'Valid' and 'invalid'

[Robert Hegwood]

One of the concepts I run into here and other places has to do with the Orthodox reticence if not rejection of speaking about the Mysteries of the Church in terms of licitness...validity and invalidity, usually with some comment about how those are western concerns/catagories, etc. and are not appropriate to proper Orthodox theological understanding about ...whatever.

The thing is although I have a vague sense of what is being rejected here and why it is still not very clear.

What does it mean when we say we don't say the Holy Mysteries are valid or invalid. We don't seem to have a problem saying such and such communion doesn't have grace.

Maybe a kind wise soul out there can help me understand what I'm trying to think about here. It would help me follow some of the better and more interesting comments on the Mysteries and Liturgical life....things right now which can get a sense of from the converstaion but not really lock on to.

Any kind of clarificaiton would be helpful.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think more balance is needed in the way we speak of the sacramental life of the Church. What we often refer to in Orthodoxy is the fact that the whole life of the Church is sacramental and not restricted to the 7 sacraments.

But this does not mean the Church has not seen these particular sacraments as standing out and being supportive of the life of the Church in a special way. Certainly the Church does see the sacraments in this way.

Also validity does have an importance in the sense that for example the sacrament of the Eucharist to be valid must be celebrated by a priestly member of the clergy either bishop or priest and must be served in a blessed context- in a church on an altar that has antimins; or at least on antimins if there is no consecrated altar. Thus sacraments cannot be served by just anybody or anywhere.

Validity in Orthodoxy is closely tied to the specific ways in which the grace of the Church is imparted to its members. The Church is not just a 'spiritual place'; it is a living Body that we need to approach in obedience to its specific manners of mediation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

I think the issue here, the one that gives birth to the rest of the discussion, is the idea that a sacrament can be "valid" (that is grace-filled or effectual) but illicit (that is outside the order of the Church). This odd (to Orthodox) idea arises from the teaching of the Roman Church on the indelible mark of the priesthood - once a priest always a priest without regard for whether or not that person has been defrocked or even remains within the Church. Now I freely admit that I am not versed in Roman Catholic theology so the above is probably a gross simplification - however it is the common perception and hence what gives rise to the objection to the use of the terms licit/illicit and valid/invalid.

For the Orthodox, as Fr Raphael pointed out, valid/invalid certainly applies to Orthodox sacramental theology, however, the idea of licit/illicit has no place. Sacraments (or mysteries if you prefer) only exist within the Church. Thus a priest is only a priest as long as the grace of the priesthood is conferred upon him by the Church and as only as long as he remains in vital union and communion with the Church. Thus, if the Church withdraws the grace of the priesthood from a man - he is no longer a priest and cannot effect the sacraments (no matter how "correct" or "valid" he might get the external form). If a priest removes himself from vital union and communion with the Church (renouncing the Orthodox Faith and/or his lawful ecclesiasitcal authority) then he cannot effect the sacraments because the sacraments only exist within the Church, from which the former priest has excluded himself. Thus it is impossible to have a "valid" sacrament outside the Church (that which is "illicit").

You can see therefore why Orthodox often choose not to speak in terms of licit/illicit and valid/invalid when it comes to sacraments - because even to use those terms can easily lead to serious misunderstanding and error. But if we were to use those terms we could say that in the Orthodox Church only "licit" sacraments can be "valid" and that if it is "illicit" then it is by definition "invalid". It is not possible to have an "illicit" but "valid" sacrament.

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think part of the context that needs to be remembered in discussions like this (on the sacraments and 'validity', etc.) is that the life in Christ is above all a life of engagement: of living engagement with the living God, in a manner that transfigures a life marred by sin through the energies of the divine, and joins the life of the creature to the life of the creator. This is the context in which one can make the statement quoted by Fr Raphael above:


What we often refer to in Orthodoxy is the fact that the whole life of the Church is sacramental and not restricted to the 7 sacraments.

The mystery of engagement with the living God (chiefly a mystery of this God's engagement with us) is something that cannot be restricted to any specific acts or rites without in some sense defaming its reality in the whole of life. Either this mystery of encounter is present also in casual day-to-day conversations and the encounter with the world around us, or it does not matter that it is also present in the Eucharist or baptism. One voids the mystery of the mystery, to compartmentalise it in such a manner.

This is not, as both Fr Raphael and Fr David have noted in previous posts, to deny in any way that there are certain acts enshrined and received by the Church that are chief among the means of entering into this mystery of God's engagement with man and transfiguration of creation; but these chief rites have to be understood and approached within a sacramental context to the whole of existence, else their true value and meaning is belittled.

I raise these points in a discussion on the terminology of 'validity' and 'licitness', precisely because the application of these terms is often an outgrowth of an overt compartmentalisation of sacramental theology. The sacraments are certain, delimited acts, profoundly distinct from reality as experienced outside them, and thus must be carried out and performed in just such a way, meeting a strict set of criteria, in order to validate their uniqueness and separateness. One must be sure, Orthodoxy is precise and strict in how the sacraments of the Church are to be carried out, celebrated, lived -- but this not because they are understood as categorically unique from the remainder of lived existence, but because they are the chief living symbols and realities of the whole of existence as engagement with God, and thus must be performed with care and love.

I appreciate very much Fr David and Fr Raphael's words above on the contexts in which the idea of 'validly' celebrating the sacraments does have an authentic place in the Orthodox tradition. But I would just note, as an additional reflection on those comments, that even these situations are not cut-and-dry. Take the example given of the requirement that the Eucharist be served on a consecrated altar, or in lieu of an altar, on a table bearing an antimension, in order to be valid. This is a clear canon of the Church's liturgical practice. But as an example of what I mean, what if a priest were to serve a Liturgy on a table with an antimension that was found not to have the relics sewn into the back? Perhaps a facile hypothetical, but the question arises: is the Liturgy thus served 'invalid'?

One must approach even these strict regula on validity from the context of the whole life of engagement with God and God's engagement with man.

INXC, Matthew