Valid Sacraments Loophole

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salibi

Guest
Okay, this is something that I’ve been curious about for a while and haven’t been able to find a satisfactory answer.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox have valid sacraments. Therefore, Confession done by an Orthodox priest is considered valid (as far as I know).

Herein lies my curiousity. Say a Catholic converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, and in doing so incurs the sin of schism. If said Catholic confesses this sin to an Orthodox priest and the priest absolves him, does it follow that the convert is no longer guilty of schism? Am I missing/misunderstanding something?

Please don’t misconstrue this post as an attempt to give Catholics the green light to convert to Orthodoxy. I realize some people on the forums are struggling with choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy and duly apologise if this post accidentally touches on some sensitive nerve. It is merely an issue of curiousity for me. I’m eagerly awaiting a satisfactory answer.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Their sacraments may be valid but they are illicit because of their schism. And besides I tried confessing my sins one time in an Eastern church and they told me I couldn’t until I get chrismated (basically confirmed in their church).
 
Last edited:
If a Catholic confesses the sin of schism to an Orthodox priest, the priest would say the Catholic didn’t sin because he simply returned to the true faith, so no “schism” was committed and even if it was, it wasn’t a sin.

In addition, even if schism was somehow committed and somehow a sin to the Orthodox priest, then the Catholic would have to promise not to commit the sin in the future in order to be absolved. Obviously that would mean Catholic would have to depart the Orthodox church and go back to the Catholic church. If that’s not happening, then the Orthodox priest couldn’t validly absolve him even if Orthodox priest agreed Catholic has committed sin of schism, which Orthodox priest is not going to agree he did.

Therefore, the situation you describe will never arise.
 
Last edited:
In addition to @Tis_Bearself’s comment above, you’re missing one of the two major requirements of a valid confession (she mentions one: firm purpose of amendment) - you’re missing contrition. If the convert were truly sorrowful over this sin and viewed it as such, why would they go to an Orthodox priest for confession or view that as the remedy?
 
In addition to what others have said about the firm purpose of amendment, a priest requires jurisdiction from a bishop to absolve. How things like that work in the case of the separated Eastern churches seems to be at the very least unsettled as Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium notes:
N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss—specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."
Click to expand...
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
In addition to what others have said about the firm purpose of amendment, a priest requires jurisdiction from a bishop to absolve. How things like that work in the case of the separated Eastern churches seems to be at the very least unsettled as Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium notes:
N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss—specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."
Click to expand...
I’ve wondered this myself — how any Orthodox sacraments could be licit, and even how Orthodox sacraments that require faculties from a bishop (penance and matrimony, I can’t think of any others, that was a big “sticking point” with the SSPX until the issue was resolved by Rome in favor of validity) can even be valid, if that bishop is schismatic.

I would be willing to assume, in charity, that at the very least, the lifting of the mutual excommunications might mean that Rome recognizes Orthodox bishops as having true jurisdiction over their faithful, and that faculties given by Orthodox bishops to their priests are considered valid and legitimate. This would be the approach that would be most conducive to unity, the most respectful, and the most diplomatically palatable — that bishops in true Churches, as the separated Orthodox certainly are, still retain jurisdiction over their faithful, just as they would if they were in full communion with Rome. Whether that is the approach that Rome actually takes, I cannot say. Experts?

I can foresee that the very concept of “Rome giving our bishops permission to exercise their authority” would elicit a wide variety of reactions among the Orthodox, some possibly unprintable.
Click to expand...
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I can foresee that the very concept of “Rome giving our bishops permission to exercise their authority” would elicit a wide variety of reactions among the Orthodox, some possibly unprintable.
Click to expand...
Unprintable is right. You’re very charitable.
 
Well…garsh…I…uh…er…I don’t quite know what to say… 😊
 
Salibi said:
If said Catholic confesses this sin to an Orthodox priest and the priest absolves him, does it follow that the convert is no longer guilty of schism?
Click to expand...
The Priest would doubtless say that his or her schism ended in the Chrism of the Sacrament of Chrismation…

If the penitent were to confess his or her previous sin of schism for having been in the Catholic Church, THEN he would receive Absolution from the Orthodox Priest…

The same might appertain for an Orthodox convert to the Latin Church, I should think…

geo
 
Last edited:
As an Orthodox Christian I don’t see how the Catholic Church can believe that we have valid but illicit sacraments?

From UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

“Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature(36) and through concelebration, their communion with one another is made manifest.“

“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.”

So, communicatio in sacris means Eucharistic sharing–intercommunion without full ecclesial communion, and it “is not only possible but to be encouraged.”

Would the Catholic Church actually allow it’s members, even encourage its members, to receive “illicit” sacraments?

ZP
 
People always suspect my motives as an unbeliever for hanging our here. But where else could I see debates like this in which even the question for debate involved 15 things I had never thought of before? As well as a segue from schism to online flirting! 🙂
 
Margaret_Ann said:
You have me in stitches right now. 🤣 🤣 🤣
Click to expand...
A start, I should think…
Separate cities might be a good idea…
Cold showers always avail much…
Rules against flirting RULE!!

I may have to pm that Pilgrim and tell him to tone it down…
That you are a nice Catholic girl…
Not like those brazen Orthodox women!
Sensitivity and nuance, I say!

Stepping between two magnets…
A splash of cold water…
A physical barrier…
Guard dogs!

And you seemed so…
So very…
So very ordinary…
Even, dare I say, normal???

Do NOT pm him a pic!
Unless of course…
You are sincere!
Even then, NO!!!

geo

Who loves to stir the pots - 🙂
 
ziapueblo said:
As an Orthodox Christian I don’t see how the Catholic Church can believe that we have valid but illicit sacraments?

From UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO :

“Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature(36) and through concelebration, their communion with one another is made manifest.“

“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.”

So, communicatio in sacris means Eucharistic sharing–intercommunion without full ecclesial communion, and it “is not only possible but to be encouraged.”

Would the Catholic Church actually allow it’s members, even encourage its members, to receive “illicit” sacraments?
Click to expand...
I think you have a very valid point in quoting UR.

However, communicatio in sacris does not necessarily extend to eucharistic sharing.
 
If the convert is following his conscience then then in converting to Orthodoxy he would not be committing the sin of schism. He may be in schism but the sin is in those who have acted irresponsibly in causing and maintaining that schism.
If you follow your conscience then you are not in sin.
The fact that you have doubts indicates that maybe you should not go through with this conversion.
 
poche said:
…
If you follow your conscience then you are not in sin.
…
Click to expand...
Many Catholics have taken the above quoted sentence out of the context in which it must be heard, and thereby gotten into much trouble. The Catechism has some things to say that need to be heard, concerning conscience. It is NOT infallible, nor is it a “free pass” to justify a strong desire to do something morally wrong. I’ve added bold formatting to quotes below to add emphasis:
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”<GS 16> In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top