimed primacy of jurisdiction through the Office of Peter. Eastern Catholics disputed this claim because they do not acknowledge that Peter was prime among the Apostles.

East and West are, unfortunately, not presently in communion with each other, but each mutually recognizes that both are fully Catholic and possess seven valid Sacraments.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is the One true Church. This is De Fide. No one who is in schism from the Holy See is part of the true Church. The Orthodox communions were founded not by Apostles, but by bishops over a millennium after Christ. Those Eastern Christians who remained in communion with the Petrine See are part of the true Church, but not the schismatics.
 
devoutchristian said:
The Catholic Church is the One true Church. This is De Fide.
Click to expand...
Please cite it (to the exclusion of the Orthodox).
No one who is in schism from the Holy See is part of the true Church.
Click to expand...
Please cite it.
The Orthodox communions were founded not by Apostles, but by bishops over a millennium after Christ.
Click to expand...
Oh, PLEASE. Do you really claim that there were no Greek Christian Churches until 1054 AD? That’s laughably silly.
Those Eastern Christians who remained in communion with the Petrine See are part of the true Church, but not the schismatics.
Click to expand...
Please cite it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top