Validity of Non RC Sacraments

[cairaiii]

Does the RCC recognize the Sacraments of other denominations as being valid?

 

[BrRichSFO]

Does the RCC recognize the Sacraments of other denominations as being valid?

The Catholic Church in general accepts Baptism when performed with the right Matter (water), Form (words, including the Trinity), and Intent (to bring a person into union with Christ, the Church).

A Valid Marriage between two validly Baptized persons is always a Sacrament.

Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, require valid Holy Orders to the Priesthood.

Ordination and Confirmation require valid Holy Orders to the Episcopate.

 

[Metalingus]

The Catholic Church recognizes the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[MichaelNZ]

The Catholic Church recognizes the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

But we do not generally recognize Roman Catholic sacraments. Although if a Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy, some churches (mainly the Greek Churches) will not re-baptize him or her, but receive him or her by Chrismation.

 

[cairaiii]

What I would really like to know is, which Churches does the RCC consider to have a true Holy Eucharist?

 

[Metalingus]

The Catholic Church fully, and in no uncertain terms, recognizes the validity of ALL Eastern Orthodox Sacraments - including the Eucharist.

 

[BrRichSFO]

What I would really like to know is, which Churches does the RCC consider to have a true Holy Eucharist?

Most if not all Eastern Orthodox Churches. No Protestant communities have a valid Eucharist because if you read my original post, Holy Communion requires a valid Ordained priesthood. Which no Protestant community has.

 

[Amylisa8]

Yes, and protestant teaching is that it is not Christ's Body and Blood, but only a symbol. So they don't believe this anyway. I pray God pours out His Spirit in to the hearts of every Christian and shows them that He is Present in the Catholic Eucharist! It makes me sad for them to miss such a Precious Treasure.


Yeshua~~~my Beloved

 

[Kotton]

Yes, and protestant teaching is that it is not Christ's Body and Blood, but only a symbol. So they don't believe this anyway.

You can't make a blanket statement regarding Protestants, some believe in the Real Presence (Anglicans and Lutherans), some don't. There may be some others who believe, but I can't say who. Catholics believe since there is no valid ordination that all Protestant communion is only symbolic.

Kotton

 

[BrRichSFO]

You can't make a blanket statement regarding Protestants, some believe in the Real Presence (Anglicans and Lutherans), some don't. There may be some others who believe, but I can't say who. Catholics believe since there is no valid ordination that all Protestant communion is only symbolic.

Kotton

All Protestant communities do not have valid Holy Orders and so do not have a valid Eucharist. They may want to and individual members may falsely believe that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. But in reality all they receive is common bread and wine (or grape juice)

 

[copticorthodoxy]

I think that The Catholic Church recognizes the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church and The Oriental Orthodox Church

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yes, and protestant teaching is that it is not Christ's Body and Blood, but only a symbol. So they don't believe this anyway. I pray God pours out His Spirit in to the hearts of every Christian and shows them that He is Present in the Catholic Eucharist! It makes me sad for them to miss such a Precious Treasure.

You can't make a blanket statement regarding Protestants, some believe in the Real Presence (Anglicans and Lutherans), some don't. There may be some others who believe, but I can't say who.

Thanks for correcting. We Lutherans (who call ourselves Evangelical Catholics) do get a bit testy about being thrown in with the Protestant rabble.

Anyway, it is pretty much just Lutherans and Anglicans. John Calvin believed that the communicant truly and fully experienced Christ himself through the Spirit by entering the heavenly throne room (Scott Hahn points this out in The Lamb's Supper and it is looked at scholarly in Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper by Keith Mathison), though the elements themselves were not transubstantiated or sacramentally united (the Lutheran understading). Some Anglicans follow this understanding, though they also adhere to Lutheran sacramental union and Catholic transubstantiation; however, most who call themselves 'Calvinist' are really Zwinglians- and Ulrich Zwingli, heretic that he was, openly up the door to purely symbolic sacramentology (which, like many things, made Dr. Luther very angry).

Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, require valid Holy Orders to the Priesthood.

