Who has the valid Sacraments?

[The Liturgist]

I stumbled across this short treatise of sorts explaining the Roman Church's view on whose sacraments are valid and why. I can't say I disagree with their reasoning or conclusions.

It's very short. Take a look and tell me what you think.

https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/5252/documents/2014/8/Sacramental_Validity_Guide-1.pdf

By the way you do know the doctrine of the Orthodox Church derives its concept of sacramental validity from St. Cyprian of Carthage and not St. Augustine, from whose stylus emanated the Roman doctrine?

 

[.Jeremiah.]

Mar 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mat 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Jhn 6:53

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

1Co 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

thank you for sharing those verses.
the Lord gives us the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
Only the Lord has that power.


the Lord is pretty clear what I must do:

John 13:34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

and he makes it clear as well what he thinks of religion:

Matthew 15:9 KJV: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

imo

 

[.Jeremiah.]

Because we're Christians, and this is stuff that matters?

This "religious stuff" is about Jesus Christ, His Gospel, His Church, and His word.

-CryptoLutheran

okay

you are right

 

[Albion]

By “Nestorians” they are actually referring to the Assyrian Church of the East,...

No kidding.

Actually Albert Pike, the notorious author of the Southern form of the Scottish Rite, who was very much into the occult, and exceedingly anti Catholic (his 17th degree, “Knight Kadosh” has the recipient stomp on a replica of the Papal Tiara) did write a ceremony of Masonic Baptism, in which the officient would make a triangle in oil on the forehead of the infant, but to my knowledge it has never been used.

Okay. Trivia is always fun. But of course Albert Pike is not Freemasonry, Masonry is not a religion or a church, it doesn't perform baptismal ceremonies, and what you said about the 17th degree doesn't involve a baptismal ceremony anyway.

 

[HTacianas]

thank you for sharing those verses.
the Lord gives us the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
Only the Lord has that power.


the Lord is pretty clear what I must do:

John 13:34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

and he makes it clear as well what he thinks of religion:

Matthew 15:9 KJV: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

imo

Why don't you continue that a bit further.

 

[.Jeremiah.]

Why don't you continue that a bit further.

I suppose I could continue indefinitely.
But I’m not aware of what you’re seeking.
Plus I have such a minute amount of knowledge and understanding, I try to limit my posts, usually.

I am developing an understanding of worship.
So I study the concept.
Pretty much because I would not want my worship to be in vain.
But that would make another interesting thread.

 

[HTacianas]

I suppose I could continue indefinitely.
But I’m not aware of what you’re seeking.
Plus I have such a minute amount of knowledge and understanding, I try to limit my posts, usually.

I am developing an understanding of worship.
So I study the concept.
Pretty much because I would not want my worship to be in vain.
But that would make another interesting thread.

Well, to help you with your study of worship I'll give you an outsider's view of Christian worship, circa 112 AD. Pliny, a Roman Governor, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking for his advice on how to legally deal with Christians in his territory. In the letter he wrote:

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food."

Note that they would "sing responsively". Not "sing" but sing responsively. They would then partake of "ordinary food". There were reasons for Pliny to describe it as "ordinary food" but we'll save that for later. The Liturgy is sung responsively. The ordinary food Pliny spoke of was the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is what he was describing:

It is a worship service among Christians. And it still goes on today.

 

[The Liturgist]

No kidding.


Okay. Trivia is always fun. But of course Albert Pike is not Freemasonry, Masonry is not a religion or a church, it doesn't perform baptismal ceremonies, and what you said about the 17th degree doesn't involve a baptismal ceremony anyway.

Trivia is the essence of my posts!

But seriously, the influence of Albert Pike on American Freemasonry, and also on Freemasonic intercessions into what could be called the ecclesiastical purview, cannot be overstated. He was, for instance, an invincible advocate of the now prevalent custom among Masons of a Masonic rather than Ecclesiastical funeral.

 

[Albion]

Trivia is the essence of my posts!

And most of the time I am appreciative of it!

But seriously, the influence of Albert Pike on American Freemasonry, and also on Freemasonic intercessions into what could be called the ecclesiastical purview, cannot be overstated. He was, for instance, an invincible advocate of the now prevalent custom among Masons of a Masonic rather than Ecclesiastical funeral.

Most of what you are referring to I do consider overstated. Maybe elements existed in the past, but not now. I'm always taken by the fact that all the Christian denominations have changed over the centuries--The RCC no longer is involved with the Spanish Inquisition (but did into the 19th century) and Quakers no longer run naked through the streets--but no one holds this up as what they amount to today.

With Masons, however, Albert Pike supposedly still runs everything from his grave, and whatever Masonry was three hundred years ago is absolutely what it must be today.

By the way also, it's rare for a Mason who is a Christian (which most are) to have Masonic ceremonies WITHOUT also having a Christian funeral. And, as you know, the Scottish Rite (or the Southern jurisdiction only of the Scottish Rite) is not Masonry proper and only a minority of Masons belong to such "appendant orders."

 

[pescador]

And most of the time I am appreciative of it!


Most of what you are referring to I do consider overstated. Maybe elements existed in the past, but not now. I'm always taken by the fact that all the Christian denominations have changed over the centuries--The RCC no longer is involved with the Spanish Inquisition (but did into the 19th century) and Quakers no longer run naked through the streets--but no one holds this up as what they amount to today.

