OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 26, 2014, 10:24:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sacraments  (Read 2213 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« on: January 31, 2012, 05:20:59 PM »

I could not find this anywhere so......in light of all the ongoing ecumenical stuff, how does the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church view the other's sacraments? Are they valid? No?

PP
PS. Im not trying to start a fight, I just want to know if they're valid, and why or why not.
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,589


« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2012, 05:28:00 PM »

As far as the Orthodox side, many would say something along the lines of "we know where the sacramental grace is, but we don't know where it is not". In other words: the Orthodox Church isn't going to say whether Catholics have valid sacraments. Some might modify that to say that we know some places that it is not, but not all places. Not that I agree or disagree, but that's the way many put it.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 05:29:32 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,973


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2012, 05:34:22 PM »

No answers from me, just a reading assignment from SCOBA, the predecessor in interest to the American EA. (Please note that these statements DO NOT REFLECT policy or teachins, per se, of either the Roman Catholic Church or the  Orthodox Church but are the product of discussions and debate among theologians and professors. They are useful, IMHO, in pointing out the complexities which preclude a clear and unambiguous  on size fits all answer.)


An agreed statement on the Holy Eucharist http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/eucharist.html


An agreed statement on Mixed Marriage  http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/mixedmarriage.html

An Agreed Statement on the Sanctity of Marriage U.S. Theological Consultation, 1978
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/sanctitymarriage.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Munich Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1983 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1983munich.html

An Agreed Statement on the Lima Document: "Baptism, the Eucharist and Ministry U.S. Theological Consultation, 1984" http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1984lima.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Bari Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1988 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1988bari.html

A Joint Reaction by the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the U.S.A. to the International Orthodox/Roman Catholic Commission's Text: U.S. Theological Consultation, 1989 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1989reaction.html

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,279


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2012, 05:46:01 PM »

Just my understanding:  the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox sacraments as valid; the Orthodox Church does not know if Catholic sacraments are valid or not--except sometimes  Wink.

Now, I'll make some popcorn, and sit back and watch the show  laugh.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2012, 05:47:34 PM »

No answers from me, just a reading assignment from SCOBA, the predecessor in interest to the American EA. (Please note that these statements DO NOT REFLECT policy or teachins, per se, of either the Roman Catholic Church or the  Orthodox Church but are the product of discussions and debate among theologians and professors. They are useful, IMHO, in pointing out the complexities which preclude a clear and unambiguous  on size fits all answer.)


An agreed statement on the Holy Eucharist http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/eucharist.html


An agreed statement on Mixed Marriage  http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/mixedmarriage.html

An Agreed Statement on the Sanctity of Marriage U.S. Theological Consultation, 1978
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/sanctitymarriage.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Munich Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1983 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1983munich.html

An Agreed Statement on the Lima Document: "Baptism, the Eucharist and Ministry U.S. Theological Consultation, 1984" http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1984lima.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Bari Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1988 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1988bari.html

A Joint Reaction by the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the U.S.A. to the International Orthodox/Roman Catholic Commission's Text: U.S. Theological Consultation, 1989 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1989reaction.html

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html


Wow, thats a lot of reading....looks like I got my weekend planned Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,279


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2012, 05:56:42 PM »

No answers from me, just a reading assignment from SCOBA, the predecessor in interest to the American EA. (Please note that these statements DO NOT REFLECT policy or teachins, per se, of either the Roman Catholic Church or the  Orthodox Church but are the product of discussions and debate among theologians and professors. They are useful, IMHO, in pointing out the complexities which preclude a clear and unambiguous  on size fits all answer.)


