S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Thank you …
.
.
.
… but …
.
.
.
… I’m STILL clueless
.
.
.
… but …
.
.
.
… I’m STILL clueless
- Status
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Here’s another stab for you at the difference between valid and licit (and their opposites).
Valid essentially refers to whether a sacrament “works” or not. The difference between something being valid or invalid is the difference between a sacrament occurring and a sacrament not occurring. Take the Eucharist, for example. As long as unleavened wheat bread and pure wine are used by a priest who intends to turn them into Christ with the words “This is my Body” and “This is the cup of my Blood…” then those elements do, in fact become Christ. The sacrament was valid - it actually occurred, bread and wine really turned into Jesus Christ. If one of those things were missing, however, like if the priest said “This represents my Body,” then even though due to everything else it may appear as though a sacrament took place, even if the priest claims to have the Eucharist in front of him all he has is bread because the sacrament was not celebrated validly - it did not take place.
Licit, on the other hand, refers to the legality of a situation, whether something is allowed to be done or not. This does not affect whether the sacrament takes place or not, but, since intentionally disobeying the Church is objectively sinful, it is unacceptable for the sacraments to be celebrated in this way. A priest without vestments can confect the Eucharist on a cardboard box with half-naked dancers running in circles around him. He may do it validly, but there is a lot of wrongdoing involved in that case.
The issue that arises in the case of the Sacrament of Penance is that one of the ways in which it can be done illicitly is to try to do so without permission from the bishop with jurisdiction. As has been discussed above, in that particular instance sins cannot be absolved validly (truly) but illicitly (illegally, wrongfully done) because the validity of the sacrament depends upon the permission to adminster it. One cannot, then, seek out an excommmunicated priest for confession because he does not have the power to forgive sins in his present condition.
A specific trick involved with Penance, however, is that in cases where the penitent does not realize that the priest cannot validly absolve his sins, the permission is granted by the Church. So even though Fr. X could not absolve Mrs. C’s sins if she were aware that he is in schism, defrocked, etc., Mrs. C’s sins will be forgiven if she confesses in good faith not knowing of the problem.
A more benign case is if a priest visits a friend in another diocese and hears confessions without remembering that he must ask permission from the ordinary. No one need worry if the absolutions were genuine because those who confessed did so in good faith (who would presume that priest in good standing cannot absolve you? how many people even know of this rule?) and the Church thus supplies the permission and the sacrament is valid.
Valid essentially refers to whether a sacrament “works” or not. The difference between something being valid or invalid is the difference between a sacrament occurring and a sacrament not occurring. Take the Eucharist, for example. As long as unleavened wheat bread and pure wine are used by a priest who intends to turn them into Christ with the words “This is my Body” and “This is the cup of my Blood…” then those elements do, in fact become Christ. The sacrament was valid - it actually occurred, bread and wine really turned into Jesus Christ. If one of those things were missing, however, like if the priest said “This represents my Body,” then even though due to everything else it may appear as though a sacrament took place, even if the priest claims to have the Eucharist in front of him all he has is bread because the sacrament was not celebrated validly - it did not take place.
Licit, on the other hand, refers to the legality of a situation, whether something is allowed to be done or not. This does not affect whether the sacrament takes place or not, but, since intentionally disobeying the Church is objectively sinful, it is unacceptable for the sacraments to be celebrated in this way. A priest without vestments can confect the Eucharist on a cardboard box with half-naked dancers running in circles around him. He may do it validly, but there is a lot of wrongdoing involved in that case.
The issue that arises in the case of the Sacrament of Penance is that one of the ways in which it can be done illicitly is to try to do so without permission from the bishop with jurisdiction. As has been discussed above, in that particular instance sins cannot be absolved validly (truly) but illicitly (illegally, wrongfully done) because the validity of the sacrament depends upon the permission to adminster it. One cannot, then, seek out an excommmunicated priest for confession because he does not have the power to forgive sins in his present condition.
