Talk:Validity and liceity (Catholic Church)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duplicate article[edit]

Please see the history of Valid but unlawful, which is now a redirect to Valid but illicit. If anything in the history of that article is considered appropriate, please add it to this one. (Or I might do it later, if nobody beats me to it!) AnnH ♫ 14:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been better to move Valid but unlawful here as it had a longer history. Anyway, I've merged the text and removed a few curiosities. (Eg, reference to "bishops or cardinals" ordaining/consecrating - which they cannot do unless they are bishops, so why not just say bishops?) Changed spelling from ilicit to illicit. Also the Valid but unlawful article said that using yeast in the Eucharist was illicit by "Catholic law". It's not illicit in the Eastern Catholic Churches, so I limited it to the Roman Rite.
Yes, I put in the bit about the yeast. I had forgotten about Eastern Catholic Churches, so thanks for fixing that. I'll find a source for the claim about yeast bread being valid but unlawful in the Roman Rite in the next few days (although it's evident that it's unlawful since Church law says it must be wheat flour and water ONLY (so yeast would be unlawful), yet Eastern Catholics are in union with the Pope, and the Church recognizes the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist as valid (so leavened bread has to be valid matter). Anyway, I think it's in one or more of Father Stravinskas's books. Also, I think, Halligan, and a few others. Will go and hunt for them. AnnH ♫ 15:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I just didn't know if it was really illicit to use in the Roman rite. Gimmetrow 16:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Rewrite[edit]

It's been a while since this article had been updated so I thought I'd take a shot at a rewrite. I cleaned up the stuff that couldn't be validated and added new references. I know the concept of valid but illicit is mentioned in other articles so I'll try to link them here when I get a chance. I tried to maintain most of what was original to the article, but with fixed grammar and readability. I hope I didn't step on any toes with this reorganization. Kjnelan (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV dispute[edit]

I need a source for the assertion that Catholics consider non-Catholic baptisms to be valid but illicit. Also, does the balance of the weight of the sources support this assertion? 68.55.112.31 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true for some denominations, but definitely not for others. The assertion is too broad to stand without a good source. See extended discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 26#Taking communion at different churches? --BDD (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Valid but illicit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is validity?[edit]

This topic may be more complex than it seems. Some manners of celebrating sacraments, like Reconciliation, were considered valid at some point in Christian history, but are declared invalid by Canon Law today. What then does validity mean: in the eyes of God, of the Catholic Church, for the benefit of the recipient of the sacrament? The answer may be that God's grace is not limited to sacraments administered according to the Church's rules, but we cannot claim to be administering the Catholic Church's sacraments today unless we do it according to rites declared valid by the Catholic church today. And as loyal members of the church we should abide by her determinations. Jzsj (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liceity[edit]

A few words describing liceity might help to clarify the meaning of the phrase.

The Catholic dictionary at CatholicCulture.org[1] defines the word as:

"The legitimacy of a human action and its consequences, e.g., administration of a sacrament or a contract. It is commonly distinguished from validity, since an action may be valid but not licit, as a layman conferring baptism without urgent necessity. (Etym. Latin licentia, license, freedom to act.)"

Phersh (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Phersh: I revamped the article so that it now contains what you suggested. I had not seen your comment when I made my edits, so it looks like we both had roughly the same idea. Veverve (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dictionary : LICEITY". www.catholicculture.org. Retrieved 2018-08-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Validity_and_liceity_(Catholic_Church)&oldid=1211948737"