An agreed statement on the Holy Eucharist http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/eucharist.html


An agreed statement on Mixed Marriage  http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/mixedmarriage.html

An Agreed Statement on the Sanctity of Marriage U.S. Theological Consultation, 1978
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/sanctitymarriage.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Munich Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1983 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1983munich.html

An Agreed Statement on the Lima Document: "Baptism, the Eucharist and Ministry U.S. Theological Consultation, 1984" http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1984lima.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Bari Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1988 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1988bari.html

A Joint Reaction by the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the U.S.A. to the International Orthodox/Roman Catholic Commission's Text: U.S. Theological Consultation, 1989 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1989reaction.html

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html



I'm just curious, podkarpatska, all the above, unless I'm mistaken, represent dialogues between Catholic and Orthodox in the U.S.A.  Again, unless I'm mistaken, the Orthodox population in the U.S. represents a pretty small percentage of the total world population of Orthodoxy.  What does the rest of world Orthodoxy, in conjunction with Catholic bishops and the Holy See, have to say about it, if anything? 

(And no, I haven't read all that you've referenced above--far too many other things in the reading pile and not even enough time for all of those  Wink.)
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 05:58:19 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2012, 05:57:20 PM »

Just my understanding:  the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox sacraments as valid; the Orthodox Church does not know if Catholic sacraments are valid or not--except sometimes  Wink.

Now, I'll make some popcorn, and sit back and watch the show  laugh.

I know the Catholics recognize Orthodox Sacraments as valid. I was at an Eastern Rite Catholic Church and was told by the priest there that it was ok for me to go to communion even though I never went through confirmation or first communion in the Catholic Church. He warned me though that my priest wouldn't be ok with me receiving and said if I chose to receive, he didn't want to get an angry phone call from my priest about it.  Cheesy
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,968



« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2012, 06:02:46 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

Orthodox say either "we don't know", "no", or "yes".

If only we had a pope to sort out our differing opinions. How inconvenient and untidy!
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,590


« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2012, 06:03:33 PM »

And this thread should stop here.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,589


« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2012, 06:04:43 PM »

And this thread should stop here.

Why's that? Smiley
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,279


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2012, 06:09:01 PM »

And this thread should stop here.

Why's that? Smiley

Beat me to it  Grin!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,973


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2012, 06:13:42 PM »

No answers from me, just a reading assignment from SCOBA, the predecessor in interest to the American EA. (Please note that these statements DO NOT REFLECT policy or teachins, per se, of either the Roman Catholic Church or the  Orthodox Church but are the product of discussions and debate among theologians and professors. They are useful, IMHO, in pointing out the complexities which preclude a clear and unambiguous  on size fits all answer.)


An agreed statement on the Holy Eucharist http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/eucharist.html


An agreed statement on Mixed Marriage  http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/mixedmarriage.html

An Agreed Statement on the Sanctity of Marriage U.S. Theological Consultation, 1978
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/sanctitymarriage.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Munich Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1983 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1983munich.html

An Agreed Statement on the Lima Document: "Baptism, the Eucharist and Ministry U.S. Theological Consultation, 1984" http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1984lima.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Bari Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1988 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1988bari.html

A Joint Reaction by the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the U.S.A. to the International Orthodox/Roman Catholic Commission's Text: U.S. Theological Consultation, 1989 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1989reaction.html

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html



I'm just curious, podkarpatska, all the above, unless I'm mistaken, represent dialogues between Catholic and Orthodox in the U.S.A.  Again, unless I'm mistaken, the Orthodox population in the U.S. represents a pretty small percentage of the total world population of Orthodoxy.  What does the rest of world Orthodoxy, in conjunction with Catholic bishops and the Holy See, have to say about it, if anything?  

(And no, I haven't read all that you've referenced above--far too many other things in the reading pile and not even enough time for all of those  Wink.)

Anticipating such a question, you will note that most of these documents are responses to the International Joint Dialouge on which there are representatives of many of the world Orthodox Churches and Rome. Again, NONE ARE OFFICIAL POSITIONS of either east or west, but they are the result of serious academic work by various theologians and Bishops. They present information and arguments upon which both sides do NOT always, or even frequently agree upon.

From these you may ferret out our typical Orthodox response to many questions: It depends. Unlike Rome, we don't have a 'book' with the answers to all. (I mean this with respect for our point of view and how it differs from Rome's approach to these questions. J. Michael's anecdote points this out.)
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 06:16:44 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,279


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2012, 06:27:21 PM »

No answers from me, just a reading assignment from SCOBA, the predecessor in interest to the American EA. (Please note that these statements DO NOT REFLECT policy or teachins, per se, of either the Roman Catholic Church or the  Orthodox Church but are the product of discussions and debate among theologians and professors. They are useful, IMHO, in pointing out the complexities which preclude a clear and unambiguous  on size fits all answer.)