With Masons, however, Albert Pike supposedly still runs everything from his grave and whatever Masonry was three hundred years ago is so 'nuff what it must be today.

By the way also, it's rare for a Mason who is a Christian (which most are) to have Masonic ceremonies WITHOUT also having a Christian funeral. And, as you know, the Scottish Rite (or the Southern jurisdiction only of the Scottish Rite) is not Masonry proper and only a minority of Masons belong to such "appendant orders."

This has nothing to do with the subject of the OP: who has the valid sacraments. IMHO the conclusion -- that some sacraments are valid (implying that some are not) -- is meaningless legalism, bordering on OT thinking. All celebration of the bread and wine representing Jesus' body and blood are valid. Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me"

Luke 22:19-20, "Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

The sacraments were invented to formalize this ritual and give it validity for that denomination, which of course is unscriptural.

 

[Albion]

This has nothing to do with the subject of the OP: who has the valid sacraments.

Sure, it does. The most recent several posts concerned the Catholic document we were linked to earlier which listed churches and conditions that the RCC thinks make for either invalid or valid baptisms.

 

[pescador]

Sure, it does. The most recent several posts concerned the Catholic document we were linked to earlier which listed churches and conditions that the RCC thinks make for either invalid or valid baptisms.

What does... "By the way also, it's rare for a Mason who is a Christian (which most are) to have Masonic ceremonies WITHOUT also having a Christian funeral. And, as you know, the Scottish Rite (or the Southern jurisdiction only of the Scottish Rite) is not Masonry proper and only a minority of Masons belong to such "appendant orders." ... have to do with "who has the valid sacraments"?

 

[Albion]

What does... "By the way also, it's rare for a Mason who is a Christian (which most are) to have Masonic ceremonies WITHOUT also having a Christian funeral. And, as you know, the Scottish Rite (or the Southern jurisdiction only of the Scottish Rite) is not Masonry proper and only a minority of Masons belong to such "appendant orders." ... have to do with "who has the valid sacraments"?

The Roman Catholic Church's document for its RCIA people incorrectly claimed that Masonry performs baptisms (and that the RCC doesn't consider them to be valid).

 

[pescador]

The Roman Catholic Church's document for its RCIA people incorrectly claimed that Masonry performs baptisms (and that the RCC doesn't consider them to be valid).

Which is why I consider the debate over "valid sacraments" ridiculous. Who (other than Jesus) has the ability to determine scripturally what is a valid sacrament? To my knowledge there is no Scriptural basis for this distinction.

Jesus said to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of Him. That's good enough for me, not what any organization considers the eating/drinking of the sacraments valid. Valid according to them but not according to Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:26-28, "For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup."

Notice that it is up to the person to examine himself first, not some organization.

 

[Albion]

Which is why I consider the debate over "valid sacraments" ridiculous. Who (other than Jesus) has the ability to determine scripturally what is a valid sacrament?

If we go by his words, Jesus did just that.

Jesus said to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of Him.

among other things!

Notice that it is up to the person to examine himself first, not some organization.

That's right and it isn't denied by any of the traditional church bodies.

 

[pescador]

If we go by his words, Jesus did just that.


among other things!


That's right and it isn't denied by any of the traditional church bodies.

It is my clear understanding that if you're not a Catholic then you can't receive communion from them. That is what I have been told by a devout Catholic.

 

[Albion]

It is my clear understanding that if you're not a Catholic then you can't receive communion from them. That is what I have been told by a devout Catholic.

In this discussion and also the other one one you responded to a few minutes ago, it's not so much that you are wrong about all of this but that you are giving me your answers concerning matters that aren't what the post in question was talking about. It's hard to straighten that out in short order.

 

[pescador]

In this discussion and also the other one one you responded to a few minutes ago, it's not so much that you are wrong about all of this but, rather, that you are giving me your answers to matters that aren't what the post in question was talking about. It's hard to straighten that out quickly.

I understand the discussion to be about "who has the valid sacraments". I don't think it's up to anyone but the individual to decide what is valid and what isn't. In other words, the subject of "valid" sacraments by any institution is meaningless, extra-Biblical and therefore an invalid point of discussion.

 

[Albion]

I understand the discussion to be about "who has the valid sacraments". I don't think it's up to anyone but the individual to decide what is valid and what isn't. In other words, the subject of "valid" sacraments by any institution is meaningless, extra-Biblical and therefore an invalid point of discussion.

Except that the churches which most Christians belong to do consider it meaningful.

--which doesn't mean that people who belong to other churches or none at all cannot have their own opinions.

 

[.Jeremiah.]

Well, to help you with your study of worship I'll give you an outsider's view of Christian worship, circa 112 AD. Pliny, a Roman Governor, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking for his advice on how to legally deal with Christians in his territory. In the letter he wrote:

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food."

Note that they would "sing responsively". Not "sing" but sing responsively. They would then partake of "ordinary food". There were reasons for Pliny to describe it as "ordinary food" but we'll save that for later. The Liturgy is sung responsively. The ordinary food Pliny spoke of was the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is what he was describing:

It is a worship service among Christians. And it still goes on today.

i liked the video. To me it was dramatic and moving.

it reminded me of my childhood in church

then the language was latin though

this sounds like another language