Catholics believe since there is no valid ordination that all Protestant communion is only symbolic.

All Protestant communities do not have valid Holy Orders and so do not have a valid Eucharist. They may want to and individual members may falsely believe that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. But in reality all they receive is common bread and wine (or grape juice)

Why? I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm just wondering (along with the OP, I suppose)- Why does Holy Communion require a valid priesthood, where Holy Baptism does not?

 

[Skripper]

Short answer:

Because of the seven sacraments, five require a valid priesthood (the Eucharist, Confession, Orders, Confirmation, Annointing of the sick/dying). Baptism and matrimony do not. Very simple.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Why? I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm just wondering (along with the OP, I suppose)- Why does Holy Communion require a valid priesthood, where Holy Baptism does not?

GCC,
I would recommend reading this primer to the Sacraments, from the Catholic Encyclopedia;

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[Amylisa8]

I had wondered if some Protestant denominations did believe in His Presence. I had noticed sometimes (I think at an Episcopal church) that on their sign out front, it would say Eucharist. Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't mean to sound like I was looking down on anyone. I'd been frustrated in the past that people in the churches I've been in were totally closed to the thought of Him actually being in the Eucharist.

Whether His Presence is there or not.(in a Protestant Communion)..this is something I struggled with for a long time. I don't really know. Once I knew about His Presence in the Bread and Wine, the first time after that when I took Communion at our Protestant church, I felt God's presence SO strongly.

Another time, in the same church, I was upset because the drink they served was something that honestly tasted like kool aid. It broke my heart because it seemed so irreverant. I sat there asking Jesus if I should take it or not. And I believe He spoke to my heart so clearly, "Take it. It is My Blood to you."

Not long after we wound up leaving that church. I still attend Protestant church with my husband and children, but I don't partake of Communion there. I LOVE going to Mass and receiving Christ in the Eucharist. It is worth everything to be there.

For awhile I believed regarding this issue, "As your faith, so be it unto you." And maybe this is true. But I think if He gives a person faith in His Presence, eventually He will call them into full Communion with the Catholic Church. I don't judge anyone who does not feel so called...this is just my own experience. Something I will be eternally grateful to Him for!



Yeshua~~~my Beloved

 

[BrRichSFO]

Thanks for correcting. We Lutherans (who call ourselves Evangelical Catholics) do get a bit testy about being thrown in with the Protestant rabble.

Anyway, it is pretty much just Lutherans and Anglicans. John Calvin believed that the communicant truly and fully experienced Christ himself through the Spirit by entering the heavenly throne room (Scott Hahn points this out in The Lamb's Supper and it is looked at scholarly in Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper by Keith Mathison), though the elements themselves were not transubstantiated or sacramentally united (the Lutheran understading). Some Anglicans follow this understanding, though they also adhere to Lutheran sacramental union and Catholic transubstantiation; however, most who call themselves 'Calvinist' are really Zwinglians- and Ulrich Zwingli, heretic that he was, openly up the door to purely symbolic sacramentology (which, like many things, made Dr. Luther very angry).







Why? I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm just wondering (along with the OP, I suppose)- Why does Holy Communion require a valid priesthood, where Holy Baptism does not?

The Catholic Church is who the Sacraments have been entrusted to by Christ. The reason why the Catholic Church would allow Baptism by anyone with the proper Form , Matter and Intent is that Baptism is necessary for Salvation. Reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for Salvation. The Eucharist requires valid Holy Orders in Apostolic Succession because it is the offering of a sacrifice. This is part of the problem with Anglican ordinations. In simple terms, the wording of ordination was changed so as to not include the offering of sacrifice. Sacraments require the proper Form, Matter, Intent, and a proper minister of the Sacrament.

Many members of non-Catholic Christian communities can be recognized as having a Spiritual Communion. The elements of bread and wine however are only symbolic in all of them. (not speaking of the Eastern or Oriental Church here)

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The reason why the Catholic Church would allow Baptism by anyone with the proper Form , Matter and Intent is that Baptism is necessary for Salvation. Reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for Salvation.

Thanks a lot. This is kind of what a figured.