An agreed statement on the Holy Eucharist http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/eucharist.html


An agreed statement on Mixed Marriage  http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/mixedmarriage.html

An Agreed Statement on the Sanctity of Marriage U.S. Theological Consultation, 1978
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/sanctitymarriage.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Munich Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1983 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1983munich.html

An Agreed Statement on the Lima Document: "Baptism, the Eucharist and Ministry U.S. Theological Consultation, 1984" http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1984lima.html

A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Bari Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1988 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1988bari.html

A Joint Reaction by the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the U.S.A. to the International Orthodox/Roman Catholic Commission's Text: U.S. Theological Consultation, 1989 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1989reaction.html

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html



I'm just curious, podkarpatska, all the above, unless I'm mistaken, represent dialogues between Catholic and Orthodox in the U.S.A.  Again, unless I'm mistaken, the Orthodox population in the U.S. represents a pretty small percentage of the total world population of Orthodoxy.  What does the rest of world Orthodoxy, in conjunction with Catholic bishops and the Holy See, have to say about it, if anything?  

(And no, I haven't read all that you've referenced above--far too many other things in the reading pile and not even enough time for all of those  Wink.)

Anticipating such a question, you will note that most of these documents are responses to the International Joint Dialouge on which there are representatives of many of the world Orthodox Churches and Rome. Again, NONE ARE OFFICIAL POSITIONS of either east or west, but they are the result of serious academic work by various theologians and Bishops. They present information and arguments upon which both sides do NOT always, or even frequently agree upon.

From these you may ferret out our typical Orthodox response to many questions: It depends. Unlike Rome, we don't have a 'book' with the answers to all. (I mean this with respect for our point of view and how it differs from Rome's approach to these questions. J. Michael's anecdote points this out.)

So, really no need to do any ferreting, is there  Cheesy?  I think the  op's question has been, as they say in t.v. legal dramas, "asked and answered".  Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2012, 07:43:04 PM »

We believe the Sacraments exist in the Orthodox Church, but only because the Orthodox retain a connection to the Catholic Church by continuing to have Apostolic Succession. At least that has always been my understanding.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 07:43:27 PM by Wyatt » Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2012, 08:33:03 PM »

Orthodox say either "we don't know", "no", or "yes".

That really narrows it down!   Wink
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2012, 10:59:34 AM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2012, 11:06:42 AM »

I could not find this anywhere so......in light of all the ongoing ecumenical stuff, how does the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church view the other's sacraments? Are they valid? No?

PP
PS. Im not trying to start a fight, I just want to know if they're valid, and why or why not.

Catholics definitely recognize the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrians Church of the East, and the PNCC. They're a little less clear regarding Anglican sacraments: in principle, they should recognize them as well (because of Dutch Old Catholic lines) but in practice Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are re-ordained.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2012, 11:08:00 AM »

P.S. It should also be noted that Catholics believe that most Protestants have valid baptism and marriage.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Manalive
Иоанн
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Posts: 289


It is later than we think.


« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2012, 11:29:51 AM »

No one can say where the Grace of God resides outside of the Church, but considering that the Roman Church left in schism and has had a few heresies along the way since then, I would say no, they don't have valid sacraments. If they did, we would be in communion with them. Sacraments only exist within the Church from my understanding.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 11:30:54 AM by Manalive » Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2012, 11:57:49 AM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.
Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,493



« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2012, 12:16:26 PM »

Im still an outsider I guess, but what about this thought...

We know that people are not perfect.  We also know that God is perfect.  All of the schisms are a result of people being imperfect, but that doesnt change God.  People either in Catholic or protestant churches today had nothing to do with the schisms that happened so long ago.  Most people probably dont even know what the great schism is.  Or they dont know very much about the reformation.  Most people are just attending the Church they were raised in and dont know that there is anything wrong with their beliefs, if anything at all.  It seems to me that Gods grace would go beyond all of that, and it would be fair to say that Gods grace may be present in Catholic or even protestant Churches.  At the end of the day, the majority of these people have the best of intentions. 

