www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Question about excommunicated priest situation in Prayer forum

Regarding the article posted in the prayer forum:

Excuse my ignorance here, but why are some sacraments valid and others not? I thought a sacrament was a sacrament was a sacrament?

Marriage, Chrismation and Reconciliation are invalid yet Baptism, Eucharist and Anointing are valid but illicit. In addition, how can the reception of the Eucharist be 'valid but illicit'?
How do we 'draw a dividing line' re the different sacraments?
Can someone please explain?
Thank you.
Sam

They are valid but illicit. A sacrament doesn't become invalid just because a priest lacks jurisdiction.

Logos Teen

Are you sure Logos Teen? Marriage may or may not be valid depending on the jurisdictional status of a priest. For example, a SSPX priest is a "valid" priest, but since he lacks faculties the "marriage" he performs would be invalid for a Catholic.

Sam:

From my limited knowledge of the differences between validity and licitness, let me offer a little insight. I stand ready to be corrected and/or supplemented by those here with formal theological educations.

This distinction derives fromt the Latin understanding of Holy Orders, which has been contrasted here in the forum with the Eastern understanding by Neal.

Basically, a priest has an indelible character imprinted on his soul at ordination. That character cannot be taken away. That character enables him to do certain sacramental things, whether he has "faculties"--formal permission and delegation from his bishop--or not. Among the things he may do are celebrate the Liturgy, baptize, or anoint someone. Even when a priest is stripped of the clerical state and returned to the lay state, he may still do some of these things in an emergency: baptize and anoint. He may also celebrate the Liturgy, even though he committs serious sin by doing so. In other words, he may nourish someone else but condemns himself for his disobedience in doing that for which he has no permission.

In the Latin Church, it is understood that anyone may baptize when there is an emergency or someone is in danger of death and there is a request. The person baptized, if he lives, may have the rest of the ceremonies supplied in Church later, but the actual invocation of the Holy Trinity and the pouring or immersion is not ever repeated. So valid, but illicit since he pretends to witness in the Name of the Church which he does not have authority to do. It might be a different matter if he baptized in an emergency but did not hold himself out to be a priest doing so in the Name of the Church.

The anointing follows from our previous understanding of this Mystery as being "Extreme Unction" or final anointing--something done in an emergency such as a former priest coming on someone in an auto accident and performing the anointing. I don't know how this relates to our renewed understanding that sees this Mystery related to the Mystery of confession which is mentioned as being invalid. Going through a hospital and anointing the sick not in danger of death might be a different matter.

So valid means that a sacrament does for the one receiving it what it signifies, even when the one performing the sacrament is doing so illegally--outside the permission of his bishop.

Marriage, Reconciliation, and Chrismation are not Mysteries/Sacraments that are ever emergency situations. (Although I understand that a defrocked priest might give final absolution to someone such as in the auto accident situation mentioned above.) They have more of the character of things that absolutely need the priest to have faculties from his bishop: the delegation to stand in the bishop's stead. So a priest without faculties can't go through a hospital hearing confessions and giving absolution; nor can he decide to simply hear his family's confessions whenever he wishes. Chrismation or confirmation is already restricted even when a priest is in good standing in the Latin Church. It is usually restricted to the Easter Vigil when adults are received into the Church. Ordinarily, young people receive it from the hand of the bishop.

These three, then, require a delegation of authority from the bishop of the diocese or eparchy. They become invalid--not having the effect that they are to have--when the priest has no faculties to perform them.

As for the Liturgy, there is really no emergency that would necessitate it being celebrated or served. But the Lord is still made present for the faithful and they receive Him even when the status of the priest is in question. He may commit sin, but they, if they are not aware of his being without permission to celebrate, receive and are nourished by the Lord's Body and Blood.

Father Deacons, help me out here, please.

From what I have learned of the Eastern Church's approach, once a priest has no authority from his bishop he simply can do nothing since the Mysteries are a function of the Church and a priest must be under the omophorion of his bishop to do any of these acts.

Father Anthony, help me out here, please.

