Nullification of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus through Communicatio in sacris

Preface

The Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity↗, operated by the Vatican, authorized this addition to the Catholic Code of Canon Law (844.2) during the Second Vatican Council, which formed part of what is called the doctrine of Communicatio in sacris:

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

The statement of “in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.” has been universally interpreted to refer to the Eastern Orthodox churches, who practice the same seven sacraments (called mysteries in the east) as the Roman Catholic churches. This, of course, makes a lot of sense to most well-versed Christian scholars, as both Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox inherit over a thousand years of apostolic heritage and their associated holy traditions. And, of course, it makes a lot of sense that this is reserved only in exceptional circumstances, as it is always preferred to accept communion in one’s own church for the sake of community and unity; Thomas Aquinas, a highly influential Catholic theologian, had this to say about the nature of communion in his Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Question 73, Article 2↗:

On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:17↗): “For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread”: from which it is clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church’s unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament. Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament.

However, this doesn’t resolve the true question lying behind Communicatio in sacris: how is it that sacraments performed by another church - in this here case, the Orthodox church - are allowed in any capacity, even in exception? A Catholic may ask himself, “Aren’t sacraments most rightfully and verily executed by my church?” The recognition of the validity of other churches’ sacraments opens a very wide door, namely the ontological door of To which degree are both churches compatible? I will attempt to answer this question now.

First, the validity of intercommunion

The reason why the Catholic Code of Canon Law authorizes Catholics to receive sacraments from Orthodox churches is because they recognize that their sacraments are valid, owing to the one thousand year period of shared apostolic heritage, as briefly stated above.

The Orthodox church executes their sacraments with the same nature as the Catholic sacraments. While their forms may diverge because of the difference in rites and doctrine, the nature of the sacraments are ultimately the same; the outputs are equal, and therefore one who consumes communion generated through the divine liturgy of the Orthodox church is indeed consuming Christ’s body as one does through the mass of the Catholic church. This makes a big and bold statement: that doctrinal differences does not always impact the validity of Christian rites and their impact in one’s salvation.

To a degree, this is not a particularly bold observation. The Roman Catholic church has observed the validity of 23 Eastern Christian churches partaking in the Byzantine rite, which are in full communion with Rome, through the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches↗. However, Catholics may ignorantly state that this is because these churches share the same canons as the western Roman churches and therefore there isn’t any doctrinal difference. This is of course untrue, as the Code of Canons mentioned previously states that each sui iuris church can have its own canons layered on top of the code, but it can be reasonably said that their differences in doctrine are weaker than those between the Orthodox churches and the Catholic churches.

On the other hand, it is still impressive that the Catholics are willing to recognize the validity of another church’s sacraments. The Orthodox churches are of course not included in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (despite sharing the same Byzantine rite), but the Roman Canon Law recognizes that they are fully capable of executing the sacraments, even if they should only be considered in dire and exceptional circumstances.

The implications of this are even more impressive. The Roman Catholic catechism says this of the necessity and importance of the sacraments (Catechism Part 2, Section 1.1.2, Chapter IV↗):

The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. the Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. the fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

Therefore, with the Roman church recognizing the validity of certain non-Roman sacraments, and with the Roman church affirming that the sacraments provide salvation, it can be concluded that the Roman church states that salvation outside of the Roman church is possible, albeit inclusively in the Orthodox church if not in the Catholic church, as per the Catholic Code of Canon Law. This indeed nullifies the concept of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - no salvation outside the Church - or, at least, integrates the Orthodox church as part of its Ecclesiam.

Second, the sharing of the baptismal covenant

Canon 869.2 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law states the following:

Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

Canons 850 and 854 describes a valid baptism as one done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and involving the pouring of water on top of the baptized or the immersion of the baptized in water:

Baptism is administered according to the order prescribed in the approved liturgical books, except in case of urgent necessity when only those things required for the validity of the sacrament must be observed.

Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.

Because of this, Catholics do not re-baptize Christians who have received a baptism through the Trinitarian formula. Of course, this means all Orthodox baptisms are inherently valid, but it also means that Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and Methodist baptisms are valid too. Similarly, these other denominations also recognize each other’s baptisms, especially the Orthodox who put great stress on determining whether an earlier baptism was a valid one because a second baptism is seen by them as a grave forbidden matter.