I dunno. 
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2012, 12:18:35 PM »

Im still an outsider I guess, but what about this thought...

We know that people are not perfect.  We also know that God is perfect.  All of the schisms are a result of people being imperfect, but that doesnt change God.  People either in Catholic or protestant churches today had nothing to do with the schisms that happened so long ago.  Most people probably dont even know what the great schism is.  Or they dont know very much about the reformation.  Most people are just attending the Church they were raised in and dont know that there is anything wrong with their beliefs, if anything at all.  It seems to me that Gods grace would go beyond all of that, and it would be fair to say that Gods grace may be present in Catholic or even protestant Churches.  At the end of the day, the majority of these people have the best of intentions. 

I dunno. 
What a refreshing and rational post.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,279


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2012, 01:07:26 PM »

P.S. It should also be noted that Catholics believe that most Protestants have valid baptism and marriage.

So do some Orthodox believe that of some Protestants.  A former Orthodox priest of mine would receive into the Orthodox Church by way of Chrismation all Catholics, and all Protestants whose baptism could be determined to have been done with water and "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2012, 01:13:32 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,973


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2012, 01:23:35 PM »

Im still an outsider I guess, but what about this thought...

We know that people are not perfect.  We also know that God is perfect.  All of the schisms are a result of people being imperfect, but that doesnt change God.  People either in Catholic or protestant churches today had nothing to do with the schisms that happened so long ago.  Most people probably dont even know what the great schism is.  Or they dont know very much about the reformation.  Most people are just attending the Church they were raised in and dont know that there is anything wrong with their beliefs, if anything at all.  It seems to me that Gods grace would go beyond all of that, and it would be fair to say that Gods grace may be present in Catholic or even protestant Churches.  At the end of the day, the majority of these people have the best of intentions. 

I dunno. 

Don't call yourself an 'outsider' as your sentiments seem to me to capture much of Orthodoxy's point of view - we can't get into the technical 'licit/illicit, de fact/de jure' conundrum like the Romans as those concepts don't square with the lanuguage used by the Eastern fathers and later Church leaders. As for me, I think you are more of an 'insider' than you credit yourself!
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2012, 01:26:56 PM »

From my p.o.v. Timon is an insider, as his profile says "Anglo-Catholic ..." Smiley

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2012, 01:27:36 PM »

Man, now I've got cider on the brain.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
TheMathematician
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American
Posts: 1,638


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2012, 01:28:58 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
Thing is, from my understanding, the RCC(of which i was part of) accepts Orthodox Sacraments as valid AND licit.

Now, one might ask just WHY do we, from the RCC point of view, have licit sacraments, and orginzations such as the SSPX do not.

Historically, we(we=orthodox church) never were required to seek permission from the Pope of Rome to ordain our Bishops. This provides, and is the viewpoint of the RCC, that our Episcopal ordinations are valid and licit. Because of the fact that we have valid and licit Bishops, then the licitly of all our sacraments become licit, because they follow the directives of our respective Bishops.

The SSPX on the other hand, were required to, by roman canon law, to seek permission of the Pope in order to ordain their bishops.. As such, these bishops are illicit, and their bishops cannot grant faculties to their priests to administer the sacraments, making their sacraments illicit, but valid. In addition to this, accoring to Roman law, their Confessions are invalid, in addition to being illicit. Confession requires the priests ordination and the Bishop's blessing in order to be valid(among the other things) and, because the priest cannot validly give that, the Confession is invalid
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,973


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2012, 01:30:51 PM »

From my p.o.v. Timon is an insider, as his profile says "Anglo-Catholic ..." Smiley



Just using his choice of words.  Wink Seriously, I think he hit upon a description that you and I probably concur upon - again keeping in mind that east uses Garmin in their GPS and west uses Tom-Tom in theirs.....Or is it Mac vs. Windows? Generally one brands software performs poorly on the other platform, even if the techno-geeks come up with a cross-platform converter.......Although some say they often reach the same results when properly applied...
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 01:31:50 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,493



« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2012, 01:32:33 PM »

Im still an outsider I guess, but what about this thought...

