Who has the valid Sacraments?

[Root of Jesse]

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).

I teach RCIA and didn't know that there is a central document for RCIA subject matter.
I would love to see that. We do teach that Masonry is incompatible with Catholicism, but usually, when questioned, it's because of their 'all gods are the same' approach, and anti-Catholic attitude.

 

[Albion]

I teach RCIA and didn't know that there is a central document for RCIA subject matter.

I was just going by the document we were presented with that was supposedly for RCIA purposes. I don't suppose that every diocese necessarily has received or refers to the same one, and it doesn't look like any kind of "central" document.

I would love to see that. We do teach that Masonry is incompatible with Catholicism, but usually, when questioned, it's because of their 'all gods are the same' approach, and anti-Catholic attitude.[/QUOTE]

Okay. It's the Catholic Church's decision whether to permit its people to belong to Masonry or any other fraternal organization.

However, it isn't true that Masonry teaches "all gods are the same" or that there is an anti-Catholic attitude.

Catholics do belong to the lodges, which I would think they wouldn't if there were any hostility to Catholics or Catholicism. Such members and their memberships are well known to local Catholic authorities because of press releases, etc., and those people remain communicants in good standing in their Catholic parishes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

It's Greek, they're Greek Orthodox.

The basic form of Christian worship has remained more-or-less the same since the time of Jesus' first disciples. We call it the liturgy, the word "liturgy" comes from the Greek word leitourgia, literally translated as "work of the people" or "public work"; it refers to what happens when God's people come together for worship, it is the corporate, gathered-together worship activity of the Church. Such worship, just like the ancient Israelites and the Jews in Jesus' time, structured their worship in such a way as to bring together prayer, song, the reading of God's word, and basic instruction in faith.

Many of the earliest Christians, being Jews, continued to worship every Sabbath at their local synagogue, the following morning on the first day of the week they would come together for more prayer and to share in the Eucharist, Christ's Supper of bread and wine which He commanded that we receive together; where He offers us His flesh and blood, "This is My body broken for you" is what He said. As non-Jews began to convert to Christianity, and as the synagogue became an increasingly more hostile place for Jewish Christians, both Jewish and Gentile Christians simply came together in the larger homes of Church members (often wealthy women, such as St. Phoebe the Deacon mentioned in Romans 16:1-2). There in these "house churches", the structure of the synagogue worship continued, though in a distinctively Christian way, as well as the Lord's Supper. These two parts of Christian worship, the "Liturgy of the Word" based off of the old synagogue pattern of worship, and the "Liturgy of the Altar", influenced by the pattern of worship of ancient Israel in the Tabernacle/Temple focused on the Lord's Supper became the full Christian Liturgy, dividing these two halves of the service was "The Peace", following the biblical commandment for Christians to "greet one another with a holy kiss"--a kiss on the cheek was a sign of peace and friendship in the ancient world (the modern equivalent would be a handshake or a hug).

That pattern of worship has continued from the days of the New Testament until now. Hence you will find that the way Catholics, Orthodox, and traditional Protestants worship is all exceedingly similar. Because we are still using the same worship blueprint that Jesus and His Apostles used. And if you pay close attention, even in less traditional Protestant churches (Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominational churches), some of this very basic structure is still used, if more loosely.

There's a reason why it has endured for thousands of years: it's biblical, it's faithful, it saturates us with the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[.Jeremiah.]

It's Greek, they're Greek Orthodox.

The basic form of Christian worship has remained more-or-less the same since the time of Jesus' first disciples. We call it the liturgy, the word "liturgy" comes from the Greek word leitourgia, literally translated as "work of the people" or "public work"; it refers to what happens when God's people come together for worship, it is the corporate, gathered-together worship activity of the Church. Such worship, just like the ancient Israelites and the Jews in Jesus' time, structured their worship in such a way as to bring together prayer, song, the reading of God's word, and basic instruction in faith.

