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