We know that people are not perfect.  We also know that God is perfect.  All of the schisms are a result of people being imperfect, but that doesnt change God.  People either in Catholic or protestant churches today had nothing to do with the schisms that happened so long ago.  Most people probably dont even know what the great schism is.  Or they dont know very much about the reformation.  Most people are just attending the Church they were raised in and dont know that there is anything wrong with their beliefs, if anything at all.  It seems to me that Gods grace would go beyond all of that, and it would be fair to say that Gods grace may be present in Catholic or even protestant Churches.  At the end of the day, the majority of these people have the best of intentions.  

I dunno.  

Don't call yourself an 'outsider' as your sentiments seem to me to capture much of Orthodoxy's point of view - we can't get into the technical 'licit/illicit, de fact/de jure' conundrum like the Romans as those concepts don't square with the lanuguage used by the Eastern fathers and later Church leaders. As for me, I think you are more of an 'insider' than you credit yourself!

Thanks.  I guess by 'outsider' i just meant someone who is observing this discussion from outside the Orthodox and Catholic church.  Heck, I dont consider myself a protestant anymore either, so I dont know where I fit.  Ha!  My beliefs are pretty much inline with Orthodoxy, but since so many of my friends and family are protestant or catholic, its hard for me to just say that Gods grace isnt present in their churches (and I know most people here werent necessarily saying that).  I guess thats my personal reason for the optimism/ecumenicism.  





Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2012, 01:40:27 PM »

Heck, I dont consider myself a protestant anymore either,

Same here (well, except for the word "anymore" b/c in my case I never considered myself Protestant).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2012, 01:41:24 PM »

From my p.o.v. Timon is an insider, as his profile says "Anglo-Catholic ..." Smiley



Just using his choice of words.  Wink Seriously, I think he hit upon a description that you and I probably concur upon - again keeping in mind that east uses Garmin in their GPS and west uses Tom-Tom in theirs.....Or is it Mac vs. Windows? Generally one brands software performs poorly on the other platform, even if the techno-geeks come up with a cross-platform converter.......Although some say they often reach the same results when properly applied...

Oy! [insert dizzy emoticon]
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2012, 01:42:03 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
Thing is, from my understanding, the RCC(of which i was part of) accepts Orthodox Sacraments as valid AND licit.

Now, one might ask just WHY do we, from the RCC point of view, have licit sacraments, and orginzations such as the SSPX do not.

Historically, we(we=orthodox church) never were required to seek permission from the Pope of Rome to ordain our Bishops. This provides, and is the viewpoint of the RCC, that our Episcopal ordinations are valid and licit. Because of the fact that we have valid and licit Bishops, then the licitly of all our sacraments become licit, because they follow the directives of our respective Bishops.

The SSPX on the other hand, were required to, by roman canon law, to seek permission of the Pope in order to ordain their bishops.. As such, these bishops are illicit, and their bishops cannot grant faculties to their priests to administer the sacraments, making their sacraments illicit, but valid. In addition to this, accoring to Roman law, their Confessions are invalid, in addition to being illicit. Confession requires the priests ordination and the Bishop's blessing in order to be valid(among the other things) and, because the priest cannot validly give that, the Confession is invalid

That's a definite possibility, but another possibility is that Rome simply doesn't apply either "licit" or "illicit" to the sacraments of the EO (or the OO, ACoE, or PNCC).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2012, 01:46:04 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
Thing is, from my understanding, the RCC(of which i was part of) accepts Orthodox Sacraments as valid AND licit.

Now, one might ask just WHY do we, from the RCC point of view, have licit sacraments, and orginzations such as the SSPX do not.

