All ancient apostolic churches profess & celebrate the same 7 sacraments, so why don't you?

[catholic1seeks]

This is a FRIENDLY challenge to Protestants or those Christians whose origin, directly or indirectly, stems from the Reformation.

Many recognize that the Catholic Church, both Roman rite and its various Eastern rites, celebrates seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance (Confession), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Marriage. But this is not just a “Catholic thing.” ALL ancient Christian communities that stem from the ancient apostolic origins, whether Rome or Antioch or Alexandria, or so on, celebrate these seven sacraments.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, from the Byzantine tradition, celebrates them. But so do the Oriental Orthodox churches, like the Coptic Church in Egypt, whose separation from the larger church dates to the fifth century. Again, the Assyrian Church of the East celebrates these same sacramental rites.

So my friendly challenge: If you are not a member of any of those churches, chances are you only recognize Baptism, or communion, or maybe marriage. But do you think that is a reasonable position, considering those Christian traditions in touch with the earliest apostolic centers practice seven sacraments? All with Holy Orders, an acknowledgement of a ministerial priesthood headed by bishops. And all with a very realistic understand of the Eucharist (real presence).

 

[Vico]

This is a FRIENDLY challenge to Protestants or those Christians whose origin, directly or indirectly, stems from the Reformation.

Many recognize that the Catholic Church, both Roman rite and its various Eastern rites, celebrates seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance (Confession), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Marriage. But this is not just a “Catholic thing.” ALL ancient Christian communities that stem from the ancient apostolic origins, whether Rome or Antioch or Alexandria, or so on, celebrate these seven sacraments.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, from the Byzantine tradition, celebrates them. But so do the Oriental Orthodox churches, like the Coptic Church in Egypt, whose separation from the larger church dates to the fifth century. Again, the Assyrian Church of the East celebrates these same sacramental rites.

So my friendly challenge: If you are not a member of any of those churches, chances are you only recognize Baptism, or communion, or maybe marriage. But do you think that is a reasonable position, considering those Christian traditions in touch with the earliest apostolic centers practice seven sacraments? All with Holy Orders, an acknowledgement of a ministerial priesthood headed by bishops. And all with a very realistic understand of the Eucharist (real presence).

Five sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East are in agreement with the other Churches of both East and West, but two sacraments are different than the rest of Christendom: the Holy Leaven and the Holy Cross.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Okay my book said otherwise, whoops. So then what two sacraments are they missing?

 

[JetteZ]

Well, it’s not that Protestant churches don’t do those things; they just don’t consider all of them as sacramental (defined as specifically commanded by Jesus).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Ehhhh, well I think that is one distinction. But even so, most Protestants would not see these sacraments in the same way, whereas both Eastern churches and the Catholic Church consider (1) baptism to be regenerative and infant baptism to be acceptable (2) confirmation to be a real component of initiation into the church (3) the necessity of bishops via apostolic succession passed down through Holy Orders (and the existence of a priesthood, anyway), (4) objective sacramental absolution through the minister, the priest, (5) most significantly, the belief in the real, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

Protestants tend to not agree with any of that, and yet Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, various liturgical traditions, oriental Orthodox DO.

But going back to your original point, the fact that Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church - as well as the various liturgical manifestations from early on - consider these sacraments as coming from Christ is significant in itself. So the question remains.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Update: as noted from a fellow poster, the Assyrian Church of the East does have 7 sacraments; however only five of these are in agreement with Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthdoxy.

The 2 missing from its list are marriage and anointing of the sick. Now obviously, I’m sure they celebrate marriage, and I’m guessing it’s reasonable to think there is some rite of anointing. But I’m not sure how the Assyrian church defines sacrament.

Their 2 extra “sacraments,” which result in 7 total, are the sign of the cross and some additional element to the Eucharist (leavened powder). So I’m not exactly sure how this tradition understands “sacrament,” as my research shows that the leavened sacrament is of late origin (perhaps 9th century!).