In Christ,

BOB

OK Bob,

As far as your reference to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, you are absolutely correct. A priest has no sacramental authority, unless in good standing under the omophorion of his bishop. Otherwise outside of baptism in an emergency situation (in danger of death), all other sacraments are void.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father,

How does this affect those who are not (re)Chrismated or (re)Married when entering into the Orthodox Church from another (Eastern or Latin Catholic, or even protestant)? Since the priest that Chrismated or Married is not under the omniphoron of an Orthodox hierarch, what is the status of these rituals (sacraments?)?

Here's a link to Canon Lawyer Ed Peter's blog blog.canonlaw.info if you want a canon lawyer's perspective on the issue.

It is possible for a situation to arise (usually in the context of a severe persecution) when it becomes proper for a laicized or suspended priest to celebrate the Eucharist - this happened, for example, during the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico in the early twentieth century, and during the persecution of virtually all forms of religion in the USSR. In these unusual circumstances, the Church supplies the priest with jurisdiction.

Chrismation? Hmmm. One would need to do some checking. If the laicized or suspended priest used Holy Myron from a Bishop, there might be a presumption in favor of validity of the Chrismation. This happened not infrequently during all the chaos of the Eastern Churches in the USA and Canada in the earlier decades of the twentieth century.

Incognitus

Dear Michael,

For the Orthodox, that would have to involve a case by case decision from the hierarch. Depending on the hierarch would mean a differenence in the answer depending on the advice from his canon lawyer or advisor. I wish I could be more specific, but that would be the best I can give.

Have a blessed Nativity.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Regarding the specific priest and parish in question:

Seems to me that the first move for both the parish and the priest is an immediate appeal to Rome. John Paul II is no longer Pope, so one cannot rely on a favorable answer to a Polish parish and priest, but it's still worth a try.

If that doesn't work, there are three possible alternatives:

a) somehow come to an agreement with the local Archdiocese;

b) make an arrangement with the Polish National Catholic Church; or

c) make an arrangement with the Society of Saint Pius X or some similar group.

Since the Archdiocese is unlikely to back down, the PNCC option is probably more realistic. It is not unlikely that in the foreseeable future the PNCC will be reconciled to Rome, whereupon the priest and parish will find themselves in a quite comfortable position.

In any event, attempting to continue as a parish without any bishop is not a viable long-term solution.

Incognitus

Bob,
I appreciate your taking the time to offer such a clear explanation. I can say I now understand! Never too old to learn.
Thanks,
Sam

Sam:

I hestitated at first to take this one on because the priest who first explained it to me did so some 35+ years ago. I thought I might be a little rusty. I had had some time pass, too, since an Orthodox priest explained this to me from the approach of the Orthodox Church.

Rome's approach to ordination and what it allows and the Orthodox Church's approach are different and come to these different conclusions in actual practice. This is why I have come to the conclusion that we need to apply BOTH approaches when we finally come together. By doing so, we'd eliminate many of the problems we have with splinter groups and determining who does and who does not have orders and from them valid, licit sacraments/mysteries.

Christ is Born!!! Glorify Him!!!

BOB

Dear Theophan - your suggestion certainly has merit, but trying to apply both systems simultaneously could be a bit problematic.

Incognitus

Just a thought.

Christ is Born!!! Glorify Him!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

BOB

Wouldn't it be nice? Perhaps we can work a little harder at our reconciliation attempts in the new year.
Sam

1500 in attendance yesterday...
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2005/12/26/news/00lead.txt

That about says it all. Forget sterile art, architecture, music, etc. This mentality epitomizes the terrible effect of the dominant Protestant culture on the Catholic Church in America.

How can a bishop who is just a mortal man condemn people like this? Since when is an administrative matter a reason for condemning beelievers to hell? What's next - mutual excommunications? These believers need the intervention of a leader of the church in Poland or the Polish National Church.

The Bishop is not making an arbitrary judgment, as you really ought to know. He is just making clear, as he should, that the people who are engaging in these actions, are making themselves, by their own acts, liable to judgment.

...

Bergschlawiner,

It is heartening to hear an American bishop speak about the reality of mortal sin as a blanket penalty, what with the subjectivity that has run rampant in moral theology, especially in the American episcopacy.

