Talk:Valid but illicit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Duplicate article

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)

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)

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)