Sacramental Validity (are they Licit?)

[dgj23112]

As I understand it, Roman Catholic (and Orthodox?) faith, doctrine, and dogma teaches that without valid orders, one (a church) cannot have licit sacraments. Further, a church cannot have valid orders (in Rome’s view) except it be in communion with Rome, “under the pallium” of the Roman Curia/Pontif/Magisterium, et al. Yet, Rome recognizes (and, seemingly, has no issue with one of its faithful receiving) the sacraments of an Orthodox church, from an Orthodox priest. At the same time, Rome suggests (and this may not be actually strong enough) that the Orthodox Churches are, in some manner, “defective”, due to the Orthodox steadfast refusal to yield to Rome as “Supreme”…“Universal”…“Vicar of Christ”…etc. For the record, it would appear that the Orthodox find the same fault with Rome, though, as I understand it, they do not permit their faithful to receive sacraments from the hands of a Roman priest or church.

So, it would seem that the underlying issue/question is one of who determines who or what is “valid”? How does one define this? If one were an “Anglo-Catholic”, though perhaps not yet having made obeisance to Rome (or, alternatively, to the Western Orthodox community), and one was faithful, and believed whole-heartedly in Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Sacrament, is one yet “out in the cold looking in longingly?” Forgive the possible offense, but does this not lead one to at least ponder the possibility that the Almighty, through the energy of the Son’s Real Presence, is picking and choosing where to be “present”? That, in my humble opinion, just doesn’t add up.

 

[RyanBlack]

As I understand it, Roman Catholic (and Orthodox?) faith, doctrine, and dogma teaches that without valid orders, one (a church) cannot have licit sacraments. Further, a church cannot have valid orders (in Rome’s view) except it be in communion with Rome, “under the pallium” of the Roman Curia/Pontif/Magisterium, et al.

Rome does not teach that a church cannot have valid orders unless that church is in communion with Rome. Rome recognizes the validity of the orders of all of those churches that are apostolic (the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches), as well as a few others that are not apostolic in origin, but whose bishops can trace their lineage to bishops who were members of apostolic churches.

 

[TheDoctor]

I think we first need to get the language straight. What I believe you are talking about are valid sacraments, not necessarily licit ones.

For example, take the Eucharist and a Catholic priest. Assume the priest has had their faculties suspended by their bishop for whatever reason and have been told they are not to offer Mass. If that priest does indeed perform a Mass the Eucharist is validly consecrated (i.e. it becomes Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity) however the priests actions in doing so are illicit (because he did not have authority to do them).

For most sacraments, you must have a valid priest (e.g. anyone can validly baptize in an emergency but that is not what we are talking about here) - so let’s stay with the Eucharist as an example. What the Church teaches is that to validly transubstantiate bread and wine you need valid holy orders which means valid Apostolic succession according to the rites the Church deems valid. That’s it. Period. End of argument. Jesus gave Peter the keys and Peter gave them to his successors down to his holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

The Orthodox, while sadly not in communion with the Church, nevertheless have valid Apostolic succession therefore valid holy orders therefore a valid Eucharist. The Anglican church, which initially had valid holy orders just after they broke from the Church, no longer have them so no valid consecration. Oh, and why do they no longer have valid holy orders? Because the Church looked at their method and manner of ordination and declared that it is no longer valid. How can the Church do this? Because Jesus gave it the power to do so.

Did I answer what you asked?

 

[1ke]

As I understand it, Roman Catholic (and Orthodox?) faith, doctrine, and dogma teaches that without valid orders, one (a church) cannot have licit sacraments.

No, without valid Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession, one does not have valid sacraments. In other words, no sacraments at all.

Valid and licit do not mean the same thing.

Further, a church cannot have valid orders (in Rome’s view) except it be in communion with Rome, “under the pallium” of the Roman Curia/Pontif/Magisterium, et al.

No, the Church does not teach that at all.

At the same time, Rome suggests (and this may not be actually strong enough) that the Orthodox Churches are, in some manner, “defective”, due to the Orthodox steadfast refusal to yield to Rome as “Supreme”…“Universal”…“Vicar of Christ”…etc.

You have a serious misunderstanding regarding what the Catholic Church teaches in relation to the Orthodox.

 

[johnnykins]

As I understand it, Roman Catholic (and Orthodox?) faith, doctrine, and dogma teaches that without valid orders, one (a church) cannot have licit sacraments.

I won’t speak to orthodoxy, but as to Catholocism, without valid orders certain sacraments would be INVALID. Catholics believe anyone can baptize validly. Marriage is more convoluted, but in general the couple are the ministers of the sacrament - so no orders necessarily (as I said - convoluted) needed there. All other sacraments require a person with valid orders of the appropriate type: priest or bishop.

Further, a church cannot have valid orders (in Rome’s view) except it be in communion with Rome, “under the pallium” of the Roman Curia/Pontif/Magisterium, et al.

Nope Orthodoxy’s orders are, in the view of Catholicism, valid.

Yet, Rome recognizes (and, seemingly, has no issue with one of its faithful receiving) the sacraments of an Orthodox church, from an Orthodox priest.

True because Rome views their orders as valid - they have maintained an apostolic priesthood with a valid ritual and orthodox (small case) belief in the sacraments.

At the same time, Rome suggests (and this may not be actually strong enough) that the Orthodox Churches are, in some manner, “defective”, due to the Orthodox steadfast refusal to yield to Rome as “Supreme”…“Universal”…“Vicar of Christ”…etc.

Generally correct, though to use “yield” puts an unwarranted spin on the statement. I note there are additional issues.