Many of the earliest Christians, being Jews, continued to worship every Sabbath at their local synagogue, the following morning on the first day of the week they would come together for more prayer and to share in the Eucharist, Christ's Supper of bread and wine which He commanded that we receive together; where He offers us His flesh and blood, "This is My body broken for you" is what He said. As non-Jews began to convert to Christianity, and as the synagogue became an increasingly more hostile place for Jewish Christians, both Jewish and Gentile Christians simply came together in the larger homes of Church members (often wealthy women, such as St. Phoebe the Deacon mentioned in Romans 16:1-2). There in these "house churches", the structure of the synagogue worship continued, though in a distinctively Christian way, as well as the Lord's Supper. These two parts of Christian worship, the "Liturgy of the Word" based off of the old synagogue pattern of worship, and the "Liturgy of the Altar", influenced by the pattern of worship of ancient Israel in the Tabernacle/Temple focused on the Lord's Supper became the full Christian Liturgy, dividing these two halves of the service was "The Peace", following the biblical commandment for Christians to "greet one another with a holy kiss"--a kiss on the cheek was a sign of peace and friendship in the ancient world (the modern equivalent would be a handshake or a hug).

That pattern of worship has continued from the days of the New Testament until now. Hence you will find that the way Catholics, Orthodox, and traditional Protestants worship is all exceedingly similar. Because we are still using the same worship blueprint that Jesus and His Apostles used. And if you pay close attention, even in less traditional Protestant churches (Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominational churches), some of this very basic structure is still used, if more loosely.

There's a reason why it has endured for thousands of years: it's biblical, it's faithful, it saturates us with the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

I enjoy history a lot, so your information here was very insightful.

Thank you for that.

I will ask a question.

Why do you think the Jewish holidays are not celebrated in Christian religion, since they all speak of the Lord.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I was just going by the document we were presented with that was supposedly for RCIA purposes. I don't suppose that every diocese necessarily has received or refers to the same one, and it doesn't look like any kind of "central" document.

Refreshing to see recognition that there is no lock step adherence to anything. I'd go by the CCC.

I would love to see that. We do teach that Masonry is incompatible with Catholicism, but usually, when questioned, it's because of their 'all gods are the same' approach, and anti-Catholic attitude.

Okay. It's the Catholic Church's decision whether to permit its people to belong to Masonry or any other fraternal organization.

However, it isn't true that Masonry teaches "all gods are the same" or that there is an anti-Catholic attitude.

Not being or interested in being. I've read that Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion. And the Church disagrees. As do most Denominations.
Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites.”

Catholics do belong to the lodges, which I would think they wouldn't if there were any hostility to Catholics or Catholicism. Such members and their memberships are well known to local Catholic authorities because of press releases, etc., and those people remain communicants in good standing in their Catholic parishes.

I know that's true, as I have former relatives who are higher ranking Masons and, supposedly Catholic. They have the attitude that all that stuff is in the past. Historically, one of Masonry’s primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church; this is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in certain European countries. In the United States, Freemasonry is often little more than a social club, but it still espouses a naturalistic religion that contradicts orthodox Christianity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I enjoy history a lot, so your information here was very insightful.

Thank you for that.

I will ask a question.

Why do you think the Jewish holidays are not celebrated in Christian religion, since they all speak of the Lord.

We do celebrate Passover. The others are represented. Only apostolic churches celebrate much more than Christmas and Easter.

 

[Albion]

Refreshing to see recognition that there is no lock step adherence to anything. I'd go by the CCC.

Certainly. My point was only that that particular document was surprisingly off-base in a couple of places. But it wasn't a comment on the bigger issue of the authority of the Church or what the Catholic Church should teach in RCIA or anything else of that sort.

Okay. It's the Catholic Church's decision whether to permit its people to belong to Masonry or any other fraternal organization.

No one said anything to the contrary.

I've read that Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion. And the Church disagrees. As do most Denominations.

That's the standard Catholic accusation, but it's completely incorrect. The Protestant churches are divided, but those which passed resolutions in their conventions rejecting Masonry just passed it without any real investigation.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites.”