I still don't understand, though, why the necessity of baptism for salvation would cause it to be efficacious despite the lack of an ordained priesthood. It this simple the Catholic Church defining God's mercy and grace where, without it, the salvation of Protestants would be in a grave situation? Not to disparage the attempt; I appreciate it, but it seems grounded in sentimentality, not Holy Writ or Holy Tradition.

Just trying to understand.

 

[BrRichSFO]

Thanks a lot. This is kind of what a figured.

I still don't understand, though, why the necessity of baptism for salvation would cause it to be efficacious despite the lack of an ordained priesthood. It this simple the Catholic Church defining God's mercy and grace where, without it, the salvation of Protestants would be in a grave situation? Not to disparage the attempt; I appreciate it, but it seems grounded in sentimentality, not Holy Writ or Holy Tradition.

Just trying to understand.

It is of great concern because the Church takes very seriously the words of Christ in John 3:5, "Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

 

[Rising_Suns]

but it seems grounded in sentimentality, not Holy Writ or Holy Tradition.

This cannot be further from the case. The practice of priests being the exclusive ministers of Holy Communion compared to the broader provisions for Baptism, is indeed steeped in both Tradition and Scripture.

5) The Minister of the Eucharist

The Eucharist being a permanent sacrament, and the confection (confectio) and the reception (susceptio) thereof being separated from each other by an interval of time, the minister may be and in fact is twofold: (a) the minister of consecration and (b) the minister of administration.
(a) The minister of consecration

In the early Christian Era the Peputians, Collyridians, and Montanists attributed priestly powers even to women (cf. Epiphanius, De hær., xlix, 79); and in the Middle Ages the Albigenses and Waldenses ascribed the power to consecrate to every layman of upright disposition. Against these errors the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teaching, that "no one but the priest [sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, has the power of consecrating this sacrament". Rejecting the hierarchical distinction between the priesthood and the laity, Luther later on declared, in accord with his idea of a "universal priesthood" (cf. 1 Peter 2:5), that every layman was qualified, as the appointed representative of the faithful, to consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Council of Trent opposed this teaching of Luther, and not only confirmed anew the existence of a "special priesthood" (Sess. XXIII, can. i), but authoritatively declared that "Christ ordained the Apostles true priests and commanded them as well as other priests to offer His Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (Sess. XXII, can. ii). By this decision it was also declared that the power of consecrating and that of offering the Holy Sacrifice are identical. Both ideas are mutually reciprocal. To the category of "priests" (sacerdos, iereus) belong, according to the teaching of the Church, only bishops and priests; deacons, subdeacons, and those in minor orders are excluded from this dignity.
Scripturally considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of validly consecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of the laity, but exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood; hence the latter alone can validly consecrate. It is evident that tradition has understood the mandate of Christ in this sense and in no other. We learn from the writings of Justin, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, as well as from the most ancient Liturgies, that it was always the bishops and priests, and they alone, who appeared as the property constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, and that the deacons merely acted as assistants in these functions, while the faithful participated passively therein. When in the fourth century the abuse crept in of priests receiving Holy Communion at the hands of deacons, the First Council of Nicæa (325) issued a strict prohibition to the effect, that "they who offer the Holy Sacrifice shall not receive the Body of the Lord from the hands of those who have no such power of offering", because such a practice is contrary to "rule and custom". The sect of the Luciferians was founded by an apostate deacon named Hilary, and possessed neither bishops nor priests; wherefore St. Jerome concluded (Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. 21), that for want of celebrants they no longer retained the Eucharist. It is clear that the Church has always denied the laity the power to consecrate. When the Arians accused St. Athanasius (d. 373) of sacrilege, because supposedly at his bidding the consecrated Chalice had been destroyed during the Mass which was being celebrated by a certain Ischares, they had to withdraw their charges as wholly untenable when it was proved that Ischares had been invalidly ordained by a pseudo-bishop named Colluthos and, therefore, could neither validly consecrate nor offer the Holy Sacrifice.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

 

[Rising_Suns]

And for Baptism;

