Baptism, Eucharist questions

Jonathan95

Veteran
Sep 13, 2011
2,132
78
28
Sweden
✟19,477.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi, I was baptized in 2011 by a Salvation Army officer. But the "office of worship" doesn't recognize the baptism of Salvation Army as valid (Soure).
But since the Salvation Army headquarters state they don't have baptismal service, yet I was baptized by one who believes in the necessity of baptism, is it still valid? Is the "office of worship" something that is ex cathedra, infallible?

Otherwise I'd have to be rebaptized if I become a Catholic?

Also, I have a question regarding salvation and Eucharist. Since Catholic doctrine states that salvation outside the Catholic church is possible, but yet also affirm (as well as the Bible) that Eucharist is required for salvation. As I understand it, only the Eucharist in Orthodox and Catholic churches are valid? Since I haven't participated in Eucharist in neither of these churches, and since Eucharist is required for salvation, and is only valid in these churches, wouldn't that mean that I'm not saved?

I also wonder what would happen to people who die without the knowledge (i.e. because they don't have any access to a Bible) that water baptism and/or Eucharist are required for their salvation (for example people who come to faith in a place and/or state where they have no access to these sacraments), and thus die without an implicit desire of baptism (The Catechism of St. Pius X, the answer to the 29th Q.), can they still be saved then?

Regarding Eucharist:

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 "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 nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

I read this: "Note that it says "for believers" not for non-believers. Non-believers may be saved by employing the graces God gave them outside of the sacraments because God is not bound by the sacraments, but for we who know what God requires of us, they are. So, for believers the Eucharist is necessary. However, personally receiving the Eucharist is only required once a year. Since the priest must receive in order for the sacrament to be valid, and the priest stands in for the Church, of which all the baptized are members (if imperfectly, as in the case of our Protestant brethren), the command of Christ, that we eat and drink his body and blood is fulfilled every day."

Non-believers in this case refer to non-Catholics according to this person. But does it mean "non-Catholics" as in "non-Christians (muslims etc)" or "non-Catholics" viz. protestants?

If it's the third interpretation, and his comment is true (viz. if it lines up with official Catholic doctrine), it would mean I can still be saved without directly (as opposed to indirectly, which he describes above when talking about the priest standing in for the Church) partaking in Eucharist in a Catholic or Orthodox church?

The thing is, that I do believe in the Catholic view of the Eucharist and I have a desire to partake in it.
 

WisdomTree

Philosopher
Feb 2, 2012
4,016
170
Lincoln
✟15,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hello and welcome to OBOB!

Regarding baptism, a correct way for the sacrament of baptism to be conducted is by a priest with his authority based on his bishop who has apostolic authority. However, there are exceptions in that anyone (I mean anyone), so long as they intend to according to the Church, can baptise someone in the Trinitarian formula. Though illicit (illegal), the result is totally valid.

You're going to have to explain by what you mean on "office of worship" for me to explain properly.

Saying that the Holy Eucharist is necessary for salvation is akin to work-based salvation which is against Church teachings. We are saved by divine grace, where the Lord allows us to co-operate with his divine providence (hence the sacraments). As such partaking of the Holy Communion is not because of salvation, but rather following his command as well as experiencing the sacrifice our Lord has offered, personally i.e. it aids us in our journey of salvation.

Regarding salvation outside the Church, the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus still stand; there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this does not mean that one has to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and pray Hail Mary seven hundred times to be saved, but rather the intention of this doctrine is to state that since the Church is the body of Christ and Christ said that "I am the way and the truth of the life", it is understood that all who are saved can only be saved through him. In other words, it is impossible to be saved by Buddha for example. As such, people who are said can be said that although they were not the visible member of the Holy Catholic Church, they were part of it as they gained salvation through it.

All in all, I can say that most will be rather "agnostic" in terms of whether one is actually saved or not as it is not the human eyes that judge, but rather God who sees the heart and soul.

Hope this helps. The more seasoned member of this forum should come around at some point and give you a more definite answer.
 
Upvote 0

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Catholic Church's views on salvation are IMO fairly complex, so it's sort of a waste of time to try and figure out if you are saved based on their teachings. I can't figure out if I'm saved based on their teachings being confessional Lutheran in belief, however my best guess from what I've read is that I'm not.

But I would advise you strongly to get out of the Salvation Army. They do good works and I'm not questioning that.

However their views on the sacraments are borderline anti-Christian. Despite the fact that you did have a person baptize you, you are in a "church" that essentially believes either that there is no baptism or that baptism is not important.