Well, you know that the New Catholic Encyclopedia isn't going to go against the official stance of the Church, even if it's wrong.

w I have former relatives who are higher ranking Masons and, supposedly Catholic. They have the attitude that all that stuff is in the past. Historically, one of Masonry’s primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church; this is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in certain European countries. In the United States, Freemasonry is often little more than a social club, but it still espouses a naturalistic religion that contradicts orthodox Christianity.

Masonry certainly does not espouse any naturalistic religion. And there is absolutely nothing that contradicts orthodox Christianity.

To the extent that it has initiation ceremonies and memorial observances, etc., so do the Knights of Columbus and dozens of other fraternal organizations. None of that is a religion or parallel to one.

 

[.Jeremiah.]

We do celebrate Passover. The others are represented. Only apostolic churches celebrate much more than Christmas and Easter.

I like celebrating passover.

It’s meaning is so important to me.

I haven’t celebrated the others though.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

I disagree entirely. I have been personally healed, and had relatives healed, by the sacraments of lawful ministers, while I have reason to believe that at least one diocese of a major US mainline Protestant denomination no longer possess any sacramental grace, for on the occasions I partook of their liturgical gifts, they were a poison to me.

In answer to the OP, I know the Eastern Orthodox have true mysteries, and the same also applies in my experience to the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians. With Western churches perhaps the less said the better (which is not to say I consider them devoid of sacramental grace, its rather just not a surefire bet).

 

[The Liturgist]

I like celebrating passover.

It’s meaning is so important to me.

I haven’t celebrated the others though.

You do realize that in the Orthodox Churches they refer to the feast of the resurrection, which we call Easter, as Pascha, meaning Passover, and that is the more ancient usage? In fact, the Greeks and others eat lamb ceremonially on Pascha Sunday.

Also, Pentecost is a Jewish holiday which the Christian Church still celebrates. Indeed Eastern Orthodox churches and Jewish synagogues are decorated with massive amounts of greenery on that feast.

 

[Strong in Him]

I stumbled across this short treatise of sorts explaining the Roman Church's view on whose sacraments are valid and why.

"Valid" to whom?

Does God refuse to send his Spirit on people who have "invalid" sacraments? Does he refuse to be present, to save, to bless and to draw people to himself?

 

[HTacianas]

"Valid" to whom?

Does God refuse to send his Spirit on people who have "invalid" sacraments? Does he refuse to be present, to save, to bless and to draw people to himself?

To answer that we'd have to question exactly what people we're talking about. In apostolic times there were groups deemed heretical by the apostles. One group claimed that Jesus had no material body, see 1 John:

1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,

1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

Those groups claimed that Jesus existed, but only as a "sprit being" with no "flesh", meaning body. Does God refuse to save those people? In modern times we have the Mormons who do their own thing entirely. Or the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim Jesus is the archangel Michael, even going so far as to change the bible to suit their beliefs. Where do those groups fit in?

 

[Strong in Him]

To answer that we'd have to question exactly what people we're talking about. In apostolic times there were groups deemed heretical by the apostles. One group claimed that Jesus had no material body, see 1 John:

1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,

1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

Those groups claimed that Jesus existed, but only as a "sprit being" with no "flesh", meaning body. Does God refuse to save those people? In modern times we have the Mormons who do their own thing entirely. Or the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim Jesus is the archangel Michael, even going so far as to change the bible to suit their beliefs. Where do those groups fit in?

I was talking about believers.
But I wanted to know what was meant by the term "valid", and if believers took communion or were baptised in a way that was not deemed to be "valid", what happened; what was the result?

 

[Albion]

I was talking about believers.
But I wanted to know what was meant by the term "valid", and if believers took communion or were baptised in a way that was not deemed to be "valid", what happened; what was the result?

The result would be that the alleged sacrament--in their case--didn't "work."

 

[HTacianas]

I was talking about believers.
But I wanted to know what was meant by the term "valid", and if believers took communion or were baptised in a way that was not deemed to be "valid", what happened; what was the result?