That said, one may disagree with Archbishop +Burke about the prudence of his decision, but in the end a faithful Catholic owes allegiance to his bishop in matters such as these.

Logos Teen

Bergschlawiner,

You ask, "How can a bishop who is just a mortal man condemn people like this?"

By the power of the Keys given to St. Peter and to the other Apostles who pass their authority to the members of the College of Bishops up to the present day.

You also ask, "Since when is an administrative matter a reason for condemning beelievers (sic) to hell?"

The Catholic Catechism gives us the answer in Paragraph 1549: "Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops . . . the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers."

Paragraph 1550: This presence of Christ . . . does not guarantee all acts of ministers . . . (but) extends to the sacraments . . .

The actions of the people in this parish are NOT administrative, but directly go to the whole reason that the Church exists: to make present the Saving Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, His Glorious Resurrection, and anticipated His Second Coming. The Liturgy which they try to serve in schism from the lawful authority of the bishop of the diocese places them in spiritual danger. It is the bishop's obligation to call their attention to what they have already done themselves.

Beyond that, there is no authority that they can appeal to outside their own diocese except to the Holy Father. And it seems from the story that Rome has already told them to make their situation what canon law demands in relation to their particular bishop. No other bishop in the world has a right to go to the Archbishop and demand or ask him to do anything outside canon law and I'm sure that there are none that would do so.

The Polish National Catholic Church cannot intervene either. They have no standing to do so.

Times change and the special situation which they enjoyed is no longer something that fits into the Catholic Church's canon law. Nothing is engraved in stone except the Gospel and the authority Christ has given His Church.

In Christ,

BOB

I am glad I do not live in the diocese of St Louis. because if I did, I would be excommunicated.
This brings back all of the memories of the founding of the Polish National Catholic Church, in the USA.
Actually I thougth that according to the pleanary council of Baltimore Md, I think the year was 1919. that ethnic parishes founded before a certain year (sorry I forget the year) could only be desolved from Rome. After that year. the parish could be desolved by the Bishop.

TP:

Christ is Born!!! Glorify Him!!!

I think the new Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church takes care of that past situation and anything else that went on before. What I am seeing here from the posts--and I have no first-hand info here--is that Rome has told the parish council to get into line with the new Code and their bishop. It seems that whatever they were told in the past (or think that their ancestors were told) no longer applies.

So they essentially have a choice: do you want to be part of the Catholic Church or not? If so, the new situation does not include what you have had before; if not . . .

In any event, the bishop of the diocese sends a priest to stand in his place. No parish has the right or authority to hire its own priest. so even if the property issue were not there, they're over the line with trying to hire their own priest.

On a related note, this sounds similar to the closings of Byzantine Catholic parishes. What does the Eastern Code of Canon Law say about property? If the situation is the same--that the bishop has an absolute right to hold and control the opening and closing of parishes--there is no real way to get around the closing of a parish. It occured to me that the suggestion that I made earlier on another thread about forming a corporation to raise, hold, and control funds outside the parish might not fly either. Don't want to get anyone excommunicated by taking my advice and following through with such a scheme.

In Christ,

BOB

Hi,

I am trying to understand the issue here.

1. The pastoral council of a pastor-less parish decides to bypass their Archbishop and get themselves a pastor.

2. They do this in a building which is legally the property of the Archbishop.

3. The pastor they "hire" was not incardindated to their Archdiocese, but rather, they "hijack" a priest from another diocese and this priest willingly leaves his post, without permission of either hierarch, starts functioning as pastor of this parish.

Are these the facts?

If so, what is the question, then? Isn't it OBVIOUS we have a case of schism here?

And yes, the church was packed for Christmas services, but how many of those people were there truly to celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord, and how many were there just to witness the local freak show?

Really? Schism as entertainment? Really?

And people really want this NOT to be considered a mortal sin?

Come on! Get real!

Shalom,
Memo

Don't worry Bob...As much as I liked your suggestion on the other thread I knew it wouldn't fly.

I think both the Latin Code and the CCEO are at one on this score: the Bishop/Eparch has the paramount authority in his Diocese/Eparchy, including the assignment of parish priests and the disposition/preservation of Church properties.

