question about sacrament validity

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Question, what does the RCC teach about sacraments administered by other denominations.

I know Baptisms are accepted, as long as they follow the correct formula.

What about Marriage?

Reconciliation?

and my real question, Communion.  What does the church teach happens when, say lutherans, who believe in the real presence, take communion?

 

thanks!

 

[seebs]

I thought Lutherans believed in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.

Annoyingly, I took communion as a little kid, but had no real idea what it was; I just liked it because the wafers were a little sweet. I hope ignorance is a good defense against taking communion when you don't believe in God. I think I was also baptized by the Lutherans; no idea what formula, if any, they followed. I can say with some certainty that they didn't fully immerse me for several minutes. Oh, wait; that's not baptism, that's testing for witchcraft.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by seebs
I thought Lutherans believed in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.

that's correct, so what does the church say happens?

Originally posted by seebs
I think I was also baptized by the Lutherans; no idea what formula, if any, they followed. I can say with some certainty that they didn't fully immerse me for several minutes. Oh, wait; that's not baptism, that's testing for witchcraft.

 

oh my, now THAT'S FUNNY!!!

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
Question, what does the RCC teach about sacraments administered by other denominations.

Depends on the denominational belief.

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
I know Baptisms are accepted, as long as they follow the correct formula.

Yes, as long as it is said with the Trinitarian formula. Fringe group baptisms (Oneness Pentecostal for example) do not count. Neither do Mormon baptisms.

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
What about Marriage?

That is a tricky question. When I was married, it was in a converted garage/chapel by a baptist minister. This has made the annullment process much easier as I was married outside the Church, making a strong enough cause to call into question the sacramental validity of the marriage. However this is because I am a Catholic and I was married outside of the Church. I would imagine that the Church holds that all Christian marriage is sacramental on top of being legal. Problem is, not many other denominations consider it a sacrament (ie: it gives grace to the recipients).

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
Reconciliation?

As far as I know, only three groups even profess to have the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican faiths. The Church holds that as long as the minister is a legitimate priest, absolution can be conferred upon the penitent.

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
and my real question, Communion. What does the church teach happens when, say lutherans, who believe in the real presence, take communion?

Well, the Orthodox faith does not prescribe to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, yet the Catholic Church holds that they have a valid Eucharist. As long as the proper form, intent and matter are involved, along with a validly ordained priest, the Sacrament is real and bestows grace. Problem is, only a handful of Christian faiths can claim a valid priesthood (Catholic, Orthodox, some Anglican and a few Lutherans from what I can surmise). However, a Cathoic may ONLY receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. In a severe pinch they can go to an Orthodox Church if a Catholic Church is not available. All others are "off-limits".

What happens to Lutherans when they take Catholic communion? The Church recommends against it because it implies a unity (Holy Communion) which does not exist (Reformation) but I do not think that it would **** them if they expressely believe in the Real Presence.

A couple of priests I know have never refrained from giving non-Catholics communion if they have come up for it. Why? They have argued (rightly or wrongly) that perhaps the grace they have received from Communion would give them the grace they need for conversion.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Lutherans do confession (at least some of them,) but they don't call it a sacrament. Does that change anything?

Why are Catholics told not to partake other places in communion?

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
Why are Catholics told not to partake other places in communion?

1)It belies a unity that does not exist.

2)No validity of the ministers administering the sacrament.

3)Most Christian denominations do not consider it a sacrament.

4)Some Christian denominations do not consider it the actual Body of Blood of Jesus Christ. Why would you want to partake of something which only symbolizes rather than Is?

 

[Kotton]

What about Marriage?

I would imagine that the Church holds that all Christian marriage is sacramental on top of being legal. Problem is, not many other denominations consider it a sacrament (ie: it gives grace to the recipients).

Yep, if both are validly baptized, their marriage is sacramental, regardless of their understanding of it being. Being baptized makes a difference in anullments by the Church of non-Catholics.

Kotton

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by nyj
1)It belies a unity that does not exist.

I guess I just don't see the problem there.  I have disagreements with how some Catholic churches are run, should I not take communion there?

Originally posted by nyj
3)Most Christian denominations do not consider it a sacrament.

agreed, but what about lutheran, etc that do believe it's a sacrament?

 

[chelcb]

Eggs,

I guess I just don't see the problem there. I have disagreements with how some Catholic churches are run, should I not take communion there?

Your faith is not in how that Church is run, it's in Jesus, yes you should receive, your receiving him, not the Church politics.

 

[dignitized]

what is interesting is the current notion that only those united with rome have valid sacraments. its the Donatist controvery all over again . . .

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by Br. Max
what is interesting is the current notion that only those united with rome have valid sacraments. its the Donatist controvery all over again . . .

 

that's exactly my point, you phrased it much better however.

 

[SUNSTONE]

Originally posted by Br. Max
what is interesting is the current notion that only those united with rome have valid sacraments. its the Donatist controvery all over again . . .

I know! Everybody knows that my nondenomenational  church in Merrit Island, Florida, is the only church with valid sacraments.

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Br. Max
what is interesting is the current notion that only those united with rome have valid sacraments. its the Donatist controvery all over again . . .

Actually, the Donatist heresy states that a priest who persists in a sinful state cannot validly perform the sacraments (ie: no grace is bestowed to those who partake of the sacrament). The Donatist heresy doesn't even cover the issue of valid ordinations. Now, if they had focused on valid ordinations they may have had a point (and a good one at that).

 

[dignitized]

NYJ: unless I am thinking of another heresy - part of the problem was the idea that those sacraments performed by said people were invalidated. A priest who had sinned could no longer administer valid sacraments. Any ordinations performed by a lapsed bishop were invalid which would make the sacraments of that priest or deacon ordained by the lapsed bishop invalid . . . .THAT’S the point I wished to make.