So, how does this relate to the previous matter of Communicatio in sacris? When one reads and understands Communicatio in sacris as it is described in Canon Law, they initially assume that the only valid non-Catholic sacraments are those described in the canon: penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the sick. However, other canons also describe additional sacraments as valid despite coming from non-Catholic churches; we have just described the recognition of non-Catholic baptisms. Additionally, whereas Communicatio in sacris only realistically applies to Orthodox churches because of the validity of their sacraments, the Catholic church now extends this recognition to certain Protestant denominations through Canons 850, 854 and 869.2.

From these observations, the question stated in the preface becomes even more boiling and in need of an answer: To which degree are both churches compatible? The hitherto straightforward answer of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus seems to be invalid, so what even is the framework for determining the validity of one’s salvation across multiple churches?

Third, a proposal for a new framework of asserting salvation

Evidently, whether you can obtain salvation depends entirely on the observance of sacraments. Everything boils down to sacraments and their validity thereof. Therefore, I would argue that your salvation and the degree of which you can assert yourself as Christian depends entirely on your pursuit of the sacraments and on the method of their execution.

The sacraments are what makes you alive as a member of the Body of Christ, which is his church. One that does not partake in mandated sacraments (sacraments that become obligatory out of circumstance; baptism and the continuous intaking of the Eucharist is mandatory at all times, while marriage only becomes mandatory when you want to be with a partner), or partakes in altered (and therefore invalid) sacraments that does not follow the holy Apostolic tradition, is a dead member of the Body of Christ. The more mandated sacraments you partake in, the more alive you are as a Christian. The less mandated sacraments you partake in, the deader you are as a Christian. Whether you are saved is not a matter of the brand of Church you are in, but a matter of sacrament.

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox share the same forms of sacraments. While the rites (form) may have changed due to the evolution of distinct liturgies, their fundamental underlying methods (nature) haven’t, and therefore the outputs are the same as stated earlier. While Communicatio in sacris initially makes one think that the validity extends to only three sacraments, the recognition of non-Catholic baptisms testifies that it extends to more than just these three, and with the integration of 23 Eastern churches into the Roman church with their own canons, it is evidenced that it can be extended to all sacraments.

Therefore, I rest my case that being in the Eastern Orthodoxy or in the Roman Catholic Church does not impact your salvation, and you can rest easy that, at least for now, you are Christian and a member of the Body of Christ, which is his universal and invisible church, if you are in either denomination.

Four, the impact of diverging doctrine on the framework

The above framework for asserting one’s salvation opens a follow-up question, however: what is then the impact of diverging doctrine? Could someone infinitely subdivide either churches into countless denominations and have them retain their sacramental validity and therefore their granting of salvation? The answer simply involves their following of the sacraments, and the risks associated with their divergence in doctrine.

An example of risky doctrinal divergence

Let’s assume the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox. Orthodox Christians believe that the transfer of the metaphorical keys to heaven to Peter (whose office oversaw Rome, and the Bishop of Rome is the pope) in Matthew 16:19↗ has been exaggeratedly interpreted by the Roman Catholic church, so that the concept of papal primacy and papal infallibility becomes an invalid doctrinal divergence in their eyes.

Under the proposed framework, the overall concept of the papacy would not immediately put you out of the salvation, because the papacy has yet to be used to alter the sacraments. While Vatican II has altered the mass by the introduction of the Novus Ordo, it hasn’t altered the execution of sacraments nor their interpretation, so the Catholic church remains sacramentally valid and therefore capable of granting salvation.

However, the doctrine of the papacy does introduce risk because it asserts that the pope can never be wrong when he speaks ex officio (that is, when the pope speaks in his ecclesiastical capacity). If the pope were to use this infallibility to alter the sacraments, then he would make the entirety of the Roman Catholic church sacramentally invalid, with this invalidity progressing as more sacraments are altered. Thankfully, this has not happened, so the Catholic church remains sacramentally valid as stated earlier. However, the possibility of this arising from a doctrinal difference results in the papacy being a risky doctrinal divergence.

An example of safe doctrinal divergence

The Eastern Orthodox believe in a dichotomous God; a God of essences and energies, instead of a God of simply essence. Gregory Palamas, an Eastern Orthodox Christian scholar revered in the faith, said this of the essence-energy distinction in his Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts↗ (p. 75 and on):

Nonetheless, there is only one unoriginate essence, the essence of God; none of the powers that inhere in it is an essence, so that all necessarily and always are in the divine essence. To use an obscure image, they exist in the divine essence as do the powers of the senses in what is called the common spiritual sense of the soul. Here is the manifest, sure and recognised teaching of the Church! For just as there is only one single essence without beginning, the essence of God, and the essences other than it are seen to be of a created nature, and come to be through this sole unoriginate essence, the unique maker of essences—in the same way, there is only one single providential power without beginning, namely that of God whereas all other powers apart from it are of a created nature; and it is the same with all the other natural powers of God.