Because of this as a Lutheran I question if their teachings do not lead many to hell. It's one thing to die without having any opportunity to be baptized. But to die without being baptized just because your "church" does not do that sort of thing, I am not sure one can be saved in that condition. Being baptized is one of the most clear commands Jesus ever gives, and clearly one of the most easy to accomplish. Those who love Jesus will try to follow his commands. But your so called church tells the people who join it that they need not be baptized.

I certainly would not want to be associated with a organization that endangers the salvation of so many by telling them to forgo baptism.

I would of course be remiss if I did not recommend checking out the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. However I will also say from our own doctrines and teachings your salvation is far more secure following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church then it is in the SA.

Under Lutheran teachings they arn't even a real church. Our definition of a church is a place where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered. Since the Salvation Army does not administer sacraments they don't even fit the Lutheran definition of a Church.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan95

Veteran
Sep 13, 2011
2,132
78
28
Sweden
✟19,477.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're going to have to explain by what you mean on "office of worship" for me to explain properly.

I don't know what it is, but the term is from the PDF-file that I linked to: https://www.archbalt.org/evangeliza...oad/Validity-of-Baptisms-and-Confirmation.pdf

However their views on the sacraments are borderline anti-Christian. Despite the fact that you did have a person baptize you, you are in a "church" that essentially believes either that there is no baptism or that baptism is not important.

I haven't said that I agree with their views on the sacraments. The officer that baptized me has moved to a caribbean island with his wife and family. The new one doesn't seem to believe baptism is important, and his wife is not baptized.

Being baptized is one of the most clear commands Jesus ever gives, and clearly one of the most easy to accomplish. Those who love Jesus will try to follow his commands.

I agree. The reasons which Salvation Army give for not practicing baptism sound gnostic.


But your so called church tells the people who join it that they need not be baptized.

How do you know that? I haven't heard them directly state that one doesn't need to be baptized, even if the wife obviously doesn't believe one needs to be baptized.

I certainly would not want to be associated with a organization that endangers the salvation of so many by telling them to forgo baptism.

I prefer not to be associated with any denomination, but simply call myself a Christian or Follower of Jesus Christ, because when people see Christianity, I don't want them to see a bunch of divided denominations, rather than Jesus Christ, or such.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WisdomTree

Philosopher
Feb 2, 2012
4,016
170
Lincoln
✟15,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hi, I was baptized in 2011 by a Salvation Army officer. But the "office of worship" doesn't recognize the baptism of Salvation Army as valid (Soure).
But since the Salvation Army headquarters state they don't have baptismal service, yet I was baptized by one who believes in the necessity of baptism, is it still valid? Is the "office of worship" something that is ex cathedra, infallible?

Otherwise I'd have to be rebaptized if I become a Catholic?

Also, I have a question regarding salvation and Eucharist. Since Catholic doctrine states that salvation outside the Catholic church is possible, but yet also affirm (as well as the Bible) that Eucharist is required for salvation. As I understand it, only the Eucharist in Orthodox and Catholic churches are valid? Since I haven't participated in Eucharist in neither of these churches, and since Eucharist is required for salvation, and is only valid in these churches, wouldn't that mean that I'm not saved?

I also wonder what would happen to people who die without the knowledge (i.e. because they don't have any access to a Bible) that water baptism and/or Eucharist are required for their salvation (for example people who come to faith in a place and/or state where they have no access to these sacraments), and thus die without an implicit desire of baptism (The Catechism of St. Pius X, the answer to the 29th Q.), can they still be saved then?

Regarding Eucharist:

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 "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 nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

I read this: "Note that it says "for believers" not for non-believers. Non-believers may be saved by employing the graces God gave them outside of the sacraments because God is not bound by the sacraments, but for we who know what God requires of us, they are. So, for believers the Eucharist is necessary. However, personally receiving the Eucharist is only required once a year. Since the priest must receive in order for the sacrament to be valid, and the priest stands in for the Church, of which all the baptized are members (if imperfectly, as in the case of our Protestant brethren), the command of Christ, that we eat and drink his body and blood is fulfilled every day."

Non-believers in this case refer to non-Catholics according to this person. But does it mean "non-Catholics" as in "non-Christians (muslims etc)" or "non-Catholics" viz. protestants?

If it's the third interpretation, and his comment is true (viz. if it lines up with official Catholic doctrine), it would mean I can still be saved without directly (as opposed to indirectly, which he describes above when talking about the priest standing in for the Church) partaking in Eucharist in a Catholic or Orthodox church?

The thing is, that I do believe in the Catholic view of the Eucharist and I have a desire to partake in it.



ok, you seem to cover a lot
were you baptized with water? were you baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
if you were, I would talk to a local priest about having the Church recognize your baptism.