Historically, we(we=orthodox church) never were required to seek permission from the Pope of Rome to ordain our Bishops. This provides, and is the viewpoint of the RCC, that our Episcopal ordinations are valid and licit. Because of the fact that we have valid and licit Bishops, then the licitly of all our sacraments become licit, because they follow the directives of our respective Bishops.

The SSPX on the other hand, were required to, by roman canon law, to seek permission of the Pope in order to ordain their bishops.. As such, these bishops are illicit, and their bishops cannot grant faculties to their priests to administer the sacraments, making their sacraments illicit, but valid. In addition to this, accoring to Roman law, their Confessions are invalid, in addition to being illicit. Confession requires the priests ordination and the Bishop's blessing in order to be valid(among the other things) and, because the priest cannot validly give that, the Confession is invalid
The unia make it a little more complicated - is the Antiochian Orthodox Church licit? Their bishops left their synod when the validly elected Patriarch and the majority of the bishops agreed to union with Rome. Therefore, doesn't the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have jurisdiction and is licit, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is a false pretender? Wouldn't they then be illicit?
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2012, 01:47:46 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter.  The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that.   The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons.  It cannot be done.  Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons.  The same with the Catholic Church.  Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.
Logged

Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,493



« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2012, 01:51:42 PM »

Heck, I dont consider myself a protestant anymore either,

Same here (well, except for the word "anymore" b/c in my case I never considered myself Protestant).

Im just hanging with the Anglicans right now, which I dont particularly mind, but I do hope to eventually take the next step!  My work keeps me from attending church regularly on Sundays, so I go to an anglican church on wednesdays for the Eucharist and then go to vespers at the local greek parish on saturdays.
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,973


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2012, 02:20:10 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
Thing is, from my understanding, the RCC(of which i was part of) accepts Orthodox Sacraments as valid AND licit.

Now, one might ask just WHY do we, from the RCC point of view, have licit sacraments, and orginzations such as the SSPX do not.

Historically, we(we=orthodox church) never were required to seek permission from the Pope of Rome to ordain our Bishops. This provides, and is the viewpoint of the RCC, that our Episcopal ordinations are valid and licit. Because of the fact that we have valid and licit Bishops, then the licitly of all our sacraments become licit, because they follow the directives of our respective Bishops.

The SSPX on the other hand, were required to, by roman canon law, to seek permission of the Pope in order to ordain their bishops.. As such, these bishops are illicit, and their bishops cannot grant faculties to their priests to administer the sacraments, making their sacraments illicit, but valid. In addition to this, accoring to Roman law, their Confessions are invalid, in addition to being illicit. Confession requires the priests ordination and the Bishop's blessing in order to be valid(among the other things) and, because the priest cannot validly give that, the Confession is invalid
The unia make it a little more complicated - is the Antiochian Orthodox Church licit? Their bishops left their synod when the validly elected Patriarch and the majority of the bishops agreed to union with Rome. Therefore, doesn't the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have jurisdiction and is licit, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is a false pretender? Wouldn't they then be illicit?

You're trying to put a square peg through the proverbial circular hole here. The Antiochians would tell you that the Patriarch with the bishops who followed him left 'the' church.

Your analogy would logically (there's that word again) lead to the conclusion that the OCA, ACROD and UOC-USA are either completely or, at least, partially 'illicit.' I think the teachings of the Church of Rome would tell you that if they are Orthodox to the Orthodox, then they are Orthodox to the Roman Catholic church - no distinction.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2012, 02:48:35 PM »

Im still an outsider I guess, but what about this thought...

We know that people are not perfect.  We also know that God is perfect.  All of the schisms are a result of people being imperfect, but that doesnt change God.  People either in Catholic or protestant churches today had nothing to do with the schisms that happened so long ago.  Most people probably dont even know what the great schism is.  Or they dont know very much about the reformation.  Most people are just attending the Church they were raised in and dont know that there is anything wrong with their beliefs, if anything at all.  It seems to me that Gods grace would go beyond all of that, and it would be fair to say that Gods grace may be present in Catholic or even protestant Churches.  At the end of the day, the majority of these people have the best of intentions. 

I dunno. 

