www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Validity of orders

Can anyone give (or refer me to) a good explanation of why Catholics believe that churches which are "in schism" can still have valid orders, and also why we say that some ordinations are "valid but illicit"?

Shlomo Peter,

To your first point, schism is not heresy. Schism is more of a political issue than a theological one.

As for Ordinations, "valid but illicit" means a person was ordained but not with the approval of the Vatican or legitimate Catholic authorities.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Hello

According to the Western terminology, VALIDITY is met when the mysteries are correctly confected according to matter (the object needed for the sacrament, in the case of baptism water, in the case of holy orders the hands of true bishops), form (a Trinitarian form in baptism, the words and rites of the celebrant in other sacraments that truly mean what the sacrament is about) and intention (the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does when confering the mysteries).

And then, LICIT means that the sacraments that are performed are confected within of the Christian community, inside the structure of the church, with authorization of the superior hierarch and in full communion with him.

The Orthodox usually think that the Roman Church recognizes orders of all kind of schismatic groups as valid if the requirements listed above are met. However this isn't completely true. The Western Church fully recognizes the holy orders of Churches that are stable communities like the Orthodox Churches and the original Old Catholic Churches of Europe. But this is not the case of the hundreds of vagant sects that trace their origin in Old Catholic, Villatte, "Brazilian Catholic" (Duarte Costa), Aftimios Ofiesh, Ngo Dinh Thuc.

It's thought that the first consecrations might have been valid but at some point chaos became the rule in these groups and they began consecrating untrained people, and the orders confected to or by ignorant clergy are not recognized by the Roman Church. In many cases it's very difficult to know if the consecration actually happened (in the case of Thuc for example).

In practice the mysteries of these groups (at least in Latin America) are not regarded as true mysteries. Some Roman Dioceses have warned about wandering priests with "Old Catholic" orders who "give" sacraments, stating that these have no validity and must be repeated in a Roman Catholic Church.

I myself have a friend who hired a wedding planner company whose services even included the wedding liturgy, the mass was quite "normal", the priest even gave them business cards and they called him for the baptism of their first daughter. A year after, when they were chosen as sponsors of their friend's son, the Catholic parish told them that their marriage certificate was counterfeit and that the priest who celebrated the wedding was not a real priest. So the marriage had to be celebrated again, as well as their daughter's baptism.

The standard for determining the "validity" of such ordinations involves the question of the orthodoxy of sacramental doctrine of the Church or ecclesial community (if any) in the context of which such an ordination takes place.

Thus, for example, the Catholic Church recognizes the ordinations conferred by the Polish National Catholic Church, because they have maintained the historic succession, with a form for ordinations and consecrations which the Catholic Church can recognize as her own, and their sacramental doctrine seems unexceptional.

In the Christian East, the Catholic Church recognizes the ordinations conferred by the Old-Ritualist Orthodox Church (Bielaia Krinitsa concord), because they too have maintaned the historic succession, with a form for ordinations and consecrations which the Catholic Church recognizes as her own, and their doctrine is perfectly Orthodox in every respect.

In the case of such groups as "The Liberal Catholic Church" (which claims, of all things, "negotiable orders") it is impossible to recognize their ordinations, because their teaching, to the extent that they have any specific teaching, involves strong elements of non-Christian ideas lifted from Buddhism and Hinduism.

Fr. Serge

I would just like to add that even though the distinction between "valid" and "licit" is specifically Latin, the principle behind the acceptance of orders outside the orthodox Catholic communion is ancient and goes all the way back to the debate between Sts. Stephen and Cyprian. The Ecumenical Council of Nice vindicated the teaching of Pope St. Stephen on the issue, and the orders of some who were regarded as heretics were still considered valid (and not just baptisms). As Father Serge states, the recognition does not merely have to do with proper form - it also has to do with the doctrinal teaching of the Church in question.