A specific trick involved with Penance, however, is that in cases where the penitent does not realize that the priest cannot validly absolve his sins, the permission is granted by the Church. So even though Fr. X could not absolve Mrs. C’s sins if she were aware that he is in schism, defrocked, etc., Mrs. C’s sins will be forgiven if she confesses in good faith not knowing of the problem.
A more benign case is if a priest visits a friend in another diocese and hears confessions without remembering that he must ask permission from the ordinary. No one need worry if the absolutions were genuine because those who confessed did so in good faith (who would presume that priest in good standing cannot absolve you? how many people even know of this rule?) and the Church thus supplies the permission and the sacrament is valid.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I meant to say “you want Itsjustdave or otm or Andreas Hoffer!” 
G
GoLatin
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
The only way a Priest would not be able to hear Confessions outside of his own Diocese, is if the Bishop of the other Diocese specifically suspended his faculties. In that case the suspension would only be valid in that particular Diocese. The Priest would still have intact faculties everywhere else in the world.
Actually, I think that under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a Priest does not have to get faculties if he visits a friend in another Diocese, and hears confessions while there. Once a Priest gets faculties from his own Bishop to hear Confessions, he can do so anywhere.
The only way a Priest would not be able to hear Confessions outside of his own Diocese, is if the Bishop of the other Diocese specifically suspended his faculties. In that case the suspension would only be valid in that particular Diocese. The Priest would still have intact faculties everywhere else in the world.
O
otm
Guest
Sir Knight:
An invalid Consecration is one in which the priest says the words, but nothing happens. It is still bread and wine.
Licit simply means lawful; in other words, the laws were followed. This usually means Canon Law, but it may refere to other laws of the Church, such as the laws in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
So, for example, a priest is not allowed willy-nilly to wander all over the place saying Mass whereever he pleases outside his diocese; a priest is under the lawful authority of the bishop, and serves at the bishop’s pleasure, and does not have authority to simply wander into another dioceses and “set up shop”, as it were. So, he could validly say Mass in another diocese without the permission of that bishop, but it would be illicit (unlawful) as he had not obtained permission of that bishop. The Consecration would take place, but he would be breaking one or more laws of the Church, which might be sinful on his part.
If someone knew he did not have permission of the bishop and went to Mass there anyway, they, too would be consciously breaking the rules of the Church, and it could be an occasion of sin on their part too.
That make more sense?
A valid consecration is one in which the bread and wine are actually transformed, by the power of the Holy Spirit and through the action of the priest into the Body and Blood of Our Lord.Thank you …
.
.
.
… but …
.
.
.
… I’m STILL clueless
An invalid Consecration is one in which the priest says the words, but nothing happens. It is still bread and wine.
Licit simply means lawful; in other words, the laws were followed. This usually means Canon Law, but it may refere to other laws of the Church, such as the laws in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
So, for example, a priest is not allowed willy-nilly to wander all over the place saying Mass whereever he pleases outside his diocese; a priest is under the lawful authority of the bishop, and serves at the bishop’s pleasure, and does not have authority to simply wander into another dioceses and “set up shop”, as it were. So, he could validly say Mass in another diocese without the permission of that bishop, but it would be illicit (unlawful) as he had not obtained permission of that bishop. The Consecration would take place, but he would be breaking one or more laws of the Church, which might be sinful on his part.
If someone knew he did not have permission of the bishop and went to Mass there anyway, they, too would be consciously breaking the rules of the Church, and it could be an occasion of sin on their part too.
That make more sense?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Ummmm… I think I shall let Msgr. Ronald Knox do the ‘splainin’…
Msgr. Ronald Knox (1888-1957) wrote a book in 1929 called The Church on Earth - The Nature and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Place of the Pope Within it. Well before there was any such thing as the SSPX, Msgr. Knox discusses the Catholic understanding with regard to the Church and the nature of her authority, which may be helpful in understanding this issue.
Here are some excerpts:
… no one who understands Catholic theology could consent for a moment to minister, however valid his ordination, to souls which had not been committed to his charge by a bishop in communion with the Holy See.