The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is first the bishop and second the priest. By delegation, a deacon may confer the sacrament solemnly as an extraordinary minister. Bishops are said to be ordinary ministers because they are the successors of the Apostles who received directly the Divine command: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Priests are also ordinary ministers because by their office and sacred orders they are pastors of souls and administrators of the sacraments, and hence the Florentine decree declares: "The minister of this Sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to administer baptism by reason of his office." As, however, bishops are superior to priests by the Divine law, the solemn administration of this sacrament was at one time reserved to the bishops, and a priest never administered this sacrament in the presence of a bishop unless commanded to do so, How ancient this discipline was, may be seen from Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii): "The right to confer baptism belongs to the chief priest who is the bishop, then to priests and deacons, but not without the authorization of the bishop." Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyr., viii): "It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop." St. Jerome (Contra Lucif., ix) witnesses to the same usage in his days: "Without chrism and the command of the bishop, neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism." Deacons are only extraordinary ministers of solemn baptism, as by their office they are assistants to the priestly order. St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccl, Off., ii, 25) says: "It is plain that baptism is to be conferred by priests only, and it is not lawful even for deacons to administer it without permission of the bishop or priest." That deacons were, however, ministers of this sacrament by delegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service of ordination of a deacon, the bishop says to the candidate: "It behooves a deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize and to preach." Philip the deacon is mentioned in the Bible (Acts 8) as conferring baptism, presumably by delegation of the Apostles. It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: The legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place." The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: "Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese." St. Alphonsus (n. 114) says that parents who bring their children for baptism without necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin because they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any church they choose.

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew. The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament. The Roman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases of necessity, there is an order of preference to be followed as to the minister. This order is: if a priest be present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless modesty should require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than the female be the minister, or again, unless the female should understand better the method of baptizing. The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer the sacrament. Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such private baptism is administered, the other ceremonies of the rite are supplied later by a priest, if the recipient of the sacrament survives. This right of any person whatsoever to baptize in case of necessity is in accord with the constant tradition and practice of the Church. Tertullian (De Bapt., vii) says, speaking of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: "He will be guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely can," St. Jerome (Adv. Lucif., ix): "In case of necessity, we know that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a person receives, so may he give," The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees: "The Sacrament of Baptism . . . no matter by whom conferred is available to salvation, " St. Isidore of Seville (can. Romanus de cons., iv) declares: "The Spirit of God administers the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who does the baptizing," Pope Nicholas I teaches the Bulgarians (Resp, 104) that baptism by a Jew or a pagan is valid. Owing to the fact that women are barred from enjoying any species of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the question necessarily arose concerning their ability to bestow valid baptism, Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii) strongly opposes the administration of this sacrament by women, but he does not declare it void. In like manner, St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix) says of females: "Not even the power of baptizing has been granted to them", but he is speaking of solemn baptism, which is a function of the priesthood. Similar expressions may be found in the writings of other Fathers, but only when they are opposing the grotesque doctrine of some heretics, like the Marcionites, Pepuzians, and Cataphrygians, who wished to make Christian priestesses of women. The authoritative decision of the Church, however, is plain. Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes, "It is true baptism if a woman in case of necessity baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity." The Florentine decree for the Armenians says explicitly: "In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay even a pagan or heretic may confer baptism." The main reason for this extension of power as to the administration of baptism is of course that the Church has understood from the beginning that this was the will of Christ. St. Thomas (III:62:3) says that owing to the absolute necessity of baptism for the salvation of souls, it is in accordance with the mercy of God, who wishes all to be saved, that the means of obtaining this sacrament should be put, as far as possible, within the reach of all; and as for that reason the matter of the sacrament was made of common water, which can most easily be had, so in like manner it was only proper that every man should be made its minister. Finally, it is to be noted that, by the law of the Church, the person administering baptism, even in cases of necessity, contracts a spiritual relationship with the child and its parents. This relationship constitutes an impediment that would make a subsequent marriage with any of them null and void unless a dispensation were obtained beforehand. See AFFINITY.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XIII