In the early Church, the recognition of baptismal validity automatically implied recognition of the validity of orders. It seems, then, that to the early Church, belief in the Trinitarian God was sufficient for validity of Sacraments, though not licitness. Take for example the Messalians who were called heretics in the proper sense by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, yet their orders were accepted upon renunciation of their doctrinal errors by samesaid Council. The Messalians were, despite their heresies approximating the Gnostics, nevertheless Trinitarian in their theology.

Examples abound. There does not seem to be a patristic basis for the general Eastern Orthodox belief of the invalidity of Catholic Sacraments. Also keep in mind that the Oriental Orthodox (for those who may not be aware, the Oriental Orthodox are a different kettle of fish than the Eastern Orthodox) do accept the validity of Catholic Sacraments.

Blessings,
Marduk

I should also add that the Ecumenical Councils distinguished between actions which excommunicated a bishop or clergyman, and actions which deposed a bishop or clergyman. This is the same difference as the "valid" and "licit" distinction within the Latin Church. yet I constantly hear Eastern Orthodox polemicists (not Eastern Orthodox in general) claim that "validity" and
"licitness" is a Latin innovation.

I truly believe the only solution to the problem of disunity is a detailed study of the early Church Fathers. Therein, Eastern Orthodox Christians will find so many more similarities between East, West and Orient that they are currently not willing to admit.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello, I believe that the Armenian Church does recognize the validity of the Catholic sacraments, as well as the Syriac Orthodox, they even allow intercommunion.

However, the Copts do not regard the Catholic mysteries as valid. Here in Mexico there is a Coptic Church, they have managed to convert part of the population of the town where the church is located, and they have re-baptized all the converts.

They see the Roman baptsm as invalid.

Dear brother Mexican,

This issue is confusing to many. The OFFICIAL position of the Coptic Orthodox Church is that the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are valid. The only reason you may have witnessed some "rebaptisms" is not because there is a belief that the Catholic baptism is graceless. In fact, the "rebaptism" is not a rebaptism at all. It is merely triune immersion. It might be hard for others to understand the practice of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which cherishes the apostolic canon on triune baptism.

If you understand the difference between form and matter, perhaps the following explanation will be helpful. The Coptic Orthodox immerse Catholics three times (note: not "rebaptize") merely to complete the form of the Sacrament, while recognizing that the grace of baptism is already there. It is a fact that Coptic Orthodox will not reimmerse Catholics who have had the triune immersion. I have personal knowledge of Catholics who have been accepted into Coptic Orthodoxy (mostly through marriage) by mere chrismation.

Also be aware that during the Middle Ages, it was the Coptic Orthodox who approached Rome for reunion three times (IIRC). No doctrinal issues were regarded as divisive in those times (the hoped-for reunion failed due to what was percieved to be excessive papal jurisdictional claims). I don't have a link for what I just stated, but you can look up the facts in the Coptic Encyclopedia, which should be available at the larger public libraries, or for sure at your local theological library.

Having said all that, I am aware that there seems to be an anti-Catholic movement fomenting in Egypt, which is not really shared by the rest of Coptic Orthodoxy around the world. I surmise the current friendly relations between the EO and OO Copts is the root cause of the problem, for the Coptic Orthodox have historically been rather amicable with Rome (in the Middle Ages, that is). The current hardline attitude of HB Bishoy may be infecting some other CO. I don't really know. But if you hear a Coptic Orthodox claim that Catholic baptism is graceless, you can be rest assured that is a very modern/current belief, and is not the historical position of Coptic Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oops! I realized I made some typos. In certain places where I used the word "triune", I meant "triple" and vice versa, and in some places I used "triune baptism" I meant "triple immersion."

To be clear: Though many Catholics don't practice triple immersion, ALL Catholics practice triune baptism.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello

In this site the priest who answers the questions states that the Baptism of the Roman Church is invalid:

http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?catid=45

It's the site of a Coptic Church.

Juan,

Actually, it's more than that - it's the site of The Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States.

Many years,

Neil