Don't call yourself an 'outsider' as your sentiments seem to me to capture much of Orthodoxy's point of view - we can't get into the technical 'licit/illicit, de fact/de jure' conundrum like the Romans as those concepts don't square with the lanuguage used by the Eastern fathers and later Church leaders. As for me, I think you are more of an 'insider' than you credit yourself!

All licit means is that an action conforms to the Church's precepts, norms and canons.  I does not make sense for one Church to try to interpret the canons for another Church.

I am near certain that applies even among the Patriarchates.  One Patriarch does not pass judgment on the local norms and practices of another jurisdiction...from outside the fold, so to speak.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2012, 02:48:35 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
Thing is, from my understanding, the RCC(of which i was part of) accepts Orthodox Sacraments as valid AND licit.

Now, one might ask just WHY do we, from the RCC point of view, have licit sacraments, and orginzations such as the SSPX do not.

Historically, we(we=orthodox church) never were required to seek permission from the Pope of Rome to ordain our Bishops. This provides, and is the viewpoint of the RCC, that our Episcopal ordinations are valid and licit. Because of the fact that we have valid and licit Bishops, then the licitly of all our sacraments become licit, because they follow the directives of our respective Bishops.

The SSPX on the other hand, were required to, by roman canon law, to seek permission of the Pope in order to ordain their bishops.. As such, these bishops are illicit, and their bishops cannot grant faculties to their priests to administer the sacraments, making their sacraments illicit, but valid. In addition to this, accoring to Roman law, their Confessions are invalid, in addition to being illicit. Confession requires the priests ordination and the Bishop's blessing in order to be valid(among the other things) and, because the priest cannot validly give that, the Confession is invalid
The unia make it a little more complicated - is the Antiochian Orthodox Church licit? Their bishops left their synod when the validly elected Patriarch and the majority of the bishops agreed to union with Rome. Therefore, doesn't the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have jurisdiction and is licit, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is a false pretender? Wouldn't they then be illicit?

No.  The term "licit" only applies to the laws of a particular Church, or in the case of the eastern Catholic Church it applies to laws that are shared.

In the eastern code of canons there are laws and interpretations that are particular to the eastern Churches.  These laws are not judged by the Roman Church.

M.
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,303



« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2012, 04:13:42 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter.  The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that.   The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons.  It cannot be done.  Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons.  The same with the Catholic Church.  Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.
Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,179



« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2012, 05:02:47 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter.  The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that.   The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons.  It cannot be done.  Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons.  The same with the Catholic Church.  Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.
Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew

Well now that's the validity issue, rather than the licity (licitity?) issue.

But for the record, I think Catholics can be really aggravating w.r.t. talking about Anglican orders.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2012, 05:59:25 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter.  The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that.   The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons.  It cannot be done.  Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons.  The same with the Catholic Church.  Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.
Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No...Anglican orders are not valid but illicit, they are invalid.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2012, 06:07:11 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Just my understanding:  the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox sacraments as valid; the Orthodox Church does not know if Catholic sacraments are valid or not--except sometimes  Wink.



That sound entirely correct to me. 

Quote
Members of the Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these churches. (canon 844 § 3)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,973


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2012, 06:28:23 PM »


Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
[/quote]
No...Anglican orders are not valid but illicit, they are invalid.
[/quote]

This debate has been ongoing for centuries, both in the west and in the east. It was clear that within the Anglican Communion itself there was not a definitive answer regarding the nature of the priesthood - some profess the priesthood of all believers and others retained a more 'Catholic' view of the distinct role of the presbyter and bishop. But, by the end of the 20th century, the actions of the Church of England seem to have definitively settled the dispute in favor of invalidity.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,303



« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2012, 09:45:42 PM »

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter.  The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that.   The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons.  It cannot be done.  Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons.  The same with the Catholic Church.  Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.
Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No...Anglican orders are not valid but illicit, they are invalid.
I don't think I said anything about validity or licitity (is that even a word?). Mary said:
Quote
The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons.  It cannot be done.

I just happened to bring up the Anglicans, who had their church judged by yours. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.199 seconds with 72 queries.