Nevertheless, this church tradition emphasizes the existence of the priesthood (Holy Orders) and the Eucharist, as well as sacramental absolution from the priest (confession), and of course baptism and confirmation (anointing).

 

[JetteZ]

It’s important to point out there are substantial differences between Protestant denominations; so, to say, “Protestants tend not to believe any of that,” makes it really difficult to have a conversation.

I don’t know the percentages of who believes what, I know the religion in which I was raised (Lutheran) and we believed in all of those things, with some differences in how they are defined, with the exception of needing a priest for absolution. Confession, during services and on your own was still an important part of one’s faith.

I am not a religious historian so how sacraments were done in the very early church and how they have or haven’t changed is well outside my expertise. That is an area I need to better understand. I answered, as I was able, based on the catechism I recieved during my formative years and young adulthood.

Do you want friendly discourse and increased understanding or do you want to be right? I am Catholic now but I certainly don’t have a full understanding of all the Church’s teaching. Working through the differences between how I was raised and developing a deeper understanding of the Church’s teachings is an important part of my faith walk and a very sensitive subject (as most on religion are). I find it very uncomfortable and detrimental to my Catholic faith life to witness other faiths being trashed by Catholics. I am not saying you have done so; I just want to be sure of your intentions before continuing. I hope you understand this isn’t a judgement on you; rather, a desire on my part for conversation I would find valuable and to avoid the very unkind words I have read on other similar topics on this forum.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I’m not really sure how you got the impression I’m trying to “trash” Protestants.

I know Protestant traditions are different. Some are closer and some are not. Fact is, all of the ancient apostolic churches that hold the sacraments in common have essentially the same understanding of their meaning.

The vast majority of Protestants don’t believe in a Holy Orders that continues apostolic succession, or a priesthood for that matter, or the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, or the absolution in confession.

Naturally I admit most all accept baptism and a few other sacraments, here and there, based on their own understanding. But that understanding is often way off from how the above mentioned apostolic churches, who are in closer agreement.

And so the question remains, and I think it remains a good one. It may help some non Catholics to see that this is not a Roman Catholic aberration but a genuine piece of apostolic Christianity.

 

[JetteZ]

I’m not really sure how you got the impression I’m trying to “trash” Protestants.

I specifically said the opposite.

I am not saying you have done so

The remainder of your post makes it clear your intent is to be right and not to discuss. That’s fine, I don’t know why anyone would want to be on the other side of that “conversation.” It certainly, as I previously explained, is not for me.

Much luck!

 

[JonNC]

As a continuing Anglican, I recognize 7 sacraments.

When I was Lutheran, I recognized 3 -Baptism, Eucharist, confession/Absolution. The other four were considered holy rites, and were observed, but they did not fit the more narrow definition of sacrament that Lutherans have.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Okay if you would read my original post, I’m offering a challenge. And then the conversation can start. As of yet, not one has stated otherwise.

And to be honest, I think it is more probably that the consensus of apostolic churches is right on this question. I’m trying to be charitable and open up dialogue by perhaps offering an avenue that some Protestant Christians have not thought of before.

 

[catholic1seeks]

And so far it seems that only Anglicans and Lutherans have some continued sense of these sacraments, but this is not by far the case for most non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians.

 

[JonNC]

And so far it seems that only Anglicans and Lutherans have some continued sense of these sacraments, but this is not by far the case for most non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians.

Methodists to a degree as well, but true.

 

[BoomerangToo]

It may help some non Catholics to see that this is not a Roman Catholic aberration but a genuine piece of apostolic Christianity.

This is an excellent topic to raise among anti-Catholics who insist that Catholic practices are “unbiblical”. Besides the sacraments, you can add infant baptism, relics, intercession of saints, a purification after death and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If all or most Apostolic churches practice these things, it becomes hard to deny this is what the apostles taught.