Even the parish priest has only management prerogatives over Church properties, which is delegated by the Bishop/Eparch. The attributes of ownership remain in, and are exercised only by, the Bishop/Eparch.

Lay parish councils or parish boards exist as advisory panels and do not share in the attributes of ownership.

I could be wrong though and I will stand corrected by our canon lawyers.

Amado

When I was in St. Louis last year this whole saga was beginning to come to a head. Apparently the church and property belong solely to a corporate board run by the laity of the parish. The archdiocese does not provide any funds, nor have archdiocesan funds been used to buy the land around the original church, or the $2.5 million building adjacent to the church.

The archdiocese is insistent that the property be turned over from the corporate board to the archdiocese. When the board refused, the archbishop transferred the pastor and did not assign a new one.

Clearly the parishioners of this church have crossed the line in hiring their own priest from another diocese. But, by the same token, I can see their objection to having raised millions of dollars for the upkeep and growth of the physical plant only to have the archdiocese insist that the assets be turned over, especially since the request came at a time when many of the parishes in the city were being closed.

I had sympathy for the members of the parish. I saw it as little different than extortion. The situation seemed little different than a scenario in which the bishop would ask each parishioner for a percentage of their individual bank accounts to a diocesan fundraising effort "... or else". But now that they have gone and hired their own outside priests....

Bah to both of them.

-- Ed

PS I wonder what would have ensued if the parish board, convinced that they were going to lose their church in any case, had sold it to the highest bidder and donated the proceeds to charity.

The priest has fled to Poland.

People might like to read the documents here [archstl.org] , to find out what accomodations have been made by the archdiocese, how the appeals to Rome have been answered, how the authority of the board was recently changed, and a variety of other interesting facts.

DJS,

Definitely some interesting reading here. Like Theophan, I was under the assumption that lay ownership of church propertieds was counter to canon law.

The documents give an interesting read, and in documents some from the parishioners that are faithful to the archdiocese they make it clear that their appeals would never see the light of the secular press. Imagine that, the secular press in our country having an anti-church bias .

Christ is born!

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

DJS:

Thank you for the linked documentary resources!

They affirm our perception of the respective roles of the diocese and of the parish.

The prospective amendments of the By-laws to conform to the interests of the lay Parish Board were against the pre-existing provisions of their By-laws, against the provisions of secular Corporation laws (of the State of Missouri), and against the Code of Canons.

Every act done thereafter by the Board was unlawful and, therefore, null and void.

Amado

That's the easy part. But our being played by it, now that boggles the imagination.

Here's what I don't understand. Archbishop Burke's objective was for St. Stanislaus to come into conformity with canon law, right? Well then, once they had declined to turn over their assets, why didn't he simply change their status so they would no longer be a parish ("St. Stanislaus Kostka Association" perhaps?) and then inform them that they could only become a parish again if they conformed to the law?

Then, there shouldn�t have been any need for an interdict, since there would no longer be any violation of church law.

-Peter.

Seems like an engraved ibvitation to join the PNCC to me.

Sounds like the LAW is being confused with the FAITH - isin't this just what Jesus faced in the Sanhedron with the scribes and pharasees?

Hardly. :rolleyes:
The facts of the situation in the documentation is pretty clear. The Archbishop exhibited flexibility in his guarantees to earmark the assets of the parish for the Polish Catholic community. But that ultimately he could not allow the board, rather than his priest, to be the governor of the parish - an innovation that was undertaken only recently by unilateral action of the board in violation of the early charter of the church. This pattern of governance led to some clear abuses - such as the board's deciding, over the priest's opposition, to sell liquor during the coffee hours after services. Not to mention their hiring an interesting, suspended priest.

There was no aspect of faith being defended by the parish. None. So the comparison to Christ before the Sanhendrin is particularly outrageous. The directors had clearly stepped out of bounds. No Bishop - Catholic or Orthodox - would accept such an arrangement.

Has anyone heard any new developements in this story in the past couple weeks?

Latest official statement of St. Louis Archdiocese re suppression of parish, considered in schism, made public on 06 Janauary 2006 can be accessed here [archstl.org]

Amado