Hmmmmmmmm… I doubt this text is on the SSPX “must read” list.
MSgr. Knox continues …
**But if he should presume to do so, in one most important particular, his ministry would be *not only irregular but nugatory. ***Lacking mission, he would be defying Catholic order; lacking jurisdiction, he would be pronouncing unavailing words of absolution over sins unremitted in Heaven.
I had to look up “nugatory” … according to Webster it means:
**The Catholic Church has sacramental rites, and most of these can and may be performed only by duly ordained ministers. **
… what concerns us here is to examine more closely the phrase just used: "can and may be performed."
There is a distinction between the can and the may. … Any priest who is validly ordained can say Mass validly, but in certain circumstances, he may not. And, still more important, there are only certain circumstances in which he may, and therefore can, give absolution.
To say Mass is the function for which, primarily, a priest is ordained; given the proper opportunity, he may do so unless he has specially been forbidden to do so and defies the prohibition, he can say Mass; that is, his Consecration is a perfectly valid one. But this principle does not hold for the sacrament of Confession, unless the penitent is at the point of death, in which case it is presumed that the Church “supplies” the necessary authority. In normal circumstances, a priest may not give absolution unless he has “faculties” to do so; unless, that is to say, he does so with the express authority of the bishop. And in this case, if he may not, he cannot. For absolution is a judicial act, and no judicial act can be validly performed without jurisdiction. …
The essence of his business is to judge; and a man is not competent to judge, however much learning or prudence he possesses, unless he has been commissioned to try the case, unless he has been told to act in this way. If the judge has no commission, the award is invalid. If the priest has not jurisdiction, the sins of the penitent are not remitted. …
The authority in question is not, of course, limited to the confessional. It is the bishop who commissions a priest to preach and to instruct; it is the bishop who assigns to him a special sphere, giving him duties toward and responsibility for a particular group of human souls. …
A bishop, in spite of valid consecration, does not become ipso facto capable of conferring mission upon priests. He can ordain them validly, but he cannot give them the right to go out and exercise their ministry unless he himself belongs to the Catholic communion and has, within that communion, an assigned sphere of authority. He cannot send unless he himself has been sent by the Universal Church. …
The Church, then, involves a hierarchy, not merely in the sense that one functionary is superior to another in dignity, but in the sense that each functionary derives from a superior his commission to act in the Church’s name. Without that commission, all other qualifications would be useless.
Msgr. Ronald Knox (1888-1957) wrote a book in 1929 called The Church on Earth - The Nature and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Place of the Pope Within it. Well before there was any such thing as the SSPX, Msgr. Knox discusses the Catholic understanding with regard to the Church and the nature of her authority, which may be helpful in understanding this issue.
Here are some excerpts:
… no one who understands Catholic theology could consent for a moment to minister, however valid his ordination, to souls which had not been committed to his charge by a bishop in communion with the Holy See.
Hmmmmmmmm… I doubt this text is on the SSPX “must read” list.
MSgr. Knox continues …
**But if he should presume to do so, in one most important particular, his ministry would be *not only irregular but nugatory. ***Lacking mission, he would be defying Catholic order; lacking jurisdiction, he would be pronouncing unavailing words of absolution over sins unremitted in Heaven.
I had to look up “nugatory” … according to Webster it means:
- Trifling; vain; futile; insignificant.
- Of no force; inoperative; ineffectual.
**The Catholic Church has sacramental rites, and most of these can and may be performed only by duly ordained ministers. **
… what concerns us here is to examine more closely the phrase just used: "can and may be performed."
There is a distinction between the can and the may. … Any priest who is validly ordained can say Mass validly, but in certain circumstances, he may not. And, still more important, there are only certain circumstances in which he may, and therefore can, give absolution.