As for the Eucharist, well the good thief on the cross was never baptized and he never received communion, but he was saved by Jesus.

but the normal way for God to save people is inside the Catholic Church, through the grace given to us through the Sacraments.

as for those who die without knowledge of Jesus or His Church?
well that is left up to God, He is true justice and He is true mercy
I think that it will only hurt us if we speculate too much on this
if we go too far one way, we speak against mercy
if we go too far the other way, we speak against justice
the best we can do is to trust in God and try to spread His word so that the entire world will know of Jesus :)
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That archdiocese needs to clean up the document a bit since it's a bit of a mess. I still don't see what we were talking about, especially the topic regarding "infallibility".

the OP was asking if this was an infallible statement

it is not

it is a "prudential judgment"
it is looking at the things of this world and is seeking the best way reconcile these things with the mission of the Church
 
Upvote 0

WisdomTree

Philosopher
Feb 2, 2012
4,016
170
Lincoln
✟15,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
the OP was asking if this was an infallible statement

it is not

it is a "prudential judgment"
it is looking at the things of this world and is seeking the best way reconcile these things with the mission of the Church

Ah, my mistake.

To the OP, if you want to look what what's infallible and what's not, go the FAQ of this subforum and look up "5 D's" and you'll find the answer. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan95

Veteran
Sep 13, 2011
2,132
78
28
Sweden
✟19,477.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ok, you seem to cover a lot
were you baptized with water? were you baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
if you were, I would talk to a local priest about having the Church recognize your baptism.

I was baptized with water, and with the trinitarian formula, yes.


Ah, my mistake.

To the OP, if you want to look what what's infallible and what's not, go the FAQ of this subforum and look up "5 D's" and you'll find the answer. ;)

Ok thanks.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Just a note to help read the Salvation Army's position in the right light. TSA is not opposed to the sacraments, but it was formed in a time when it saw a need to get beyond the flogging a dead horse arguing about them into actually living the Kingdom of God. So it avoided the question - assuming that people would get baptised in other churches - to concentrate on something else. With time, of course, that inevitably became yet another position on baptism. However, in my experience working for them TSA is at least highly respectful of other Christian positions on baptism and many other questions (even if they sometimes need them pointed out).
 
Upvote 0

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just a note to help read the Salvation Army's position in the right light. TSA is not opposed to the sacraments, but it was formed in a time when it saw a need to get beyond the flogging a dead horse arguing about them into actually living the Kingdom of God. So it avoided the question - assuming that people would get baptised in other churches - to concentrate on something else. With time, of course, that inevitably became yet another position on baptism. However, in my experience working for them TSA is at least highly respectful of other Christian positions on baptism and many other questions (even if they sometimes need them pointed out).

It doesn't matter how much they respect them. They operate themselves as a church but do not perform sacraments.

If they just want to be an organization of Christians who try to do good works, they should just be that. But they operate themselves as a church, which is where my objection comes in. They don't tell their members to all go to their real churches on Sunday and hear the gospel and receive the sacraments. They tell their members to come there on Sunday and hear the gospel, but no sacraments.

It doesn't matter how much they respect other church's views. Operating as a church but not performing the sacraments leads of course to the view that the sacraments are not important. Which taken to it's fullest extent is a heresy that leads to death and hell. One can't define their own Jesus, make up their own Jesus and then expect the real Jesus to save them.

The real Jesus thinks baptism is pretty important. . . HE SAID SO.

If you maintain yourself as a Christian but refuse to be baptized you will go to hell. If for nothing else but not loving/believing in Jesus enough to follow the easiest commandment he ever gave.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Luther073082 said:
It doesn't matter how much they respect them. They operate themselves as a church but do not perform sacraments.

If they just want to be an organization of Christians who try to do good works, they should just be that. But they operate themselves as a church, which is where my objection comes in. They don't tell their members to all go to their real churches on Sunday and hear the gospel and receive the sacraments. They tell their members to come there on Sunday and hear the gospel, but no sacraments.

It doesn't matter how much they respect other church's views. Operating as a church but not performing the sacraments leads of course to the view that the sacraments are not important. Which taken to it's fullest extent is a heresy that leads to death and hell. One can't define their own Jesus, make up their own Jesus and then expect the real Jesus to save them.

The real Jesus thinks baptism is pretty important. . . HE SAID SO.

If you maintain yourself as a Christian but refuse to be baptized you will go to hell. If for nothing else but not loving/believing in Jesus enough to follow the easiest commandment he ever gave.

Given that discussion is happening in a forum where neither your Eucharist nor mine is recognised as sacramental most of the above is pretty moot.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums