Which sacraments of other denominations do you accept?

[Quid est Veritas?]

My daughter was recently baptised, and I was just wondering about this. Which sacraments are accepted by whom?

I see Roman Catholics accept Protestant baptism as legitimate, provided a trinitarian formula is followed and actual water is used. They also accept Orthodox baptism, but it seems the Orthodox rebaptise converts, from what I can see.
Why do Catholics so readily acknowledge Orthodox sacraments, but the Orthodox seem so reticent to reciprocally do so?

Similarly, I doubt some Protestants accept the Catholic Eucharist as legitimate, seeing as they would view it steeped in superstition. Likewise, generally Protestant Communion is definitely not accepted by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. What of Anglicanism though? I mean, they maintain Apostolic succession.

What do you think? When is a sacrament, by another denomination, a valid one in your eyes?

 

[Tangible]

Lutherans generally agree that any baptism done using the Trinitarian formula is a valid baptism. Exceptions would be Mormon baptisms, for example, which are done using the words of the Trinitarian formula, but the doctrines behind the words are beyond the limits of orthodox Christianity.

Lutherans generally also agree that a church's Eucharist is valid if it confesses the real presence of the body and blood of Our Lord in the Sacrament. Altar fellowship is another matter with some Lutheran bodies requiring baptism or nothing, and others requiring full doctrinal agreement.

 

[PloverWing]

Anglicans accept any baptism with water using the Trinitarian formula.

"Valid Eucharist" is an interesting question. My own view is that since it is God who is acting, it's not up to me to say that God isn't present in someone else's offering of bread and wine/juice. In particular, God can choose to be present even if the worshippers believe the Eucharist to be merely symbolic. But I don't know if the Episcopal Church officially holds a more restricted view.

We normally accept everyone's marriage, though polygamy has been a quarrelsome point in some African countries.

Within our own Anglican communion, preserving Apostolic Succession is important to us, so that's something we insist on in ordination. That's one of the points we had to work out in our intercommunion agreement with the Lutherans. We're normally courteous toward clergy of other denominations, however, recognizing them as legitimate leaders within their own churches.

Confirmation varies from one diocese to another, depending on the bishop. The question comes up when someone from another denomination becomes Episcopalian: Do they then need to be confirmed? I think everyone accepts confirmation in churches with Apostolic Succession (Catholic, e.g.). Some bishops, I think, accept only confirmation in these churches. At the other extreme, some bishops accept other churches' adult rites of passage as equivalent to confirmation; for example, a person who has been baptized as an adult in a Baptist church would not need to be confirmed if they joined an Episcopal church, because that adult baptism would be seen as equivalent to confirmation. Some bishops hold a view in between these two extremes.

 

[Silentdecay]

Hello. 2nd post on this forum

We believe that any Baptism done in the name of the F, S and HS is valid.

Other than that, no other sacraments are valid unless under the most dire circumstances. We can not do confession, marriage or communion at any non-Orthodox Church.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Similarly, I doubt some Protestants accept the Catholic Eucharist as legitimate, seeing as they would view it steeped in superstition.

I don't know that they would see it as illegitimate so much as simply disagreeing as to what actually takes place. That being said, since the RCC does not practice "open communion" it would be disrespectful for someone outside their faith to participate in their communion knowing that the RCC does not allow it. That's why I stay in my pew during that part of the service when I attend.

 

[prodromos]

We believe that any Baptism done in the name of the F, S and HS is valid.

That is not entirely true. Since the baptism is done outside of what Orthodox recognise as the Church, we cannot state with any certainty what actually happens when non Orthodox Christians baptize. So while we recognise that the form of the baptism is orthodox we take the view that it can only be recognised as sacramental if performed by the Church. As such, some people are received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation which then fills the frame of the non Orthodox baptism with sacramental grace.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That is not entirely true. Since the baptism is done outside of what Orthodox recognise as the Church, we cannot state with any certainty what actually happens when non Orthodox Christians baptize. So while we recognise that the form of the baptism is orthodox we take the view that it can only be recognised as sacramental if performed by the Church. As such, some people are received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation which then fills the frame of the non Orthodox baptism with sacramental grace.

A formerly Orthodox person I communicated with, said roughly the same, but that in his case, although baptised in the Anglican Church, the priest elected to both baptise and perform Chrismation.
So if I understand correctly, Orthodoxy views non-orthodox baptism as dubious at best, or invalid at worst, and that it only becomes valid if and when the person undergoes Orthodox Chrismation?

Is the ceremonial for the Chrismation altered in any way, if this is to function as the baptism as well?

 

[prodromos]

A formerly Orthodox person I communicated with, said roughly the same, but that in his case, although baptised in the Anglican Church, the priest elected to both baptise and perform Chrismation.
So if I understand correctly, Orthodoxy views non-orthodox baptism as dubious at best, or invalid at worst, and that it only becomes valid if and when the person undergoes Orthodox Chrismation?

Is the ceremonial for the Chrismation altered in any way, if this is to function as the baptism as well?

I was received by Chrismation but at the time I was not familiar with the ceremony and I haven't been to many baptisms since then, so I couldn't really say.
I should note that entry into the Orthodox Church is by the threefold sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation followed by Holy Communion. In the Catholic Church they have seperated Baptism and Chrismation since while a priest can baptise, only the bishop can do chrismation. In the Orthodox Church, Chrism is prepared by the Patriarch which is then distributed to be administered by the priests.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Why do Catholics so readily acknowledge Orthodox sacraments, but the Orthodox seem so reticent to reciprocally do so?

My sense of the Orthodox world is that while we Catholics easily see ourselves among the Orthodox, the Orthodox don't see themselves among us. I speak of the laity. I wouldn't know what Catholic clergy and Orthodox clergy think.

Similarly, I doubt some Protestants accept the Catholic Eucharist as legitimate

Many Protestants don't believe in the Real Presence at all. So I don't think they view it as a question legitimacy so much as right doctrine.

Oddly enough, this is one area where Catholics and non-Eucharistic Protestants agree. The Catholic Church views the Protestant "ordinance" of "the Lord's Supper" as perfectly fine inasmuch as these Protestants agree that what they're doing is not the Eucharist.

My understanding is that in theory I would be permitted by my Church to worship with the Orthodox to satisfy my obligation if circumstances ever required it. I would also be allowed by my Church to receive an Orthodox Eucharist.

However, the Orthodox might not want a Catholic to receive their Eucharist. So while MY Church permits receiving from the Orthodox, the Orthodox themselves might not permit it. And if they don't permit it, it doesn't matter what my Church does or doesn't allow, I can't receive it, period.

Likewise, generally Protestant Communion is definitely not accepted by Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

For the Protestants who reject the Real Presence, see above.

For the Protestants who believe in the Real Presence... honestly, it's a bit simplistic to say that their Eucharist is invalid because of questions relating to their clergy's Holy Orders. While it's doubtful that all Protestant clergy have valid Orders, it also can't be denied that some of them have a legitimate argument about their validity. Thus it's a little simplistic to say that if they're not Catholic or Orthodox, they're not valid. Probably the only way to know for sure would be on a case by case basis.

As far as I know, the only Orders the Catholic Church is sure about are her own and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

What of Anglicanism though? I mean, they maintain Apostolic succession.

The Catholic Church teaches that Anglican succession may be traceable back to the beginning... but that by itself doesn't necessarily make it valid for a few different reasons. But, as above, it would probably have to be settled on a case-by-case basis. Just as well, really, since most Anglicans don't seem to be losing much sleep over what Rome thinks of their Orders and succession.

What do you think? When is a sacrament, by another denomination, a valid one in your eyes?

There are a lot of layers and nuances that go into it. Goings on just with the Anglicans is tricky business.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what I think. I go with what my Church says.

 

[seashale76]

My daughter was recently baptised, and I was just wondering about this. Which sacraments are accepted by whom?

I see Roman Catholics accept Protestant baptism as legitimate, provided a trinitarian formula is followed and actual water is used. They also accept Orthodox baptism, but it seems the Orthodox rebaptise converts, from what I can see.
Why do Catholics so readily acknowledge Orthodox sacraments, but the Orthodox seem so reticent to reciprocally do so?

Similarly, I doubt some Protestants accept the Catholic Eucharist as legitimate, seeing as they would view it steeped in superstition. Likewise, generally Protestant Communion is definitely not accepted by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. What of Anglicanism though? I mean, they maintain Apostolic succession.

What do you think? When is a sacrament, by another denomination, a valid one in your eyes?

I'm Orthodox and I was accepted by Chrismation. Catholics- iirc- are accepted by confession. We recognize that Roman Catholicism has apostolic succession.

As such, some people are received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation which then fills the frame of the non Orthodox baptism with sacramental grace.

^What Podromos said.

@thecolorsblend

So while MY Church permits receiving from the Orthodox, the Orthodox themselves might not permit it. And if they don't permit it, it doesn't matter what my Church does or doesn't allow, I can't receive it, period.

True. You wouldn't be allowed to do so. I can't even commune if I haven't properly prepared. IIRC, in the Catholic Church you all have the requirement to fast for one hour before communion. We have the requirement to fast from midnight the night before. We also have to have gone to confession recently and said the prayers before communion. I have literally had my priest write a letter and contact a parish priest of where I'd be vacationing- so that they would be expecting us. So- when I went to Divine Liturgy- there was no question of whether or not I was Orthodox and could commune. Priests do question people at the chalice.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm Orthodox and I was accepted by Chrismation.

Same for me.

I can't even commune if I haven't properly prepared.. We have the requirement to fast from midnight the night before. We also have to have gone to confession recently and said the prayers before communion. I have literally had my priest write a letter and contact a parish priest of where I'd be vacationing- so that they would be expecting us. So- when I went to Divine Liturgy- there was no question of whether or not I was Orthodox and could commune. Priests do question people at the chalice.

When we have traveled, my priest had me contact the parish where we would be attending in advance. He then offered to write/contact the presiding priest if it was necessary, encouraging me to include his (my priest) contact info in my email.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I only accept baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and maybe foot washing.

I lean towards the credobaptist position, but I’m alright with infant baptism and I think it can be valid if the person, when they come of age, affirms their baptism they received while as an infant.

It’s faith and love that matters, and as long as you have those things, I consider you a genuine believer and brother or sister in Christ, even if one of us has been misled about the sacraments.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I confess the possible requirement of being re-baptized was one stopper for me when I explored Orthodoxy. My Trinitarian baptism was too important in my life. To allow myself to re-baptized would be a repudiation of that milestone in my life and faith development. I believe what the Creed says - we believe in ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Couldn't do it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I agree with what @Tangible said, but I would add something that seems to be missing from the conversation. There seems to be an unstated subtext that "accepting" the sacraments of another denomination means accepting that some necessary salvific task has been checked off the list. If that's the case, such a view is not correct.

Baptism brings faith, but it is not necessary for salvation. Therefore, Lutherans will lean toward accepting any Baptism wherein the person themself indicates a strong faith and a solid understanding. It is only when the person is troubled by their past and unsure about Baptism that we begin to discuss the "technical" details, so to speak. Even then, the primary intent is not to provide some kind of certification of validity but to emphasize the nature and blessings of the sacraments.