To say Mass is the function for which, primarily, a priest is ordained; given the proper opportunity, he may do so unless he has specially been forbidden to do so and defies the prohibition, he can say Mass; that is, his Consecration is a perfectly valid one. But this principle does not hold for the sacrament of Confession, unless the penitent is at the point of death, in which case it is presumed that the Church “supplies” the necessary authority. In normal circumstances, a priest may not give absolution unless he has “faculties” to do so; unless, that is to say, he does so with the express authority of the bishop. And in this case, if he may not, he cannot. For absolution is a judicial act, and no judicial act can be validly performed without jurisdiction. …
The essence of his business is to judge; and a man is not competent to judge, however much learning or prudence he possesses, unless he has been commissioned to try the case, unless he has been told to act in this way. If the judge has no commission, the award is invalid. If the priest has not jurisdiction, the sins of the penitent are not remitted. …
The authority in question is not, of course, limited to the confessional. It is the bishop who commissions a priest to preach and to instruct; it is the bishop who assigns to him a special sphere, giving him duties toward and responsibility for a particular group of human souls. …
A bishop, in spite of valid consecration, does not become ipso facto capable of conferring mission upon priests. He can ordain them validly, but he cannot give them the right to go out and exercise their ministry unless he himself belongs to the Catholic communion and has, within that communion, an assigned sphere of authority. He cannot send unless he himself has been sent by the Universal Church. …
The Church, then, involves a hierarchy, not merely in the sense that one functionary is superior to another in dignity, but in the sense that each functionary derives from a superior his commission to act in the Church’s name. Without that commission, all other qualifications would be useless.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Yes, it does. Thanks to both of you.
Does this also apply to Bishops and Archbishops (and Cardinals)? Our Msgr’s room mate from the seminary came to visit him for a few days and he is now an Archbishop. Did he have to get permission from the local bishop before saying Mass even though he is an ARCHbishop?
Does this also apply to Bishops and Archbishops (and Cardinals)? Our Msgr’s room mate from the seminary came to visit him for a few days and he is now an Archbishop. Did he have to get permission from the local bishop before saying Mass even though he is an ARCHbishop?
R
RobNY
Guest
How come the ability to consecrate the Eucharist always is inherent in the priest, but of the other sacraments, such as the absolution, it is not? I understand the jurisdiction idea for confession perfectly, but I don’t understand why it applies in one case and not the other.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Sir Knight:
§2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself, or by a concession issued by the competent authority in accordance with can. 969.
Can. 967 §1 Besides the Roman Pontiff, Cardinals by virtue of the law itself have the faculty to hear the confessions of Christ’s faithful everywhere. Likewise, Bishops have this faculty, which they may lawfully use everywhere, unless in a particular case the diocesan Bishop has refused.
§2 Those who have the faculty habitually to hear confessions, whether by virtue of their office or by virtue of a concession by the Ordinary of either the place of incardination or that in which they have a domicile, can exercise that faculty everywhere, unless in a particular case the local Ordinary has refused, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 974 §§2 and 3.
§3 In respect of the members and of those others who live day and night in a house of an institute or society, this same faculty is by virtue of the law itself possessed everywhere by those who have the faculty to hear confessions, whether by virtue of their office or by virtue of a special concession of the competent Superior in accordance with cann. 968 §2 and 969 §2. They may lawfully use this faculty, unless in a particular case some major Superior has, in respect of his own subjects, refused.
The Roman Pontiff and Cardinals have special canonical faculties. Bishops normatively have this faculty, unless in a particular case the diocesan Bishop has refused. Canon law states:Can. 966 §1 For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution.
§2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself, or by a concession issued by the competent authority in accordance with can. 969.
Can. 967 §1 Besides the Roman Pontiff, Cardinals by virtue of the law itself have the faculty to hear the confessions of Christ’s faithful everywhere. Likewise, Bishops have this faculty, which they may lawfully use everywhere, unless in a particular case the diocesan Bishop has refused.
§2 Those who have the faculty habitually to hear confessions, whether by virtue of their office or by virtue of a concession by the Ordinary of either the place of incardination or that in which they have a domicile, can exercise that faculty everywhere, unless in a particular case the local Ordinary has refused, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 974 §§2 and 3.