 

[JonNC]

his is an excellent topic to raise among anti-Catholics who insist that Catholic practices are “unbiblical”. Besides the sacraments, you can add infant baptism, relics, intercession of saints, a purification after death and the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I don’t think it is worth the time to raise it with anti-Catholics. There are lots of non-Catholics who
oppose these things but aren’t anti-Catholic and would be willing to dialogue

 

[gazelam]

So my friendly challenge: If you are not a member of any of those churches, chances are you only recognize Baptism, or communion, or maybe marriage. But do you think that is a reasonable position, considering those Christian traditions in touch with the earliest apostolic centers practice seven sacraments? All with Holy Orders, an acknowledgement of a ministerial priesthood headed by bishops. And all with a very realistic understand of the Eucharist (real presence).

Here’s a friendly challenge in return…

If it’s a reasonable position that all seven sacraments be practiced now since they were practiced anciently, is it not also reasonable that the sacraments be practiced in the same form now as they were anciently?

Today the RCC allows for baptism by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. Anciently baptism was only performed by immersion. As Will Durant observed: By the ninth century, the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in the Northern climes… (Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, pg 738)

Also, In the Bible Paul confirmed using both of his hands. Acts 19:6 And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

In the RCC confirmation is performed today with a single hand. CCC 1300 The essential rite of the sacrament follows. In the Latin rite, "the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: ‘Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti’ [Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.].

Finally, Jesus instituted Communion to include both eating and drinking. Today the RCC allows for either eating the host, or drinking the wine, or both.

 

[BoomerangToo]

Today the RCC allows for baptism by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. Anciently baptism was only performed by immersion.

The Didache states that baptism can be done by pouring three times over the head:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Oh no, no, no I’m sorry, but that is way off when it comes to Baptism. We have first century reference to non-immersion baptism in the Didache, which is cited by another poster. In addition, early churches were often built with baptismal fonts/baptistries that were too small for full immersion.

Again, ancient Christian mosaics depict pouring.

And again, early Christian testimony suggests other modes of Baptism.

“If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]).

Pope Cornelius in AD 251 wrote that as Novatian “received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch). Again in the mid third century, Cyprian of Carthage said that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12).

But when it comes down to it, we should accept that the New Testament is not a how-to church manual. Christians were already “doing church” before the writings of the NT were complete. And as the Didache expresses, Christians were baptizing in other ways in addition to immersion, even in the near apostolic age.

So I challenge back, if ancient Apostolic christian communities (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.) AND writings (shown above) accept theses modes of baptism, why don’t you?

 

[catholic1seeks]

But in general, you are pointing out very specific particulars that do not address the overall point of the challenge. After all, you seem to grant that all seven sacraments are, in fact, ancient and apostolic – but just not practiced exactly the same way. And of course, we could expect variances: for example, leavened bread or unleavened bread? What age for Confirmation? What is the process of reconciliation? Thankfully, this is one reason why Christ granted his authority to his church and promised to be with it until the end of the age, so that its shepherds who lead in his stead – the Apostles at first and later, the bishops – can truly “bind and loose” and truly determine what is good for the Church community, as they did in Acts 15.

As with regard to communion, BOTH species must ALWAYS be present at the Eucharistic sacrifice, for Christ did indeed ordain his Apostles and his church to offer the Eucharist in such a way. But individual communion itself is another matter entirely.

 

[dronald]

Honestly, this here is why. This exact conversation.

“Baptism should be done like this, no like this”

“This is how they did it 1200 years ago”

“Okay but they did it like this 1900 years ago”

Evangelicals basically say that one ought to just read how it is that baptism saves someone:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21 ESV

So our baptism is of an appeal to God for a good conscience; that’s what it says, that’s what we believe. Pour it on is three times or dip us in, it’s the heart that matters because that’s what scripture says. Though I believe the practice of immersion that is popular in Evangelical circles is because of Colossians 2:12, but we wouldn’t argue that one is in danger for practicing baptism differently, nor would we say one tradition trumps another.

I don’t come around here too often anymore but I’ll check back here and again.