Consider the account of Philip the deacon and the men of Samaria in Acts 8. Philip went to Samaria and performed miracles in front of the men, and baptized them. But Philip could not chrismate them. Chrismation is the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Since Philip could not chrismate the men he sent for Peter and John. To put it in Roman terms, Philip's baptism was valid but if he had confirmed the men it would not have been valid. That is what is meant by validity of the sacraments.

Chapter 9 of the Didache speaks of giving the Eucharist to unbaptized persons:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Paul spoke of those who ate and drank of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner:

1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

1Co 11:29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

According to Paul, eating in an unworthy manner could even lead to death:

1Co 11:30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Certainly. My point was only that that particular document was surprisingly off-base in a couple of places. But it wasn't a comment on the bigger issue of the authority of the Church or what the Catholic Church should teach in RCIA or anything else of that sort.

There are plenty of documents that have no authority. Therefore, I'd go with authoritative documents on anything that one is unsure of.

No one said anything to the contrary.


That's the standard Catholic accusation, but it's completely incorrect. The Protestant churches are divided, but those which passed resolutions in their conventions rejecting Masonry just passed it without any real investigation.

Looking at history, I would say that it was correct at the time. And it would be correct in Europe. Masonry here is little more than a club.

Well, you know that the New Catholic Encyclopedia isn't going to go against the official stance of the Church, even if it's wrong.

Well, you know, when you want to get information on a topic, you go to an authority on the topic. Not Wikipedia or Britannica.

Masonry certainly does not espouse any naturalistic religion. And there is absolutely nothing that contradicts orthodox Christianity.

To the extent that it has initiation ceremonies and memorial observances, etc., so do the Knights of Columbus and dozens of other fraternal organizations. None of that is a religion or parallel to one.

The K of C is not a secret organization, that's how it differs. K of C has initiation ceremonies, and memorial observances are those of the Church. K of C is strictly a charitable organization that serves the needs of the Catholic Church. I know, I know, Masonry also serves in a charitable function, so does Scientology. So do any Christian organization worth their salt.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I like celebrating passover.

It’s meaning is so important to me.

I haven’t celebrated the others though.

Passover is the precursor to the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. So we celebrate those during Holy Week.

 

[Albion]

There are plenty of documents that have no authority. Therefore, I'd go with authoritative documents on anything that one is unsure of.

You still seem to be trying to make something out of nothing.

No, the point was not to condemn your church or misrepresent it or anything else of the sort. It was a comment about the accuracy (or lack of it) of the document that was presented to us in the OP, that's all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Valid" to whom?

Does God refuse to send his Spirit on people who have "invalid" sacraments? Does he refuse to be present, to save, to bless and to draw people to himself?

I know you may not recognize it, but there are elements and formula to be considered sacraments. It is also true that Scripture usually doesn't have rubrics to describe the formulae. In the past we have discussed what makes a valid sacrament. Usually a valid minister of the sacrament (in the case of baptism, literally anyone with the right intention), the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and a use of some visible element.
God doesn't refuse anyone who's open to them, for sure. But there is a special mark for those receiving the sacrament with the right intention. Another example, two people can be validly married in front of a judge. Civil marriage. But to be considered valid in the Catholic Church it needs to be done in the proper form in front of a priest or deacon. So two Catholics being civilly married doesn't give them valid admission to other sacraments in the Catholic Church.
I guess what you're missing is that, if you profess to be a member of any club, you have to go by that club's rules, otherwise, you're not really a member.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You still seem to be trying to make something out of nothing.

No, the point was not to condemn your church or misrepresent it or anything else of the sort. It was a comment about the accuracy (or lack of it) of the document that was presented to us in the OP, that's all.

I don't particularly care, so I'm making nothing of nothing. You're making something of nothing by referencing a document you can't or won't produce about something you say the Catholic Church does.

The reference document could be something produced by a parish priest for a local parish. Notoriously, presenting the Catholic faith in the framework of RCIA, which typically lasts 6 months, leaves lots of room for error, and a lot of room for the candidate to do his own work, because one hour a week just isn't enough. My point stands about studying what the Catechism says, not some summary that may or probably does contain inaccuracies.
Believe me when I say it is easy for a priest to go off into the weeds on a subject. It's easy for any of us.