Western Christians have, on the other hand, no distinction between God’s essence and his energies. They believe that all of God is his essence, and that his essence is rational and graspable to us in the material. This is part of the reason why Roman Catholics put great emphasis on coming to an intellectual understanding and perception of God, attempting to explain in material and quasi-scientific terms, for instance, the workings of the Eucharist miracle, whereas Orthodox Christians simply chalk it up to an ungraspable, very irrational, yet very real and saving mystery; the mysteries of the Church, instead of sacraments, as Eastern Orthodox Christians prefer that term.

Indeed, the distinction between God’s essence and his energies is a doctrinal divergence, one that has historically received rejection by Roman Catholics as late as the 1900s (albeit receiving some contemporary reception). Ludwig Ott, a renowned Catholic theologian, argued that the lack of distinction between the attributes of God and God’s essence is a dogma of Roman Catholicism, and infringes upon the concept of divine simplicity, which states that God is simple (without parts), as per his work Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma (p. 28-29)↗:

The reason lies in the absolute simplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. With this they distinguished a higher and a lower, an invisible and a visible side of the Godhead. Holy Scripture indicates the identity of the Essence and the attributes of God, when it says : “God is charity” (John 4:8). St. Augustine teaches: “What God has, that He is”. Gilbert’s opponents summed up the ecclesiastical doctrine advanced against his error in the words attributed to St. Augustine: Quidquid in Deo est Deus est.

However, this divergence does not influence the execution of sacrament. It does not impact baptism, nor the Eucharist; the outputs are the same, as recognized by Roman Catholic churches. With the existence of the essence-energy distinction since the 13th century, dogmatically untouched since its development by Gregory Palamas, and with the way that it has not impacted the administration of sacraments (having simply impacted hesychasm, which is foreign to Western Christianity anyway and therefore out of scope), we can say that this doctrical divergence is a safe doctrinal divergence.

Doctrinal minimalism to avoid heresies

Equipped with this understanding of the contrast between safe doctrinal divergences (e.g. the God energy-essence distinction) and unsafe doctrinal divergences (e.g. papal infallibility), I conclude that the safest form of Christianity would be the one that suffers the least amount of unsafe doctrinal divergences. It is not necessarily the number of doctrinal divergences that impacts your salvation; as long they are not Gnostic in nature, does not infringe the scriptural commandments that forbids extending the faith with additional gospel, and does not impact the execution and interpretation of sacrament, your salvation is intact and you are a living member of the Body of Christ, which is his universal and invisible church.

Of course, whether something is a doctrinal divergence depends on your own view of Christianity. To the Orthodox, papal infallibility is doctrinal divergence; to the Roman Catholics, the essence-energy distinction is doctrinal divergence; to nontrinitarian Christians, calling Jesus “God” is doctrinal divergence. Everything written here assumes that you believe in the legitimacy of sacraments, of their inherent holiness, of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If you believe in this, then regardless of your views, you can still compute what constitutes an unsafe doctrinal divergence from a safe one. Then, after iterating through them, you can choose to follow the form of Christianity that has the least unsafe divergences.

Conclusion

In here lies the answer to the question “To which degree are both churches compatible?”: From the vantage point of salvation and being a member of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodoxy are sacramentally compatible, and partaking in each other’s liturgies or believing in either set of doctrines does not, at least currently, impact your standing as a Christian and your salvation.

Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and Methodist baptisms are valid because they follow a Trinitarian formula, and therefore you are a member of the Body of Christ if you have been baptized by these denominations, but your standing as a Christian and your salvation is harmed by the lack of proper administration of the Eucharist, which can only be resolved by conversion to Roman Catholicism or the Eastern Orthodoxy.

The differences between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodoxy does not currently impact your salvation and your standing as a Christian, but may in the future if an unsafe doctrinal divergence ends up altering the sacraments. To elect either denomination as your church is to make a choice as to the number of unsafe divergences you are willing to integrate as part of your faith. Do note that the Eastern Orthodoxy does not allow intercommunion with the Catholic church.

Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on us.