www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Violence to the Sacraments

Priests may validly, but not licitly, absolve sins without faculties from the local bishop.
I would say that the Catholic position is that no Christian is ultimately "outside the Church", thus if a priest is validly but illicitly ordained he can do valid sacraments. Imperfect union does not mean lack of grace and the Church, as I have said elsewhere, is generous in her assessment of others' status, unlike many Orthodox, who really cannot even agree on who IS Orthodox.

PS: Are Scientology posters held together with Crazy Glue?

It would seem that one of the earliest writers from the Church has some pertinent words concerning this issue. St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans says:

"All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ
follows the Father, and the presbytery as
the apostles. Respect the deacons as the
command of God. Apart from the bishop no
one is to do anything pertaining to the
church. A valid Eucharist is to be defined
as one celebrated by the bishop or by a
representative of his. Wherever the bishop
appears, the whole congregation is to be
present, just as wherever Jesus Christ is,
there is the whole Church. It is not right
either to baptize or to celebrate the agape
apart from the bishop; but whatever he
approves is also pleasing to God - so that
everything you do may be secure and valid.
Furthermore, it is reasonable for us to
become sober while we still have time to
repent toward God. It is good to know God
and the bishop. He who honors the bishop
has been honored by God; he who does any-
thing without the bishop's knowledge wor-
ships the devil."

The above would seem to indicate that the priest's
power is derived from the bishop who is the repository of the full priestly power and it is only delegated by him to the priests to meet the needs of God's people. So this would raise a question concerning anything a priest may attempt to do apart from the bishop. I may be wrong, but it seems more straightfoward than arguments over any power a priest may have in and of himself.

Just my two cents from one crazy Irishman.

Terry

Latin Trad --

Okay....you started this post, so please don't be angry when I respond with what may be a question that is annoying to some.

Is the Novus Ordo Mass even VALID since they are using different form (words of consecration changed) and different matter (strange objects not related to paten)?

I am struggling with this since I go to Mass at a Latin parish from time to time. In short, if I am not receiving Jesus, why bother?

Perhaps you know of some good links to discussions on this issue.

Thanx.

Cordially in Christ through the Theotokos,

Brother Ed

Hmm - I thought I was just about coping with this - but Brother Ed you have now got me scratching my head and wondering Please could you explain what you meant here ?

Anhelyna

Brother Ed,
What are you taling about strange things not related to the paten? What does this have to do with matter and form?
All that is necessary for valid consecration from a Latin perspective is bread (either levened or unlevened) and wine and the words of insititution.
Stephanos I

The text of the Mass prior to the Novus Ordo has Take ye all and eat of this: for this is my body.

Take ye all, and drink of this: for this is the chalice of my bloeed of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.
Does this make the novus ordo invalid?
What do we say then about the words of consecration in the eastern church? Is that invalid?

Take eat, this is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins.
Drink of this, all of you t his is my blood fo the new testament which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.
Hardly.

Even the words of institution in the new testament vary.
Stephanos I

I am very, very busy right now, so I will be limiting my posting and replying.

2 things:

Daniel N: Priests need faculties to absolve validly. There is no such thing as valid-but-illicit absolution w/o faculties.

Altar Boy and Stephanos I:

As long as the words of consecration include "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood," you have valid form.

As long as unadulterated wheat bread and wine-from-grapes are used, you have valid matter.

Of course, leaven does not invalidate the Eucharist but is illicit in the West.

Altar Boy, there is no doubt whatsoever about the validity of the Novus Ordo. It is valid. The words of Institution are not changed or altered in a substantial manner.


LatinTrad

Dear Daniel,

Why do you insist on being obnoxious?

The Orthodox can indeed agree on who is Orthodox.

But I have found RC positions on other Churches to be confusing - even relativistic.

It matters not whether a priest or bishop has valid or invalid orders, ultimately.

That is a matter for him when he is ready to regain communion with the Catholic Church.

I wouldn't go to a separated Catholic priest or bishop for the sacraments. I wouldn't want to come under his influence, for one thing. And I wouldn't counsel other Catholics to seek out sacraments from such either.

You are being most offensive to the Orthodox Church here and I, for one, find it childish, impudent, disrespectful, triumphalistic and blasphemous on your part.

Either learn respect or else go to one of your traditional forums of Latin triumphalism where such comments are appreciated.

They aren't appreciated here.

Alex

Hello,

A suspended priest can still validly absolve if there is danger of death. The act may still be considered illicit.

And what if a priest absolves in a diocese which is not his own, without permission of the Bishop? Is that invalid? I don't think so, yet it is illicit.

So, what do you think about the Assyrian Anaphora that has been subject to a recent document from Rome in which its validity is firmly upheld by the Catholic Church, and yet it doesn't contain the Words of Institution at all?

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

Very good point!

For the Assyrian tradition, the Epiclesis is the consecratory formula - as it is in all other Eastern Churches.

The Words of Institution are part of an historical narrative, but the Transmutation occurs with the Epiclesis.

Alex

Regarding the Assrian-Roman agreement on the reception of sacraments this part caught my atention (lol)

When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the AssyrianChurch of the East.

is this statement to be considered seriously???

Hello, Mr. Rodriguez,

You are correct that priests without faculties can absolve in periculo mortis. This is NOT illicit.
All incardinated Catholic priests automatically have faculties worldwide, although this was not always the case.
There is no such thing as valid-but-illicit confession, except in genuine cases of ignorance of the priest's status on the part of the penitent, in which case the Church supplies the faculty.

Now, regarding the Assyrian anaphora, HERE is why it can be deemed valid:

"Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession."

For, "The Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer."

Shalom Alecheh,

LatinTrad

Moreover, the "Potifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity" does not appear to be an organ of the Magisterium. Anybody know about that? It really doesn't matter, I guess, because their argument for the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari rests on the "euchological" presence of the Institution narrative--the canons of Florence (which they cite!) are not (nor could they ever be) repudiated.

LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

Well, I've attended a few Assyrian Liturgies in my time and have studied their anaphora closely.

If the Words of Institution are interspersed there, I guess I'll take Rome's word for it!

Certainly, the Assyrian Church does allow for the Words of Institution to be placed into the anaphora - and does this when Chaldean faithful are present.

Our Basilian chapel here used to have Sunday Chaldean Liturgies, and the Chaldean priest almost always (so he tells me) had an Assyrian priest concelebrate with him.

(He used to get our Basilian Fathers riled when he told them that Nestorius was a Basilian too . . .; .

I don't think this is a big issue and when the Assyrians and Chaldeans are ready to unite, I'm sure the Assyrians won't mind having the Words of Institution permanently placed into the common anaphora.

Roman Catholic theologians still have a ways to go in coming to a fuller understanding of the Assyrian Church.

One RC writer once said the he believed that there is no problem with having Theodore of Mopsuestia remain in the calendar of a united Assyrian/Chaldean Church. But there was with Nestorius.

I simply had to contact him to share with him that it was Theodore, not Nestorius, who developed what we today know as "Nestorian Christology."

Alex

I have a friend from Iraq--a very-Catholic Chaldean--who told me that in his dialect of Arabic, the word for "Christian" is "Nestorian."

Interesting, ne c'est pas?

LatinTrad