§3 In respect of the members and of those others who live day and night in a house of an institute or society, this same faculty is by virtue of the law itself possessed everywhere by those who have the faculty to hear confessions, whether by virtue of their office or by virtue of a special concession of the competent Superior in accordance with cann. 968 §2 and 969 §2. They may lawfully use this faculty, unless in a particular case some major Superior has, in respect of his own subjects, refused.
B
BioCatholic
Guest
ill give it a try:
think of it like being a police officer. we have powers of arrest ONLY in areas where we are given statutory ability by the STATE. i cant legally place under arrest someone outside my jurisdiction. under extrodinaly means, i can “detain” them until approprite authorities take custody. its called the “fellow officer rule”. the state assumes because i am law enforcement, discretionary judgement on my part is valid, and may be transferred to the correct person.
however, as a law enforcement officer in Florida, just by being one, i can sign any legal document that requires a state officer’s signature for verification, witness, or endorsement if applicable.
(like a vehicle citation given for a broken tail light. when the person remedies the problem they can bring the citation to me to show it was fixed, and i can sign off on it and they pay no fine no matter where in FL they got the ticket).
there is a difference between execution of authority, and posession.
a priest just by being a priest can consecrate the Eucharist just by authority given to him, but cannot execute powers of absolution to persons not within his jurisdiction.
if i were to “arrest” a person outside my jurisdiction and actually transport them to a facility, id be guilty of kidnapping because the arrest is not valid.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The issue revolves around the Church’s teaching regarding the conditions for validity for each sacrament. For Holy Communion, valid Holy Orders despite the lack of juridic faculties meets the Church’s validity requirements (so long as the others are met, such as proper matter, form, and intent). Yet, for the Sacrament of Penance, the necessariy conditions for validity are normatively lacking for SSPX priests, as they have no jurisdictional authority although they claim to submit to papal authority.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
Sorry for the hijack, but does this mean that valid matter can vary between rites?
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
**General Notice:
Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:
Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**
.
Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:
Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**
.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes, as levenaed bread is the valid matter for the Byzantine Rite.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Yes, I know. I really meant, are the leavened and unleavened bread invalid in the opposite rite, or just illicit? I assumed that what is valid or invalid was a universal, while each rite may have its particular law as to what is licit.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I believe that they would be illicit but I am sure someone else will speak up with something more concrete.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
From Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - “Altar Breads”
newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm
If the host is not made of wheaten flour, or is mixed with flour of another kind in such quantity that it cannot be called wheat bread, it may not be used (ibid.). If not natural but distilled water is used, the consecration becomes of doubtful validity (ibid., 2). If the host begins to be corrupt, it would be a grievous offence to use it, but it is considered valid matter (ibid., 3.) For licit consecration:
B
bear06
Guest
Simply leavened bread is only illicit in the Roman rite. It would have to have sugar, or honey or milk and probably some other things to make it invalid. Using yeast alone only makes it illicit, not invalid.
Jimmy Akin has a good article somewhere on these but I could only find these 2 shorter ones for now:
jimmyakin.org/2005/09/eucharistic_bre.html
jimmyakin.org/2005/10/when_the_real_p.html
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Thank you to those who clarified the validity of leavened vs. unleavened bread. My list of conditions was the list of what the bread SHOULD be made of, while validity is actually only suspect/nonexistent if the addition of extra ingredients would cause the result to be considered something other than bread (a cake, doughnut, torte, whatever concoction one might come up with). As leavened bread is still obviously considered bread, it is still valid.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
I never thought of it this way.
I always thought of it as if the matter is valid and licit in one Rite then it is valid (though possibly illicit) in another Rite of the Catholic Church.
That’s what I like about forums such as this, you get to see the way others look at things.
I never thought of it this way.
I always thought of it as if the matter is valid and licit in one Rite then it is valid (though possibly illicit) in another Rite of the Catholic Church.
- Status