So, first of all, speaking of the elements (water & Word) highlights that Baptism is not a work of man, but a work of God. There is no requirement that the one performing or the one receiving the Baptism already believes or is "worthy." Consider Philippians 1:15-18. Nor is Baptism only meant as a symbolic declaration of faith. It can be that to those who witness a Baptism, but that is not the sole or primary purpose. Discussing the nature of Baptism also provides assurance of God's faithfulness. Consider 1 John 5:13.

Second, as mentioned, it's more an issue of fellowship than validity. If I'm a Lutheran, why does it really matter what I think about the Eucharist being served at a Methodist church? The blessings are available to me at my church. I have no reason to go down the street to a Methodist church to receive those blessings. Neither does it mean those Methodists are eternally condemned because they think it's only symbolic. It just means they're not receiving the blessings. Nor should it matter if I attend a Methodist service and choose not to participate. There may be times I decided not to participate at a Lutheran church. That may be cause for me and the minister to have a discussion, but it shouldn't be a cause of public uproar. I'm not going to pretend Lutheran belief is the same as Methodist belief, and I don't see how it is beneficial to cover over those differences by participating.

 

[Ron Gurley]

There are only TWO ORDINANCES given by Jesus the Divine Messiah in the Bible:

1. spiritual baptism of believers:
Matthew 28; 1 Cor. 12:13

2. Communion of believers: "Do this in remembrance of me"
Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25

 

[Virgil the Roman]

. . .
So if I understand correctly, Orthodoxy views non-orthodox baptism as dubious at best, or invalid at worst, and that it only becomes valid if and when the person undergoes Orthodox Chrismation?

Not too far off. Many priests prefer to baptise and chrismate; holding that any Mystery outside of Holy Orthodoxy is of dubious quality being cut off or performed without the grace which God imparts through His Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[prodromos]

I confess the possible requirement of being re-baptized was one stopper for me when I explored Orthodoxy. My Trinitarian baptism was too important in my life. To allow myself to re-baptized would be a repudiation of that milestone in my life and faith development. I believe what the Creed says - we believe in ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Couldn't do it.

Do you realise that you are placing your own authority above that of the bishop into whose jurisdiction you would be received? Personally, I was received by chrismation, having been baptised as a child in the Anglican Church, although I would have preferred to have been received by baptism and chrismation when I entered the Orthodox Church. Obedience to those with spiritual authority is a big part of becoming Orthodox, since pride is such a huge problem for most of us whether we are willing to admit it or not.

 

[Paidiske]

But all of us, in discerning which church to belong to, need to assess whether we believe the claims a church makes about itself and its authority.

For me, Orthodoxy's refusal to ordain women means Orthodoxy is a no-go for me. I know the power of vocation in my life, as a woman. I firmly believe Orthodoxy is wrong on this point.

You can call it pride, if you like, but I call it integrity, to be willing to be honest about what we actually fundamentally believe and are committed to.

 

[prodromos]

For me, Orthodoxy's refusal to ordain women means Orthodoxy is a no-go for me. I know the power of vocation in my life, as a woman. I firmly believe Orthodoxy is wrong on this point.

There are plenty of vocations for women in the Orthodox Church, but the priesthood is not one of them.
I also suspect that many pastors of non-trinitarian churches can also attest to the power of their vocations, but I don't think that makes them in any way legitimate, do you?

 

[Paidiske]

Sorry, quote function went funny with editing.

"There are plenty of vocations for women in the Orthodox Church, but the priesthood is not one of them."

Yes, precisely. Hence my discernment that I cannot be Orthodox with integrity.

"I also suspect that many pastors of non-trinitarian churches can also attest to the power of their vocations, but I don't think that makes them in any way legitimate, do you?"

I refuse to pass judgement on them. I would see their theology as problematic, but does that mean God is not at work in their lives? I would not dare make that claim with any certainty.

But you have neatly illustrated the crux of the problem. Orthodoxy believes that women's ordination is not legitimate, and therefore would tell me that my vocation is - what, a delusion? Something like that. Surely you can understand why the cognitive dissonance of trying to accept that position would be a problem?