For the record, it would appear that the Orthodox find the same fault with Rome, though, as I understand it, they do not permit their faithful to receive sacraments from the hands of a Roman priest or church.

Again, generally correct, though an Orthodox person probably should respond. The difference traces back to the Cyprian v. Augustinian underpinnings of sacramental theology. In a summary fashion, Cyprian held that a heretical person cannot confect any sacrament. Augustine held that heresy, qua heresy, was not the touchstone because the sacraments, including orders, are confected ex opere operato a heresy that does not touch on the sacraments themselves do not invalidate the sacrament of orders and hence you can have a valid priesthood that validly confects the sacraments and yet in other areas be in schism or heresy.

So, it would seem that the underlying issue/question is one of who determines who or what is “valid”?

as between Catholcims and Orthodoxy, I suppose that is correct

How does one define this?

Rome does it for Catholics - not sure who or how it’s done in Orthodoxy

If one were an “Anglo-Catholic”, though perhaps not yet having made obeisance to Rome (or, alternatively, to the Western Orthodox community), and one was faithful, and believed whole-heartedly in Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Sacrament, is one yet “out in the cold looking in longingly?”

Generally, yes. Leo XIII has looked at the issue of Anglican orders and determined that the ordination ritual became defective during Edward VI and long enough thereafter to eliminate all valid Bishops from Anglicanism - hence no one to validly confect the sacrament. NOTE it gets more complicated because of late 19th and 20th century Anglican ordinations and consecrations involving Old Catholic bishops etc. The Old Catholics rejected VI and have valid orders and some have participated in Anglican ordinations, etc., so that those so ordained should have valid orders.

Forgive the possible offense, but does this not lead one to at least ponder the possibility that the Almighty, through the energy of the Son’s Real Presence, is picking and choosing where to be “present”? That, in my humble opinion, just doesn’t add up.

God created His Church. I suppose He always has picked and chosen where to be present. Your point?

 

[Digitonomy]

At the same time, Rome suggests (and this may not be actually strong enough) that the Orthodox Churches are, in some manner, “defective”, due to the Orthodox steadfast refusal to yield to Rome as “Supreme”…“Universal”…“Vicar of Christ”…etc. For the record, it would appear that the Orthodox find the same fault with Rome, though, as I understand it, they do not permit their faithful to receive sacraments from the hands of a Roman priest or church.

The Orthodox do not view things in exactly the same way. They view the Roman Catholic Church as outside the Church, and thus having invalid sacraments - that is why Orthodox faithful are not permitted to receive RCC sacraments. The views of individual clerics and members of the faithful may vary on this, and there is some wishy-washiness on the part of the hierarchy of some of the Orthodox churches which allows for intercommunion with Catholics in regions of strife or where there are no Orthodox churches.

dgj23112:

the Almighty, through the energy of the Son’s Real Presence, is picking and choosing where to be “present”? That, in my humble opinion, just doesn’t add up.

Is he present sacramentally at a satanic liturgy? Presumably there is a line we can draw between different types of congregations and say “God is sacramentally present on this side, but not on that side.”

 

[Brendan]

No, without valid Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession, one does not have valid sacraments. In other words, no sacraments at all.

Valid and licit do not mean the same thing…

I would clarify that in that the Sacraments that require Sacerdotal or Episcopal orders would be invalid. ( Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, Anointing of the Sick)

The Sacraments that do NOT require Holy Orders ( Baptism and Matrimony) are valid with in the Protestant communities.

 

[Brendan]

Forgive the possible offense, but does this not lead one to at least ponder the possibility that the Almighty, through the energy of the Son’s Real Presence, is picking and choosing where to be “present”? That, in my humble opinion, just doesn’t add up.

Why not, did He not ‘pick and choose’ when He was to be Physically Present among us ( in 1st Century Palestine)

Did He not ‘pick and choose’ when and where He was to be manifest in His Divine Presence ( in the burning bush, on the top of Mt. Sinai, in the Ark in the Great Tent\Tabernacle, in the Temple.)

Sorry, God DOES pick and choose where He will be either physically or Sacramentally present.

Are you that lacking in Bible Christianity to deny that God really does ‘pick and choose’ where and when He will be especially present to us?

 

[Leon_Bloy]

The thing with valid orders is this - and this explains why Catholicism accepts the Orthodox as valid but not licit and the Anglicans as both invalid and illicit:

Here is an analogy of the Catholic point of view… hope it is a helpful one (just made it up) -

The apostles - commissioned directly by Christ - are seeds from a special plant (i.e. Christ).

The seeds were brought to different parts of a special garden and planted in the ground (the garden is the unity of Christianity that goes back to apostolic times). Vines grew up from each of them. All these vines are from the same seeds, and produce good fruit.

After about a millennium a couple of the plants (eastern Orthodox churches) were dug up by somebody without permission from the gardener, but with their roots entire, and planted in a different yard, away from the others, behind a wall. These plants still bears the same real fruit as the other apostolic plants, though, but they are not supposed to be outside the original garden.

In the 1500s, some people came in and sliced branches (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc.) off some of the original plants that were in the original garden. They tried to plant the branches, but because they are no longer attached to a plant with roots from the original seed, they withered and died (the analogy is to the validity of their sacraments).

Lol, I hope that helps a little.

 

[1ke]

I would clarify that in that the Sacraments that require Sacerdotal or Episcopal orders would be invalid. ( Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, Anointing of the Sick)

The Sacraments that do NOT require Holy Orders ( Baptism and Matrimony) are valid with in the Protestant communities.

Yes, thank you.